A real problem for the roman catholic church

[Martin Aigner]

Guess this has to be a real problem for the roman catholic church. Now who cares about sexscandals, ignonrant opinions about condoms, aids and homosexuality, etc. when there are so much more important things for the Vatican to think about.

http://www.csaceliacs.org/CDintheNews/MSNBC081704.php

Best regards

Martin Aigner

[Nepa]

Gotta love the math here!!!!

[ QUOTE ]
PELLY-WALDMAN: Right. But the most recent study out of the University of Pennsylvania Center for Celiac Research is suggesting now that 1 in 133 people actually have Celiac.

OLBERMANN: What sort of percentage of that? Nationwide, is it two or three percent?

PELLY-WALDMAN: Yes, yes.



[/ QUOTE ]

[bernie]

The church strikes another blow for unconditioniality. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Like it should really matter what the hell the wafer is made from. Not really suprising. Par for the course for this cult.

They oughtta make the priest wear 'blessed' gloves. Because god only knows where his hands were before the service. The altar boy looks like he needs a winston.

b

[Al_Capone_Junior]

Here's my favorite part of this interview:

[ QUOTE ]
PELLY-WALDMAN: Right. But the most recent study out of the University of Pennsylvania Center for Celiac Research is suggesting now that 1 in 133 people actually have Celiac.

OLBERMANN: What sort of percentage of that? Nationwide, is it two or three percent?

PELLY-WALDMAN: Yes, yes.



[/ QUOTE ]

1 in 133 = two or three percent.

Ok, thanks for clearing me up on the math of it all.

This entire article shows much of the reasons why I view organized religion with great disdain.

FKing morons, all of them. The pope and all of his moron cronies can kiss my fking ass.

al

[La Brujita]

I know religions are often rigid but for some reason this story really pissed me off. Shouldn't they try to get a bit of goodwill these days?

[dogmeat]

Amazing. Important stuff to worry about. Reminds me (not sure why) of the local police always rounding up some hookers to show they are working, instead of actually solving an already existing crime.

[Dominic]

Okay, I agree...stupid rule by a ridiculously arcane and useless religion...and I was raised Catholic...but I do have something to say for the side of the pedarests, ur, I mean priests...

It's simple: if you wanna belong to the club, you gotta play by the rules.

Religions have rules. No matter how stupid those rules may be, if you don't follow them, you aren't a part of the freakin' club.

If you think you're Catholic but you practice birth control, guess what? You ain't a Catholic. If you want to take communion but not in the manner the Catholic Church requires you to, you ain't a Catholic.

Stupid? Of course. But no one's forcing anybody to be Catholic. Don't like the rules? Start your own church.

Like Martin Luther.

/images/graemlins/cool.gif

[Duke]

Let her burn with the rest of the heathens who can't eat wheat. She's probably a witch, too. I bet she floats.

Don't worry, it's not just the Catholic church that I think is retarded.

~D

[Stu Pidasso]

Holy communion can be recieved via bread or wine. Thats been the doctrine for the last 2000 years. There was never a need to subsitute a rice wafer for a wheat wafer in this situation.

Stu

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
Like Martin Luther

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, and a proud anti semite he was.

Leave it to the vatican to put ridicous conditions on symbolism. Im sure Jesus would deny her communion also, wouldn't he? I think that was in the fine print of the flyer in his sermon on the mount. Good thing they brought the 'right' kind of fish and bread. What would they ever have done if they brought the wrong kind?

Idiots.

b

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
There was never a need to subsitute a rice wafer for a wheat wafer in this situation

[/ QUOTE ]

There probably was, but the reciever was likely deemed unworthy and that a demon caused the person to reject the 'special' eucharist. Of course the church wouldn't brag about that sort of thing...

God'd forbid.

b

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
There probably was, but the reciever was likely deemed unworthy and that a demon caused the person to reject the 'special' eucharist. Of course the church wouldn't brag about that sort of thing...


[/ QUOTE ]

You sound just like Jokerswild. Are you related to him?

Stu

[bernie]

Never heard of him.

b

[Zeno]

My Comment:

The vatican lacks faith.

Nuff said, methinks.

Le Misanthrope

[smudgex68]

fundamentalism - lmao

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Leave it to the vatican to put ridicous conditions on symbolism

[/ QUOTE ]

Catholics don't believe that communion is symbolic.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
Catholics don't believe that communion is symbolic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Um...

I had to read that line a couple times to actually believe someone wrote that.

It's the symbol of the body of christ last i heard. Sharing of the 'hosts' body in representation of the last supper. Ever hear the squawk they say when they are breaking the bread and blessing the wine? Yeah, it's symbolic.

Or do you think it's just a snack break near the end of a mass? There is heavy symbolism associated with communion.

Everything except the parish announcements in a mass is symbolic.

b

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Catholics don't believe that communion is symbolic.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Um...

I had to read that line a couple times to actually believe someone wrote that.

[/ QUOTE ]

He's right Bernie. It shows how little you know about Catholic doctrine. Do a google search on "Transubstantiation".

Stu

[Zeno]

Elwoodblues and Stu are right. But one thing that is done is that the priest drinks the wine for all. I think this is correct, right?

