PDA

View Full Version : Benedict the XVI: The Big Bad Conservative Pope



Jodan
April 27th, 2005, 08:39 PM
I'm sick and tired of hearing people complain about the Pope being too conservative, expecially from fellow Catholics. To quote a priest's homily from last weekend, "Somewhere in the Vatican, there's a file listed as 'Pope's Job Description' that says 'To conserve and preserve the Catholic faith and values.' That's it. Just one sentence long."

Storm Swiftblade
April 27th, 2005, 09:04 PM
I'm not Catholic, but I have heard a lot of complaints about him being "too conservative". But I'm so behind on my recent events, I'm not choosing sides. If someone hadn't told me, I wouldn't have known that we even got a new Pope.

Josiah the Warrior
April 27th, 2005, 09:23 PM
Nor am I Catholic, but as you know, the Pope is the figure that Catholics look to for guidance on issues with their faith and often follow his viewpoints on current events. Although the majority of Catholics are politically conservative, there are many liberal Catholics who would like to see a Pope that has different opinions on certain matters and would like to see a Pope take more liberal stands in church politics. I believe this is why many people complain about conservative Pope's, and remember, just because something is traditional that doesn't make it right(don't get me wrong, I have no problem with a conservative Pope, I now realize that I couldn't care less about his political "bias", I am just explaining how I interpret people who cry for a more conservative Pope).

Cinnabarr Rivershell
April 28th, 2005, 12:53 AM
I grow weary of hearing this too Jodan. Politically, I tend to sway to the liberal side of issues. However, these days I find that religiously, I am more conservative. People complain that the Pope is too conservative, and I ask them why? I usually hear the following responses:

- He isn't going to let women become priests.
- He isn't going to support homosexual marriages.
- He isn't going to condone abortions. *for the sake of the thread, let's not get into this one*

I personally feel that if a Catholic individual does not agree with what the Church teaches, then instead of complaining about it and trying to change it, they should look for a different type of religion or sect of Christianity.

Catholics cannot be picky and choosy on what to believe in. You either believe what the Catholic Church preaches or you don't.

Random quote:
"Yeah, I'm Catholic, but I totally don't agree with the Church about homosexual marriages."

The Church's view on marriage is that it is between a man and a woman, so they may grow together in their faith, and bring new life into the world and into the faith community.

Random quote:
"The Church is acting prejudice towards homosexuals because they don't allow homosexual marriages. I'm homosexual and a Catholic, and I find myself being misunderstood and mistreated by the Catholic Church."

The Catholic Church is not trying to be prejudice towards homosexuals. The one reason homosexual marriages aren't allowed is because they do not fit the definition of "marriage" for the Church. Children are the main reason for marriage in the Catholic Church, and homosexuals cannot produce children biologically. This rule may seem unfair, or conservative, but it is nonetheless the rule. And to be a Catholic is to follow the rules of the Church.

Random Quote:
"I wish the Catholic Church would let women become priests. Gosh! The Church is so sexist!"

By tradition, men are priests. By Catholic doctrine, priests can only be men. This is what the Catholic Church teaches. It has been this way for centuries, and hopefully will stay this way. It may seem unfair, like the "no homosexual marriage" thing, but it is what the Church teaches, and that should be enough to make people's heart's content.

My main message/ point:
If you are a Catholic and you say the Pope is too conservative and that the Church laws and teachings are too strict, then too bad for you. You either accept what the Catholic Church teaches or you can leave and find another sect of Christianity that better fits your beliefs. End of story.

P.S. Jodan, I sure have done a full 180 turn since we last talked.

[EDIT]: I also feel that people are judging Pope Benedict XVI before he has even done anything. He's officially been Pope for less than a week, and people have been on his case since he was elected. He was not my first pick, but he is now my Pope, and I accept that. People need to suck it in and move on.

Elijah
April 28th, 2005, 03:21 AM
If you are a Catholic and you say the Pope is too conservative and that the Church laws and teachings are too strict, then too bad for you. You either accept what the Catholic Church teaches or you can leave and find another sect of Christianity that better fits your beliefs. End of story.

The problem the Catholic church faces is that is EXACTLY what people are doing. While it still has large power bases in many countries, membership, particularly in the priesthood is falling, and the message would seem to be: adapt or collapse. A lot of born Catholics are fed up with the hypocracy of the so-called values the church is clinging to. (Like forbidding essentially all forms of contraception despite the fact that AIDS is a pandemic, leaving thousands of orphans globally, particularly in Africa.)
Frankly, the sooner the Vatican pulls its head out from twixt its own buttocks, the better.

