Catholics...whats going on?

xenonfear

Ok, so seriously not meaning to offend anyone here, just really curious as to why people hold on to something.

Emperor Constantine 325 AD =
Church adopts a tonne of non-christian teachings, which Jesus in no way taught

Pope Paul IV, and Pope Innocent III tortured people for having Bibles in their own language (just some examples)

A history of bloodshed, discouragement of reading the Bible, involvment in politics (against what Jesus taught), and scandals (including modern stuff)
What do modern Catholics have to hold on to?
Im wondering for practising Catholics, what sort of history or teachings do you hold on to?

xenonfear

This is coming from someone whose family is Catholic for the most part by the way, so its not like I'm attacking here btw. Just wondering what keeps people attached, y'know?

georgieporgy

xenonfear wrote: »

Ok, so seriously not meaning to offend anyone here, just really curious as to why people hold on to something.


What do modern Catholics have to hold on to?
Im wondering for practising Catholics, what sort of history or teachings do you hold on to?

If someone has told you a lie, that is not the Church's fault. It would appear from your post that you have read an anti catholic tract (s) and believed it.
Thankfully none of it is true.

Bannasidhe

georgieporgy wrote: »

If someone has told you a lie, that is not the Church's fault. It would appear from your post that you have read an anti catholic tract (s) and believed it.
Thankfully none of it is true.

What exactly is not true?

The execution and/or torture of those deemed heretics?
Interference with civil politics?
On going scandals involving Roman Catholic clergy?

It was the scandal of selling indulgences to fund Leo X's extensive building programme which led Luther to break with Rome - or is that not true?

In the early 15th century Henry IV, Archbishop Thomas Arundel, and Canon Henry Knighton enacted some of the severest religious censorship laws in Europe at that time to suppress Wycliffe's translation of the Bible into English- do you claim that is not true?

Please enlighten me as to which of the claims made by the OP are demonstrably false.

Manach

Also a historian, but I take the opposite view. The Catholic Church, having being found by our Lord in 33AD, has been one of the bulwarks of civilisation. Its education institutions had kept alive the spirit of literacy during the fall of the Roman empire, and laid the foundations of the University system It kept alive the spirit of scientific inquiry and laid the basis for the economic tradenetworks of Europe. It laid down the foundations of modern legal natural law theory and championed the idea of Just war. When threatened by invasion, it was the Church that spurned the lethargic rules to mount a defence of Christendom. It was the Church that went and lived among the native and poor of the new colonies and provided a voice in the regal courts. IT was the church that spoke out against the dangers of virulent nationalist and the godless menace that was Bolshevism.
So in short, the Church on the positive side as a long and proud historical traditation second to no other institution.

Bannasidhe

Manach wrote: »

Also a historian, but I take the opposite view. The Catholic Church, having being found by our Lord in 33AD, has been one of the bulwarks of civilisation. Its education institutions had kept alive the spirit of literacy during the fall of the Roman empire, and laid the foundations of the University system It kept alive the spirit of scientific inquiry and laid the basis for the economic tradenetworks of Europe. It laid down the foundations of modern legal natural law theory and championed the idea of Just war. When threatened by invasion, it was the Church that spurned the lethargic rules to mount a defence of Christendom. It was the Church that went and lived among the native and poor of the new colonies and provided a voice in the regal courts. IT was the church that spoke out against the dangers of virulent nationalist and the godless menace that was Bolshevism.
So in short, the Church on the positive side as a long and proud historical traditation second to no other institution.

As a historian you know that Islam can make the exact same claims with equal justification. Without The Caliphate of Cordoba for example a great deal of knowledge would have been lost to Europe due to the censorship by the Catholic church.

But my question was addressed to georgieporgy who stated categorically that the claims made against the Roman Catholic church by the OP were untrue despite the weight of evidence - much of it from the archives of the RCC such as documents relating to the Inquisition - which support the OP's claims.

Do you agree or disagree with georgieporgy?

totus tuus

Bannasidhe wrote: »

What exactly is not true?

The execution and/or torture of those deemed heretics?
Interference with civil politics?
On going scandals involving Roman Catholic clergy?

It was the scandal of selling indulgences to fund Leo X's extensive building programme which led Luther to break with Rome - or is that not true?

In the early 15th century Henry IV, Archbishop Thomas Arundel, and Canon Henry Knighton enacted some of the severest religious censorship laws in Europe at that time to suppress Wycliffe's translation of the Bible into English- do you claim that is not true?

Please enlighten me as to which of the claims made by the OP are demonstrably false.

Wycliff had produced a translation of the Bible that was corrupt and full of heresy. It was not an accurate rendering of sacred Scripture.


http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=4749&CFID=12565474&CFTOKEN=43006820

Bannasidhe

totus tuus wrote: »

Wycliff had produced a translation of the Bible that was corrupt and full of heresy. It was not an accurate rendering of sacred Scripture.


http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=4749&CFID=12565474&CFTOKEN=43006820

I am not debating the validity of Wycliffe's translation nor is that relevant to this thread. I am stating that the Roman Catholic church tried to suppress his work and deemed possession of one of his Bibles to be heresy and therefore punishable by death. This is a historical fact.

I used the example of Wycliffe's Bible as the OP specifically referred to vernacular bibles.

Do you agree with georgieporgy that the claims made by the OP are not true?

RMD

I was born and raised Catholic. As soon as I was old enough to understand the history of the Catholic church I refused to call myself Catholic. The catholic church hasn't been a church in centuries, it's been a business masquerading as a religious body which has prevented progress in society for centuries.

I feel if Jesus saw what the Catholic church became out of his teachings, he'd be sickened to the core. Honestly, I don't know what modern Catholics have to hold onto, I see nothing in that organization.

Galwayguy35

xenonfear wrote: »

Ok, so seriously not meaning to offend anyone here, just really curious as to why people hold on to something.

