Amos

Hello Veronique, Amos knows what he's doing and would love to see someone defeat his argument.

I should add that I do not condemn protestants themselves but their message of salvation and their defense of it. Some of my friends are protestants, I've gone to Mennonite churches and know them well. Let's just say that I've been around.

With regard tot he Catholics, they should never be condemned on the grounds of their beliefs because religion is just a means to the end and the sheep just follow the leader who sends them West each time the leave church. It is the philosophy behind the Church that is defendable and that is why she is the envy of the world.

Amos

This is based on "free love marriages" that have been arranged in heaven. By arranged in heaven is meant that love is blind to indicate that the attraction is not rational and therefore arranged in heaven (the concept heaven exists in our own mind).

If the marriage was not arranged in heaven it must have been a rational engagement--for whatever reason--and since the Church only blesses marriages arranged in heaven, rational relationships can be excluded . . . for they were never Gods idea to begin with.

The Church hates to bastardize children and is reluctant to grant anullments overnight.

Sabine Grant

Dear Amos Bonjour! oh my... no I would not want to butt head with you on your convictions. I grew up in the catholic church thru my mother's traditional habits rather than her catholic faith per say.

Here is my position Amos....whether you be a catholic or a protestant, my focus and the fondation for my faith are Christ. I mean the 4 Gospels. I will present the same arguments to any christian catholic or protestant who abides to any church doctrine which contradicts the teachings of Christ. I absolutly agree with you that followers need not to be condemned but it is healthy to present to them challenging arguments which may help them to reconsider the dogma they follow( not their faith... not their relationship with God... the dogma).

We are using different terms I think...what you call " philosophy behind the church" I call it dogma.
My usual arguments are the teachings of Christ as well as his ministry , personality and lifestyle. I am very tough about any church leaders who indulge in accumulation of wealth which results in a lavishing lifestyle. I am also equaly tough about the use of honorific titles rebuked by Christ Himself. Any dogma which glorifies ministers and missionaries will be challenged. Any similarities from any church leaders to the pharisees and saducees will be pointed out. Such as the display of religious ranks thru their clothing ( Christ did not care for the exhibition of the tablets worn on the forehead of the Pharisees among other things). I do not consider the model of prayer presented in Luke by Christ to be used as a repetitive prayer.... he meant to guide us on the themes for personal prayer and not make it a rendition... and certainly not a public one.
I also will challenge anyone who claims to be "anointed of God"and places himself or herself in a leading position over the precious sheep using that argument. I also question the claim to be the sole representative of the Holy Spirit and therefor detain the absolute truth.

I also consider that the interpretation of NT verses to nominate any man other than Christ himself as the fondation for any christian church to be false. I do not see any justification or encouragement from Christ in either of the Gospels to promote any human being to the rank of sainthood by canonization. The "saints" are refered to in the NT as the body of believers as a whole ( set apart from the world). As far as salvation is concerned, again the words of Christ sustain my belief not any particular church doctrine. And I do believe that faith is to produce works as James mentions.
I believe that Paul encouraged celibacy for ministers " least they be tempted" which means that it is not to be imposed on them. Let those who want to remain single remain single. Let those who wish to have a family have a family. Peter was married.

IMO Mary would be embarrased by the level of idolatry displayed towards her. The woman was modest and humble. Dedicated to her son. She is under the authority of Christ who even insured while on the cross that John would take care of her.
Sacraments as described in the Gospels ( baptism and communion) are to express dedication and intimacy with Christ. None of them warrant salvation or any particular priviledge. Christ was an adult for his baptism. The first act of communion took place during a Passover meal and is to be performed by the body of believers in rememberance of Christ. His very words.

I disagree with your explaination of marriage annulments concerning God's Will. Hopefuly engaged couples do use reason before they pronounce their vows. Had I used my reason, I would probably have declined my first husband's request to marry after we had taken the time to know one another better and realize how uncompatible we were and that love is not necessarly a choice. My sister had to get an annulment for her first catholic marriage. Because " irreconciliable differences" was not acceptable, ex hubby to be and her had to present adultry as a valid reason for divorce. They had to make it up. She carried the " bad label".