In other words the faithful at mass only eat the wafer (bread = Body of Christ) only and do not drink wine (= Blood of Christ). The Priest is the only one that does this whereas in most protestant churches everyone also gets a sip of wine.

-Zeno

[ThaSaltCracka]

Everyone who has gone through Holy Communion gets to take the bread and wine at mass.

[Dominic]

I was raised Catholic...whe I went through my first communion, we were taught that after the Priest blesses the berad and wine, we are LITERALLY eating of the Body of Christ. Ain't no symbolism about it.

[Zeno]

Thanks for the correction. There must still be residual protestant propaganda from years ago floating around in my head.

-Zeno

[ThaSaltCracka]

no prob, FWIW, I think there is a lot of misconception in regards to the Catholic church, and also to a lot of religions. People will hear stories and start to make assumptions based upon those stories. I am Catholic, but I am sure there is a lot I don't know about my faith or about Christianity either, but part of it is that I simply just don't care. I am not consumed by my faith or by church... so I suppose I am an apothetic Catholic, if that is possible.

[bernie]

Got me on that one. I forgot all about that. Ill say 10 hagre magres and be forgiven.

However, in further research on it, you will notice that it actually and technically, by belief/dogma, wreaks of sorcery and magik which is conveniently condemned by the church if it were presented this way by other religions. Unless of course, they use it. Another great hypocritical one-way stance by the church.

It's still all a bunch of crap. But thank you for further educating my knowledge of catholic doctrine to use against themselves. Im always up for patching holes that develop in my arguments. Knowledge is power. Which is why the church supresses it so much.

b

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Knowledge is power. Which is why the church supresses it so much

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps you could fill even more holes in your arguments by enrolling in a Catholic theology class. You should be able to enroll in one at one of the 230 Catholic Universities in this country. Georgetown, Notre Dame, Gonzaga are good schools. If you want to stay local, I believe SU is a Jesuit University located in your area.

Stu

[bernie]

I've actually thought about it. My uncle was a jesuit professor at SU.

But i much prefer to do it on my own as a hobby which has served me well for my purposes. It's amazing what you can learn from a trip to the local bookstore/library in the world history/religion section. Which saves thousands of dollars. It's really not that difficult of a subject to learn about with a little effort. Which many catholic/christians refuse to do. I was forced as a kid to learn about it. In deprogramming myself from it, some stuff gets blocked out/forgotten. Though not much.

I also refuse to give one penny voluntarily to any association of the church or any other cult.

b

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
But i much prefer to do it on my own as a hobby which has served me well for my purposes

[/ QUOTE ]

That's quite an ironic statement given that this line in the thread began with a misstatement of Catholic beliefs, followed up by a second misstatement when corrected.

It very well might be a silly belief...that is irrelevant to whether you actually understand the belief.

[bernie]

Hey, i'm not perfect. I miss on occasion. Big whoop. I also admit when i do miss. When it comes to religion, especially chritianity, savor it when i do miss. When corrected, i study that part even more. Which leads to finding even more firepower to throw at the church/religions.

Trust me, i understand the catholic belief system full well. Even that depends on which person you talk to as it can be/has been interpreted many different ways. The fact is, the belief is built upon the foundation of fear and manipulation in the followers and persecution of the non believers. It's also a matter of the origin of said belief. The agenda. Which many don't know about and never bothered to look into. It's not quite as innocent of a belief system as many would think. Which amazes me when people still follow this crap blindly. But to each his own.

b

[Clarkmeister]

"Trust me, i understand the catholic belief system full well."

It's painfully obvious with every post you make in this thread that your knowledge is rather limited, and certainly not nearly as strong as you seem to think it is.

Believe what you wish about the Catholic faith, one thing you can't say is that their doctrine isn't clearly spelled out and detailed. The second anything even seems to be open to interpretation, the Vatican acts by issuing a clarification on the official Church position. Your entire second paragraph in the post I am responding to is basically nonsense, and this is coming from someone who thinks the official Church stances on many issues are not just wrong, but very damaging to their followers.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
Trust me, i understand the catholic belief system full well. Even that depends on which person you talk to as it can be/has been interpreted many different ways.

[/ QUOTE ] ..... everything that followed that was completely and totally your interpretations and opinion. You can have your own opinion, which you seem to think is totally right and superior, but there is no reason to completely trash someone else's opinion.

[WDC]

Catholics do not believe that communion is symbolic. Catholics believe that the wafer actually transnutes into the body of Christ. Most western Christian religions; i.e. Lutherans and Methodists do not share this belief. That being said, I do not believe that there is any church doctrine that states that gluten or wheat is necessary for the transmutation ( I am pretty sure that is not exactly the right word) tp take place. I would think the Church will haveto take the stance that the power of Christ can transmute into a gluten free wafer.

[WDC]

In most churches in America at least the parishners take both wafer and wine, but the practice only started in the last 25 years or so.

[Taxman]

actually, it was true that originally only the priest was allowed to partake in the wine on a regular basis (I am not sure but the masses might have had a very few rare chances). This was one of many changes within the Catholic church that is relatively recent.

[Taxman]

Martin Luther did not start his own church. Other people did it for him. All he wasnted was limited changes within the Old Catholic church.