Jodan
April 28th, 2005, 07:15 AM
(Like forbidding essentially all forms of contraception despite the fact that AIDS is a pandemic, leaving thousands of orphans globally, particularly in Africa.)

Catholics don't believe in sex before marriage, so people who follow this rule don't have to worry about contracting AIDS. And besides, contraception doesn't guarantee protection from STD's.

And Cinnabar, you sure have. When I was reading your post, I was thinking "This isn't what he was saying a few months ago....", but you definitely seem to have changed some of your views, which is good for you.

Renegade
April 28th, 2005, 09:27 AM
The problem the Catholic church faces is that is EXACTLY what people are doing. While it still has large power bases in many countries, membership, particularly in the priesthood is falling, and the message would seem to be: adapt or collapse. A lot of born Catholics are fed up with the hypocrisy of the so-called values the church is clinging to. (Like forbidding essentially all forms of contraception despite the fact that AIDS is a pandemic, leaving thousands of orphans globally, particularly in Africa.)


In places like Africa most women there do not have a choice whether they want sex or not. A lot of them (prostitutes aside), get the virus from their husbands (like when he goes to the city to work and messes around, then goes home and insists on unprotected sex / rapes her if she refuses).



Catholics don't believe in sex before marriage, so people who follow this rule don't have to worry about contracting AIDS. And besides, contraception doesn't guarantee protection from STD's.

Sure, contraception does not guarantee protection, but itís better than nothing. And there's more to contraception than not contracting AIDS.

In places like the Philippines, there are a lot of extremely poor people (married couples) with something like 10 kids, none of whom go to school and half of whom run around naked, playing in the gutters because their parents are too poor to afford clothes. Forgive me if i seem harsh, but they would probably be better off with less kids.


Frankly, the sooner the Vatican pulls its head out from twixt its own buttocks, the better.

The Vatican, for the record, only issued a statement on "The DaVinci Code" about 2 years after the book was published, when a majority of people have already read it. They were never very fast to begin with.

At the same time, this is the Catholic Church. They are supposed to be, like, a moral beacon or something (child molesting priests aside). They have to set the standard for what they believe is ideal moral behavior. Whether reality actually plays to that or not is another matter.

Jodan
April 28th, 2005, 12:49 PM
Ok, here's my thoughtful post. My previous one was done in a rush, right before I had to leave for school, so I didn't have time to say everything I wanted.


A lot of born Catholics are fed up with the hypocracy of the so-called values the church is clinging to.

I'd like to know where these Catholics are. All the ones I know hold dear the values we have been taught and the ones the Church stands for. As I have said a million times, the Church is not a political entity. Jesus did not sway in his views just so he could make everyone happy and gain the favor of the people, he did it to sway everyone else to his view. As followers of Him, Catholics are called to do the same, and we do.


Sure, contraception does not guarantee protection, but itís better than nothing. And there's more to contraception than not contracting AIDS.

There are a few forms of contraception and protection that the Vatican teaches- one is a life of chastity, and saving sex for marriage. The other is called Natural Family Planning, which means a couple will restrain themselves from the sexual act at certain times during the month, when the woman is at the part of her cycle when she is most receptive to conceiving. All it takes is a little self-control. It is to be used if there is a need to not conceive kids, whether it be for monetary reasons, or something else(like your Phillipine example).


In places like the Philippines, there are a lot of extremely poor people (married couples) with something like 10 kids, none of whom go to school and half of whom run around naked, playing in the gutters because their parents are too poor to afford clothes. Forgive me if i seem harsh, but they would probably be better off with less kids.

If they can't afford clothes, and probably food for their children, so they probably can't afford any form of contraception, except restraint from the sexual act. Natural Family Planning as I said above.


At the same time, this is the Catholic Church. They are supposed to be, like, a moral beacon or something (child molesting priests aside). They have to set the standard for what they believe is ideal moral behavior. Whether reality actually plays to that or not is another matter.

The laws and policies are not just for moral behavior, they are derived from the teachings in the Bible. And again, the Church shouldn't and won't change, just because some people want it to.

LordTBT
April 28th, 2005, 01:23 PM
I honestly havent met anyone who is against the new Pope.


there are many liberal Catholics who would like to see a Pope that has different opinions on certain matters and would like to see a Pope take more liberal stands in church politics


That is a very small minority of Americans actually.


