It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


OK Catholics....Convince me

page: 2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 06:32 PM

Originally posted by FlyersFan
reply to post by VIKINGANT

You've got it backwards.
You should be asking those that did the accusing to convince you that their accusations are true.

Yes and no. The accusations are already out there. I am not accusing any one of anything.
Innocent before proven guilty? Sure, but the 'accused' are always required to defend thier case. This here is an opportunity for just that.
Maybe someone more knowledgable than myself (which would be most anyone...
) might be able to shed light on the origins of theses said "crimes" and therefore put them to rest.

Originally posted by iiinvision
I encourage you to weigh the evidence out for yourself and make your own choice, why allow someone to use words to convince you of what your religion should be?

I am not looking for a religion. I am quite content with where I am at right now.
I am just amazed at the scope of allegations against the church. On one hand I find it hard to concieve that one organisation is capable and responsible for so many 'evil' activities, yet on the other hand, with the vast amount of accusations, I can't help but think there must be something to at least some of them.

On a side note. Thank you masqua for the foresight to jump in early.

[edit on 8/3/2009 by VIKINGANT]

posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 12:57 PM
reply to post by VIKINGANT

This is a tall order and from your tone, “unless someone puts forward a damn good argument”, I deduce that you are merely making a negative statement reflecting your personal stance in the guise of an intellectual inquiry. I think you have thrown this scrap out there in the hopes of slamming, albeit in wordage acceptable to the forum administrator, whatever practicing Catholics might stumble onto your thread.

My full response to you will take a number of postings I am certain. That is of course only if I have misread your intent and you are truly trying to come to grips with the Catholic Church and at least some of the fact and fiction regarding it. I am not an expert on this subject. I don’t think there is anyone who has the entire story. That said I will give you my take as well as direction to some of the sources that have helped me form my current thinking on the Catholic Church and religion. To me they are one and the same as I am a former practicing Catholic now atheist with Christian tendencies.

First let me say that most Catholics are unaware of the Church’s abuses both current and historical. Most people of “faith” are born into the faith and are not sufficiently challenged to question that faith. The “faiths” promote blind following and discourage questions. And so the sky is blue, 2 + 2 is 4 and I’m a Catholic. In my case I simply thought these things were considered long before I was born by people wiser than myself. Why waste time delving into previously answered questions? And for a Catholic in the late 1950’s we were a majority on the planet and that added to one thinking that “we must be right!”

The surprise, disbelief and outrage exhibited by Catholics around the world over the recent pedophilia revelations backs my statement that they are unaware. There are many Internet articles from varied sources that connect the current Pope Benedict to the decades long cover-up of these crimes. And so you have a few “enlightened” insiders and a world full of unaware followers. Practicing Catholics were largely unaware of the ongoing pedophilia. Could an unaware Catholic provide the “damn good argument” you seek regarding the heinous crimes and corruptions of the Church? I don’t think so and I doubt you do. But I think you were challenging a Catholic to reply and for now a “former Catholic” will have to do.

To be continued.

posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 04:50 PM
reply to post by VIKINGANT

You state: “The Catholic Church has been accused of many things ranging from hiding scriptures, deceiving the masses, corruption or even being part of the ‘Illuminati’ and orchestrating the New World Order.”

Hiding scriptures is difficult to pin down but it is known that the Vatican has an enormous secret library. Why a “secret” library? We can extrapolate that there is information contained that the Church does not want known. Perhaps a better question than why a “secret” library is why any library as destroying any incriminating information would take less space and effort. But there is much speculation as to what is contained and why the need to preserve it.

To get a sense of whether the Church would hide scriptures we can look back to the beginnings of the Church and the Roman Emperor Constantine. At the 1st Nicene Council in 325 AD, Constantine selected which of the available scriptures would be included and accepted as the inspired word of God. So, here we have a Roman Emperor hand selecting what the conquered Christians would be allowed to believe. There are theories that the accepted Gospels were in fact written by Romans so as to control the Christian population. Many think that Constantine was merely consolidating power as well as promoting a new state religion that would allow easier control over the masses. One example of this theory is when Jesus states: “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and give to God what is God’s.” What a great way to brainwash a population into willfully paying their taxes with the bonus that they would keep their souls.