Emperor Constantine 325 AD =
Church adopts a tonne of non-christian teachings, which Jesus in no way taught

Pope Paul IV, and Pope Innocent III tortured people for having Bibles in their own language (just some examples)

A history of bloodshed, discouragement of reading the Bible, involvment in politics (against what Jesus taught), and scandals (including modern stuff)
What do modern Catholics have to hold on to?
Im wondering for practising Catholics, what sort of history or teachings do you hold on to?

These things happened hundreds of years ago, Henry VIII killed a lot of Catholics as well and took all the Catholic wealth that the monasteries had in England at the time.

Should Prodestants feel bad over that?

Bannasidhe

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

These things happened hundreds of years ago, Henry VIII killed a lot of Catholics as well and took all the Catholic wealth that the monasteries had in England at the time.

Should Prodestants feel bad over that?

Instead of engaging in whataboutery any chance you would answer the question asked by the OP?

As for Henry VIII - he remained faithful to Catholic doctrine all his life. With the exception of obedience to the Papacy he was just as much a Catholic before he broke with Rome then after. In fact - he ruthlessly prosecuted Protestants up to his death.

The Protestant Reformation in England did not begin properly until the reign of Henry's son Edward VI.

The OP referred also to on-going scandals - are you going to dismiss those as well?

Galwayguy35

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Instead of engaging in whataboutery any chance you would answer the question asked by the OP?

As for Henry VIII - he remained faithful to Catholic doctrine all his life. With the exception of obedience to the Papacy he was just as much a Catholic before he broke with Rome then after. In fact - he ruthlessly prosecuted Protestants up to his death.

The Protestant Reformation in England did not begin properly until the reign of Henry's son Edward VI.

The OP referred also to on-going scandals - are you going to dismiss those as well?

The point I am making is that all the churches were doing bad things back then, not just the Catholic church, people of today can't do anything about that.

As regards your second point what kind of a man do you think I am that I would dismiss child abuse?

The men that did this are evil to the core and abused their position of power but there are approximately 1 billion Catholics in the world today and some are very quick to lump everyone who is Catholic together with the actions of a minority.

The cover ups were wrong and those responsible for this should also be held accountable.

But there are also many good Catholics and I think now is the time to start putting right all the wrong that was done.

totus tuus

Judge not the Catholic Church by those who barely live by it's spirit, but by those who live closest to it - Ven. Fulton Sheen!

I am Catholic because contained within the CC is the fullness of the Truth, despite the sinfulness of some of it's members. Jesus said that the teachings of CC would be protected by the Holy Spirit, (the gates of Hell itself would not prevail).

Bannasidhe

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

The point I am making is that all the churches were doing bad things back then, not just the Catholic church, people of today can't do anything about that.

As regards your second point what kind of a man do you think I am that I would dismiss child abuse?

The men that did this are evil to the core and abused their position of power but there are approximately 1 billion Catholics in the world today and some are very quick to lump everyone who is Catholic together with the actions of a minority.

The cover ups were wrong and those responsible for this should also be held accountable.

But there are also many good Catholics and I think now is the time to start putting right all the wrong that was done.

I think the OP's point is that the Roman Catholic church has an appalling record going back centuries and the continuing scandals and evidence of cover-ups emerging all the time from across the globe demonstrate that little has changed within the core of the organisation.
Rather than deal with serious internal problems it used to kill it's critics, now it tries to cover up abuse, silence victims and wriggle out of paying the compensation it agreed to pay.

Not for one second would I deny there are Catholics who are decent and honourable people worthy of admiration but they are being let down by their church so this begs the question asked by the OP - why, in light of the church's historical and contemporary record of oppression and cover ups of abuse do these good people remain part of this organisation?

Some - like georgieporgy - simply deny any of these things happen.

Some seek to change the church from within but, given it's structure and the absolute power accorded to the Papacy, one has to wonder if such change is possible.

After all - all those years ago Luther did not intend to break with Rome when he first posted his 95 Theses - he was seeking to start a dialogue about what he saw as an abuse of people's faith for financial gain. It was only when Rome closed ranks and sought his death that he decided Rome was beyond reform and broke away.

If Rome had granted Henry VIII a divorce - it had granted his sister Margaret one a few years before - he would never have broken from Rome in the first place.

totus tuus

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I think the OP's point is that the Roman Catholic church has an appalling record going back centuries and the continuing scandals and evidence of cover-ups emerging all the time from across the globe demonstrate that little has changed within the core of the organisation.
Rather than deal with serious internal problems it used to kill it's critics, now it tries to cover up abuse, silence victims and wriggle out of paying the compensation it agreed to pay.

Not for one second would I deny there are Catholics who are decent and honourable people worthy of admiration but they are being let down by their church so this begs the question asked by the OP - why, in light of the church's historical and contemporary record of oppression and cover ups of abuse do these good people remain part of this organisation?

Some - like georgieporgy - simply deny any of these things happen.

Some seek to change the church from within but, given it's structure and the absolute power accorded to the Papacy, one has to wonder if such change is possible.

After all - all those years ago Luther did not intend to break with Rome when he first posted his 95 Theses - he was seeking to start a dialogue about what he saw as an abuse of people's faith for financial gain. It was only when Rome closed ranks and sought his death that he decided Rome was beyond reform and broke away.

If Rome had granted Henry VIII a divorce - it had granted his sister Margaret one a few years before - he would never have broken from Rome in the first place.

St Catherine of Sienna (a Doctor of the Church), passionately urged Pope Gregory XI to come back to Rome and to reform the clergy and the administration of the Papal State - no schism, unlike Luther!

I admit there is corruption and abuse of power within the Church, you will always have that in ANY organisation - Jesus did say the wheat will grow with the chaff until the end of time. The important thing is that during 2000 years of the Church's history, Sacred Scriptures as handed down by the Apostles has always been safeguarded!

