Slav wrote: » Try to enjoy it! Protestantism/Catholicism debate is a 500 year old sport and deserves some respect. While it might look bizarre for a strange (like baseball for a European) for those who participate I believe it's a great fun.
ISAW wrote: » I would have to read them. Whether they represent Rome's position I have no idea. As far as I know and have debated here the Roman position is that casual sex is a problem and Rome does not approve of it. This in turn has implications on conception and contraception. i think a lot of people would accept the "causal sex for fun" is a worship of material things just like recreational drug and alcohol use. But the idea that one can't enjoy a drink or that one should not get pleasure from sex I think is also a problem. The idea of "sex is only for having children if you enjoy it put that experience aside and remember it is only for children" is a bit mad but I also respect such people are wrongly attacked by the "free love" brigade as if their antithethesis is a better position to hold.
ISAW wrote: » AS opposed to "Science"? How is the change in teaching in the light of knowledge different? How is it okay for science to develop a position and not okay for the Church to do so?
JimiTime wrote: » I don't know whether to laugh or scream reading this thread.
Jakkass wrote: » ISAW - What do you make of StealthRolex's and smurfhousing's opinion on contraception?
PDN wrote: » So, let's get this straight. Your position is that the Roman Catholic Church taught stuff that wan't true in the past - but now it's got its act together and everything is true now? How fortunate of you to live in an age when there are no mistakes, rather than in previous centuries.
ISAW wrote: » Which as far as I know the Roman church accept. They don't condemn the use of condoms to prevent a husband or wife getting HIV.http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_20031201_family-values-safe-sex-trujillo_en.html#ChurchPromotesLife Paragraph 20: One has to seriously distinguish between the proper use of the condom and the failures of the same due to different causes. How could they refer to "proper use" if it didn't exist. In other words the kernel of the Vatican position is: [same source] What is being proposed is to live one’s sexuality in a way that is consistent with one’s human nature and the nature of the family. So they do not oppose using condoms to reduce an infection in a married couple. the main issue is one of using condoms to facilitate casual sex or extramarital sex. It is a valid argument because it is casual sex which is the factor in the spread of disease and not condom use. That is why it is called an STD.
PDN wrote: » The earliest Christians held a wide variety of opinions on many subjects. So do you accept Tertullian's endorsement of Montanism? The earliest Christians were, like all of us, people who got some things right and also got some stuff wrong.
PDN wrote: » Pope Pius IX (1869) dropped the distinction between the "fetus animatus" and "fetus inanimatus" saying that the soul enters the embryo at conception.
PDN wrote: » And couples who use condoms are less likely to get HIV. :rolleyes:
PDN wrote: » Hmmmm
PDN wrote: » And they contradict each other on matters of faith. I already referred in another thread to different papal bulls that declared the teaching of Christ's poverty as heretical, and others that taught it was OK.[That is a matter of discipline.] Boniface VIII stated in Unam Sanctam: “Furthermore we declare, state, define, and pronounce that it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman pontiff.”[If you want to understand why there is no issue here, see: http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/debate9.htm ] This is contradicted by the present Cathechism which states: “[Protestants] who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic church…Those who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic church. With the Orthodox churches, this communion is so profound that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist.” -Catechism of the Catholic Church, Article 838 Again, on abortion, Pope Innocent III and Pope Gregory IX (1200) considered abortion to be homicide only when the fetus is "formed." [...Because it was OK otherwise? I think not. The Church has taught constantly that the killing of the unborn is gravely sinful. What kind of sin it was, there was some discussion, but it was always a grave sin.] Pope Sixtus V (1588), declared contraception and abortion at any stage of pregnancy, whether the fetus was "animated or not animated, formed or unformed," to be homicide and a mortal sin. [and this is problematic because?] Pope Gregory XIV (1591) revoked the previous Papal bull [Did he? Can you link me to proof of this so I can examine whether or not your claim has any merit whatsoever (which I strongly doubt) or has just been pulled out of a hat?] and reinstated the "quickening" test (the perception by a mother that the fetus moves/is animated) which he determined happened 116 days into pregnancy. Pope Pius IX (1869) dropped the distinction between the "fetus animatus" and "fetus inanimatus" saying that the soul enters the embryo at conception. [You'll find that the Church refined Her teaching as science informed Her of the processes of conception and gestation]