And so the four accepted Gospels were ushered in and an enormous amount of other Gnostic materials were discarded if not entirely destroyed by the “Church of Rome”. Present day apologists would argue that the discarded or as you might call them “hidden” scriptures were flawed or not inspired by God. They were relegated to the status of folk beliefs and superstitions and that is laughable now as some consider the entire Bible just that. So, it would seem from the very outset that the “Church” was hiding scriptures. My guess is that Constantine considered that the discarded scriptures would have created confusion and splinter groups and that was not his intent. His intent was to control and consolidate. Some of these discarded scriptures still exist such as the “Gnostic gospels”. Perhaps even more of these writings are contained within the Vatican’s secret library.

Deceiving the masses? We’ve touched on the very recent pedophile scandals. To think that other cover-ups over the course of two thousand years did not occur is naïve at best.

There is a huge amount of widely accepted historical documentation regarding corruption within the Church. The Papal lineage is peppered with men known to have broken every commandment and so “corruption” would seem perfunctory in such an environment. Remember that many of these corrupt Popes (some were actually known as Antipopes) were leaving their marks on the evolving laws of the Church. At least those that took time out from sinning to issue a Papal bull or two.

In what court would we receive a verdict on whether the Catholic Church was or is definitively “Illuminati” or NWO? That’s not to say this assertion has not been made and indeed taken to court. Let’s agree for now that there’s no Catholic that could defend this accusation.

And so I’ve thus far failed your challenge.

posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 05:47 PM
reply to post by Hemisphere

How convenient, here we have someone claiming to answer the OP's query whilst in fact taking it as an opportunity to further spread the charges and accusations about Catholocism. And here in your first reply to yourself HS you roll out one of the most preposterous allegations which has absolutley no foundation in historical fact but plenty of whispered and "knowing" affirmations among those predisposed to undermine catholicism.

Neither Constantine nor Nicea established the canon of Scripture, let me repeat, neither of them did any such thing. The recognised canon of Scripture was not set by any council until the council of trent in response to the reformation - up until that time the generally accepted collection of books called the Bible was as included in St Jerome's vulgate. Here is a well sourced article that might liberate you, and our OP, from this received wisdom which as you will see is in fact an ignorance I am sure you will be pleased to now deny.

[edit on 9/3/09 by Supercertari]

posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 07:55 PM
reply to post by Supercertari

I feel rather certain that Mr Pearse is a capable "freelance software consultant" who has invested much in researching Tertulian. From the outset I stated I am not an expert. And so we will agree to disagree currently with my nod that you might be in fact right on this point (I was not there and I presume neither were you nor Mr Pearse) and I will proceed with my reply. I remain open to your rebuttals.

[edit on 9-3-2009 by Hemisphere]

[edit on 9-3-2009 by Hemisphere]

posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 08:37 PM
reply to post by Supercertari

SC, just a note that you have not debunked the allegations regarding neither the corrupt Popes nor the pedophiles. Ratzinger's proven fallibility (my opinion) evidenced by continually down-playing that scandal has done more to "undermine catholicism" than I ever could. I would love to hear you debunk my or anyone's allegations against "His Naziness". Out of curiosity are you a Vatican II Catholic or do you attend a Tridentine Latin Rite Church?

I recommend the works of Joseph McCabe for a better criticism of Catholicism than I could ever mount. His "The Columbia Encyclopedia's Crimes Against The Truth" as well as "The Lies And Fallacies Of The Encyclopedia Britannica" are eye opening regarding the efforts of the RC Church to in the very least cover-up indiscretions and in my estimation to rewrite history. My guess though is that you are aware of McCabe and his numerous works.