Onesimus

xenonfear wrote: »

Ok, so seriously not meaning to offend anyone here, just really curious as to why people hold on to something.

Emperor Constantine 325 AD =
Church adopts a tonne of non-christian teachings, which Jesus in no way taught

Pope Paul IV, and Pope Innocent III tortured people for having Bibles in their own language (just some examples)

A history of bloodshed, discouragement of reading the Bible, involvment in politics (against what Jesus taught), and scandals (including modern stuff)
What do modern Catholics have to hold on to?
Im wondering for practising Catholics, what sort of history or teachings do you hold on to?

If the OP believes all this then let him bring forth all the hard evidence to support his argument. You don't walk into a courtroom with accusations and not bring forth your evidence, expecting atheists, agnostics, Christians and muslims to take you on ''faith'' and somehow respond now would you?

If Rome had granted Henry VIII a divorce - it had granted his sister Margaret one a few years before - he would never have broken from Rome in the first place.

little bit of clarity here. An annullment is not a ''divorce''. An anullment means that a real marriage never really took place in the first instance at all. A true authentic marriage can never be dissolved by the Church. When the couple are married the Church naturally assumes their marriage is authentic unless a request into the marriage itself would bring about the idea that something or other impeded the marriage itself and thus the a real marriage never took place. There is more on that over at ''Catholic answers''.

Bannasidhe

totus tuus wrote: »

St Catherine of Sienna (a Doctor of the Church), passionately urged Pope Gregory XI to come back to Rome and to reform the clergy and the administration of the Papal State - no schism, unlike Luther!

Yet, the very existence of the Roman Catholic Church in it's current form - as distinct to a universal Christian church - lies in the Great Schism between Eastern Orthodoxy and Western Roman Catholicism in 1045. Ironically, it was Rome that caused the split.

Rome also actively participated in the slaughter of the Cathars - no schism there either - just genocide.

We can do this all day totus tuus ( I do have to go and walk the dogs soon) but it's not really addressing the OP's question - just quibbling about details. Do you accept that Rome has at times in the distant and recent past acted oppressively towards it's critics and inappropriately sought to protect those members of the clergy who abused children?

Onesimus

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Yet, the very existence of the Roman Catholic Church in it's current form - as distinct to a universal Christian church - lies in the Great Schism between Eastern Orthodoxy and Western Roman Catholicism in 1045. Ironically, it was Rome that caused the split.

Rome also actively participated in the slaughter of the Cathars - no schism there either - just genocide.

We can do this all day totus tuus ( I do have to go and walk the dogs soon) but it's not really addressing the OP's question - just quibbling about details. Do you accept that Rome has at times in the distant and recent past acted oppressively towards it's critics and inappropriately sought to protect those members of the clergy who abused children?

How can we address the OP when he has simply come in waving the finger around the house without pointing to any hard evidence to back up his accusations?

Do you walk into someones house and do that, expecting them all to take you on ''faith''. ?

Bannasidhe

Onesimus wrote: »

If the OP believes all this then let him bring forth all the hard evidence to support his argument. You don't walk into a courtroom with accusations and not bring forth your evidence, expecting atheists, agnostics, Christians and muslims to take you on ''faith'' and somehow respond now would you?



little bit of clarity here. An annullment is not a ''divorce''. An anullment means that a real marriage never really took place in the first instance at all. A true authentic marriage can never be dissolved by the Church. When the couple are married the Church naturally assumes their marriage is authentic unless a request into the marriage itself would bring about the idea that something or other impeded the marriage itself and thus the a real marriage never took place. There is more on that over at ''Catholic answers''.

Are you seriously demanding evidence of clerical sexual abuse before you will entertain the OP's question? :eek:

Do you deny that Margaret Tudor was granted an 'annulment' by Pope Clement VIII from Archibald Douglas 1527 despite the fact that she had few grounds for her claim the marriage was invalid - they were not within 9 degrees of consanguinity, neither had been previously married to a sibling of the other (Unlike Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon) and the marriage was consummated? Her case was a lot weaker then Henry's but then Archibald's nephew didn't have a bloody great army surrounding Rome when Margaret's 'anulment' was granted - unlike Catherine.

Onesimus

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Are you seriously demanding evidence of clerical sexual abuse before you will entertain the OP's question? :eek:

Do you deny that Margaret Tudor was granted an 'annulment' by Pope Clement VIII from Archibald Douglas 1527 despite the fact that she had few grounds for her claim the marriage was invalid - they were not within 9 degrees of consanguinity, neither had been previously married to a sibling of the other (Unlike Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon) and the marriage was consummated? Her case was a lot weaker then Henry's but then Archibald's nephew didn't have a bloody great army surrounding Rome when Margaret's 'anulment' was granted - unlike Catherine.

You know right well we don't need evidence for that and your hot under the collar now and never addressed anything else. Let the OP bring forth his evidence for all the other scandals he has mentioned.

No way the second part about the anullment? wow. I'm really uneducated about this, since you are so well versed in this history, why don't you educate a young man like myself and point me in the direction of the evidence for such an analysis of history?

to answer the OP though on how a Catholic can remain Catholic afterall this is simple. I stay with the Church for the same reason the apostles stayed with Christ after Judas departure, because I love him and his Church.

Church from inside out is never going to be perfect. Sinners that we are, but it's important we look for ''reform'' unlike Luther whose departure had nothing to do with reform but with ''heresy''. It was not a reformation back then. It was a ''falling away from the truth''.

The HSE has a moral code to stand by. They abused many children in their care. Should I avoid their medical treatment? Are you going to avoid it? I don't think so.

totus tuus

Onesimus wrote: »

You know right well we don't need evidence for that and your hot under the collar now and never addressed anything else. Let the OP bring forth his evidence for all the other scandals he has mentioned.