PDN wrote: » And they contradict each other on matters of faith. I already referred in another thread to different papal bulls that declared the teaching of Christ's poverty as heretical, and others that taught it was OK. Boniface VIII stated in Unam Sanctam: “Furthermore we declare, state, define, and pronounce that it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman pontiff.” This is contradicted by the present Cathechism which states: “[Protestants] who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic church…Those who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic church. With the Orthodox churches, this communion is so profound that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist.” -Catechism of the Catholic Church, Article 838 Again, on abortion, Pope Innocent III and Pope Gregory IX (1200) considered abortion to be homicide only when the fetus is "formed." Pope Sixtus V (1588), declared contraception and abortion at any stage of pregnancy, whether the fetus was "animated or not animated, formed or unformed," to be homicide and a mortal sin. Pope Gregory XIV (1591) revoked the previous Papal bull and reinstated the "quickening" test (the perception by a mother that the fetus moves/is animated) which he determined happened 116 days into pregnancy. Pope Pius IX (1869) dropped the distinction between the "fetus animatus" and "fetus inanimatus" saying that the soul enters the embryo at conception.
smurfhousing Post#174 wrote: That is a falsehood. The Church teachings on faith and morals are guaranteed to be without error by the Holy Spirit. You are unable to backup your accusations. The Church has not taught truth and errors on matters of faith and morals over the last 2000 years.I should add that the tone on this thread has become quite anti-Catholic. It is the spirit of the world at work.
StealthRolex wrote: » anti-catholic has not yet been used by a catholic on this thread except in defence of the charge of labelling.
lmaopml wrote: » One week when a few RC people with some gusto actually log on here... There are plenty of people with 'gusto' on the forum..and they all stand down when approached, but don't get a thread donated to them after one week...
smurfhousing wrote: » Papal Bulls dealt with all sorts of issues, not just issues pertaining to official Church teachings on faith and morals.
PDN wrote: » Unfortunately we find ourselves in a dilemma. If we answer their questions we are accused of being 'anti-Catholic' because we don't agree with everything they believe. If we don't answer their questions then they claim to have stumped us. For what it's worth - I am just as much anti-Protestant as I am anti-Catholic. I think both the Catholic churches and Protestant churches make mistakes, have faults and need to be a bit more humble.
Jakkass wrote: » I honestly don't know what has been said that could constitute bigotry on the counter side of these arguments. All we have been doing is presenting our disagreement to StealthRolex and smurfhousing since they started advocating certain views on this forum.
PDN wrote: » If we don't answer their questions then they claim to have stumped us. For what it's worth - I am just as much anti-Protestant as I am anti-Catholic. I think both the Catholic churches and Protestant churches make mistakes, have faults and need to be a bit more humble.
PDN wrote: » According to the law of non-contradiction, the teaching in some past papal bulls was evidently untrue.
lmaopml wrote: » Bigotry is a two way street! and this thread is the chanell...
PDN wrote: » Why do you keep repeating something that is untrue? RC faith related topics can be discussed in other threads. But debates between Protestants and Catholics as to who is right will remain in this thread. Learn to live with it. When I see the bigotry already on display in this thread (accusing others of basing their beliefs on lies), I feel the rest of the forum is already a healthier environment for all Christians to discuss everything else. It also enables us to deal with the occasional anti-Catholic statements which, at times, have spoiled the forum for others. We are not going to keep discussing this with you. If you have an issue with moderating decisions then address them through PM or in Feedback. Please let's avoid any more backseat modding.
StealthRolex wrote: » So lets deal with current teaching. 2000yrs of experience - I reckon most of it should be ok now. As for protestant propaganda - we've already had Mary worship chucked in so you can't really blame me for thinking like that.