[Pope John Paul II]

[ QUOTE ]
Here's my favorite part of this interview:

[ QUOTE ]
PELLY-WALDMAN: Right. But the most recent study out of the University of Pennsylvania Center for Celiac Research is suggesting now that 1 in 133 people actually have Celiac.

OLBERMANN: What sort of percentage of that? Nationwide, is it two or three percent?

PELLY-WALDMAN: Yes, yes.



[/ QUOTE ]

1 in 133 = two or three percent.

Ok, thanks for clearing me up on the math of it all.

This entire article shows much of the reasons why I view organized religion with great disdain.

FKing morons, all of them. The pope and all of his moron cronies can kiss my fking ass.

al

[/ QUOTE ]

Reported to moderator.

[Zeno]

Ahh - so there is some 'truth' to this. Was the change done at Vatican II or at some time much earlier? I'm too lazy to find out for myself at this point, the theological convolutions and internal bickerings of the church being hard to keep up with, understand, and too time consuming for whatever rewards you may garner from it etc. Anyway, thanks for the clarification.

-Zeno

[ThaSaltCracka]

I tried looking it up as well, my guess is that it was before Vatican II..... I looked to me like one of the Pius popes did it.

[MMMMMM]

Saltcracka,

This touches on one of the philosophical problems I have with Petrine doctrine. It is hard to articulate my thinking on this, but it runs along the line of having a lot more faith in what Jesus said than in what a Pope said.

Of course the doctrine of Papal Infallibility is called into question too by this line of thought. Well, I think it should be called into question.

Seriously, if I were a practicing Christian, I would base my actions, prayers and devotions in accordance with the words of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels...nothing more nothing less...I have not studied the differences between Petrine and Pauline doctine in depth, but again, I would prefer to follow Jesus rather than to follow his supposed representative. And I do not see why Christians should make things more complicated than to follow the teachings of Jesus in the Gospels.

[ThaSaltCracka]

MMMMMM,
1. please explain what the Petrine doctrine is? I am Catholic, but as I said earlier, I really don't pay much attention to this stuff.
2. [ QUOTE ]
And I do not see why Christians should make things more complicated than to follow the teachings of Jesus in the Gospels.

[/ QUOTE ] See the gospels are somewhat skewed though. There are supposedly many gospels that were written, however only four were chosen to be in the Bible, and each of those 4 gospels have similarities and differences in them.

I for one don't read anything in the Bible, partly because its boring, partly because I had to read it all the time while I was in school, and partly because I think its irrelavant.

This may sound really cheesy, but The Da Vinci Code has sparked the skepticism that I had while I was a youth, which use to piss off every religion teacher that ever had to deal with me.

[MMMMMM]

Salt,

I cannot explain it right now as a relative is coming this evening and I must pick up at the airport. My loose recollection is that Petrine doctrine has to do with a direct spirtual lineage, as it were, fromn Jesus throught Peter and so on, which is supposedly the Catholic Church to this day. Also, I do not know much about it really anyway.

Search Google; there are many links on Petrine and Pauline doctrine, which links can tell you far more about it than I can.

As for the Gospels being skewed; that is not at all unlikely. Yet still I would have more confidence in the words of Jesus than in the words of a Pope.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
This touches on one of the philosophical problems I have with Petrine doctrine. It is hard to articulate my thinking on this, but it runs along the line of having a lot more faith in what Jesus said than in what a Pope said.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you were Catholic, you would believe that Jesus Christ is one person in the Trinity that is God, and that the Pope is Christ's vicar on earth. The truths that Christ spoke are absolute truths, meaning they never change. Anything the Pope says should not contradict anything that Christ said. If it does than there is a problem.

[ QUOTE ]
Seriously, if I were a practicing Christian, I would base my actions, prayers and devotions in accordance with the words of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels...nothing more nothing less...I have not studied the differences between Petrine and Pauline doctine in depth, but again, I would prefer to follow Jesus rather than to follow his supposed representative.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a certain logic to the belief that Christ would leave a vicar on earth. Let me try to explain this. As man progresses, man encounters new moral challenges. For instance, if Christ had said to the apostles, "Thou shall not Clone" the apostles would surely answer, "Lord, WTF is cloning?". People of the time would have a difficult time comprehending the concept of cloning. When Christ instituted his Church, it does not make any sense that he would abandon it to find its own way. What does make sense is that Christ would provide some mechanism by which the Church he instituted would be guided. Catholics believe that mechanism is a physical vicar(One deputed or authorized to perform the functions of another), and that vicar is the Pope.

Stu

[Zeno]

Your thesis fails on more than just one or two counts.

The pope evolved from the Bishop of Rome. There were other notable bishops also in the early church, at Alexandria and Constantinople for example. In fact the first large schism in the church was the East- West split when the eastern bishops told the Bishop of Rome to kiss off. And most important early decision and doctrine making and the construction of a Christian theology were made and decided by councils, the council of Nicea being a prime example. The Niceain creed was concocted at this famous gathering after much quibbling and debate. Almost all Christians recite, and are suppose to believe the contents of this creed, usually during the service or at special times of the church year.

So the authority of the pope or Vicar of Christ evolved over time and was mixed with politics, thirst for power, and rivalries between bishops. The direct lineage concept was made up after the fact. Indeed, the evolution of the Papacy is laced with fraud, forgery, (The donation of Constantine being a prime example), chicanery, political knavery, rape, murder, megalomania, and outright human slaughter.

