Free Republic

One of the reasons I left Rome is their catechism had no glossary entry for “salvation”.

I really have no desire to enter this fever swamp but your claim is untrue. Completely and utterly false. See for example:

http://old.usccb.org/catechism/text/glossary.shtml#s

The pill prevents fertilisation so its not abortion, it prevents the sperm from reaching the egg.

This is the intention of the pill but it often fails. As a backup it prevents implantation of the fertilized egg. This would be an abortion. How often this secondary action occurs is open to debate. But it is fair to say that the pill is abortifacient. I encourage more knowledgeable readers to make my statements more precise.

An IUD before sex prevents fertilisation and is not abortion.

The primary action of an IUD is to prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. The IUD is primarily abortifacient.

Very well said. Thanks.

Your interesting list of facts actually support my statement: The Church has allowed married men to become priests; it has never allowed priests to marry.

That the long history of the Church is fraught with sexual scandal and that many bishops and priests have not been up to their calling is sad but entirely expected. In fact, it was predicted by Jesus himself in the parable of the wheat and tares.

The ordination of married men is not the same thing as allowing priests to marry. The first is as old as the Church, the second only goes back to Luther.

I agree with him on virtually all of his letter; however, it has always seemed to me the height of hypocrisy to say that somehow a marriage that has been consummated by sexual union (”The two shall become one flesh”) can be rationalized as a nullity (”Nope - I hereby decree that these two people were never REEEEEEAALLY married - we were all seeing a mirage”). It is intellectually and spiritually dishonest.

I'm not an expert here but I think your issue is with how Catholics understand marriage. In the Catholic understanding, a sacramental marriage can only takes place between a man and woman (both unmarried and baptized) who understand the purposes of marriage and freely consent to the marriage. In the Catholic view then both of the partners must be committed to an indissoluble union open to life. If these conditions are present, a marriage has occurred and is indissoluble except by the death of one of the spouses. If these conditions have not occurred then there was no marriage regardless of whether or not the ceremony occurred in a Church or the marriage was "consummated" by any number of sexual acts or the production of children.

So, if a man and woman "marry" with one or more of the partners lacking understanding or commitment, no real marriage has occurred and the process of annulment will recognize this. The scandal is not hypocrisy on the part of the Church but of the terrible state of knowledge of your average Catholic and the failure of local authorities to make sure that all conditions are met before the proposed marriage. Things are getting better on both fronts.

Just a small comment from a Catholic father of four children (two girls and two boys): Thank you for your sacrifice and service to our Church.

I’ve read Thomas’ autobiography. He was raised Catholic. He even went to a seminary high school with every intention of becoming a priest. He had a bad personal experience with fellow students (the incident was racial) and he become disillusioned with religion generally.

"Service to the poor" my aching, dying hindquarters.

Socialism does not serve the poor, it serves to impoverish the middle class, and mire the poor in dependency.

This is a marvelous quote. Is it yours or is it from something I should know?

Is it the idolatry of the Mass that blesses you so, or is it the bogus priesthood (they have nothing to offer), or maybe it's just the worship of Mary that is such a thrill for you? Surely it is not the belief in faith+works for salvation that convinces you.

Salvation comes by faith alone, through Christ alone.

Are you really interested in discussing these topics or were you just shaking your fists as the sky?

Thank you for your kind words. I'm not especially interested in fleshing out doctrinal issues. I want to explore the underlying "the Bible contains everything we need to know and the Bible is clear to the well-meaning reader" idea. This seems so obviously false to me.

For just one example, your understanding of baptism can be justified from scripture perhaps, but so can mine. What do you make of passages such as

1) Jesus' words to Nicodemus in John 3:5 "Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit."

2) Romans 6:3-7.

3) Acts 2:38 or 22:16.

or

4) 1 Peter 3:21

It seems that baptism is essential in some way for salvation here.

So you've read the scriptures and found one thing, I've read and found something else. How do we determine what is true?

For that matter, what did Christians do before the scriptures were written, agreed upon, and widely available?

