What errors and inventions arose in Roman Catholicism?

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by SwordFall

The Church was pretty much the first to admit Genesis was not literal back in Darwin's time.

Where were Protestants on that one? Oh yeah, that's right, pretty much in the same place they are today, calling a 4 and a half billion year old planet 6000 years old.
​

Ahhh yes, the old OECs vs YECs controversy.

How bout "New Earth Creationists", [which is my own personal view]

http://www.christianforums.com/t7657744/
Evidence for an earth much older than 6,000 years

Originally Posted by RickG

There are many lines of evidence that show our Earth to be much older than 6,000 years of age.

Many people of aware of radiometric dating methods, but few actually have any idea how they work, or how many different radiometric dating methods there really are. Never mind that when the same sample when tested with different isotopes and methods all give the same dates. That just doesn’t happen by chance, it works on well understood physics.

There are also many non-radiometric methods and techniques that also agree with one another and the radiometric methods as well.

I would like to know what methods people here in the CF are familiar with or would like to know more about.
​

.

 

[rockytopva]

Do the Roman Catholics still believe the earth is flat?

You mean no one wants to debate the curvature of the earth? It's like.... Oh... Man!

 

[MrMoe]

Hello, I've been wanted to ask these questions for a few days now and I thought this would be the right thread to post them in. they're about Catholicism so I'd prefer a catholic reply, but anyone can reply to these questions if they want.

Q1. Catholics say a persons sins can be forgiven by a Catholic priest when they go to confession. They use John 20:23 as their prove. My question is, if a person goes to one of these priests then later it is found out that this priest was one of those paedophile priests and was secretly molesting children all the time he had been forgiving this persons sins and this person dies before finding out the truth, does this person sins remain unforgiving? If the priest chose to retain their sins do their sins remain retained?
I don't think the God I know would allow someone who molests children to have this kind of power.
Matt 18:6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.


Q2.Why do some Catholics post what I call catholic spam, on peoples visitor message walls? They don't say "Hi" "Hello" "How's it going?" or anything, they just post a picture of some catholic image or saint and then leave.
I've seen this on other peoples profiles too. Is this meant to convert me? Am I meant to take one look at these slighty creepy pictures and suddenly get the desire to become a Catholic?

Q3. Why doesn't John The Baptist get any love? If Catholics can pray to Mary why not John the Baptist as well?
.He Baptist Jesus
.He was born with the holy spirit
.He died as a martyr
.Matt 11:11 Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist.
Yet all I hear is Mary, Mary, Mary, Mary. People go to pray in front of giant statues of Mary, they have small Mary statues and paintings in their homes. They say prayers to Mary (I've never heard one prayer to John the Baptist) Mary gave birth to Jesus in human form but that's about it. The birth probably wasn't even painful. I think John the Baptist deserves as much praise if not more than Mary.
So where's Johnny?!

Q4. Why did the pope kiss the Quran?.....I've also seen him kiss the ground. I bet both were crawling with bacteria

 

[Nanopants]

Hello, I've been wanted to ask these questions for a few days now and I thought this would be the right thread to post them in. they're about Catholicism so I'd prefer a catholic reply, but anyone can reply to these questions if they want.

"Catholic" means "universal." As someone who spends a good amount of time pursuing "universal" truth, I self-identify as Catholic, just not Roman Catholic, as do many churches which are not Roman Catholic. Since you didn't specify exactly which church you were asking, I'll go ahead take the liberty of responding.

Q1. Catholics say a persons sins can be forgiven by a Catholic priest when they go to confession. They use John 20:23 as their prove. My question is, if a person goes to one of these priests then later it is found out that this priest was one of those paedophile priests and was secretly molesting children all the time he had been forgiving this persons sins and this person dies before finding out the truth, does this person sins remain unforgiving? If the priest chose to retain their sins do their sins remain retained?
I don't think the God I know would allow someone who molests children to have this kind of power.
Matt 18:6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

This is obviously a very difficult subject to address since it's such a popular excuse to use when seeking someone to smear/lynch/crucify, etc, especially when refusal to agree with popular opinion is exactly what provides the ammunition one needs to carry it out. One lesson I'm pretty sure you have yet to learn is that people are not really very different from one another, meaning that you as a fully functional human being have the capacity to want to murder, to steal, to be unfaithful, to do anything and every bad thing that has been done, and even the things you're bringing up here. In other words, fundamentally, you are no better, you just have a different set of circumstances where you probably aren't tempted with that particular issue, and I hope you never are.

Obviously there is a problem surrounding this in Christianity, and I won't claim to know exactly what the circumstances are which are exaggerating it, but I can make a pretty good guess, and I'd guess it would be resolved fairly quickly once people really get their priorities in order, which doesn't appear to be optional from my perspective. But as for you, if you ever do harm to someone as in the verse you quoted, and fall under judgment for it, do you think it's impossible that mercy may be obtainable and that you can be forgiven, and restored? If you ask me that seems to be the predicament of the human race, in general, but God will be merciful to the merciful (Ps 18:25), so I'd suggest extending the same mercy you'd want to receive.