No way the second part about the anullment? wow. I'm really uneducated about this, since you are so well versed in this history, why don't you educate a young man like myself and point me in the direction of the evidence for such an analysis of history?

to answer the OP though on how a Catholic can remain Catholic afterall this is simple. I stay with the Church for the same reason the apostles stayed with Christ after Judas departure, because I love him and his Church.

Church from inside out is never going to be perfect. Sinners that we are, but it's important we look for ''reform'' unlike Luther whose departure had nothing to do with reform but with ''heresy''. It was not a reformation back then. It was a ''falling away from the truth''.

The HSE has a moral code to stand by. They abused many children in their care. Should I avoid their medical treatment? Are you going to avoid it? I don't think so.

Exactly!

The church is made up of saints and sinners - Jesus chose 12 Apostles, yet one of them was a devil!

Onesimus

totus tuus wrote: »

Exactly!

The church is made up of saints and sinners - Jesus chose 12 Apostles, yet one of them was a devil!

This is what I'm saying. The kiss of betrayal is one that has lasted centuries in the Church.

newmug

xenonfear wrote: »

Emperor Constantine 325 AD =
Church adopts a tonne of non-christian teachings, which Jesus in no way taught

See, thats where you start to go wrong.

xenonfear wrote: »

Im wondering for practising Catholics, what sort of history or teachings do you hold on to?

I'll list them briefly:

1. Jesus Christ, not only exists, but he is a supernatural diety, and he IS GOD.
2. Be respectful to the name and reputation of Jesus.
3. Put aside one day a week for Holy spiritual requirements.
4. Be respectful to your parents, and by extension the family unit / system as a whole.
5. Dont kill people.
6. Dont be promiscious.
7. Dont steal stuff.
8. Dont lie, or gossip about people, even if its true.
9. Be content with your choice of husband / wife, dont be thinking there could be someone better out there.
10. Be content with the property you have. Some people have more than you, some people have less. A LOT less.

And the one teaching that tops all them, love people. Love them platonically. As Bill and Ted said, "Be excellent to each other".

Bannasidhe wrote: »

What exactly is not true?

The execution and/or torture of those deemed heretics?
Interference with civil politics?
On going scandals involving Roman Catholic clergy?

It was the scandal of selling indulgences to fund Leo X's extensive building programme which led Luther to break with Rome - or is that not true?

In the early 15th century Henry IV, Archbishop Thomas Arundel, and Canon Henry Knighton enacted some of the severest religious censorship laws in Europe at that time to suppress Wycliffe's translation of the Bible into English- do you claim that is not true?

Some of that probably IS true. But how any of that will affect your soul?

Bannasidhe wrote: »

As for Henry VIII - he remained faithful to Catholic doctrine all his life. With the exception of obedience to the Papacy he was just as much a Catholic before he broke with Rome then after. In fact - he ruthlessly prosecuted Protestants up to his death.

Luther's heart was probably in the right place, but Henry 8 just used protestantism as a political tool. We can still see the influence of that today, here in our own country. But Jesus was not about politics, and therefore Henry was doing anything but being faithful to Catholic doctrine, he was flying in the face of it.

But you do have a point about being faithful to Catholic doctrine. Most athiests I know are faithful to it, and they dont even know it!

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Not for one second would I deny there are Catholics who are decent and honourable people worthy of admiration but they are being let down by their church so this begs the question asked by the OP - why, in light of the church's historical and contemporary record of oppression and cover ups of abuse do these good people remain part of this organisation?

Well thank you very much, I'll count myself as one of those!

You are saying we are being "let down", by "The Church", as if there's some big, faceless, evil corporation out there who we all think is great, but who really kill kittens and direct terrorism behind all our backs. That is such a niave way to look at things.

WE are the church. Us normal people who try to live the Jesus wants us to, we are the Church. I never tortured anyone, or covered up any crimes, or abused any children. There are people who did and not for one second do I condone what they did, but I wont have to answer for their actions when I meet Jesus. All I can do is control my own actions, and I try to do that in accordance with Jesus's teachings.

One of Jesus's teachings was that when he died, St. Peter, his friend and apostle, was to continue what Jesus had started. He was to take over as leader of the apostles, and form a network to spread the teachings Jesus had given them. That is all the church is. Its just a network of people with the common goal of trying to live like Jesus. It is not an organisation, it is not a social club, it is not a police force who can prosecute paedophiles (although sometimes I wish it was!), its not a company with loads of money, it is not ANY of those things. Because of the size of its membership, it needs an administrative headquarters and a boss, hence we have the Pope and the Vatican. Its main rules are as posted above. They havent changes in thousands upon thousands of years.

Now, again because of its size, the church always had a few bad apples. Even Judas, one of the original 12 apostles, was a bad egg. Thats life. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but I'm just trying to be practical. However, I will say it again, you can only answer for your own actions when you meet Jesus.

I'm always bemused when people A) call Catholics hipocrits, then tar everybody in the church with the same brush , C) accuse every Catholic in existance as being a paedophile hiding homophobe, and D) then say they actually do believe in God, but refuse to do what he asked.

OP, I'm in the exact opposite position than you. I have a few questions to ask you.

1. Do you believe that a supernatural universe/dimension/realm exists?
2. If yes, do you believe you have a soul, and it will go there when the body you temporarily inhabit stops working?
3. Do you believe that there are different places in the supernatural realm, and that one of them is brilliant, and the other one is a vast lake of molten rock and fire?
4. Do you believe that your soul will go to one or other of those places, depending on your actions in life?
5. Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the boss of the supernatural?
6. Do you believe that Jesus Christ became human and told the people around him all about how to get to the brilliant place in the supernatural realm about 2012 years ago? (ie, the rules above)

If yes to the above, I have to ask you, how can you NOT want to be a Cathiolic?

newmug

Onesimus wrote: »

The HSE has a moral code to stand by. They abused many children in their care. Should I avoid their medical treatment? Are you going to avoid it? I don't think so.