It's a rather long and ugly tale.


It is also very debatable that Christ actually instituted a church or even wanted to, or saw himself as a builder or founder of a 'church'. His followers did gather and have an organization but it was at first only a splitter group with Judaism and not a real separate entity. St. Paul, bless his heart, was the person that really manufactured 'the church'.

That's all for now.

-Zeno

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
If you were Catholic, you would believe that Jesus Christ is one person in the Trinity that is God

[/ QUOTE ]

What? By definition there are three people in the trinity that are God. I have no idea what you're driving at here.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Your thesis fails on more than just one or two counts.

[/ QUOTE ]

My post was about Catholic doctrine and the rationale behind it. Your lengthy response has failed to show how my post is in error with Catholic doctrine.

Stu

[Stu Pidasso]

From dictionary.com

Trinity

\Trin"i*ty\, n. [OE. trinitee, F. trinit['e], L. trinitas, fr. trini three each. See Trinal.] 1. (Christian Theol.) The union of three persons (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost) in one Godhead, so that all the three are one God as to substance, but three persons as to individuality.

Its not just Catholics that believe in the Trinity, other Christian groups do as well. In fact I think one of the evangelical cable channels is TBN or Trinity Broadcasting Network.

Stu

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
My post was about Catholic doctrine and the rationale behind it.

[/ QUOTE ]

My post was to point out that the rationale for Catholic doctrine is not based on historical facts and indeed ignores them completely. I think that it is important that this be pointed out.


[ QUOTE ]
Your lengthy response has failed to show how my post is in error with Catholic doctrine.


[/ QUOTE ]

Correct. But that was not my purpose (see first comment above). I am not steeped in the arcane and metaphysical technicalities of Catholic theology. Although I may have something to say about this trinity thing.

-Zeno

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
My post was to point out that the rationale for Catholic doctrine is not based on historical facts and indeed ignores them completely. I think that it is important that this be pointed out.


[/ QUOTE ] I am not sure if this is proven, but there is some evidence that this may be true. I have been wondering about this for a little while.

[ QUOTE ]
Although I may have something to say about this trinity thing.

[/ QUOTE ] My understanding is that the trinity represents three different bodies that all make up God. Because of this, I thought Jesus was considered to be the representation of God on earth.

[bernie]

The vatican clarifies much of their positions due to political aspirations. The 2nd paragraph deals with the fact of the history of the religion, not necesarily the doctrines. How they were implimented.

[ QUOTE ]
The second anything even seems to be open to interpretation, the Vatican acts by issuing a clarification on the official Church position

[/ QUOTE ]

They're not quite that quick with clarifications. They drag their feet quite a bit.

[ QUOTE ]
It's painfully obvious with every post you make in this thread that your knowledge is rather limited, and certainly not nearly as strong as you seem to think it is.


[/ QUOTE ]

I blew it on one doctrine, so sue me. The fact that the church supports active cannabalism is fantastic. Even though they condemn it anywhere else. Par for the course for the hypocritical vatican.

b

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
everything that followed that was completely and totally your interpretations and opinion. [ QUOTE ]
The fact is, the belief is built upon the foundation of fear and manipulation in the followers and persecution of the non believers. It's also a matter of the origin of said belief. The agenda. Which many don't know about and never bothered to look into. It's not quite as innocent of a belief system as many would think.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, this is based on well documented, historical fact. Not my opinion nor interpretation. For instance, shall we go into the crusades, or were those just a bedtime story that were open to interpretation?

Ever read the jesuit oath? Take a gander and tell me how wonderfully open to everyone they are. You may be very shocked to see the specific wording that is used to detail how to deal with non-believers.

btw...Who's opinion did i trash?

b

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
I blew it on one doctrine, so sue me. The fact that the church supports active cannabalism is fantastic.

[/ QUOTE ]

You really are clueless about Catholic doctrine Bernie.

Stu

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Ever read the jesuit oath? Take a gander and tell me how wonderfully open to everyone they are. You may be very shocked to see the specific wording that is used to detail how to deal with non-believers.


[/ QUOTE ]

Heres what bernie is refering too.

"I furthermore promise and declare that I will, when opportunity presents, make and wage relentless war, secretly or openly, against all heretics, Protestants and Liberals, as I am directed to do, to extirpate and exterminate them from the face of the whole earth; and that I will spare neither age, sex or condition; and that I will hang, burn, waste, boil, flay, strangle and bury alive these infamous heretics, rip up the stomachs and wombs of their women and crush their infants heads against the walls, in order to annihilate forever their execrable race. That when the same cannot be done openly, I will secretly use the poisoned cup, the strangulating cord, the steel of the poinard dignity, or authority of the person or persons, whatever may be their condition in life, either public or private, as I at any time may be directed so to do by any agent of the Pope or Superior of the Brotherhood of the Holy Faith, of the Society of Jesus."

Where will you find this Jesuit Oath? At the Library of Congress, Washington, D.C., Library of Congress Catalog Card # 66-43354.

Its not a real Jesuit Oath of course. If you want to submit something to the library of Congress you need to complete Form TX, pay a $30 filing fee, and deposit a nonreturnable copy of the work.

