Posted on 12/02/2024 2:21:56 PM PST by daniel1212
Most Catholics in all seven countries want the church to allow Catholics to use birth control.
In most of the countries surveyed, majorities of Catholics also say the church should allow women to become priests.
Opinion is more divided on whether the church should allow priests to get married.
Views on whether the church should recognize the marriages of gay and lesbian couples vary among Catholics in the countries surveyed.
Ten years ago, nearly all Catholics surveyed there (98%) expressed a favorable opinion of Francis, compared with 74% today.
That's just an excuse some Catholics use because they cannot handle the fact that there are people who know Catholic teaching and see how it doesn't line up with Scripture, and choose to go with Scripture instead. They cannot, or will not, accept that the problem is with the Catholic teaching itself. So instead they rationalize that the problem must be that people simply don't know what *proper* church teaching is. If they knew it *properly* then of course they couldn't help themselves and they'd be Catholic.
And most lay Catholics DO know what church teaching is on various subjects. They just choose to ignore it.
I had one elderly Catholic neighbor, committed Catholic, lots of kids, supported the church financially, etc, who was talking with me about homosexual marriage, which she supported, and abortion and said, "I know what the church says about abortions, BUT, no one has the right to tell someone what they can do with their own body."
And then there are all the Catholics I worked with who voted democrat, ignoring the abortion support, because "Democrats are for the poor*".
And yes, quotes in both cases.
Now I know that when you relate events like that from committed, practicing, active in their congregations Catholics, they'll blow it off, but the reality is, there are LOTS of Catholics like that out there. I grew up in a whole family of them which included a couple priests and a num, and heard it all.
FRomans may not like it but the reality is, THAT is where the Catholic church is and has been for decades.
And no, there's not much Bible teaching after Catechism. In my day, reading the Bible was very actively and strongly discouraged. We were told that we couldn't understand it because we were not *properly* trained, like in seminary, so if we had questions, we should ask the priest or nun and they'd tell us what the Bible meant. Not what it said. What they claim it meant.
The Catholic church endorses its own brand of birth control.
They simply relabel it as *Natural Family Planning* and voila, it’s given the church stamp of approval and birth control is sanctioned by the church.
Yes, we can answer it and we have, but Catholics reject the answer and then do a victory lap claiming we can’t answer it.
If you can answer it then please do. Either the Church is infallible in both determining the canon of Bible and in preaching the faith, or it is not infallible in either. You cannot claim that the Church is infallible in determining what is Scripture but not in teaching the faith. The former is only a subset of the latter.
I have a question for you: do the Deuterocanonical / Apocryphal books belong in the Bible? And who gets to decide?
In your opinion. I believe that Catholic teaching does line up with Scripture and that it is Protestant teaching that is contrary to it. Are you claiming an infallibility for yourself that you are denying to the Church as a whole?
better than your side that supports abortions, right?
No one church’s stamp of approval on the Bible validates it as Scripture. Scripture stands on it’s own and doesn’t need man to approve or disprove it. Nor does Catholicism own Scripture that it can control it and decide what it is and isn’t.
The OT is recognized as Scripture based on Jesus’ validation of it. HE referenced the Law and the prophets and called them Scripture well before Catholicism came into being.
Peter recognized Paul’s writings as Scripture long before Catholicism existed.
I honestly am not sure about how the other books, not authored by Paul have been determined, but considering how wrong Catholicism is on so many subjects, I wouldn’t depend on them for verification of anything. Especially in light of the fact that some of what the church has decided is canon has historical errors in them. That immediately calls into question the reliability of Catholic church verification.
Pinging boatbums as she is much more familiar with the subject than I am.
Not infallibility but Catholics, for all their claims of not personally interpreting Scripture, are no different. You also are making your own personal interpretation of Scripture.
The difference is that you throw your hat in with the Catholic interpretation because you have personally looked at it and decided that the Catholic one is correct.
Either way, whether you accept the Catholic position or a non-Catholic one, it’s STILL a decision that you have personally made as to which one is correct.
My understanding is that they are OT books and not recognized as Scripture by the Jews.
Therefore, they would not qualify as Scripture.
Who get s to decide? Well, anyone can add any books they want to the Bible, but that doesn't make them Scripture in the classic sense.
No church is infallible in ANYTHING.
And Catholicism claiming it to be so does not make it so.
Only God is infallible.
Then how can we know what belongs in the Bible and what does not? You are evading the question.
The OT is recognized as Scripture based on Jesus’ validation of it. HE referenced the Law and the prophets and called them Scripture well before Catholicism came into being.
But nowhere does he list which books that includes.
Peter recognized Paul’s writings as Scripture long before Catholicism existed.
But how do we know which books are authenticity Paul's? There have been some disputes about this.
I honestly am not sure about how the other books, not authored by Paul have been determined, but considering how wrong Catholicism is on so many subjects, I wouldn’t depend on them for verification of anything.
So you do not have a way to determine what is Scripture and what is not. This is a problem.
Therefore, they would not qualify as Scripture.
Then your understanding is wrong. At the time of our Lord the Jews accepted the entire Pentateuch. It was only latter that they restricted the Scriptures to those books written in Hebrew. Then again, they also rejected the entire New Testament.
Who get s to decide? Well, anyone can add any books they want to the Bible, but that doesn't make them Scripture in the classic sense.
But who gets to decide what is Scripture in the classic sense? Christianity had a consensus on the Bible for 1500 years until the Protestants remove the Deuterocanonical / Apocryphal books.
The difference is that you throw your hat in with the Catholic interpretation because you have personally looked at it and decided that the Catholic one is correct.
Not quite. I have first accepted the truth claims of the Catholic Church. Then, while studying Scripture I find that they are indeed in line with Catholic teaching while Protestant interpretations are clearly against.
Either way, whether you accept the Catholic position or a non-Catholic one, it’s STILL a decision that you have personally made as to which one is correct.
And with that approach you eliminate faith and replace it with mere opinion. If you were then honest, instead of saying "Scripture says," you would have to replace it with "In my opinion, Scripture says." You would also have to cease from making bold statements that another's belief is against Scripture, and limit yourself to saying that in your opinion it is against Scripture.
Then we can have no certainty of what is and what is not Scripture.
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it ain’t Catholic.
Give Frankie some time. He’s working on it.
So a bunch of imperfect churches can come together and make a perfect whole assembly.
Got it.
The problem was solved by Rome by adding stuff from apparitions and relics and synods.
1 Corinthians 12:26
If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.