+ infinity. Best analogy of the thread.

Bannasidhe

As I am genuinely interested in hearing answers to the OP's question as this has puzzled me too I will take the liberty of answering your list newmug.

newmug wrote: »

1. Do you believe that a supernatural universe/dimension/realm exists?
   
   I honestly don't know.
   
2. If yes, do you believe you have a soul, and it will go there when the body you temporarily inhabit stops working?
   
   I believe there is energy which will find another outlet - as for a 'soul' as I think you mean it - no.
   
   
3. Do you believe that there are different places in the supernatural realm, and that one of them is brilliant, and the other one is a vast lake of molten rock and fire?
   
   No.
   
   
4. Do you believe that your soul will go to one or other of those places, depending on your actions in life?
   
   No.
   
   
5. Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the boss of the supernatural?
   
   No.
   
   
   
6. Do you believe that Jesus Christ became human and told the people around him all about how to get to the brilliant place in the supernatural realm about 2012 years ago? (ie, the rules above)
   
   No.
   

If yes to the above, I have to ask you, how can you NOT want to be a Cathiolic?

Why does one need to be a Roman Catholic if one answers yes to the above? Surely that just means one is Christian.

Christian does not automatically equal Roman Catholic.

Bannasidhe

newmug wrote: »

+ infinity. Best analogy of the thread.

It would be if the HSE also claimed to be Guardians of Morality and to speak with the authority of God.

Onesimus

newmug wrote: »

See, thats where you start to go wrong.



I'll list them briefly:

1. Jesus Christ, not only exists, but he is a supernatural diety, and he IS GOD.
2. Be respectful to the name and reputation of Jesus.
3. Put aside one day a week for Holy spiritual requirements.
4. Be respectful to your parents, and by extension the family unit / system as a whole.
5. Dont kill people.
6. Dont be promiscious.
7. Dont steal stuff.
8. Dont lie, or gossip about people, even if its true.
9. Be content with your choice of husband / wife, dont be thinking there could be someone better out there.
10. Be content with the property you have. Some people have more than you, some people have less. A LOT less.

And the one teaching that tops all them, love people. Love them platonically. As Bill and Ted said, "Be excellent to each other".





Some of that probably IS true. But how any of that will affect your soul?




Luther's heart was probably in the right place, but Henry 8 just used protestantism as a political tool. We can still see the influence of that today, here in our own country. But Jesus was not about politics, and therefore Henry was doing anything but being faithful to Catholic doctrine, he was flying in the face of it.

But you do have a point about being faithful to Catholic doctrine. Most athiests I know are faithful to it, and they dont even know it!




Well thank you very much, I'll count myself as one of those!

You are saying we are being "let down", by "The Church", as if there's some big, faceless, evil corporation out there who we all think is great, but who really kill kittens and direct terrorism behind all our backs. That is such a niave way to look at things.

WE are the church. Us normal people who try to live the Jesus wants us to, we are the Church. I never tortured anyone, or covered up any crimes, or abused any children. There are people who did and not for one second do I condone what they did, but I wont have to answer for their actions when I meet Jesus. All I can do is control my own actions, and I try to do that in accordance with Jesus's teachings.

One of Jesus's teachings was that when he died, St. Peter, his friend and apostle, was to continue what Jesus had started. He was to take over as leader of the apostles, and form a network to spread the teachings Jesus had given them. That is all the church is. Its just a network of people with the common goal of trying to live like Jesus. It is not an organisation, it is not a social club, it is not a police force who can prosecute paedophiles (although sometimes I wish it was!), its not a company with loads of money, it is not ANY of those things. Because of the size of its membership, it needs an administrative headquarters and a boss, hence we have the Pope and the Vatican. Its main rules are as posted above. They havent changes in thousands upon thousands of years.

Now, again because of its size, the church always had a few bad apples. Even Judas, one of the original 12 apostles, was a bad egg. Thats life. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but I'm just trying to be practical. However, I will say it again, you can only answer for your own actions when you meet Jesus.

I'm always bemused when people A) call Catholics hipocrits, then tar everybody in the church with the same brush , C) accuse every Catholic in existance as being a paedophile hiding homophobe, and D) then say they actually do believe in God, but refuse to do what he asked.

OP, I'm in the exact opposite position than you. I have a few questions to ask you.

1. Do you believe that a supernatural universe/dimension/realm exists?
2. If yes, do you believe you have a soul, and it will go there when the body you temporarily inhabit stops working?
3. Do you believe that there are different places in the supernatural realm, and that one of them is brilliant, and the other one is a vast lake of molten rock and fire?
4. Do you believe that your soul will go to one or other of those places, depending on your actions in life?
5. Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the boss of the supernatural?
6. Do you believe that Jesus Christ became human and told the people around him all about how to get to the brilliant place in the supernatural realm about 2012 years ago? (ie, the rules above)

If yes to the above, I have to ask you, how can you NOT want to be a Cathiolic?

Newmug. I realize your post is meant to be full of good inspiration. But your only feeding the trolls IMHO.

And that's what I make of this thread. A trollish thread created to liven us all up a bit with a bit of banter we are all well used to anyway and have had on boards over the years repeatedly over and over and over and over and over ***DEEP BREATH*** and over and over and over and over and over again.

But lets have some fun. They make bold claims and are coming in here as historians who know a thing or two. Lets test that knowledge to the max by watching them produce the evidence of their claims of this deep history. But...lo and behold....Google is often their best friend when they run into trouble, because the reality is they have not an educated bone in their body on the history of what they speak. They look it all up AFTER they have stated their argument instead of at least being a little more clever than that and looking it up BEFORE they state their argument.