Random quote:
"The Church is acting prejudice towards homosexuals because they don't allow homosexual marriages. I'm homosexual and a Catholic, and I find myself being misunderstood and mistreated by the Catholic Church."


An open blasphemer wants the rules bent for him :rolleyes:

Well I'm a killer and a thief and I demand the Church officially change the Ten Commandments. They've been that way for toooo long. I should be allowed to kill and steal as much as I want to and still worship God. We can have the 8 Commandments and everyone can still be happy, AND we can steal and murder too. :rolleyes:

Josiah the Warrior
April 28th, 2005, 02:33 PM
At the same time, this is the Catholic Church. They are supposed to be, like, a moral beacon or something (child molesting priests aside). They have to set the standard for what they believe is ideal moral behavior. Whether reality actually plays to that or not is another matter.
EXACTLY. The Catholic Church "sets the moral standard" by interpreting the Bible and the word of God and using in context to direct Catholics on current everts (ie: gay marriage, women priest etc..). Many people don't agree with the way the Church interprets the Bible and that is why they argue. There was no 11th commandment stating priests could not marry(except in Monty Python :slagar ), and up until 1104 A.D. (I think, I'll have to check) there was no College of Cardinals, Popes were just elected by promotion and other means (before the C. of Cards there were a ton of corrupt Popes) but that did not mean the Church could not change. Its policy had never ever been to have a College of Cardinals, but it changed because of the problems it faced. The Church has changed in many many ways since its humble begginings, of course its core values have ever remained the same, but the opinion and attitude it has on current events changes as the years go on. And there are plenty of Catholics who would like to see changes, I forget who it was, but someone on this forum said they thought that priests should be allowed to marry, and my Irish-Catholic grandparents even conceded that abortion should be an option if you are raped. There are always compromises, just not in core beliefs.

Jodan
April 28th, 2005, 03:02 PM
EXACTLY. The Catholic Church "sets the moral standard" by interpreting the Bible and the word of God and using in context to direct Catholics on current everts (ie: gay marriage, women priest etc..). Many people don't agree with the way the Church interprets the Bible and that is why they argue.

What's really funny is when people who aren't Catholics start getting upset about how the Church won't change it's policies.



And there are plenty of Catholics who would like to see changes, I forget who it was, but someone on this forum said they thought that priests should be allowed to marry, and my Irish-Catholic grandparents even conceded that abortion should be an option if you are raped. There are always compromises, just not in core beliefs.

I think it was me who said that, but if I didn't, that's what I believe. The policy was made for several reasons centuries ago, but the reasons that policy was made back then were not legitamate. They were made by corrupt men. A relationship as loving as husband and wife can easily bring the couple closer together and closer to God and can deepen their faith.

And about abortion, unfortunately there's nothing the Church can do to stop it, besides education on why abortion is against Catholic doctrine, and fighting for the right to life, because it is a sin. Women have a right to choose? Bull. They had a right to choose not to get pregnant, but they decided to do it anyway, and created a life they are responsible for at least bringing into the world.

And for women who are raped and get pregnant is a very small fraction of women who have abortions. For women who are raped and get pregnant, the Church teaches foregiveness to those who have wronged them, even though it would be extremely hard to do with something as emotionally scarring as a rape, but the Church would encourage healing through faith and with counseling, and to at least carry the child to term.

LordTBT
April 28th, 2005, 03:07 PM
There was no 11th commandment stating priests could not marry(except in Monty Python ), and up until 1104 A.D. (I think, I'll have to check) there was no College of Cardinals, Popes were just elected by promotion and other means (before the C. of Cards there were a ton of corrupt Popes) but that did not mean the Church could not change. Its policy had never ever been to have a College of Cardinals, but it changed because of the problems it faced

As I stated before, according to the 4th Lateran Council in the 1200s, it was ruled that priests must remain celibate. It has been that way for almost 800 years, and it's worked just fine.


A College of Cardinals has been in existence since 1059,(that's almost a millenia) and prior to that Roman Emperors were involved. The Holy Roman Empire is no longer in existence :rolleyes: It's been working just fine for the past 1000 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_election

Josiah the Warrior
April 28th, 2005, 03:23 PM
What's really funny is when people who aren't Catholics start getting upset about how the Church won't change it's policies.
Just in case you are reffering to me, I'm not upset, I'm just arguementive :slagar . But no matter who you are addressing, people will almost always care about Church policy, because it is such an venerable, respected old institution and it's opinions carry much sway in the world of politics and government policies. Whether you believe in its teachings or not, the Church affects us all, and some people don't like that. And besides, just because you are not Catholic doesn't mean you can't care or not have an opinion on the matter, I mean just look at world politics. Chances are niether you nor I have ever been to, much less live in, China, but you and I are both strongly against sweat shops (I hope).