Q2.Why do some Catholics post what I call catholic spam, on peoples visitor message walls? They don't say "Hi" "Hello" "How's it going?" or anything, they just post a picture of some catholic image or saint and then leave.
I've seen this on other peoples profiles too. Is this meant to convert me? Am I meant to take one look at these slighty creepy pictures and suddenly get the desire to become a Catholic?

I don't personally do that but since many saints throughout history were known to have been mocked, scourged, tortured and killed, I'd guess they may be slightly afraid of what's in people who want to slander, accuse and who knows what else if they could get away with it, and it could be a way of testing the spirits or something similar.

Q3. Why doesn't John The Baptist get any love? If Catholics can pray to Mary why not John the Baptist as well?
.He Baptist Jesus
.He was born with the holy spirit
.He died as a martyr
.Matt 11:11 Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist.
Yet all I hear is Mary, Mary, Mary, Mary. People go to pray in front of giant statues of Mary, they have small Mary statues and paintings in their homes. They say prayers to Mary (I've never heard one prayer to John the Baptist) Mary gave birth to Jesus in human form but that's about it. The birth probably wasn't even painful. I think John the Baptist deserves as much praise if not more than Mary.
So where's Johnny?!

I don't even...

Q4. Why did the pope kiss the Quran?.....I've also seen him kiss the ground. I bet both were crawling with bacteria

It was probably related to interfaith diplomacy or something relating to evangelism. There's also this little thing in the faith about Christians ruling with Christ (that would put Islam under us).

 

[MrMoe]

"Catholic" means "universal." As someone who spends a good amount of time pursuing "universal" truth, I self-identify as Catholic, just not Roman Catholic, as do many churches which are not Roman Catholic. Since you didn't specify exactly which church you were asking, I'll go ahead take the liberty of responding.

thanks

This is obviously a very difficult subject to address since it's such a popular excuse to use when seeking someone to smear/lynch/crucify, etc, especially when refusal to agree with popular opinion is exactly what provides the ammunition one needs to carry it out

hey I'm just asking a question here. Do you think this is a reasonable question to ask?

One lesson I'm pretty sure you have yet to learn is that people are not really very different from one another, meaning that you as a fully functional human being have the capacity to want to murder, to steal, to be unfaithful, to do anything and every bad thing that has been done, and even the things you're bringing up here. In other words, fundamentally, you are no better, you just have a different set of circumstances where you probably aren't tempted with that particular issue, and I hope you never are.

I learned this a long time ago. Matt 7:1-5
it's wrong to assume things about a persons character, especially someone you've never met.
Like the bible says judge not according to appearance but judge righteous judgment.
Don't you think this is an important question roman Catholics should be asking themselves especially since it on such an important spiritual matter such as forgiving of sins?

Obviously there is a problem surrounding this in Christianity, and I won't claim to know exactly what the circumstances are which are exaggerating it, but I can make a pretty good guess, and I'd guess it would be resolved fairly quickly once people really get their priorities in order, which doesn't appear to be optional from my perspective. But as for you, if you ever do harm to someone as in the verse you quoted, and fall under judgment for it, do you think it's impossible that mercy may be obtainable and that you can be forgiven, and restored? If you ask me that seems to be the predicament of the human race, in general, but God will be merciful to the merciful (Ps 18:25), so I'd suggest extending the same mercy you'd want to receive.

we should always extend mercy to anyone who is repentant.
You didn't answer my question but you're right about being merciful

What I read from the bible about when someone in a situation of authority sins and repents he shows mercy but he also takes something away from them. For example Moses and king David.
Do you think someone in such a position of trust should be reinstated into that position even after they've been forgiven?

I don't personally do that but since many saints throughout history were known to have been mocked, scourged, tortured and killed, I'd guess they may be slightly afraid of what's in people who want to slander, accuse and who knows what else if they could get away with it, and it could be a way of testing the spirits or something similar.

Why would they be afraid? Better question, why should they care what anyone else thinks about their saints? I have no beef with their saints, I just find it a bit odd
I'm guessing they think I'm Catholic

It was probably related to Ecumenism. There's also this little thing in the faith about Christians ruling with Christ (that would put Islam under us).

what do you mean exactly by under us? BTW Muslims do not believe Jesus is the son of god and they believe it is blasphemy to believe that.

Thanks for answering my questions, even if it was in your usual aggressive, overly defensive, hard to decipher , Nanopants tone

 

[Nanopants]

thanks



hey I'm just asking a question here. Do you think this is a reasonable question to ask?

No, I think it's a loaded question.

I learned this a long time ago. Matt 7:1-5
it's wrong to assume things about a persons character, especially someone you've never met.
Like the bible says judge not according to appearance but judge righteous judgment.
Don't you think this is an important question roman Catholics should be asking themselves especially since it on such an important spiritual matter such as forgiving of sins?

What basis do you have to assume that it is not at the forefront of their questions or worries? Shouldn't you be putting forth an effort to not judge the character of people you barely know? I know if it were in my church, I'd feel embarrassed and unsettled, and also reluctant to turn on my brothers and sisters in the faith, which would be a very awkward situation, but I definitely wouldn't be apathetic about it.

we should always extend mercy to anyone who is repentant.