But any ''historian'' worth his salt in the study of history will at least be able to point us in this direction without looking at google at all. Because somebody who has done deep research on this will know doubt have the evidence somewhere in their wee brains and give us some names. But they can't. They simply come in here most probably after watching National Georgraphic or the history channel and now feel equipped ( after taking the historians on history channels crap explanation and theories on faith ) to bash us Christians around for their Saturday night entertainment.

Onesimus

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It would be if the HSE also claimed to be Guardians of Morality and to speak with the authority of God.

The HSE do claim to have the highest standards when it comes to taking care of the nations people and guard their moral code. But they break this moral code... but it does not mean there is anything wrong with the moral code itself, but the people who broke it. Lets deal with the people who break the law, rather than the law itself. Police are no different, many a scandal have been found in their department also. But when someone breaks the law, does that mean there was something wrong with ''thou shalt not kill?'' No, rather than addressing the law, they address and bring justice to the man or woman who broke the law instead.


This is how it works, and just like the Church, the police are sloppy at times in bringing it all to a closure and sometimes justice is never found and the same with the HSE. But eventually . . . justice will be found sooner rather than later. Scandals in the Church don't prevent me from worship of the Truine God anymore than they do prevent people from seeking aid from the HSE and Police force end of story and you can vent all you want about ''they claim to speak with the authority of God'' because they are not impeccable people. Many Christians in the Church speak with the authority of the Lord but it doesnt mean they themselves hold a position of authority but one of service in which they abandon quite a lot.

That's me for this thread. I've had my fun.

Bannasidhe

Onesimus wrote: »

Newmug. I realize your post is meant to be full of good inspiration. But your only feeding the trolls IMHO.

And that's what I make of this thread. A trollish thread created to liven us all up a bit with a bit of banter we are all well used to anyway and have had on boards over the years repeatedly over and over and over and over and over ***DEEP BREATH*** and over and over and over and over and over again.

But lets have some fun. They make bold claims and are coming in here as historians who know a thing or two. Lets test that knowledge to the max by watching them produce the evidence of their claims of this deep history. But...lo and behold....Google is often their best friend when they run into trouble, because the reality is they have not an educated bone in their body on the history of what they speak. They look it all up AFTER they have stated their argument instead of at least being a little more clever than that and looking it up BEFORE they state their argument.

But any ''historian'' worth his salt in the study of history will at least be able to point us in this direction without looking at google at all. Because somebody who has done deep research on this will know doubt have the evidence somewhere in their wee brains and give us some names. But they can't. They simply come in here most probably after watching National Georgraphic or the history channel and now feel equipped ( after taking the historians on history channels crap explanation and theories on faith ) to bash us Christians around for their Saturday night entertainment.

Since I have made no secret of the fact that I am a historian in threads other than this I can only assume this is a dig at me which adds nothing to the debate and utterly fails to address the question asked.

It is a shame that you cannot appear to actually engage with the question asked but instead have to resort to personalised attacks on those who ask questions.

It is a shame you are not willing to answer preferring instead to dismiss genuine inquiry as 'trolling' much as the church you defend dismisses those who question it - including many of your fellow Christians - as heretics.

Your pointless and childish jibes and obvious attempt at deflection do your church no favours as they make it clear you are incapable of defending it by any means other then attack.

Which is also a shame as I would like to hear why people do remain part of the Roman Catholic church despite it's appalling track record on human rights in particular it's protection of the pedophiles within it's own clerical ranks.

Onesimus

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Since I have made no secret of the fact that I am a historian in threads other than this I can only assume this is a dig at me which adds nothing to the debate and utterly fails to address the question asked.

It is a shame that you cannot appear to actually engage with the question asked but instead have to resort to personalised attacks on those who ask questions.

It is a shame you are not willing to answer preferring instead to dismiss genuine inquiry as 'trolling' much as the church you defend dismisses those who question it - including many of your fellow Christians - as heretics.

Your pointless and childish jibes and obvious attempt at deflection do your church no favours as they make it clear you are incapable of defending it by any means other then attack.

Which is also a shame as I would like to hear why people do remain part of the Roman Catholic church despite it's appalling track record on human rights in particular it's protection of the pedophiles within it's own clerical ranks.

read'em and weep boardies, this is the post of a person who has been defeated at his game. I have no idea who you are, so you've merely assumed I did without any evidence to hold that to be true either. Your really not that good at producing evidence for anything are you? but are good at making baseless claims on the conduct of other posters.

Why should I engage with a ''claim'' and question that gives me no evidence of such a claim. How does one respond to that? Give me the evidence and I'll give you the response.

I havnt jibed anything or deflected but have used some good ole common sense. Why should I take you on faith? Why should I let someone into my house and accuse my neighbour of foul play and believe him without the evidence? That would be stupid.

nighty

Bannasidhe

Onesimus wrote: »

read'em and weep boardies, this is the post of a person who has been defeated at his game. I have no idea who you are, so you've merely assumed I did without any evidence to hold that to be true either. Your really not that good at producing evidence for anything are you? but are good at making baseless claims on the conduct of other posters.

Why should I engage with a ''claim'' and question that gives me no evidence of such a claim. How does one respond to that? Give me the evidence and I'll give you the response.

I havnt jibed anything or deflected but have used some good ole common sense. Why should I take you on faith? Why should I let someone into my house and accuse my neighbour of foul play and believe him without the evidence? That would be stupid.

nighty

Oh dear oh dear.

Sarky

Asking questions you don't want to answer is not trolling. learn2internet plzkthx

Keylem

OP I would highly recommend reading this book, it exposes the lies and myths about Catholic History.