[edit on 9-3-2009 by Hemisphere]

posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 08:51 PM
Raised in the church and went to catholic school and I can tell ya this. Any organization, any group can be viewed through the theory of the Bell Curve and you will always have a small percentage of that group who are not trust worthy and a smaller group that will cross the line into criminality. That goes for members of congress, a population of a city, or a group of people in a club or a church. I do know that many of the catholic priest that I have known have many degrees in higher learning, many having several doctor degrees. you have to keep in mind that there are thousands and thousands of priest in the church and so it is easy to find that percentage of the bell curve and shine media attention on them. There are criminal priest and pastors in all churches. One thing about the catholic priest is that they take a vow of poverty and many I have known live that spirit.
What I take issues with is the politics of the church, all churches. They need to keep the hell out of politics all together and just preach to the soul. In my old age, I won't be part of any organized religion, all things are between me and my God and keep your beliefs to yourself.

posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 08:58 PM
reply to post by Hemisphere

You have no idea what you are talking about. Like so many you take high profile events and paint the group. Why do you think so many Catholics disagree with many policies of the church like birth control over 2/3rd. That is not an uninformed congregation. You think Catholics are stupid, sheep? No, that sounds like the evangelicals, not the Catholics I have known. Person to person in this country, you will find a much higher education level in the catholic church than most others.

posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 09:37 PM
reply to post by Supercertari

Did you ever question the timing of the Pope Pius XII findings? Why would the Vatican lose such a document for so long? And who spoke to it's authenticity, the Vatican? See the writings of Joseph McCabe regarding the Vatican and WWII.

Could it be that the Jews will look anywhere for backing at this juncture? Obama is a friend to neither the Vatican nor Israel right now. He is apparently a friend to the Islamists and the Palestinians, the obvious threats to the Vatican and Israel. And so this is perhaps simply a "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" situation. The article you refer to on states:

“It is time to recognise Pope Pius XII for what he really did rather than what he did not say.” - Simon Caldwell

And where was the gratitude of those thousands of Jews when the Pius XII accusations started back in 1963? Many would still be alive in those various countries. How many came forward? If in fact these just released findings are even partially true it still does not address the silence of the Pope in the face of the Nazi challenge. Was the Vatican worth saving over untold thousands of lives? How would the outcome have changed if the Pope had vigorously, openly opposed Hitler? He was not alone in ignoring a holocaust. Every Pope since Castro took Cuba has ignored the extermination of Christians and Catholics in particular just 90 miles off Florida. I do remember John Paul telling Fidel to "play nice" on his visit back in 1998. What a guy! All right, I admit I'm a little tough on the Popes. Who knew they had pedophiles to deal with?

posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 09:57 PM
reply to post by VIKINGANT

Viking mind if I rattle my cents in here with y'all.

Are the Catholics evil have they been evil throughout history. I would say no. Have there been people with their own agenda use the Catholic church for their own means I would say yes.

Many people realize that religion is a quick and easy way to influence a multitude of people. So does this make religion a bad thing no it doesn't but it does make it a powerful tool for someone who has his on agenda. Look at Jim Jones and other suicide cults.

The same has happened throughout history. Someone has a goal they want to accomplish and they need a lot of people to do it The Crusades, witch hunts. Quickest way is to get the religious people that blindly listen to whatever they are told. The ones that study on their own are less likely to believe someone with a totally different view than what they believe.

posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 10:38 PM

Originally posted by Pappie54
reply to post by Hemisphere

You have no idea what you are talking about. Like so many you take high profile events and paint the group. Why do you think so many Catholics disagree with many policies of the church like birth control over 2/3rd. That is not an uninformed congregation. You think Catholics are stupid, sheep? No, that sounds like the evangelicals, not the Catholics I have known. Person to person in this country, you will find a much higher education level in the catholic church than most others.

I know exactly what I am talking about Pappie. I never said Catholics were stupid. I stated very clearly in my first post this:

"First let me say that most Catholics are unaware of the Church’s abuses both current and historical."

I don't equate "unaware" with "stupid" or "sheep" but you are entitled to your opinion of Catholics too. It sucks when people put words in your mouth doesn't it?