And if they're not, then what? No mercy? No holds barred? Don't you think sharia law, and chopping off the hands poverty-stricken thieves is a bit harsh?

You didn't answer my question but you're right about being merciful

What I read from the bible about when someone in a situation of authority sins and repents he shows mercy but he also takes something away from them. For example Moses and king David.
Do you think someone in such a position of trust should be reinstated into that position even after they've been forgiven?

I think it would be fair for the punishment to fit the crime.

Why would they be afraid? Better question, why should they care what anyone else thinks about their saints? I have no beef with their saints, I just find it a bit odd

Hang around in GT a while and you might see why.

I'm guessing they think I'm Catholic

what do you mean exactly by under us? BTW Muslims do not believe Jesus is the son of god and they believe it is blasphemy to believe that.

I'm saying Christ, being seated at the right hand of the Father, is the ruler of the world, and we can rule with and through Him.

Thanks for answering my questions, even if it was in your usual aggressive, overly defensive, hard to decipher , Nanopants tone

Hey, if you don't like it, don't dish it out.

 

[Sean611]

As an Anglican, there is much that Catholics and Anglicans agree on. However, there are some rather large issues that separate us. I'll only get into the biggest ones:

1. The evolving nature of the bishop of Rome into an almost absolute monarch. There is just no evidence to suggest that the early church or the other bishops in the early church regarded the bishop of Rome as infallible or as the supreme pontiff. Sure, some Anglicans and others might concede that the bishop of Rome to be the first among equals, but I'm not even completely convinced by that claim. However, there is evidence that the bishop of Rome's position evolved over time and that certain popes did all they could to increase the power of the papacy, going even as far as forging documents, mainly for political reasons.

2. A celibate priesthood. I think a celibate priesthood is fine for those who want it, but what is the big deal with celibate priests? The early church certainly had married bishops and priests. Further, there are just so many amazing married priests and pastors. The idea that a person can't serve the church properly with a family is a dubious claim. Sure, some can't manage both, but then some priests can't manage celibacy very well either.

3. Marriage and annulments. Can anybody with a straight face really say that annulments are anything more than Catholic divorce? The idea that a group of unmarried men are in charge of determining the validity of a marriage is a bit silly. Historically, if one was a noble and had the right political clout or promised favors, they could obtain an annulment like a piece of candy. Anglicans are often bashed by Catholics as being a church that was founded by a man who wanted a divorce. However, Henry VIII wanted an annulment, not divorce and he thought that he would get one just like every other rich noble with political clout did. Henry absolutely thought his cause and reasons were just. However, for political reasons, Henry VIII didn't get the annulment. Further, what were the reasons cited for all the other annulments Henry VIII got? They were all reasons in line with a Catholic understanding of annulment. In conclusion, the Orthodox have a much more humane way of dealing with divorce.

4. Relics, indulgences, and strange superstitions. I think that Christian relics are fine and can be a great and uplifting teaching tool. However, some of the veneration of relics borders very close to being worship. I also believe that visiting a certain amount of relics and saying the right prayers can get time off of purgatory is a rather silly notion. The idea of purgatory itself doesn't really bother me, however, the notion that popes can take time off for certain acts seems to lack any sort of historical/theological backing.

5. Marian worship. Sometimes it seems that Catholics come very close to Marian worship and spend alot of time on Marian devotion. Personally, I'm fine with most Marian prayers, the rosary, and asking Saints to pray for us. However, the evolution of Mary as co-redemptrix/co-mediatrix can't be found in the history of the early church. Now, don't get me wrong, theology and practices evolve over time, but there doesn't seem to be much to base some of this Marian theology on.

To be fair, I aired my issues/grievances with protestants on the protestant error thread.

 

[MrMoe]

No, I think it's a loaded question.

You like the other Catholics I've debated seem to have what another Christian teacher called an accusing spirit, meaning a certain attitude where you question the persons motivation for asking the question and attack the messenger rather than the message.
Asking questions is how new discoveries are made in science and how truth and errors are discovered.
it was a loaded question in wanting to expose the truth.

What basis do you have to assume that it is not at the forefront of their questions or worries? Shouldn't you be putting forth an effort to not judge the character of people you barely know?

who are you refereeing to? I was referring to myself.
you seem to be saying not to judge at all and don't seem to acknowledge that the bible does tell as to judge and it also tells us how not to judge.

I know if it were in my church, I'd feel embarrassed and unsettled, and also reluctant to turn on my brothers and sisters in Christ, which would be a very awkward situation.

even if that person was doing something that goes against the word of God? for example child molesting.
it's not about what we feel it's about what's right.

And if they're not, then what? No mercy? No holds barred? Don't you think sharia law, and chopping off the hands poverty-stricken thieves is a bit harsh?

So an unrepentant child molester should not be judged? An unrepentant serial killers should be shown mercy and be allowed to roam free?
Sharia law? we're talking about Christianity here.

I think it would be fair for the punishment to fit the crime.

exactly

Hang around in GT a while and you might see why.

I've been here 2 years haven't seen why yet. I can almost visualize Catholics checking under their bed for protestants. they aren't the only denomination around here being questioned about their beliefs.