Now... conception control. It should be about conception not birth so I always modify the term. I found nothing in the Gospels where Christ considers that topic to be directed by the church. I can only assume that God leaves it up to the married couple to decide for how many children they wish to raise. If the church indeed entrusts the believers that their faith is genuine and they seek God's Will for themselves, then the church needs to let them decide for the conception of their children. Unless the church feels that as individuals they have no direct communication with God and His Will can only be transmitted thru the church leaders. Which I definitly have a problem with that concept.

In terms of church hierarchy and structure, we find examples of the early church internal functions thru Paul's letters. Elders can be married as well as bishops.Wealth is to be distributed and recycled to help the needy not to be used for priviledges towards the elders. The ranking titles of leaders is limited to elders and bishops ( in a presbyteros or government form of church which is what Paul presents). There is no mention of titles of Holiness or Father or cardinal or archwhatever. It was a simple structure almost similar to the tribal system with a group of elders in charge of the administration and spiritual discipleship of the believers. Note that the term is "discipleship" which is guidance not legalistic regulations which impose a particular dogma.

The original idea and concern of Paul was to establish a social structure for an entire group of people who shared the commonness of following Christ. Christ, he keeps focusing on as the sole motivation to gather together. Not anyone else.

As to the ceremonial and ritual aspect of the gathering of the saints ( Ref in Hebrew), neither Christ in his gatherings with his disciples and the believers who came to listen to his teachings, nor Paul set in place a particular form of mass or service. Paul does warn believers in Corinthians that God is not the author of confusion by giving specifics of confusing behaviors during a gathering. But there are no rituals. The gathering of the saints could occur in a home, a yard, just about anywhere without any need to erect expensive monuments supposedly for the Glory of God. A simple construction would do fine. And needless to say that God would be more glorified and happy about it if the wealth sank into the same monuments and temples were to be distributed to those who do not even have a roof over their head. Which Christ is very familiar with the condition of being homeless.

I honestly have no envy towards any church which places dogma as a way to force feed believers their interpretation of God and His Will. Especialy when the dogma ignores Christ's teachings.

I naviguate in multi denominational churches as I was once paralized in my faith by various church doctrines all claiming to have the absolute truth. They kept me from accepting people different from me. They gave me an image of God that did not fit Christ. I made my choice.... Christ it is. And that is it.

Amos

Hello Sabine and season greetings to you.

For me Catholics are different than protestants in that Catholics are sinners and protestants claim to be saved while yet they remain sinners. This self-righteousness is a problem for them (and for them only) because it closes the door towards further enlightenment (be reminded here that Jesus was counted among the wicked and told Peter to tell noone that he was the Christ). Protestants read the bible wherein they think they have salvation (Jn.5:39-40) and study it to seek and gain righteousness and from this human learnedness they think they can lead other's to Christ-- which I think is the worst thing they can do and deserve the millstone. Yes I will argue that their urge to preach is driven by the fires of hell.

Dogma is as if written in stone and is dogmatic so the gates of hell cannot change them overnight. The philosophy of religion defends Catholic dogma and grounds it in divine truth that therefore should never be changed but must be understood. I do not object to posing questions that lead to an inquiry within the believer and would go so far as to say that an embarrasing 'faith' moment can be a good motivator towards such an inquiry.

I hold that Christ never taught us anything because Jesus was the speaker who himself was not Christ until after the resurrection. No this is not just a semantic issue because to confuse Jesus with Christ makes us into Jesus worshippers instead of followers of Jesus. In other words, we must pick up the cross and follow him and if we worship him we will have already been given a scorpion instead of a fish. Indeed this is a crucial protestant heresy.

I love the wealth of the Church, its history, and power, their ranks etc. In short, I like about all you objected to in your posts. As far as I can tell, the only difference is that I not considder them Christians but Catholics who are in need of redemption and if and when they are redeemed they will resign from their position as Church leader. Oh yes, I also like the repetitive prayer and think it is wrong to have colorfull prayers to impress our peers while telling God he is doing it wrong.


The bible should never be studied by believers but should be like the morsels of food that fell from the rich mans table. In that case they will become real for the believer who is searching (in purple)for spiritual direction and the passages will be like ointment for his/her 'sores.' The Church is the bride of Christ and exists outside of those who occupy its ranks. Yes we have saints and have communion with them through their legacy and artistry. In my view salvation does not belong in the church but is a product of the church. Saved sinners should act like Jesus and "upset the moneychangers" and leave religion behind if ever they are to be set free from the conviction of sin (lest they remain torn between the law and their faith in Jesus). The seventh sacrament (ordination) demands that priest do not get married afterwards. To allow this would condtradict the reality behind the sacrament.