Frankly who cares about the education level of Catholics? Education is not a measure of morality and that is more what I'm exploring. Jesus went to the same school as Hillel and ole Hilly "never had a dinner" as Red Buttons used to say, let alone an all time best selling biography. You remember Hillel don't you Pappie? He lived at roughly the same time as the historic Jesus of Nazareth. He is credited with authoring one version of the "Golden Rule" and that was this:

"That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn." - Hillel the Elder

Now that statement sounds suspiciously close to "Do unto others" to me but what the hell do I know with my p*ss poor public education. Speaking of education, I've been told the current Marxist president as well as his predecessor were highly educated. Somehow that don't impress me much. Do anything for you?

I'm not "painting the group" I'm painting the outliers. You on the other hand want to defend Catholics by throwing all Evangelicals under the bus. Why? Because Bush is a creep? His father is supposedly Episcopalian and his brother Jeb a Catholic, brother Neil is a crook, a sleeze and perhaps a "Moonie" and what does that say for their beliefs? Perhaps they don't believe anything and are politically motivated in their religious affiliations? Nah!

If anything, I'm asking the Catholics that you state "disagree with many policies of the church like birth control over 2/3rd", why they remain with the outliers? You've admittedly left the fold, what's your stake in this?

Pappie, have patience, I think our stances are not all that different.

posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 12:06 AM
reply to post by Hemisphere

well said, I speak of the political evangelicals. Catholics, as do many people, use the church as a social tie in their community but there is a little difference in the current church. they don't demand you buy the whole dogma as do other denominations. Most priest I know believe in evolution, the Pope has said aliens probably exist, and they know the bible is not to be read literally. That cannot be said about Baptist. As an art teacher, I was not allowed to teach at East Texas Baptist University because I was born catholic and not a good Christian, I was bluntly told that to my face! Down here the good Christians still do not let the blacks play golf at our country club, this is Baptist country with a church every quarter mile. I've never lived in an area with so much hate and much of it comes out of the pulpit. I have never seen organized hate from Catholics in this country. We won't talk about Ireland, that has a whole different history. That is a fight between two churches over the treatment of each other.

posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 10:13 AM
reply to post by Pappie54

Pappie, thanks for that posting it helped me understand your frustration. I have an adopted aunt also in "Texass" as she calls it. Funny coincidence, she is a former college art professor and now substitute teaches in the public schools there. And she has related similar negative experiences with the fundamentalist Christians there. Apparently Texas is a world apart from the rest nation.

Anyway, the one comment you made: "Catholics, as do many people, use the church as a social tie in their community but there is a little difference in the current church. they don't demand you buy the whole dogma as do other denominations." - Pappie54

I think that's right on. I had hoped to get around to separating the Church from the people eventually but you did it with one fell swoop. We know the local parrishes and pastors have had to loosen up the rules or risk losing the remaining flock. That's been going on for decades. If you remember on one of John Paul II's visits there was a big deal over whether female Eucharistic ministers would be allowed. Oooooooooo!!! A woman on the altar is apparently more of a sin than a man in a dress. Go figure!

Enough of my rantings, I'm going to try to wrap this up.

Thanks again Pappie

posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 10:28 AM
reply to post by VIKINGANT

I have numerous personal axes to grind with the Church and would rather not go there. My main message to Vikingant, if he's even still with this thread, is that the Church hierarchy is and was like a huge, wealthy and often unwieldy corporation. Much larger than say an Enron or an Exxon and we've all seen the problems caused by those organizations. The difference with the Catholic Church is that it has historically been larger and more powerful than any group trying to police it from the outside. And so for example we've seen decades of pedophilia run rampant in the Church with mostly only the internal policing. The Church was in effect "too big to fail" or simply be questioned on their internal affairs. This is very much like our now failed banking system.

A lot of what you've heard is true and there is no way for Catholics to defend the Church. But...... and this is the important point and Pappie touched on this, today's Catholics are very loosely attached to the Church proper. It's likely always been that way. Every individual Catholic should not be held accountable for the corporate corruption. That would be like sending the mailroom clerk from Enron to prison. And so yes hate the huge unwieldy corporation but consider the individuals on their own merit.