I'm saying Christ, being seated at the right hand of the Father, is the ruler of the world, and we can rule with and through Him.

still doesn't answer my question. What do you mean by Islam being under us?
Under our authority?

Hey, if you don't like it, don't dish it out.

the protestant version of this thread has split five times. it seems like the Catholics can dish it out but cant take it

 

[WisdomTree]

As an Anglican, there is much that Catholics and Anglicans agree on. However, there are some rather large issues that separate us. I'll only get into the biggest ones:

1. The evolving nature of the bishop of Rome into an almost absolute monarch. There is just no evidence to suggest that the early church or the other bishops in the early church regarded the bishop of Rome as infallible or as the supreme pontiff. Sure, some Anglicans and others might concede that the bishop of Rome to be the first among equals, but I'm not even completely convinced by that claim. However, there is evidence that the bishop of Rome's position evolved over time and that certain popes did all they could to increase the power of the papacy, going even as far as forging documents, mainly for political reasons.

There is a matter of debate on this with neither side coming with absolutely conclusive evidence. It has been said that the Bishop of Rome was always considered a senior Patriarch among his peers, the peers being the Archbishop of Alexandria and the Bishop of Antioch. The diocesan system always consists of three, with the leader among them being the Archbishop. This would be the case for the Petrine See system where Rome is the leader of the three original Petrine Sees.

Another thing to consider is that during the periods of the Ecumenical Councils, most of the cases, Rome was usually the observer in a dispute between the various Eastern Churches. Of course this status can't be used as a determining evidence either way, but it is interesting to note.

I wouldn't say that the Papacy itself forged documents, but perhaps overzealous theologians. It wouldn't be the first time nor the last.

2. A celibate priesthood. I think a celibate priesthood is fine for those who want it, but what is the big deal with celibate priests? The early church certainly had married bishops and priests. Further, there are just so many amazing married priests and pastors. The idea that a person can't serve the church properly with a family is a dubious claim. Sure, some can't manage both, but then some priests can't manage celibacy very well either.

It's about the historical context as well as that of the cultural. First of all as you already know, celibacy is not a universally enforced rule, though it is for the majority. Since the Council of Chalcedon, bishops were forbidden to be married, so this goes quite back (this has nothing to do with celibacy however). Second of all, to determine the rationale for such rules for the clerics one must first look at how the laity views them. In the east, there are two types, monastic and non-monastic. The non-monastics are usually the pastors and the role-models of the community whereas the monastics are the theologians and the leaders of the clergy. As such, it was the monastics that were viewed with such honour thus the majority of the bishops of the Eastern Churches are of the monastic type. In the west, the two types are merged into the single secular priest that we all know as. They take the role of pastors and theologians thus the leadership of the Western Churches are almost exclusively secular priests. Of course by reading this one can clearly see that this is not a hard set rule, but rather a discipline to keep the clerics in line thus when there is significant change in the cultural context it may change though not for a few generations.

For Anglicans, I can understand why this is kind of unacceptable since the concept of celibacy has always been alien to the English people

3. Marriage and annulments. Can anybody with a straight face really say that annulments are anything more than Catholic divorce? The idea that a group of unmarried men are in charge of determining the validity of a marriage is a bit silly. Historically, if one was a noble and had the right political clout or promised favors, they could obtain an annulment like a piece of candy. Anglicans are often bashed by Catholics as being a church that was founded by a man who wanted a divorce. However, Henry VIII wanted an annulment, not divorce and he thought that he would get one just like every other rich noble with political clout did. However, for political reasons, Henry VIII didn't get the annulment. Further, what were the reasons cited for all the other annulments Henry VIII got? They were all reasons in line with a Catholic understanding of annulment. In conclusion, the Orthodox have a much more humane way of dealing with divorce.

Annulment is not the dissolution of marriage, but a retrospective conclusion which invalidates any union i.e. it never happened. Granted, it is abused like no tomorrow, but just because some people abuse the system doesn't mean the concept itself is flawed since it was Christ himself who said that marriage was indissoluble. In terms of Orthodoxy it depends on which communion you speak of. Eastern Orthodoxy allows divorce and remarriages three times (three divorces and two remarriage) for any circumstances (they are still strict compared to Protestants), where as Oriental Orthodoxy only allows divorce for adultery and as such their position is closer to that of Rome than Constantinople (it's still in between though).

4. Relics, indulgences, and strange superstitions. I think that Christian relics are fine and can be a great and uplifting teaching tool. However, some of the veneration of relics borders very close to being worship. I also believe that visiting a certain amount of relics and saying the right prayers can get time off of purgatory is a rather silly notion. The idea of purgatory itself doesn't really bother me, however, the notion that popes can take time off for certain acts seems to lack any sort of historical/theological backing.

I agree, there a lot of devout Catholics that border idol worshipping and they really should know better. However that is what we see, we have no idea what is going on in their heart and as we should reserve that judgment to God.

I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean by the last sentence.