Pax Christi

xenonfear

Hi, OP RESPONDING!
Thanks for the response guys, was an interesting read
As to the questions posed back to me! Heres my response

Do you believe that a supernatural universe/dimension/realm exists?
Yes

If yes, do you believe you have a soul, and it will go there when the body you temporarily inhabit stops working?
No, this isn't taught in the Bible

Do you believe that there are different places in the supernatural realm, and that one of them is brilliant, and the other one is a vast lake of molten rock and fire?
No, this isn't taught in the Bible

Do you believe that your soul will go to one or other of those places, depending on your actions in life?
No, this isn't taught in the Bible

Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the boss of the supernatural?
No, this isn't taught in the Bible

Do you believe that Jesus Christ became human and told the people around him all about how to get to the brilliant place in the supernatural realm about 2012 years ago? (ie, the rules above)
Jesus coming to Earth as human - Yes
Rest of that question - its tricky!



And not to be an ass, but going back to my original post I mentioned Pope Innocent III, and Pope Paul IV
Anyone can research those two individuals and see what they did, I can go off and get some quotes if you like?
They kept the Bible in a dead language and didn't want anyone to translate it into the 'common' languages? Like, I'm not making this up!

Council Of Nicea 325AD, anyone can research it and realize non-christian teachings were adopted?

Can someone whos actually researched the history of the Catholic Church chip in here?

xenonfear

Keylem wrote: »

OP I would highly recommend reading this book, it exposes the lies and myths about Catholic History.

Pax Christi

Ah great! Have you read it yourself?
Could you summarize anything about it, and are you still a Catholic after learning its history?

business.kid

As a Jesuit educated ex Catholic, I feel people are missing the point. As for history

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saeculum_obscurum

My big deal was World War 2. 55 Million dead with Allied and Axis Catholics slaughtering each other. Pope of the day failed to criticise Hitler while 6 million Jews were slaughtered. Now we have the paedophiles outed in our generation. How could any God be using such a corrupt organisation?

xenonfear

business.kid wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saeculum_obscurum

ouch! thats gotta hurt!
valid point, especially after reading that article your question about how could God be using this organization stands out

newmug

Bannasidhe wrote: »

As I am genuinely interested in hearing answers to the OP's question as this has puzzled me too I will take the liberty of answering your list newmug.

Firstly, thanks for answering:)

Secondly, I take it from your answers that you're not Catholic. I'll pray for you.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Why does one need to be a Roman Catholic if one answers yes to the above? Surely that just means one is Christian.

Christian does not automatically equal Roman Catholic.

Thirdly, seeing as you're not Catholic, I'll have to explain this one to you. You see, Catholicism is 100% pure Christianity, exactly as Jesus taught it. Over time, different splits occured for different reasons, and people went off and started their own little religions. These religions are not Christianity, eventhough they call themselves such. They may fully believe that they are, but they are only deluding themselves. Take the Mormons for example. Jesus specifically stated that "thou shalt NOT commit adultery". Yet these people hvae polygamous relationships. No matter what they call themselves, they are 100%, undoubtedly, categorically NOT Christians.

There are thousands of these "religions". To differentiate, they are all usually lumped under the umberella of "protestantism". However, because many many people in them are genuinely convinced that they really are Christian, we have to call the original, real Christians something else. So we are called Catholics.

I hope I havent offended anybody by this, I'm just answering a question and putting across the Catholic point of view.

Onesimus wrote: »

Newmug. I realize your post is meant to be full of good inspiration. But your only feeding the trolls IMHO.

And that's what I make of this thread. A trollish thread created to liven us all up a bit with a bit of banter we are all well used to anyway and have had on boards over the years repeatedly over and over and over and over and over ***DEEP BREATH*** and over and over and over and over and over again.

I know. I was hoping with the recent departure of our very heavy handed, very eh, unconventional, former mod, that Christian bashing threads like these wouldn't be allowed anymore. I live in hope. How does one become a mod anyway?

xenonfear wrote: »

Hi, OP RESPONDING!


Do you believe that a supernatural universe/dimension/realm exists?
Yes

If yes, do you believe you have a soul, and it will go there when the body you temporarily inhabit stops working?
No, this isn't taught in the Bible

Do you believe that there are different places in the supernatural realm, and that one of them is brilliant, and the other one is a vast lake of molten rock and fire?
No, this isn't taught in the Bible

Do you believe that your soul will go to one or other of those places, depending on your actions in life?
No, this isn't taught in the Bible

Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the boss of the supernatural?
No, this isn't taught in the Bible

Do you believe that Jesus Christ became human and told the people around him all about how to get to the brilliant place in the supernatural realm about 2012 years ago? (ie, the rules above)
Jesus coming to Earth as human - Yes
Rest of that question - its tricky!

Thanks for replying OP!

But seriously, I dont know what Bible you've been reading, but the answers to questions 2-6 should be YES, and all those things are indeed taught in the Bible. So much so, its the core of the whole thing. Have a look at the front cover of your bible, are you sure it doesnt say The Famous Five or anything like that?

xenonfear wrote: »

Council Of Nicea 325AD, anyone can research it and realize non-christian teachings were adopted?

Is that a question or a statement? What non-Christian things do you think were added?

newmug

business.kid wrote: »

My big deal was World War 2. 55 Million dead with Allied and Axis Catholics slaughtering each other. Pope of the day failed to criticise Hitler while 6 million Jews were slaughtered. Now we have the paedophiles outed in our generation.

But..........how is any of that going to affect your soul?

business.kid wrote: »

How could any God be using such a corrupt organisation?

So you think the pope, 1 man, didnt criticize hitler. Maybe he did, what makes you think he didnt? And what about the other 999,999,999 of us?

business.kid

newmug wrote: »

But..........how is any of that going to affect your soul?




So you think the pope, 1 man, didnt criticize hitler. Maybe he did, what makes you think he didnt? And what about the other 999,999,999 of us?