I also didn't believe you when you said this: "I like many would like to see that they are not behind so many heinous crimes or involved in so many corruptions".

Great, me too, take a number. That's a falsely naive statement as you well know something was behind the crimes and corruption, who or what would you have preferred? Maybe the devil did it.

posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 11:40 AM
reply to post by Hemisphere

Right on brother, there are some good enlightened minds here, this thread showed me a few. So many paint entire groups with one brush and that is very small thinking and it drives me nuts when I see it. Keep in mind that I will not attend any church anymore but I have been around them all my life, my father was an architect that specialized in designing churches from Argentina to Canada and so we had a great deal of interaction with many faiths and the vast majority from all the main religions were great compassionate people doing good work and caring for their fellow man. When I hear people paint an entire group over the actions if a minority, it calls for debate. The only churches that I won't touch with a ten foot stick is the Baptist. Their down right dislike of those that do not agree is so unchristian that they do not deserve the name. Course my experience with them may be causing me to paint with a broad brush too, but I've been watching those people spew hate for decades.

posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 02:05 PM
reply to post by badmedia

What is with all these people lately that have such a problem with Paul???!!

I figure you must be reading something from the gnostic gospels or something, I'd like to know what it is so I can read it for myself.

BUT anyway, you have taken what he said out of context, and misinterpreted it.

He is not stating he is god, he is stating that no one should favor one teacher of Jesus Christ's gospel over another, the whole thing starts in Corinthians Chapter 3 where he states:

1Brothers, I could not address you as spiritual but as worldly—mere infants in Christ. 2I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready. 3You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere men? 4For when one says, "I follow Paul," and another, "I follow Apollos," are you not mere men?

5What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe—as the Lord has assigned to each his task. 6I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God made it grow. 7So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow. 8The man who plants and the man who waters have one purpose, and each will be rewarded according to his own labor. 9For we are God's fellow workers; you are God's field, God's building.

10By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as an expert builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should be careful how he builds. 11For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 13his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man's work. 14If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. 15If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames.

Then in Chapter 4, which you quoted, he is talking about the fact that he is teaching them the things he learned from Jesus Christ, that he thinks of them as sons, and that they should regard him as a father, to learn from him, the way sons learn from their fathers.

It's obvious if you actually read Corinthians, that Paul is explaining and giving the answers to some questions that have arisen, such as, he is explaining that no one should be saying that Paul was better than Apollos, because they were both trying to do the same thing. An example is Paul saying he laid the foundation (which came from Jesus), and others were building on it.......but regardless of what each did, they were building upon what Jesus gave us, from God, as God is the ultimate builder, or the Architect, if you will.

As far as the Catholic church goes, I can say, as a former Catholic, that in my opinion, the Catholic church has gone very far from the original gospels of the New Testament.

The pope basically claims to be God by saying he is infallible, and church documents say anyone who doesn't believe this, is "anathema" which means cursed.

Documents within the church say that anyone who believes that Jesus is the only mediator between man and God, are "anathema" which means cursed.
But, JESUS DOES SAY that HE is the only mediator between man and God.
That means using a priest to confess your sins to, is not a Biblical practice.

Jesus says, call no man Father (except your own parent which is stated in the commandments to honor your father and mother, and other places in the Bible) because we have one Father, our Father in heaven.

Paul says the leadership of the followers of the gospel of Jesus Christ, should consist of apostles, deacons, teachers, administrators, with every member of the church being a valued member, that the leaders act more like servants than leaders, and that the leaders if they so wish, be married to one wife, acting godly, and their family members should reflect the fact that the head of the family is a godly man that follows the gospel.

One of the greatest reasons I can't be a Catholic any more, though, is the disturbing way the Catholic church is using Mary to replace Jesus as the means of our salvation by His death on the cross.