5. Marian worship. Sometimes it seems that Catholics come very close to Marian worship and spend alot of time on Marian devotion. Personally, I'm fine with most Marian prayers, the rosary, and asking Saints to pray for us. However, the evolution of Mary as co-redemptrix/co-mediatrix can't be found in the history of the early church. Now, don't get me wrong, theology and practices evolve over time, but there doesn't seem to be much to base some of this Marian theology on.[/quote]

Ah, Mariology... My "favourite" topic.

I see that you understand the concept of the Marian dogmas and doctrines very well, as such I must commend you for that.

However, in terms of co-redemptrix/co-mediatrix it seems that you are perhaps mistaken on what it means. The way "co" is used does not imply equality nor even dependency on the holder of such title. So the ever Virgin Mary did not redeem us nor can mediate for us on her own term. However as a co-redemptrix and co-mediatrix, God has redeemd us through her by giving us the Incarnate, the Word, and she can mediate on behalf of us through the grace of our Saviour, Jesus Christ.

As you can see that the two titles are qutie complex and confusing. That's why these will almost never become a dogma nor doctrine in the Catholic Church. The Pope of Rome himself even said that the scriptural support for these was too vague and it only served to confuse the faithful even more as well as putting strain on ecumenical dialogue (remember, we quite miss our Orthodox brethren).

To be fair, I aired my issues/grievances with protestants on the protestant error thread.

 

[Nanopants]

You like the other Catholics I've debated seem to have what another Christian teacher called an accusing spirit, meaning a certain attitude where you question the persons motivation for asking the question and attack the messenger rather than the message.
Asking questions is how new discoveries are made in science and how truth and errors are discovered.
it was a loaded question in wanting to expose the truth.

Did you know that scripture instructs us to cover our neighbor's nakedness (which might be interpreted as sins or shame, depending on context), and not to expose it? But if one exposes an attempt to expose another, well, that's called seeking justice. I think it may have something to do with God's desire to wash away sins, and working to expose them to condemn, slander, destroy, etc, works against Him.

who are you refereeing to? I was referring to myself.

You asked me:

"Don't you think this is an important question roman Catholics should be asking themselves especially since it on such an important spiritual matter such as forgiving of sins?"

So, you're questioning the authority of RC priests to forgive sins because of issues surrounding pedophilia, and apparently because you think it's important for RC believers to ask themselves this question of yours. That implies that you think they do not struggle with questions like these, which in light of the controversy, is most definitely a judgment of character. In other words, it's like asking "X is happening and you're not even bothered?" But you said:

"it's wrong to assume things about a persons character, especially someone you've never met."

So, yes, I'm applying this to you.

you seem to be saying not to judge at all and don't seem to acknowledge that the bible does tell as to judge and it also tells us how not to judge.

Here we go with judgment again. FTR, I don't say "don't judge at all." Scripture says "judge not that you be not judged." What is it with this fascination some people seem to have with judging other people? What's in it for you? Christ personally warned us about judgment- that it's not to be taken lightly and it can get you into a lot of trouble with God.

even if that person was doing something that goes against the word of God? for example child molesting.
it's not about what we feel it's about what's right.

Yes. If I walked in on my best, life-long friend molesting a child, I would be in a very awkward situation and I would be reluctant to turn on him. I might kick his face to get him off of the kid but I would be reluctant to call him out publically, have him fired, ruin his life, etc, etc.

So an unrepentant child molester should not be judged? An unrepentant serial killers should be shown mercy and be allowed to roam free?
Sharia law? we're talking about Christianity here.

What do you suggest?

I've been here 2 years haven't seen why yet. I can almost visualize Catholics checking under their bed for protestants. they aren't the only denomination around here being questioned about their beliefs.

Did you totally miss all of the allegations of paganism and worse, or do you think it's not a big deal when directed at other Roman Catholic believers?

still doesn't answer my question. What do you mean by Islam being under us?
Under our authority?

"World" would be the planet we live on which contains Muslims, so yes.

 

[Sean611]

There is a matter of debate on this with neither side coming with absolutely conclusive evidence. It has been said that the Bishop of Rome was always considered a senior Patriarch among his peers, the peers being the Archbishop of Alexandria and the Bishop of Antioch. The diocesan system always consists of three, with the leader among them being the Archbishop. This would be the case for the Petrine See system where Rome is the leader of the three original Petrine Sees.

Another thing to consider is that during the periods of the Ecumenical Councils, most of the cases, Rome was usually the observer in a dispute between the various Eastern Churches. Of course this status can't be used as a determining evidence either way, but it is interesting to note.

I wouldn't say that the Papacy itself forged documents, but perhaps overzealous theologians. It wouldn't be the first time nor the last.

Indeed, there is no way to truly get to the truth of the matter. There are some instances, like you mention, of the bishop of Rome being a mediator and observer of disputes, but there doesn't seem to be much else. The bishop of Rome as the first among equals is a historical possibility, in my estimation.