Stu

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
Its not a real Jesuit Oath of course.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is the proper oath of a Jesuit? I am assuming that there is one by implication of your post.

What is the origin of the oath you quoted?

-Zeno

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
What is the proper oath of a Jesuit? I am assuming that there is one by implication of your post.


[/ QUOTE ]

Typically, in a religious order, you profess vows. For instance, you might profess vows of poverty, chasity, obediance, etc. To be honest, I don't know what vows Jesuits profess or if they have some sort of oath they profess. However you don't even need to have an average IQ to reckognize the one I quoted is a fake manufactured solely for the purpose of slandering the Catholics.

[ QUOTE ]
What is the origin of the oath you quoted?

[/ QUOTE ]

The Library of Congress. There is another similar version in the congressional record. There is also a Knights of Columbus oath floating around that is also very similar. Google it.

Stu

[bernie]

So you're saying it's not cannabalism? It's actually very specific on this in that doctrine.

b

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
...... the one I quoted is a fake manufactured solely for the purpose of slandering the Catholics.


[/ QUOTE ]


I did assume that this is so, which is why I asked about the origin. The library of congress is the depository for the oath; I doubt persons connected to the library wrote it or are responsible for its origin.

I assume some person or persons or organization is responsible for writing this 'oath'. I wanted to know who ‘they’ are. Thanks for the information you did provide.

-Zeno

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
So you're saying it's not cannabalism? It's actually very specific on this in that doctrine.


[/ QUOTE ]

Cannibalism is to eat food, but not just any food. For it to be cannibalism the form of the food has to be meat and or blood of one’s own species. Since the form of the Eucharist is not in the form of human meat or blood it cannot be considered cannibalism.

Catholics believe the Eucharist truely is the body and blood of Christ even though it is in the form of bread and wine. Since the form of the Eucharist is bread and wine it cannot by definition be considered cannibalism. If you ask me to explain how the Eucharist can truely be the body and blood of Christ while remaining in the form of bread and wine, I can not answer. The doctrine is grounded in scripture and is one of those mysteries of the faith, kinda like the Trinity.

Bernie, this has to be the 3rd or 4th post in this thread in which you have shown yourself completely ignorant of Catholic doctrine. Perhaps this is a much harder subject than you think. Reconsider enrolling in a theology course; you might save yourself from a lot of future embarrassment.

Stu

[elwoodblues]

I misread your post to suggest that Jesus is on person (to the exclusion of the others) in the Trinity that is God.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
btw...Who's opinion did i trash?


[/ QUOTE ] The way that you talk about Catholicism is completely out of line. You refer to it as a cult and bs, come on man, thats totally insulting to Catholics. I don't care if you don't agree with it or even if you hate it, but atleast show some respect to those of us who do. I have stated several times I am Catholic and you still continue on with your absurd accusations(Cannibalism). You can show a little respect, right?

[MMMMMM]

"There is a certain logic to the belief that Christ would leave a vicar on earth. Let me try to explain this. As man progresses, man encounters new moral challenges. For instance, if Christ had said to the apostles, "Thou shall not Clone" the apostles would surely answer, "Lord, WTF is cloning?". People of the time would have a difficult time comprehending the concept of cloning. When Christ instituted his Church, it does not make any sense that he would abandon it to find its own way. What does make sense is that Christ would provide some mechanism by which the Church he instituted would be guided. Catholics believe that mechanism is a physical vicar(One deputed or authorized to perform the functions of another), and that vicar is the Pope."


I'm not so sure about this rationale, Stu. I don't think Jesus had all that much faith in human nature--he did say things like "ye, being evil..." and frequently referred to man's inherent sinful nature. So I would be inclined to doubt that Jesus would have had enough faith in humankind to appoint a vicar. I think Jesus intended for people to follow his teachings--not the interpretations of his terachings according to some vicar.

As for future practical questions, such as stem-cell research, I would doubt that Jesus would trust enough in a vicar to appoint one to decide such questions--let alone a succession of vicars. I would really think that Jesus intended future generations to be guided by his words, teachings and example.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
I think Jesus intended for people to follow his teachings--not the interpretations of his terachings according to some vicar

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you think Jesus expected others to learn of his teachings?

[MMMMMM]

"How do you think Jesus expected others to learn of his teachings?"


Hopefully some of his words and history have been recorded with enough overall accuracy to be worth something. Since certain various accounts have strong similarities, I would think that those accounts and reported words of Jesus would be the most likely to be the most accurate, at least in areas where they concur.

[elwoodblues]

My overall point is that (assuming you believe the stories) Jesus specifically appointed his apostles to go preach his teachings. Catholics believe that the pope is following in this apostolic tradition. The similarities among 3 of the gospels is most likely due to the writers of two of them reading the first before writing their own. The writers of John's gospel tell the story in a significantly different way. Even looking at the 3 synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) there are significant differences in how the story was told depending on who the audience was.

[ThaSaltCracka]

There is actually some speculation that two of the gospels were actually written by the same person to.
One of the reasons John's gospel is a little different is that it was written much later than the first three, and if I am not mistaken has several things in it that the other three do not have.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
Catholics believe that the pope is following in this apostolic tradition.