The church has basically come close to calling Mary the co-mediator, and co-redemptress with Jesus in recent years, also calling her "Queen of Heaven" which in the Old Testament God strictly forbids and punished the Israelites for making cakes for and worshiping the queen of heaven.

The Bible says Jesus said the following about Mary:
"And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked. But he said, Yea RATHER, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it." -Luke 11:27-28

Mary herself even said:

"His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever HE SAITH unto you, do it." -John 2:5


[edit on 10-3-2009 by sezsue]

posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 02:31 PM
reply to post by Hemisphere

The allegations about corrupt Popes are more than that, they are well recorded and acknowledged historical facts as are the cases of paedophilia through which we now live.

The corrupt nature of some of the holders of the Petrine Office the last 2,000 years shows, in a necessarily broader time scale, the imperfections manifest by the first holder of that office in denying Christ. In each generation the Lord continues to ask the Church to affirm that it loves Him and receives the commission to feed His flock. The survival of the institutional Church whilst empires have come and gone due to the corruption of elites is for me not a challenge but an affirmation that the promise of Christ to bestow the Holy Spirit upon that Church is fulfilled generation after generation. There are times in its history where the corruption of the Church’s hierarchy shows that the Church could only have survived by the presence of the Spirit and its true nature as the mystical Body of Christ.

The recent paedophile scandals are truly that, a scandal which has exiled so many from Christ’s Church and the evil of such acts have continued to reap their dark rewards in the attitude toward the Church which has become part of the world’s view of it. The Church will, however, survive this crisis also.

Contrary to popular belief and caricature the scandal does not mean every priest is a predatory paedophile, indeed independent research has shown that from 1950-2002 4% of priests had allegations of abuse made against them. This figure does not diminish the horrors and suffering of the victims of those crimes but the wholesale excoriation of the whole Church citing these horrors is unjustified and for many of the Church’s critics is motivated by something other than justice or concern for the victims. Pope Benedict recently manifest genuine concern for the victims in his private meetings with him which the dogs of the media bayed about because he had the audacity to exclude them from these most intimate and important meetings.

The hierarchy of the Church badly mismanaged these allegations in the past and did so in the ignorance that was common until relatively recently of the nature of such abuse. Their efforts, to avoid scandal, instead multiplied that scandal. I am pleased to note that the Church now has the most stringent protections for children and procedures for dealing with the perpetrators which allows them no refuge. I am also pleased to see that failure to abide by these protocols and procedures involves its own penalties no matter who the individual might be as demonstrated in the recent case of Bishop John Magee whose associations with the highest echelons of the Church were no protection when push literally came to shove.

You ask where were the defenders of Pius XII among the Jewish community when, in 1963, an atheist German playwright first raised the allegations. I shall try to provide some from the time of the War itself and closer to 1963, there are many others which a modicum of research will unveil for you. To start you off you can refer to this resource as a starting point:
From Rabbi David Dalin A Righteous Gentile

In addition I provide here the comments of Albert Einstein:

Being a lover of freedom, when the revolution came in Germany, I looked to the universities to defend it, knowing that they had always boasted of their devotion to the cause of truth; but, no, the universities immediately were silenced. Then I looked to the great editors of the newspapers whose flaming editorials in days gone by had proclaimed their love of freedom; but they, like the universities, were silenced in a few short weeks...
Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler's campaign for suppressing truth. I never had any special interest in the Church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration because the Church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual truth and moral freedom. I am forced thus to confess that what I once despised I now praise unreservedly.
Time Magazine, December 23, 1940 p. 38

I don’t imagine any of this will blunt the edge of the axes you’ve been grinding, but I appreciate your honesty in acknowledging you did not come to this thread to answer Vikingant’s initial request but rather to promulgate, unsourced, your own accusations.

[edit on 10/3/09 by Supercertari]

posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 02:37 PM

Originally posted by munkey66
I have never been able to understand one thing about the Catholic faith.

Why do they pray to saints and the Virgin Mary when Jesus said not to worship anyone or anything but the Father in heaven ?

Raised as a (light, common french ~) catholic, I couldn't agree more.

