Many Catholics in the U.S. and Latin America Want the Church to Allow Birth Control and to Let Women Become Priests

pew research ^ | September 26, 2024 | Jonathan Evans and Kelsey Jo Starr

[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.

[Petrosius]

So - what have you found in chapter 3 besides fatih that is needed?

I have already pointed out many passages where Paul shows that we need to keep the moral law, that sin can keep us out of heaven. Our Lord himself also makes this clear:

Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name? Then I will declare to them solemnly, ‘I never knew you. Depart from me, you evildoers.’ (Matt. 7:21-23)

Now someone approached him and said, “Teacher, what good must I do to gain eternal life?” He answered him, “Why do you ask me about the good? There is only One who is good. If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.” He asked him, “Which ones?” And Jesus replied, “ ‘You shall not kill; you shall not commit adultery; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness; honor your father and your mother’; and ‘you shall love your neighbor as yourself.’” (Matt. 19:16-19)

Will you not listen to Jesus, too?

[Elsie]

Works of the Mosaic Law. Why do you keep ignoring this point. Paul makes this clear in verse 17, which you seem to ignore.

 

I somehow ignored 17?

 

 

17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

 

 

What WAS the 'covenant'? What WAS the 'Promise'?

 

 

 

 

 

Did I miss THESE as well?

 

 

11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.

 

12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.

 

 

 

[Elsie]

... keeping the moral law is also needed in addition to faith.

I throw Holy Water in your direction!

---

One CANNOT 'keep the moral law'!

[Elsie]

I have already pointed out many passages where Paul shows that we need to keep the moral law, that sin can keep us out of heaven.

Paul 'showed' nothing.

Rome INTERPRETS it this way - keeping it's members in a state of fear of LOSING their salvation if they do NOT get regular and periodic absolution from their priest.

[Elsie]

Speaking of ignoring stuff...

I publicly slapped you in the face in reply #263.

Gonna comment on it?

[Petrosius]

What you are ignoring is that Paul is speaking specifically of the Mosaic Law, unless you believe that the moral law also came 430 years after Abraham, that before Moses idolatry, murder, theft, etc. were not sins. For how could they be if the moral law only came 430 years after Abraham?

[Petrosius]

Paul 'showed' nothing.

Let's try again:

I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. (Gal. 5:21)

Explain how one can be saved by faith alone and still be blocked from the kingdom of God because of sin.

[Petrosius]

I love your shotgun approach. I would appreciate it if you could reduce it to a particular point that we could discuss. But I would start with the idea that any help that Mary gives to us is only as an adjunct to Jesus Christ; she is not the source of our salvation, which seems to be what you are inferring by your selected quotations. I will not play “gotcha” theology. Pick a single document and we can discuss it. We can discuss others afterwards.

[Petrosius]

One CANNOT 'keep the moral law'!

By God's grace we do the best we can. But also keep in mind the distinction between mortal and venial sin. Only that latter separates us from God. (I know that you do not accept this distinction but it is an important one.) And if one were to commit a mortal sin, all he would have to do is repent and seek forgiveness in confession. See, a pure gift and not something that I "earn" through works.

[fidelis]

…

[Elsie]

 Explain how one can be saved by faith alone and still be blocked from the kingdom of God because of sin.

                                            ^

                                            |

                                            |

                                            |

                                            |

                                                                                                     and follow all the Catholic rules
             

[Elsie]

she is not the source of our salvation, which seems to be what you are inferring by your selected quotations.

So - you get to pick and choose which of the ECF's teachings you wish to follow?

You're almost a Prot!

---

At Fatima , Our Lady told us very plainly that "Only I can help you". Today more than ever is this so true.

Jesus said "Without Me you can do nothing". In this crisis which looms ahead of us, Our Lady has told us that we need Her help, Her intercession. We must ask for Her help with the Rosary and the Scapular.

 

Pray the Rosary and sacrifice yourself for Our Lady.

I urge you to also make some sacrifices as Our Lady of Fatima asked us. For those who are able, do some fasting. If you can, abstain from meat by eating meat only during one meal a day. Try to do this for two days, even ten days or 30 days. Of course we should abstain totally from meat every Friday.