It's about the historical context as well as that of the cultural. First of all as you already know, celibacy is not a universally enforced rule, though it is for the majority. Since the Council of Chalcedon, bishops were forbidden to be married, so this goes quite back (this has nothing to do with celibacy however). Second of all, to determine the rationale for such rules for the clerics one must first look at how the laity views them. In the east, there are two types, monastic and non-monastic. The non-monastics are usually the pastors and the role-models of the community whereas the monastics are the theologians and the leaders of the clergy. As such, it was the monastics that were viewed with such honour thus the majority of the bishops of the Eastern Churches are of the monastic type. In the west, the two types are merged into the single secular priest that we all know as. They take the role of pastors and theologians thus the leadership of the Western Churches are almost exclusively secular priests. Of course by reading this one can clearly see that this is not a hard set rule, but rather a discipline to keep the clerics in line thus when there is significant change in the cultural context it may change though not for a few generations.

For Anglicans, I can understand why this is kind of unacceptable since the concept of celibacy has always been alien to the English people

I'm glad you understand the historical problems Anglicans have had with priestly celibacy. Even when our two churches were one, it was not uncommon for Catholic priests to marry in England. Also, I appreciate your explanation.

Annulment is not the dissolution of marriage, but a retrospective conclusion which invalidates any union i.e. it never happened. Granted, it is abused like no tomorrow, but just because some people abuse the system doesn't mean the concept itself is flawed since it was Christ himself who said that marriage was indissoluble. In terms of Orthodoxy it depends on which communion you speak of. Eastern Orthodoxy allows divorce and remarriages three times (three divorces and two remarriage) for any circumstances (they are still strict compared to Protestants), where as Oriental Orthodoxy only allows divorce for adultery and as such their position is closer to that of Rome than Constantinople (it's still in between though).

I understand the Catholic arguments about annulments not being divorce, but with the massive historical and current abuses of this system, something has got to change. I don't think that a change in theology will happen, necessarily, but I can see the new Pope streamlining the process a bit and I can see a time when remarried Catholics are allowed communion again. The new Pope has said that he wants to review the annulment process, this is a good thing in my view.

I agree, there a lot of devout Catholics that border idol worshipping and they really should know better. However that is what we see, we have no idea what is going on in their heart and as we should reserve that judgment to God.

I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean by the last sentence.

Agreed, good post. With the last sentence I was stating that, at least in the past, Popes have used their office to remove time off of purgatory for certain people and for certain acts.

Ah, Mariology... My "favourite" topic.

I see that you understand the concept of the Marian dogmas and doctrines very well, as such I must commend you for that.

However, in terms of co-redemptrix/co-mediatrix it seems that you are perhaps mistaken on what it means. The way "co" is used does not imply equality nor even dependency on the holder of such title. So the ever Virgin Mary did not redeem us nor can mediate for us on her own term. However as a co-redemptrix and co-mediatrix, God has redeemd us through her by giving us the Incarnate, the Word, and she can mediate on behalf of us through the grace of our Saviour, Jesus Christ.

As you can see that the two titles are qutie complex and confusing. That's why these will almost never become a dogma nor doctrine in the Catholic Church. The Pope of Rome himself even said that the scriptural support for these was too vague and it only served to confuse the faithful even more as well as putting strain on ecumenical dialogue (remember, we quite miss our Orthodox brethren).

Thanks, I've always been puzzled by protestants thinking that asking Saints to pray for them is wrong or an abuse. However, if a Christian asks for anyone to pray for them, that is intercession! Some question how do we know that the Saints pray for us? Well, Revelation states that the Saints do pray for us.

Thanks for you explanation on co-mediatrix/redemptrix, I think the Pope is wise to marginalize this confusing belief.

 

[WisdomTree]

Indeed, there is no way to truly get to the truth of the matter. There are some instances, like you mention, of the bishop of Rome being a mediator and observer of disputes, but there doesn't seem to be much else. The bishop of Rome as the first among equals is a historical possibility, in my estimation.

I think the Bishop of Rome being the protos is undisputed between the Apostolic Successors, it is the defnition which there are conflicts about. From my point of view, I see validity in both sides and I don't consider one to be superior over the other. However, it is my personal opinion that it is a necessity for the sake of unity that we need a Pontiff with universal jurisdiction.

I'm glad you understand the historical problems Anglicans have had with priestly celibacy. Even when our two churches were one, it was not uncommon for Catholic priests to marry in England. Also, I appreciate your explanation.

You're welcome.

I understand the Catholic arguments about annulments not being divorce, but with the massive historical and current abuses of this system, something has got to change. I don't think that a change in theology will happen, necessarily, but I can see the new Pope streamlining the process a bit and I can see a time when remarried Catholics are allowed communion again. The new Pope has said that he wants to review the annulment process, this is a good thing in my view.

It will be interesting to see the result. I personally prefer the way Alexandria deals with it because I believe that infidelity is a perfectly valid reason to dissolve a marriage. Others, especially "irreconciliable differences", I'm not so sure...

Agreed, good post. With the last sentence I was stating that, at least in the past, Popes have used their office to remove time off of purgatory for certain people and for certain acts.

In some cases it probably would've been regarding indulgences which is linked to the prayer for the dead. "Removing time off" is really a legalistic rendering of praying for the sake of one's journey.

In other cases, I'm gonna say it was outright corruption, not the first time the holders of the office of the Bishop of Rome was filthier than a pile of crap.