Summarising what you can check elsewhere: The Jews of the day appealed to the Pope for criticism of this genocide, and Hitler made clear there would be material consequences to such criticism. Letters were exchanged for years on this. So the Pope had a straight choice between this threat to his real estate and the lives of millions of Jews. He chose the real estate. As for what difference the facts make, turn your Bible to Matthew 7:15-20. These are the fruits of the Catholic religion. I feel very sorry for Catholics who haven't been educated enough by that church to take what's left of their dignity and walk out.

greenpilot

Manach wrote: »

Also a historian, but I take the opposite view. The Catholic Church, having being found by our Lord in 33AD, has been one of the bulwarks of civilisation. Its education institutions had kept alive the spirit of literacy during the fall of the Roman empire, and laid the foundations of the University system It kept alive the spirit of scientific inquiry and laid the basis for the economic tradenetworks of Europe. It laid down the foundations of modern legal natural law theory and championed the idea of Just war. When threatened by invasion, it was the Church that spurned the lethargic rules to mount a defence of Christendom. It was the Church that went and lived among the native and poor of the new colonies and provided a voice in the regal courts. IT was the church that spoke out against the dangers of virulent nationalist and the godless menace that was Bolshevism.
So in short, the Church on the positive side as a long and proud historical traditation second to no other institution.

As an historian, you should note that the Catholic Church was NOT founded in 33ad, the beginnings of Christianity was. I recommend The History of Christianity by McCullough.

K.Flyer

Many things about the Catholic Church debate intrigue me.
One thing I wonder is, where is it written that Jesus, who was Jewish, said or dictated that his organised followers were to call themselves The Catholic Church. So who came up with the name, when was it first used, and who gave the name and the group that used it legitamacy to consider themselves to be the only true and infallible authority over the usage of the teachings of Jesus.

Manach

greenpilot wrote: »

As an historian, you should note that the Catholic Church was NOT founded in 33ad, the beginnings of Christianity was. I recommend The History of Christianity by McCullough.

Which is one in the same, and to get a better context I'd recommend "World of Rome" by James and Sidwell.

As for WWII, books by Michael Burleigh should how the Church tried to balance the competing forces of Nazism and Communism with a fearful West which tried to buy peace at any cost up to and including sacrificing nations in the hope they would not have to confront such forces. By wars end, the Church was one of only institutions in Germany that was credited for holding some type of resistance to the regime that enveloped its followers in a miasma of moral relativism, as per AFAIR "The End: 1944-1945"by Ian Kershaw.

business.kid

Manach wrote: »

Which is one in the same, and to get a better context I'd recommend "World of Rome" by James and Sidwell.

As for WWII, books by Michael Burleigh should how the Church tried to balance the competing forces of Nazism and Communism with a fearful West which tried to buy peace at any cost up to and including sacrificing nations in the hope they would not have to confront such forces. By wars end, the Church was one of only institutions in Germany that was credited for holding some type of resistance to the regime that enveloped its followers in a miasma of moral relativism, as per AFAIR "The End: 1944-1945"by Ian Kershaw.

And Nixon was innocent - he wrote that in his memoirs :-/. Just because it's in a book or on the web doesn't make it fact. There is one religion singled out as opposing Hitler. They wouldn't go to war to kill fellow humans. About 3000 of them died in concentration camps. It wasn't Catholics. What is sad is the level of faith in the institution. Where does God fit in? Isn't the idea to learn about and worship God? What has a corrupt and morally bankrupt institution to do with it? People seem happy as long as "The Church" stays going.

K.Flyer

K.Flyer wrote: »

Many things about the Catholic Church debate intrigue me.
One thing I wonder is, where is it written that Jesus, who was Jewish, said or dictated that his organised followers were to call themselves The Catholic Church. So who came up with the name, when was it first used, and who gave the name and the group that used it legitamacy to consider themselves to be the only true and infallible authority over the usage of the teachings of Jesus.

Anyone ??

K.Flyer

business.kid wrote: »

.... My big deal was World War 2. 55 Million dead with Allied and Axis Catholics slaughtering each other. Pope of the day failed to criticise Hitler while 6 million Jews were slaughtered....

How ironic is it that the Pope of today was once a member of the Hitler Youth.

lmaopml

What I found to be the head wrecking case on my way home, is that the 'Church', ie the 'Community' that everybody has something to say about - because everybody has an opinion on the Catholic Church...was corrupt, why is she not compromising, why is she still here, and why does she still stand for the value of marriage, children and see life as a gift.

If 'they' that is even those who are Protesting it as being totally corrupt, this 'institution' that is seen from the outside, as being void and cold and totally derelict is teaching or compromising with the world than perhaps she could be accused of it properly -

- but yet she is the one that never compromises, no matter, she is uncompromising, not being bought, not 'new' but old and new - how to resolve this lack of compromise with what people say about her? She could very easily say that what is immoral is 'moral' and be bought - but she doesn't -

Do with that what you will. The last outpost is found here..

Most of all, don't read 'Chick' tracts - and study history properly for crying out loud - Sky News eat your heart out.


Manach recommended some good reading, but one has to be interested in the first place, and very many aren't interested in understanding time and place and people etrc. in it first place, just looking for a 'baddy' somewhere - it's all too easy to just slot in to the bad Catholics, because it suits, those 'bad' Catholics are so very bad - but Christ's Church never compromises the message, even if her members - myself included are not perfect. The simple truth is we are not always perfect, but the bar has never been lowered, and thank God for her.


There are assholes everywhere and in every day living - we don't have the monopoly on producing the best of them, neither did anybody claim that one won't come across one on their path. You most certainly will...assholes are pretty much abundant.

As soon as you judge based on people, and not study the message of his Church, and it's uncompromising nature, than the sooner you miss out - and that is important, he's in control, just like he said, and hated as ever. If you decide to attack her, be absolutely sure why you do so. If it's her teaching than be sure first.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.