 

 Jesus and Mary — Our Hope

It is so urgent that we reach as many souls as possible before it is too late. Let us be of good cheer and remember the words of Jesus to each of us, "It's never too late to have recourse to Jesus and Mary." That is why it is so important to reach the many millions of souls who do not know this, and who do not know the grave dangers lying in wait for their souls.

No, we must never lose hope. Mary is our hope. She can obtain for us what we cannot by ourselves. Read what St. Alphonsus has to say regarding confidence in Our Lady's intercession in "Mary Leads Her Servants to Heaven". Father Manelli also reminds us of the importance of devotion to Our Lady. (See "Hail Mary, Full of Grace"). Our Blessed Mother tells us to turn to Her in confidence. She tells us repeatedly to ask Her intercession through the frequent fervent praying of the Rosary. (See "The Rosary"). She tells us we must pray the Rosary every day. She wants us to pray it many times a day.

 

 

 

https://fatima.org/at-this-time-of-world-crisis-fatima-is-our-only-hope/

[Elsie]

But also keep in mind the distinction between mortal and venial sin. Only that latter separates us from God.

I guess Rome gets to choose 'sin' falls into what bracket - right?

---

Matthew 5:17-20 Douay-Rheims Bible

Jesus Fulfills the Law

17 Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. 18 For amen I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot, or one tittle shall not pass of the law, till all be fulfilled. 19 He therefore that shall break one of these least commandments, and shall so teach men, shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. But he that shall do and teach, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

20 For I tell you, that unless your justice abound more than that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Does the 'least' fall into the moral or venial class?

[Elsie]

This short prayer is like a small exorcism.

[Petrosius]

So you still cannot explain how one can be saved by faith alone and still be blocked from the kingdom of God because of sin. You can obfuscate, dance around it, and try to distract with other issues all you want, but your inability to to explain this contradiction illustrates that the idea of salvation by faith alone is contrary to Scripture.

[Elsie]

So you still cannot explain how one can be saved by faith alone and still be blocked from the kingdom of God because of sin.

True, I can't - but this fella said...

1 John 5:18 ESV

We know that everyone who has been born of God does not keep on sinning, but he who was born of God protects him, and the evil one does not touch him.

---

I think we both agree that a 'believer' does NOT magically become a person who NEVER sins again.

Thus the question becomes, "How much sin can a Christian do after he believes, before God says - "Ok buster: that's enough. No heaven for you!"

I think a math multiplication staement might have an ability to shed some light on this subject...

70 X 7

[Cronos]

R2nd 3rd Century. When Roman Catholicism began.

That is historically false

You can read it in scripture in Matthew 16:18-19, John 21:15-17 and most especially the Church's birth at Pentecost circa 33 AD when the Holy Spirit descended on the apostles, and Peter preached, baptizing 3,000 (Acts 2:41). This marks the public beginning of the Christian community under apostolic leadership. This shows a ructured community led by Peter and the apostles in Jerusalem within the 1st century.

This is also corroborated historically by early Christian writings

1 Clement 42–44: Clement, the fourth pope, writes that the apostles appointed bishops and provided for their succession, indicating continuity from the 1st century.

Early sources like Ignatius of Antioch (circa 107 CE, Letter to the Romans) and Irenaeus of Lyons (circa 180 CE, Against Heresies 3.3.2) affirm Peter’s leadership in Rome and the Roman church’s preeminence.

Ignatiurs of Antioch in his letters c. 197 AD refers to the “Catholic Church” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 8.2), one of the earliest uses of the term, describing a universal Church with a clear structure of bishops, including Rome’s prominence.

This is also corroborated in the Didache - dated to 55 AD which describes baptism, Eucharist, and communal prayer, mirroring Catholic practices.

And Justin Martyr’s First Apology (circa 150 CE) details a liturgy recognizable as Catholic, including Eucharist and readings, rooted in 1st-century traditions.