And for women who are raped and get pregnant is a very small fraction of women who have abortions. For women who are raped and get pregnant, the Church teaches foregiveness to those who have wronged them, even though it would be extremely hard to do with something as emotionally scarring as a rape, but the Church would encourage healing through faith and with counseling, and to at least carry the child to term.

I don't think it's a small fraction, at least half of women get pregnant (I'll look up a figure sometime) after being raped. But maybe we shouldn't get to much into abortion because it is all about when you think the life is a life.

Jodan
April 28th, 2005, 03:40 PM
Just in case you are reffering to me, I'm not upset, I'm just arguementive

I didn't mean you, I was talking about some people at my school.




I don't think it's a small fraction, at least half of women get pregnant (I'll look up a figure sometime) after being raped. But maybe we shouldn't get to much into abortion because it is all about when you think the life is a life.

I disagree.

Josiah the Warrior
April 28th, 2005, 03:45 PM
I didn't mean you, I was talking about some people at my school.
I figured.

I disagree.
It's your right as an American, son. :slagar Ahh the beauty of democracy :slagar

Baby Rollo
April 28th, 2005, 05:33 PM
If they can't afford clothes, and probably food for their children, so they probably can't afford any form of contraception, except restraint from the sexual act. Natural Family Planning as I said above.

I don't really want to go into this mess but contraception really isn't that expensive. The church's stand on that specific form of birth control has resulted in increased poverty in many countries and hasn't halted the spread of AIDS and other diseases. Sure Catholics are not supposed to have premarital and extramarital relations, but it's naive to think that restraint will actually solve any of those problems--or millions of Catholics have the will-power to actually do that.

As for priests marrying: If you can't handle the priesthood, then don't join.

As for gay marriage: The church shouldn't condone it if it doesn't believe it's right

As for abortion: I agree with the church 100%

Renegade
April 30th, 2005, 07:40 AM
At the same time, i doubt if they know enough to do Natural Family Planning (does it involve a thermometer?). It is also likely that they can't read very well (if at all).

Martin the Warrior
April 30th, 2005, 05:21 PM
It's rather naive to think that the Church's stance on birth control is responsible for the spread of AIDs in Africa. It assumes, first of all, that it's being spread by Catholics (the only group for whom the Church's stance is considered binding). It also ignores the fact that rape and adultery are key factors in the virus' spread, both of which are emphatically against Church doctrine. The idea that the spread of the virus is because people are afraid of breaking Church doctrine by using birth control, the same people who have absolutely no qualms breaking one of the Ten Commandments, is absolutely ludicrous. It's blaming the Church for the choices of individuals.

You guys need to be careful in this topic, BTW. It went farther than I'd have liked while I wasn't looking. I'll leave it, but keep the age-appropriateness goal of the Forum in mind, please.

Hisk
April 30th, 2005, 09:12 PM
As for priests marrying: If you can't handle the priesthood, then don't join.
Or just join the Anglican Church.


As for gay marriage: The church shouldn't condone it if it doesn't believe it's right
Anglican church again...

He's our man, he's Henry...Let's all join the C of E!
(Joking :D )

Baby Rollo
April 30th, 2005, 09:54 PM
It's rather naive to think that the Church's stance on birth control is responsible for the spread of AIDs in Africa. It assumes, first of all, that it's being spread by Catholics (the only group for whom the Church's stance is considered binding). It also ignores the fact that rape and adultery are key factors in the virus' spread, both of which are emphatically against Church doctrine. The idea that the spread of the virus is because people are afraid of breaking Church doctrine by using birth control, the same people who have absolutely no qualms breaking one of the Ten Commandments, is absolutely ludicrous. It's blaming the Church for the choices of individuals.

Okay, you got me there. But the church's view on contraception has added additional burdens to many poor families in developing nations and has contributed to their continuing decline in the standard of living.

PiarasJ
April 30th, 2005, 10:28 PM
These questions will sound extraordinarily ignorant, but I'm going to ask them anyway. What are the consequences of breaking the Catholic church's doctrine? Using birth control for example - and do Catholics consider Christ followers from other denominations to be liable for the same consequences by doing these things?