[/ QUOTE ]

But this tradition is one of communal authority not an absolute one. But then, I do not know the official Catholic line of this doctrine so I may be missing something or misinterpreting. I have expressed my opinion on what the 'apostolic tradition' is.

I think that in the synoptic gospels (especially Mark) and perhaps in John also the 'mission statements' are usually not considered words that Jesus actually said. Of course there are numerous disputes about this but there is reasonable doubt about much of the 'accuracy' of the four canonical gospels and an ongoing debate as to what can be accredited to Jesus and what was added by the original writers in addition to what was added on even later.

-Zeno

[bernie]

Maybe, just maybe, you're taking this way too seriously.

Catholic doctrine is very easy to understand. It really isn't as deep as you think as most religious doctrines are based on pretty simple ideas. All based on unprovable mysteries of faith. Period. Especially since there is no concise proof of anything being true. It's a nice fairy tale cult.

Embarassment? Naw, im having fun. The cannibalism was a jab at them because that's how the church sees other competing religions who do near the exact same thing under the same doctrine. It's fantastic hypocrisy, unless of course, they do it. Then it's fine. Took that a bit too literal, didn't ya?

b

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
The way that you talk about Catholicism is completely out of line. You refer to it as a cult

[/ QUOTE ]

It is, by definition, a cult. Why is that insulting? Because it makes it no better than other religious cults?

[ QUOTE ]
you still continue on with your absurd accusations

[/ QUOTE ]

I do not respect a religion that is responsible for the atrocities that they are responsible for. Im sorry you have a problem dealing with just how heinous they are/were. How can you condone their actions by following them? Don't you hold them responsible for anything? Do you really think they were justified in what they did? Or do you just not believe any of it ever happened? Maybe you haven't ever really asked yourself those questions nor really dealt with the answers.

My attacks are against the religion(s) itself, not the persons following it. Or is it just ok to go after other religions 'other' than catholics? Like, muslims or mormons? It's not my problem that people get offended when their belief system is put into question and shown the hypocrisy/fallibility of it. Especially a belief system that has been rammed down people's throats for years with no regard/respect for differing beliefs. But i guess it's all fine how they got to their present destination while ignoring how they got there. Turn about isn't fair play?

None of this alters my opinion of you personally at all. I still think you're a cool guy. We obviously happen to have a very different view on it. If you don't want to read or hear about this, don't get involved in a discussion on an open forum if you're going to take it too personal.

b

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
I do not respect a religion that is responsible for the atrocities that they are responsible for.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this a standard that you set just for religions? How about America and slavery.

[ QUOTE ]
Or is it just ok to go after other religions 'other' than catholics?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why "go after" any of them?

[ThaSaltCracka]

For the reocrd, I don't have a problem being offended by something, I have a problem being insulted, and thats what it feels like.
anyways....
[ QUOTE ]
I do not respect a religion that is responsible for the atrocities that they are responsible for. Im sorry you have a problem dealing with just how heinous they are/were. How can you condone their actions by following them? Don't you hold them responsible for anything? Do you really think they were justified in what they did? Or do you just not believe any of it ever happened? Maybe you haven't ever really asked yourself those questions nor really dealt with the answers.


[/ QUOTE ] I think everyone is well aware of the types of things that were done in the name of the Catholic church, but a lot of bad things have been done in the name of religion and various other churchs. Catholics have been at both ends of the sword too. I realize that if we don't learn from history we are doomed to repeat it, but at the same time, if we are constantly looking back, we can't look forward. The Church that I have seen in the past 20 years is one that has become more progressive, its also one that in the past 40 years has gone through some massive reforms. So to compare the church of today to the one on the 1400's is absurd. Yes, the dogma is the same, but the way that dogma is preached is far far different.

[ QUOTE ]
None of this alters my opinion of you personally at all. I still think you're a cool guy. We obviously happen to have a very different view on it. If you don't want to read or hear about this, don't get involved in a discussion on an open forum if you're going to take it too personal.


[/ QUOTE ] Its all good man, if I was truely offended I wouldn't be here.

[MMMMMM]

"Catholics believe that the pope is following in this apostolic tradition."

Question, then: do they believe that only the Pope (and the Catholic Church)is following in this apostolic tradition?

Essentially I feel that the institution of the Catholic Church places too much emphasis on human authority in spiritual matters. One example of this might be confessing to a priest rather than directly to God. It strikes me as another way (amongst many) for the hierarchy to exert influence and power over the laity. The threat of excommunication is yet another power lever. And silly me, I thought the Christian idea was that Jesus should judge who gets into heaven, not the Pope or some Bishop.

And no offense meant to Catholics, but sometimes it occurs to me that the Catholic Church is very far from doing what Jesus advocated the rich man do (the rich man who wished to follow him). Indeed the Catholic Church lays up enormous riches on Earth, whereas Jesus advocated laying up treasures in Hheaven instead. The Catholic Church's kingdom seems too much "of this world" for my liking, or for what Jesus advocated.

I don't have a problem with Catholics but I guess I do have some problems with the institution of the Catholic Church.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
Question, then: do they believe that only the Pope (and the Catholic Church)is following in this apostolic tradition?

[/ QUOTE ] as far as I know, yeah they do.