But on the other hand I'm rather skeptic about the prosty, reffy trends... and specially US ones...

As a Ultra-Left Christian, I see nothing but the Jesus Radicals, Christian Anarchists in the tradition of Leon Tolstoï's anarcho-christism for example, - that really catch and preach the real Political Fundamentals that Christ, and some late Essenism as well as some Early Christianism (read well the Apostle's Acts to see what a truly Socio-Anarchist Society might be...) just embodied - this far from what the Roman Empire decided to do with, in the name and upon The Christ's Euaggelion...

[edit on 10-3-2009 by Rigel]

[edit on 10-3-2009 by Rigel]

[edit on 10-3-2009 by Rigel]

posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 03:32 PM
reply to post by Supercertari

Message received and understood. You are well versed in the history of the Church, a rather formidable apologist. You've piqued my curiosity and if you wouldn't mind I would like to pose a few questions to you. Just your off the cuff responses if you choose to answer would be appreciated. Please, nothing too heavy or referenced. I’m not handing out chores. This is not the basis for an attack on your beliefs and thoughts but more so a testing of my own.

Do you agree with papal infallibility? Are you familiar with Pope Michael I? What is your stance on sedevacantism? Where do you stand on Pope Pius X's condemnation of "modernism"?

Whether you choose to answer these or not, you have my thanks for your spirited replies.

posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 05:44 PM
reply to post by Hemisphere

I here give my off the cuff (or “top of my head”) reply to your questions, resisting the fervent desire to raid the pages of my shelves or the internet!

Do you agree with papal infallibility?

Beyond the willing acceptance of it as a dogma of the Church I do also personally “agree” with it, believe in it if you will, as defined by the Church. I believe that contrary to its misrepresentation as investing a single person with despotic power it is, as all dogmas are, not an innovation but formal definition of an already existing grace. That being that the Office of Peter speaks infallibly to the universal Church on matters of Dogma when he declares that he is doing so and does so in union with that Church as it exists beyond borders of geography and time – that “democracy” which is simper, et ubique, et ab omnibus. The dogma in practise gives the best indicator of its meaning, where the Immaculate Conception and Assumption were dogmatically defined not as something novel but as long standing and universal beliefs of the Church.

Are you familiar with Pope Michael I?

Someone who claims to be the true pope and who has a small following. Who he is I can’t say beyond that recollection.

What is your stance on sedevacantism?

I am aware that there are some who believe the See of Peter has been vacant since Pius XII. I do not hold that belief but am satisfied beyond question that the Seat of Peter remains firmly occupied by those who have followed him. I wasn’t alive to remember John XXII or Paul VI, of the latter I can say that he was a man who it seems to me bore with great heartache the burdens of the last century whilst at the same time showing great bravery in Humanae Vitae, an expression of bravery which perhaps used up his stock of it. I am a fan of John Paul II, who I think showed extraordinary courage and bravery in his life – I would not say his pontificate was without mistakes but I think God knew what he was doing when he picked him. I greatly admire the current Holy Father and sometimes feel a tad disloyal to the memory of his immediate predecessor when I enjoy so much his manner, writings and character. I skipped over one who I shouldn’t, John Paul I, whose brief presence in that long line of succession I truly believe was a manifestation of the divine selection process. I remember so well as a child the month in which every day it seemed this man appeared on our televisions and smiled at the world. He was, if you’ll pardon the pun, a bridge built between the sorrow of Paul VI and the energy of John Paul II.

Where do you stand on Pope Pius X's condemnation of "modernism"?

In so far as my understanding of it allows me to take a stance I think it was (and indeed is) a necessary brake for the Church which, if better applied, might prevent it from becoming to contaminated by the “spirit of the age.” Some say that people have yet to understand Vatican II, which I think is a correct analysis, I would say to them as well that they don’t yet understand the dangers of modernism despite us now living through a time when its dangers have been actualised.

I honestly don't mind answering questions, controversial or not, claiming no authority to my answer beyond them being the still forming opinions of this Catholic.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4 >>

log in