Posted on 05/08/2010 9:30:27 PM PDT by GonzoII
What about that whole having sex outside the marriage deal? Whats it cost to have the Church overlook that detail?
isn’t that adultry? Not that I believe that any sin is worse than any other but doesn’t that particular sin rank pretty high up in the Catholic Church?
“isn’t that adultry?”
Seems like it would be to me. But then I’m not the pope or a priest so who am I to determine whether its adultery or not.
I’m not a Catholic so I don’t know if adultry disqualifies one from receiving communion.
Yes, it does, but it is important to address those truths equitably. They are easily bent one way or the other, especially by those in power. While I do speak of the Roman church in particular, it isn't in order to offend Roman Catholics exactly - The same could be said of any powerful governmental structure.
Unified Catholic Christendom, before the 16th century, had not been plagued by the tragic religious wars [...]
You are kidding, right? I suppose you had forgotten to close with a /sarc tag, European crusades/inquisitions and all...
which in turn led to the "Enlightenment," in which men rejected the hypocrisy of inter-Christian warfare and decided to become indifferent to religion rather than letting it guide their lives.
That is not perfectly true - IMHO, two documents were lifted up at that same (relative) time in history:
One being the American Declaration of Independence, and the other being the French Declaration of the Rights of Man...
One of those was inclusive of, and based upon, the Judeo-Christian Ethic, and was thereby established in God. The other was not, and espouses the beliefs which were in your statement... And I'll bet you know the difference. (That was framed as a compliment, btw)
What was rejected was a synchronous partnership between an all-encompassing and horribly corrupt church, and the feudal kings which abetted it. And rightly so.
I was accused of the sin of lying by poster judith anne up earlier in the thread because I said I wasn’t anti-Catholic.
Maybe Judith Anne can answer your question.
“The Catholic Church, on the other hand, is not anti-Protestant.”
Is that why they call Queen Mary of Tudor “bloody Mary.”
The rules prohibit making fellow freepers the subject of individual posts. It is also double plus ungood to lie about it.
So if you are going to quote me, quote me accurately. I did not say that any of the bible is incorrect *even that part about bearing false witness). I said that the bible does not contain 100% of the Word of God.
Are you completely unable to differentiate between acts performed by sinners in the name of the Church and the deeds of the Church or do the rules applied by Luther and Calvin to Scripture extend to your interpretation of history as well?
“The Bible, as wonderful as it is, does not contain 100% of the revealed Word.”
How else am I supposed to take that quote?
Queen Mary of Tudor believed she was faithfully as Queen executing the deaths of non Catholics and she also believed the Catholic Church was over her as Queen of England.
Exactly as written. It does not in anyway imply that the bible contains anything nonfactual. The catechism teaches:
105 - God is the author of Sacred Scripture. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."
"For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself."
106 - God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. "To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more."
120 - It was by the apostolic Tradition that the Church discerned which writings are to be included in the list of the sacred books. This complete list is called the canon of Scripture. It includes 46 books for the Old Testament (45 if we count Jeremiah and Lamentations as one) and 27 for the New. 107 The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures." 108 - Still, the Christian faith is not a "religion of the book." Christianity is the religion of the "Word" of God, a word which is "not a written and mute word, but the Word is incarnate and living". If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, "open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures."
That doesn't pass the "so what" test.
http://www.abarim-publications.com/Bible_Commentary/God_Breathed.html
I know its not from the gospels, but it from the NT.
google; yahoo; bing are your friends
The article says Catholics are gnostics.
I have not said that any part of Scripture is false, I have only said that the bible does not contain 100% of the revealed Word.
And http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm is your friend when attempting to comment on what Catholics do or don't believe and profess.
I was talking about Queen Mary of Tudor. Please try to keep up.
Where does it say that? Is all this thread all for naught?
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.