Thanks, I've always been puzzled by protestants thinking that asking Saints to pray for them is wrong or an abuse. However, if a Christian asks for anyone to pray for them, that is intercession! Some question how do we know that the Saints pray for us? Well, Revelation states that the Saints do pray for us.

Thanks for you explanation on co-mediatrix/redemptrix, I think the Pope is wise to marginalize this confusing belief.

No problem. Good to see someone at least understand Catholic theology in proper context and what we actually believe instead of going on a polemic rampage and blabbing on by quoting some pseudo-prophets.

I'm not sure who the then sitting Pontiff was, but it was a while ago when the theology of co-mediatrix and co-redemptrix was declared unfeasible to be dogma (unlike the other four). I really can't see the current one being all for it either. I'm pretty sure Francis and John Paul II were devout when it came to the Virgin Mary, but even they knew when to draw the line. And the predecess Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI knows better as he was formerly the head inquisitor thus knows how things work in the areas of canon law.

 

[Rev Randy]

Hello, I've been wanted to ask these questions for a few days now and I thought this would be the right thread to post them in. they're about Catholicism so I'd prefer a catholic reply, but anyone can reply to these questions if they want.

Q1. Catholics say a persons sins can be forgiven by a Catholic priest when they go to confession. They use John 20:23 as their prove. My question is, if a person goes to one of these priests then later it is found out that this priest was one of those paedophile priests and was secretly molesting children all the time he had been forgiving this persons sins and this person dies before finding out the truth, does this person sins remain unforgiving? If the priest chose to retain their sins do their sins remain retained?
I don't think the God I know would allow someone who molests children to have this kind of power.
Matt 18:6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.


Q2.Why do some Catholics post what I call catholic spam, on peoples visitor message walls? They don't say "Hi" "Hello" "How's it going?" or anything, they just post a picture of some catholic image or saint and then leave.
I've seen this on other peoples profiles too. Is this meant to convert me? Am I meant to take one look at these slighty creepy pictures and suddenly get the desire to become a Catholic?

Q3. Why doesn't John The Baptist get any love? If Catholics can pray to Mary why not John the Baptist as well?
.He Baptist Jesus
.He was born with the holy spirit
.He died as a martyr
.Matt 11:11 Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist.
Yet all I hear is Mary, Mary, Mary, Mary. People go to pray in front of giant statues of Mary, they have small Mary statues and paintings in their homes. They say prayers to Mary (I've never heard one prayer to John the Baptist) Mary gave birth to Jesus in human form but that's about it. The birth probably wasn't even painful. I think John the Baptist deserves as much praise if not more than Mary.
So where's Johnny?!

Q4. Why did the pope kiss the Quran?.....I've also seen him kiss the ground. I bet both were crawling with bacteria

While I'm not in communion with the RCC I feel question #1 needs addressing.
The priest affirms the sin is forgiven. God absolves him. If said priest turns out to be a pedophile or any other type of sinner, it does not negate the work of God. It simply means the priest needs to seek the same forgiveness.
As to John 20:23, it's best to note the prior verse as it deals with the wisdom needed to discern whether someone is repentant or not.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Hello, I've been wanted to ask these questions for a few days now and I thought this would be the right thread to post them in. they're about Catholicism so I'd prefer a catholic reply, but anyone can reply to these questions if they want.

Q1. Catholics say a persons sins can be forgiven by a Catholic priest when they go to confession. They use John 20:23 as their prove. My question is, if a person goes to one of these priests then later it is found out that this priest was one of those paedophile priests and was secretly molesting children all the time he had been forgiving this persons sins and this person dies before finding out the truth, does this person sins remain unforgiving? If the priest chose to retain their sins do their sins remain retained?

I don't think the God I know would allow someone who molests children to have this kind of power.

Matt 18:6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

...<snipped other questions and may return to them in another post or maybe not>...

Sins are forgiven by God and not my anybody else. Yet Jesus did commission the apostles to forgive sins. What does that mean? The answer is found by a careful reading of the gospel. We can start with the Lord's prayer:

Matthew 6:9-14 ESV Pray then like this:
"Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name.
10 Your kingdom come,
your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.
11 Give us this day our daily bread,
12 and forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.
13 And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil.

14 For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you, 15 but if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.
​

Verse 12 spell out the foundation for human being forgiving sins. If we do not forgive those who sin against us we cannot expect God to forgive us when we sin against him. Verses 14 & 15 add emphasis to what's said in verse 12.

Next the passage that you mentioned ought to be read and understood.

John 20:19-23 ESV On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being locked where the disciples were for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, "Peace be with you." 20 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. 21 Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you." 22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld."
​

What is happening here? Jesus commissions the apostles, at this time there are eleven because Judas has left his apostolic office, to bear his message. He sends them but he does not send them alone because he gives to them the Holy Spirit. He isn't giving them a symbolic promise of the Spirit who will be given on the day of Pentecost. In this passage he is giving to them the Spirit so that they can carry out the task that he is setting for them; namely, forgiving sins. Jesus is completing the ordination of the apostles that was begun at the last supper. The day of Pentecost will bring the Spirit to empower the disciples (not the apostles alone) to witness to Jerusalem, then in Judea and Samaria, and when to the whole world.