I asked:

1) How do you explain the tremendous disagreement among those who believe that the Bible is entirely clear to its readers and that it is the sole rule of faith?

You wrote:

The un-Godly hate the Godly. There are two sides to this war. It has always been so. If it wasn't, the Egyptians would have just loved the little dickens out of the Israelites.

Do you really believe there is not a struggle between good and evil?

Allow me to clarify. There are dozens of issues on which sincere believers in the creed of "the Bible alone and the Bible is clear" disagree. Is Baptism necessary for salvation? Is the baptism of infants proper or even effective? Is Holy Communion a remembrance or a sacrament? Is it truly the body and blood of Jesus? Etc. These are important questions.

I wrote:

2) Are you aware of what Paul tells us is the pillar and foundation of truth?

You replied:

Jesus Christ. Read 1 Corinthians.

I should have put "pillar and foundation" in quotes. See 1 Timothy 3:15. Paul tells us the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth.

Never mind.....

Why? I still have two questions:

1) How do you explain the tremendous disagreement among those who believe that the Bible is entirely clear to its readers and that it is the sole rule of faith?

and

2) Are you aware of what Paul tells us is the pillar and foundation of truth?

I'm just passing through this thread, and I likely won't be able to see any responses until Monday, but I would like to ask you two questions.

The first is to ask how you explain the tremendous disagreement among those who believe that the Bible is entirely clear to its readers and that it is the sole rule of faith.

The second is to ask you if you are aware of what Paul tells us is the pillar and foundation of truth?

The official line I have been hearing from the bishops in the homilies is that we are supposed to support the Mexican invaders. Turning the other cheek has a limit. I’m not sure that Christ was advocating suicide. There is no question but that the US Catholic Church has embraced socialist politics. I will no more sit and listen to this marxist propaganda in a church than I will listen to it on TV.

I'm not sure it's fair to say that the bishops are pushing to "support the Mexican invaders". It is probably fair to say that most bishops are pushing for a fairly broad amnesty though. This is a prudential decision left to the civil authorities. The relevant sections of the Catechism are:

2241: The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him.

Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants' duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.

It seems pretty clear to me that virtually every immigration proposal being discussed today is consistent with this statement. We determine what we do through the political process here. Bishops should perhaps remember the following:

2442: It is not the role of the Pastors of the Church to intervene directly in the political structuring and organization of social life. This task is part of the vocation of the lay faithful, acting on their own initiative with their fellow citizens. Social action can assume various concrete forms. It should always have the common good in view and be in conformity with the message of the Gospel and the teaching of the Church. It is the role of the laity "to animate temporal realities with Christian commitment, by which they show that they are witnesses and agents of peace and justice."

I have finally parted company with the Catholic Church over its support for the Mexican invasion, and for its refusal to excommunicate Catholics who facilitate the butchering of innocent unborn babies. Anyone who gives a dime to Notre Dame University is contributing to the murder of the innocent. Why are we allowing ourselves to be ruled by this murdering tyrant?

The Catholic Church in America does tend to over-emphasize the "be nice to foreigners in your country" versus the "foreigner must obey the laws" and the "state has a right to control its borders" aspects of Catholic teaching on immigration/migration, but this is a long way from support "for the Mexican invasion".

Why leave the Church because you disagree with the tone the American bishops take on immigration?

bump.

Bump.

Thank you for your comments. You know more about the letter of Clement than I do. My knowledge of the Fathers comes from books of Church History and Jurgens' 3 volume series.

It was just after I became Catholic that I "discovered" the Church Fathers. I know this isn't the usual sequence of events. But finding that the early Church was so clearly the Church I'd just joined was a wonderful gift.

What about the fact that, at the start of the second century, Ignatius takes for granted a church which is hierarchical and sacramental with bishops, priests, and deacons and at least some authority vested in the church at Rome? Couple this with the authentic letter of Clement from about 80 AD and it’s difficult to believe that the Catholic/Orthodox Church isn't exactly what the Apostles intended to leave. And if they didn't understand Jesus, how can we expect to?