[ QUOTE ]
And no offense meant to Catholics, but sometimes it occurs to me that the Catholic Church is very far from doing what Jesus advocated the rich man do (the rich man who wished to follow him). Indeed the Catholic Church lays up enormous riches on Earth, whereas Jesus advocated laying up treasures in Hheaven instead. The Catholic Church's kingdom seems too much "of this world" for my liking, or for what Jesus advocated.

[/ QUOTE ] That is indeed troubling, but as far as I know, many archdiocese are filing for BK because of the priest abuse scandal and because of smaller congregations. FWIW, Catholics give an enourmous amount of money to charities and to their churches, both of which do a lot of good in their communities.

Question for people.... why is the Catholic church such a huge target for people? Where I live there are a lot of Catholics and churches, but there are also these enormous Christian Churches that have massive congregations.... and many of the "pastors" there drive very nice automibles and live in nice homes....

[bernie]

It's a standard i set for religions that forcefeed their views on others. I have no problem with people believing what they want. If it helps them be better people, no problem. More power to em. But when a religion forces it's agenda to unwilling parties relentlessly, they are open to all the criticism they deserve.

[ QUOTE ]
Why "go after" any of them?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ask other religions this question. Many of them point the finger, at the others saying they are wrong. It's also very core to many religious dogmas that they are the 'only' or better yet, 'the closest' (mormon) one to the truth. Which then perpetuates them persecuting each other for their different views. Even so far as to kill each other over it. Which is why i lump them together. To me, none of them are right or even have a valid claim. Because no one knows what is the right answer to the big question.

b

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
I think everyone is well aware of the types of things that were done in the name of the Catholic church, but a lot of bad things have been done in the name of religion and various other churchs.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree totally. However, this thread is dealing with catholicism.

[ QUOTE ]
The Church that I have seen in the past 20 years is one that has become more progressive, its also one that in the past 40 years has gone through some massive reforms. So to compare the church of today to the one on the 1400's is absurd.

[/ QUOTE ]

To me, alot of this is because they don't have the political power to try and take over the world with their views the way they used to have power. They would never get away with it nowadays the way they got away with it then. Though other religious sects are seemingly willing to try and give it a go.

The church still think they are above laws of most other countries and should be treated differently. Though they will slowly issue a statement of change to help their political agendas and to satisy the constituents, they do it with a self serving purpose.

b

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Embarassment? Naw, im having fun.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you a troll or a bigot?

Regardless, your cannibalism jab might be useful in leading us back to the original topic of this thread
which had to do with the vatican invalidating the first communion of a little girl because the wafer used was made from rice and not wheat.

The issue at hand deals with the sacrament of Holy Communion or Eucharist. Catholics believe that when the preist consecrates the bread and wine, it ceases to be bread and wine and becomes the body and blood of Christ. The belief is that Christ gave this ability to his apostles and their successors(i.e. preist and bishops)

Its important to realize that according to the doctrine Christ gave the ability to consecrate bread and wine. Preist and Bishops don't have the ability to consecrate other forms of matter regardless of what shape that matter is in. For instance, a preist cannot consecrate a head of lettuce or lettuce that is mechanically pressed into a wafer. His ability is strictly limited to bread and wine.

Where people error, is they think preist have the ability to consecrate wafers. If you falsely understand the sacrament that way then its only logical that you would ask, "what does it matter what the wafer is made of?". The reality is preist consecrate bread. To facilate the process of administering Holy Communion, the bread is pressed into a wafer, but it is still bread nevertheless.

Stu

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you a troll or a bigot?


[/ QUOTE ]

Lighten up. I have fun in debates. I dont get too worked up over them.

[ QUOTE ]
The issue at hand deals with the sacrament of Holy Communion or Eucharist. Catholics believe that when the preist consecrates the bread and wine, it ceases to be bread and wine and becomes the body and blood of Christ. The belief is that Christ gave this ability to his apostles and their successors(i.e. preist and bishops)

Its important to realize that according to the doctrine Christ gave the ability to consecrate bread and wine. Preist and Bishops don't have the ability to consecrate other forms of matter regardless of what shape that matter is in. For instance, a preist cannot consecrate a head of lettuce or lettuce that is mechanically pressed into a wafer. His ability is strictly limited to bread and wine.

Where people error, is they think preist have the ability to consecrate wafers. If you falsely understand the sacrament that way then its only logical that you would ask, "what does it matter what the wafer is made of?". The reality is preist consecrate bread. To facilate the process of administering Holy Communion, the bread is pressed into a wafer, but it is still bread nevertheless.


[/ QUOTE ]

Wouldn't this mean that if the girl was unable to take the sacrament, she would be unable to be a catholic?

b

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Lighten up. I have fun in debates. I dont get too worked up over them.


[/ QUOTE ]

I guess the answer is Troll. Better to be a Troll than a bigot.

[ QUOTE ]
Wouldn't this mean that if the girl was unable to take the sacrament, she would be unable to be a catholic?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course not. There are lots of examples of Catholic communities existing after all the preist have been killed off. These people went on and continued to practice catholicism with out these sacraments.

However, in this little girls situation, she could have recieved her first communion(and subsequent ones) via wine. There was never a need to substitute rice for bread.