Next there is this passage:

James 5:16 ESV Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working.
​

Confessing one's sins is not only for the ears of God in the privacy of your home or the secrecy of your room. It is also for your brothers and sisters and especially for the elders in your church.

These passages form part of the basis for the practise of confession in the rite of reconciliation.

You asked about paedophile priests hearing confession; as wicked as it is for a man to do what paedophiles do you ought not to think that God does not hear your confession nor that God will not forgive your sins because the man hearing what you say is wicked. His wickedness will bring its own proper consequences both in this life and in the next.

And should a priest refuse absolution when you confess your sins then if you are truly repentant for your sins the priests refusal is of no effect because no priest can refuse absolution to the penitent person who truly repents of his/her sins. Canon law forbids it, scripture too forbids it, and it is monstrous for any man to refuse absolution to the truly repentant person. So, if such a thing were to happen then the repentant person ought to (1) be assured that God has heard his confession and knows his heart and forgives his sins and (2) seek a different priest for confession from that time onwards. The person ought also raise the matter with his bishop because refusing absolution is a breach of canon law and priestly duty and may be a sign of other, and perhaps more serious, failures on the part of the priest who refused absolution.

I hope that helps clarify the issue.

PS: The Catechism of the Catholic Church has much to say on Confession and forgiveness. If you are willing then please read the following sections from the Catechism:

Only God forgives sin
1441 Only God forgives sins (Mk 2:7). Since he is the Son of God, Jesus says of himself, “The Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins” ( Mk 2:5, 10; Lk 7:48) and exercises this divine power: “Your sins are forgiven.” Further, by virtue of his divine authority he gives this power to men to exercise in his name (Jn 20:21-23).

1442 Christ has willed that in her prayer and life and action his whole Church should be the sign and instrument of the forgiveness and reconciliation that he acquired for us at the price of his blood. But he entrusted the exercise of the power of absolution to the apostolic ministry which he charged with the “ministry of reconciliation.”(Cor 5:18) The apostle is sent out “on behalf of Christ” with “God making his appeal” through him and pleading: “Be reconciled to God.” (Cor 5:20)

1449 The formula of absolution used in the Latin Church expresses the essential elements of this sacrament: the Father of mercies is the source of all forgiveness. He effects the reconciliation of sinners through the Passover of his Son and the gift of his Spirit, through the prayer and ministry of the Church:

God, the Father of mercies,
through the death and the resurrection of his Son
has reconciled the world to himself
and sent the Holy Spirit among us
for the forgiveness of sins;
through the ministry of the Church
may God give you pardon and peace,
and I absolve you from your sins
in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
​

 

[Albion]

There are some instances, like you mention, of the bishop of Rome being a mediator and observer of disputes, but there doesn't seem to be much else.

That's it in a nutshell. The bishop of Rome, whomever we are speaking of, had a position that was looked up to. Why? Was it because everyone understood that he was the Pope? Certainly not.

But his was the wealthiest and largest diocese in the church, founded by Peter and Paul, in the capitol of the Empire, the city fabled as the "Eternal City" and so on until even recent times...

...that OF COURSE creates influence. Rome's bishop had every Earthly lreason to think he could throw some weight around! Even today, the cardinal bishop of Boston or New York has more prestige--and therefore influence--than the bishop of southern Algeria, doesn't he?

But none of this makes the bishop of Rome a 'Pope' with universal jurisdiction, infallibility, or any of the other claims made over time by him or for him.

 

[bbbbbbb]

That's it in a nutshell. The bishop of Rome, whomever we are speaking of, had a position that was looked up to. Why? Was it because everyone understood that he was the Pope? Certainly not.

But his was the wealthiest and largest diocese in the church, founded by Peter and Paul, in the capitol of the Empire, the city fabled as the "Eternal City" and so on until even recent times...

...that OF COURSE creates influence. Rome's bishop had every Earthly lreason to think he could throw some weight around! Even today, the cardinal bishop of Boston or New York has more prestige--and therefore influence--than the bishop of southern Algeria, doesn't he?

But none of this makes the bishop of Rome a 'Pope' with universal jurisdiction, infallibility, or any of the other claims made over time by him or for him.

Well said. Some of the claims that have been made have been so patently absurd that many reasonable Catholic find them very difficult to swallow.

 

[WisdomTree]

Well said. Some of the claims that have been made have been so patently absurd that many reasonable Catholic find them very difficult to swallow.

The world should just end so we can end all this absurdities.

 

[bbbbbbb]

The world should just end so we can end all this absurdities.

Entirely agreed.

 

[WisdomTree]

Entirely agreed.

Isn't it nice to be civil? We should just end with all these "errors" of Catholicism, Protestantism, and Orthodoxy (coming soon)! Instead have a nice cup of tea and some healthy academic discussion on my "versus" threads.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by WisdomTree

The world should just end so we can end all this absurdities.
​

Entirely agreed.

Isn't it nice to be civil?
We should just end with all these "errors" of Catholicism, Protestantism, and Orthodoxy (coming soon)!
Instead have a nice cup of tea and some healthy academic discussion on my "versus" threads.

How soon is soon



.