Posted on 02/07/2005 9:05:30 AM PST by skellmeyer
I've already responded to you on the definition of "anathema" according to your own sources. Ergo, my first post stands.
Well, if you remember, we started with differences between Christians and Muslims. You have started this thread yourself. Now it seems that petty differences between Christians and gaining power over non-catholics are more important to RC church and you than all problems stemming from Muslim intolerance. There is no love in your words whatsoever, sorry. I cannot continue like that. That's what I perceive as a major problem with Catholic church. Power over people is more important and has always been more important throughout the history than any unity among Christians. In fact, I cannot but remember the 4th Crusade that was supposed to be fought against Muslims but ended with sacking of Constantinople instead. It seems nothing has changed since then as far as some Catholics are concerned. A pity.
I'm not sure about Jewish women, but Protestant women have total access to everything (the Bible, clergy, various written resources, etc.) Protestant men do, except for (in some denominations) ordination.
Are you saying that Muslim women have that too?
Okay. Define how Muslims view "priesthood".
Other Protestants have clergy (Lutherans) and allow dancing and drinking spirits in moderation as well as dancing.
As to how we Catholics view our fellow sinners and Christians who are not in union with the Church: any group that teaches anything other than what Christ and His Church teach is heretical. Christ and His Church have always condemned artificial contraception and deliberate abortion as being acts of grave depravity -- mortal sins. Therefore, any group that teaches that artificial contraception and/or abortion are acceptable behaviors for a Christian is teaching error -- and is therefore anti-life, anti-Church, and antichrist.
This is not to say that any given individual is antichrist. The Church and its temporal Vicar have the right and duty to approve or condemn any teaching purporting to be that of Christ. The Pope and the Bishops in union with him have the Authority of the Keys, given to them by Our Lord Himself, to bind and loose both in Heaven and on Earth. This authority gives them the right in the Name of Christ to pass judgment on any doctrine of men. As to the spiritual state of any given person who may belong to one of these groups, that is not for any man to judge.
An "Islamic leader" isn't clergy? Please explain.
Does that mean a Muslim woman with a sense of leadership could step outside of her house and say, "I declare a fatwa on blah blah blah," and people around her would listen?
"That there is only One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church we are compelled by faith to believe and hold, and we firmly believe in her and sincerely confess her, outside of whom there is neither salvation nor remission of sins . . . Furthermore, we declare, state, and define that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of all human beings that they submit to the Roman Pontiff [Porro subesse Romano Pontifici omni humanae creaturae declaramus, dicimus, definimus, et pronunciamus omnino esse de necessitate salutis]."So, either Pope Boniface VIII was not only wrong, but downright heretical in his bull, or it is the official Catholic teaching that all Protestants are going to hell.-- POPE BONIFACE VIII, Bull Unam Sanctam (November 18, 1302 AD) as cited in The Christian Faith by Neuner/Dupuis, page 280-1
If that is all you're trying to say, you could say similar things about Catholics resembling Muslims. This is meaningless.
Thanks for your thoughts.
So far we have 2 Catholics in agreeance with the rest of us being pimps/prostitutes and our children "corpses", and one opposed.
No you can't.
You're welcome.
I'm curious on one point, though: Would you not agree that a woman whose sexual function serves only as a means of pleasure for a man is a whore?
As for children being corpses, this applies only to the ones who are physically killed by the use of artificial contraception and/or abortion.
Thanks!
As I pointed out, an anathema, in Catholic usage, is a formal excommunication. You can't excommunicate a non-Catholic, because they aren't able to communicate in the first place.
None of those anathemas apply to you or to HarleyD.
It's possible to argue about whether they applied to e.g., Luther or Calvin personally, however.
The "Papists condemn all Protestants to hell but think Hindus are saved" line is getting kind of old. It comes from a rather willful and selective reading of various things. Protestants have more of the means of salvation at their disposal (especially valid baptism and the Scriptures) than do Hindus. You start out ahead, therefore, you ought to finish ahead.
Thanks for the discussion anyway. It is interesting.
How about if her sexual function also serves as a means of pleasure for her? It seems remarkably sexist to reduce sex to whether or not it provides sexual pleasure for the man.
That's enough. If you haven't learned your lesson after a week off, you'll be gone completely in short order.
Please note the pronoun. Last time I checked, saying "I think you're going to hell" is not the same thing as saying "I'm herewith sending you to hell".
God gets the last call, as always.
The point also remains that canonical penalties have nothing to do with non-Catholics, and the penalty of anathema does not exist, even for Catholics, since 1983.
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.