Stu

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
It's a standard i set for religions that forcefeed their views on others.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kind of like forcing non-democratic societies to become democratic. You're actually starting to convince me.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
But when a religion forces it's agenda to unwilling parties relentlessly, they are open to all the criticism they deserve.


[/ QUOTE ]

You go beyond criticism. You purposely propogate outright lies.

[ QUOTE ]
Which then perpetuates them persecuting each other for their different views. Even so far as to kill each other over it.

[/ QUOTE ]

The same lies you purposely propogate(i.e. Catholics engage in cannibalism, Jesuits smash babies heads against walls, etc) have been used historically to commit murder against Catholics.

[ QUOTE ]
Because no one knows what is the right answer to the big question.


[/ QUOTE ]

The right answers certainly isn't going to come from the mouth of a hateful hypocrite such as yourself.

Stu

[Dr Wogga]

.....priorities, priorities??? Attendence at mass is way down, many catholic schools on the verge of closing.....and this is the shi*t they worry about?? Pul-eeeeeze!

The "consumers speak" - and guess what? The regular Joe Catholic on the street is showing what happens when the buyers don't buy. Empty churches. Empty schools. And guess what else: the RC church IS IRRELEVENT.

As a Roman Catholic, I find this sad. Very sad. Change is needed. Fast.

[Cyrus]

I find the whole explicit message of "Holy Communion (http://www.csaceliacs.org/CDintheNews/MSNBC081704.php) as cannibalism" fascinating!

Comments ?

[ThaSaltCracka]

your stupid.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
The same lies you purposely propogate(i.e. Catholics engage in cannibalism, Jesuits smash babies heads against walls, etc) have been used historically to commit murder against Catholics.

[/ QUOTE ]

Much like the lies catholics used historically to commit murder against heretics and competing religions. Sorry, it's not a one way street. The roman catholic church is anything but innocent in this regard. They may as well have wrote the book on it. But given how the followers still flock to the churches, even given the recent crap the church has done, i guess it's ok for them to have done it.

[ QUOTE ]
The right answers certainly isn't going to come from the mouth of a hateful hypocrite such as yourself

[/ QUOTE ]


I never said i had the answers, but im not going to just believe in a fairy tale to placate a fear of the unknown. Not sure where you get the hypocrite part though.

Nice personal attack, btw. All of them. Nice that you can keep it civil. Taking this a little too personal aren't ya?
Have i attacked anyone personally in this thread? I don't think so.

b

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The same lies you purposely propogate(i.e. Catholics engage in cannibalism, Jesuits smash babies heads against walls, etc) have been used historically to commit murder against Catholics.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Much like the lies catholics used historically to commit murder against heretics and competing religions. Sorry, it's not a one way street. The roman catholic church is anything but innocent in this regard. They may as well have wrote the book on it.


[/ QUOTE ]

At least you do not deny that you have to propogate lies to bolster your position. I will give you that.

[ QUOTE ]
Nice personal attack, btw. All of them. Nice that you can keep it civil. Taking this a little too personal aren't ya?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry if I offended you by calling you a hypocrite. However, to be truthful and honest, that is exactly what you are. I just don't have the tact to say it in a non offensive way.

In my defense, you did set yourself up as a legatimate target by claiming to be a self tuaght expert in theology.
From your own mouth

[ QUOTE ]
...I much prefer to do it(learn about theology) on my own as a hobby which has served me well for my purposes. It's amazing what you can learn from a trip to the local bookstore/library in the world history/religion section. Which saves thousands of dollars. It's really not that difficult of a subject to learn about with a little effort......I miss on occasion. Big whoop. I also admit when i do miss. When it comes to religion, especially chritianity, savor it when i do miss.

[/ QUOTE ]

Truth be told, your not an expert. You missed so many times in this thread we gone way past savoring to the point where its becoming truely tiresome. You made your knowledge and integrity on the subject an issue and now your crying because I'm taking pot shots at it.

[ QUOTE ]
Have i attacked anyone personally in this thread? I don't think so.


[/ QUOTE ]

You knew individuals reading and contributing to this were/are Catholics and you attacked them personally by saying they practiced cannibalism. Are you so dense as not realize that when you get responses like:

[ QUOTE ]
The way that you talk about Catholicism is completely out of line. You refer to it as a cult and bs, come on man, thats totally insulting to Catholics. I don't care if you don't agree with it or even if you hate it, but atleast show some respect to those of us who do. I have stated several times I am Catholic and you still continue on with your absurd accusations(Cannibalism). You can show a little respect, right?


[/ QUOTE ]

and

[ QUOTE ]
For the reocrd, I don't have a problem being offended by something, I have a problem being insulted, and thats what it feels like.
anyways....


[/ QUOTE ]

People feel like your attacking them personally?

You know Bernie, I pity you. You're a sad and bitter individual. You're like a little child who likes to dish it out but can't take it. Eventually that little child runs away. Maybe its time you go on hiatus again.

If anyone wants to flame me, go ahead, I can take it.

Stu

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Not sure where you get the hypocrite part though.


[/ QUOTE ]

You accused the Catholic Church of propagating lies. You then try to bolster your own position by propogating lies yourself. You can't get much more hypocritcal than that.

Stu