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.
smurfhousing wrote: » Papal Bulls dealt with all sorts of issues, not just issues pertaining to official Church teachings on faith and morals.
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 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.
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.
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: » Hmmmm
PDN wrote: » And couples who use condoms are less likely to get HIV. :rolleyes:
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: » 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.
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: » 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.
Jakkass wrote: » ISAW - What do you make of StealthRolex's and smurfhousing's opinion on contraception?
JimiTime wrote: » I don't know whether to laugh or scream reading this thread.
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?
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.
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.
JimiTime wrote: » TBH, I have no issue with a good, open, healthy discussion. Be it calm or heated. In fact, I like a bit of passion, and not the sterile 'Who can be the calmest' contests that are often encouraged. I think its a bit like silly season here though with certain posters. I'd love to discuss things with a knowledgable RC who can reason their beliefs etc, but I've never come across one in this forum, and there are few lay catholics I know who have any knowledge or desire to discuss their faith in the real world. In fact, they look to me as the knowledgable one, and that says alot!
JimiTime wrote: » That is NOT what this is about though. Nobody here is part of the 'free love' brigade. AFAIK, contraception, even within a marriage, is viewed as wrong by the RCC, or at least by the RC posters here.
ISAW wrote: » But with respect that IS what this is about! You asked me what was my opinion on two other posters.
lmaopml wrote: » Bah ha haaa! Hilarious, I love you Jimi..lol...
In fairness, I like a bit of passion in discussion too, just not when it get's confusing and goes all over the place, only to end with.... ...more confusion:eek:
JimiTime wrote: » I see where you're coming from in relation to this thread, but I think the content of this thread evidences why its needed tbh.
Jakkass wrote: » Don't deny it Jimi, we are the content! :pac:
JimiTime wrote: » Because SR etc are saying that the Church don't err and are always right, because they are led by the holy spirit.
If this is truly the case, then its not about in light of new knowledge. It becomes, 'well you obviously aren't inerrant, as you've had to revise your position. This means that you were wrong at a certain point.'
Nobody has any issue with this revising of positions in light of new knowledge etc. Its only a problem, if someone is claiming that their authority is THE truth.
Jakkass wrote: » I asked you, not JimiTime.
I asked you because there seems to be two entirely different views being put across by people who claim to advocate the same point of view.