This is proven archaeologically when the excavations beneath St. Peter’s Basilica in the 1940s–1960s uncovered a 1st-century necropolis with a tomb venerated as Peter’s, marked by inscriptions and early Christian graffiti (e.g., “Peter is here”). Pope Pius XII (1942) and later studies confirmed its association with Peter’s martyrdom (circa 64–67 CE). --> the veneration of Peter’s tomb in Rome by the 1st century supports the claim that the Roman church was a central apostolic seat from its earliest days.

The House churches and catacombs like the Catacomb of San Sebastiano from the 1st–2nd centuries show organized Christian worship, consistent with a structured Church.

nwrep's nonsense about the 4th century is the familiar Constantine myth - easily disproved by the fact that the Assyrian Church under the Sassanid Persian empire, and the Marthomite church in Kerala, India, had split from the CAtholic-Orthodox-Oriental Church in 240 AD and they retain the episcopal structure, the dogma about the Theotokos, Trinity etc, the belief in the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist etc.

The fact is that historically, linguistically and archaeologically, the Church was founded in the 1st century - evidenced through biblical texts (Matthew 16:18–19, Acts 2), early Christian writings (1 Clement, Ignatius, Irenaeus), archaeological evidence (Peter’s tomb), and liturgical continuity (Didache, Justin Martyr). Claims of a 3rd/4th-century origin reflect the Church’s institutional growth post-Constantine, not its founding, as pre-Constantinian evidence shows an established Roman church with apostolic roots.

[Cronos]

you guys refer to the Council of Nicea, but have you even read anything of what that council discussed (forget about agreed on)?

or let me take a more basic fact -- you, R2nd, wrote brought together approximately 300 bishops from across the Roman Empire.

The fact that there were bishops and this invitation was sent to the Bishop of Rome, should tell you that there ALREADY WAS a hierarchical structure, an episcopate in place

Did you ever stop to think THAT?

[Cronos]

Regarding the First Council of Nicea - Pope Sylvester I, the bishop of Rome from 314 to 335 CE, was the reigning pope during the council and he sent representatives (legates) to act on his behalf, a common practice for bishops, especially those of advanced age (sylvester was in his late 60s) or with logistical constraints. The evidence shows that Sylvester’s legates, Vitus (or Vito) and Vincentius, both priests, represented Rome at the council, affirming the pope’s authority and involvement without his physical presence.

Eusebius (Life of Constantine 3.7) and other sources confirm that Vitus and Vincentius, priests sent by Sylvester, represented the Roman see. Their presence is noted in the council’s proceedings, and they signed the Nicene Creed and canons on behalf of Rome, indicating papal endorsement.

Irenaeus in his 180 AD Against Heresies wrote that the bishop of Rome held a position of honor due to the city’s apostolic foundation by Peter and Paul --> this was acknowledged by the Council of Nicaea’s Canon 6

The council’s decisions, including the Nicene Creed and the condemnation of Arianism, were sent to Rome for approval, as noted by later historians like Sozomen Ecclesiastical History c 440 AD

[Cronos]

And I'm going to bet that neither of you realize that the Council of Nicea already had the Catholic dogmas, theology and ecclesiastic structure in place and the council was about something else completely

Do you even know WHAT was discussed?

The major impetus for the calling of the Council of Nicaea arose in a theological dispute among the Christian clergy of Alexandria concerning the nature of Jesus, his origin, and relation to God the Father

The Trinity was already acknowledged but Arius taught a lighter form of adoptionism

• The outcome of the council was the Nicene creed and some aspects of canon law like

  ordination of a bishop in the presence of at least three provincial bishops and confirmation by the metropolitan bishop

• confirmation of ancient customs giving jurisdiction over large regions to the bishops of Alexandria, Rome, and Antioch
• recognition of the honorary rights of the see of Jerusalem
• those who were fulfilling penance could receive communion if they were dying, but if they got well again, they were to finish their penance
• bishops, presbyters, and deacons were not to wander into neighboring cities to officiate

These should tell you that the structure was already in place - as evidenced in 1st and 2nd century writings.

So conclusively, the Church was formed in the 1st century at Pentecost.