In Catholicism Mary was the driving force behind the redemtion of her son and will be the driving force behind our own salvation and redemption. That is why we say "through Mary to Jesus" and if ever we are to rise with Christ we must come to recognize that Mary is our mother (and not just pretend). The first communion was not Passover but took place after the Resurrection in the Upper room. Passover spared the infancy and Communion celebrates the victory of the child now become fully man.

Sinners need guidance and the church's position is to help believers make decisions. The church knows that conception is sacred and not the result of the sexual act but is at best enabled by the sexual act and therefore not ours to give or take. Many people find it increasingly difficult to conceive children and that is only because they think that they are in charge of their own destiny while the fact is that most of them don't really know who they are, least of all, who they are in charge of. Some evidence here is that only after 30 years of sexual revolt we now find that procreation is not as easy as just having sex. Notice that the church is not promoting the modern gender equal society.

The Church as the bride of Christ is the product of Catholicism and the accumilation of its wealth is matched only by its spiritual richess. The Church is crammed with heaven and we just can't help it if that is how eternal things accumilate.

I'll quite here because it is dinner time for me. Thanks for the reply.

sullster

My reply to the original query from Gemma.

The following words describe my impressions of the catholic church:
Obscuritanistic
Medieval
Patriarchial
Authoritarian
Manipulative
Corrupt
Nihilistic
Irrational

There are some more, but those are the big ones.

Butters

I'm finding I have to revise my opinion of the Catholic Church. Although the church has been guilty of many crimes, they seem much less dangerous today than the fundelmentalists. At least the C.C. has admitted that when the Bible and direct obesrvation come into conflict, we must revise our interpratation of the Bible. Having been persacuted by other religions, they are now more tolerant themselves, and are defenders of church/state seperation. (Even God couldn't help Catholics if Protestents can control the government). This last round of sex scandels will lead to more exposure to what is going on in the church, and mabye force some change. So, seeing how I percive less threat to my liberty from Catholics, I say, more power to them! (Not to imply that all religion is not nonsense, but since it is clear that many people have a need to believe in some sort of nonsense, it's better that they become Catholic than to be "born again")

Amos

Hi sullster, where have you been and how are you? Let's hope you don't have a headache from the Christmas cheer.

Obscurantism is relative and just sets them above the crowd. You should wonder why this is even possible in modern day America.

That they are Medieval speaks for their ability maintain the truth despite all social conflict piled against them.

Patriarchial just means that God is masculine and therefore authoritarian. You should remember here that if al roads lead to Rome, shit also runs downhill from Rome and maybe that is what you seem to encounter in your life.

Manipulative just proves that nothing is new for them in this world as we know it.

Corrupt? Love does not change and is the same throughout the ages. When you see corruption you are looking at the human aspect of the Church out of which we must emerge with victory.

If reason is the enemy of salvation the mystery of faith must be non-rational and that is maybe what you see as irrational.

The Admiral

one of my favorite sayings, ascribed to G.K.Chesterton though I don't think it was original with him. Voltaire maybe.

"The roman Catholic church is obviously of divine origin. No merely human enterprise conducted with such knaveish imbecility could have lasted a fortnight."

Chesterton was a convert to Catholicism in his 40s I believe.

The Admiral

Shake

Well, the building are always quite ornate, but to me this just represents monies that could have been used to actually help people rather than just to say, "Our church is cooler than yours."

Other than some decent people that I've known, I think the best thing that's come from the Catholic Church, is the plaid, pleated schoolgirl skirts!!!!

Beyond that I'm sticking to the "if you don't have something nice to say, keep quiet" rule about the Catholic Church. So, what do I have to say?



*sound of crickets*

MollyMac

Nice one. :notworthy

My own impression is that the Catholic church is full of extremely cruel nuns and priests.

I emphasise that this is only an impression and doubtless there are some perfectly decent chaps in it too, but it's an impression gained from hearing countless testimonies from the Church's victims, particularly in Ireland. That Church has ruined lives..in other words it's much like any other church.