Jodan
April 30th, 2005, 11:49 PM
What are the consequences of breaking the Catholic church's doctrine? Using birth control for example

It's considered a sin, of which there are two kinds. Venial (minor sins) are fogiven by consuming the Eucharist. Mortal sins are much more serious. As a Catholic, if you have committed a mortal sin and have not gone to reconciliation, you are not supposed to consume the Eucharist until you do. The Catechism defines a mortal sin as "a grave infraction of the law of God that destroys the divine life in the soul of the sinner, constituting a turning away from God. A sin is mortal if three conditions are present- grave matter, full knowledge of the evil act and full consent of the will." I'm not sure where birth control falls, but it sounds like it's close to a mortal sin.


do Catholics consider Christ followers from other denominations to be liable for the same consequences by doing these things?

I say that what Catholics believe is a sin is a sin for everybody, but I'm not sure if that's what is taught. We do believe that God is all merciful and all forgiving, and understands if there were extroardinary circumstances surrounding the action of committing the sin.

PiarasJ
May 1st, 2005, 01:27 AM
Thanks Jodan. :) That's not the answer I was expecting to be quite honest.

I'll have to think of an appropriate answer before I blurt anything out, I have stacks more questions about Catholicism which would be hogging boardspace to ask right now. :p

I don't know that I actually need the answers to those questions though, I'm inclined to think that the simpler I can keep my faith the better. This is despite my curiosity and arrogance, which tend to steer me towards complex religious questions more than I would like. It sucks. ;)

Something that sucks even more than that is believing that I believe the right things, but not having the balls to stand up to Christians who believe other things because then I feel as though I'm just like them - pushing unwanted and untrue beliefs on other people. Therefore I want to ignore the questions like whether or not Christians should drink alcohol, because they're totally irrelevant in the light of eternity.

Now I'm worried that the last half of my last paragraph is simply proving the faults I find in myself in the first half of it.

Now I'm worrying that alchohol is an important question.

Catch my drift? :rolleyes:

Jodan
May 1st, 2005, 01:38 AM
I know you were just using it as an example, but I'll respond to it anyway-drinking alcohol is not a sin, as long as it's in moderation.

Anyway, if you ever want to ask those questions about Catholocism, let me know and I'll answer as best as I can. I'm more than happy to discuss them with you.

And don't worry about defining your faith. As long as you believe, and have a desire to follow Christ, then you are on the right path. If you want more than that, you can always be baptized as a Catholic, or find another sect of Christianity to follow, though Catholocism is the original, universal, and the one true church.

PiarasJ
May 1st, 2005, 02:01 AM
I used alcohol as an example because I have some African friends who don't drink it - I think that's because alcohol abuse is such a big problem in Africa.

I like what Paul says a couple of times I don't know where- that some people eat meat, some people don't, and some people consider one day special where another person considers all days alike, but nobody should look down on another for thinking differently because all will stand before God because Christ is able to make them stand.

Thanks for the offer, that would be cool to talk about all the things that I don't understand.

I have been baptised, although not by the Catholic church, I was baptised by my dad a couple of years ago. Baptism is another sticking point that I think should be left alone...the whole sprinkling v. full immersion. Seems irrelevant.

Furrtil
May 1st, 2005, 08:19 PM
There was no 11th commandment stating priests could not marry

What's the Christian stand on commandments? Because Judaism teaches that, from the Torah, or Old Testament, there are 613 commandments. So, uh, what happened to the remaining 603? I understand that many people think they're not relevant for today, and something about either Peter or Paul or someone having some sort of revelation saying that no one need pay them any heed, or something to that effect.

Jodan
May 1st, 2005, 09:59 PM
The Ten Commandments are followed. Even if we didn't have them, we would act as if we followed them since the laws they specify are basic tenements of the Catholic faith.

Also, this doesn't relate to this topic, but the young man I sponsored for Confirmation got Confirmed today. For those who don't know, Confirmation is when a person reaffirms their Baptismal promises, is sealed with the Holy Spirit and is then considerd an adult by the Church. I'm very proud of him.

PiarasJ
May 1st, 2005, 11:36 PM
Peter had a vision of a white cloth filled with all sorts of animals coming down from the sky, and was told to kill them and eat them- he refused the first couple of times, because they were unclean animals, but then he was told not to call anything unclean which God has made clean. This is one of the instances in the New Testament where all food was declared clean, Jesus did the same somewhere, I can't remember where, and Paul did as well.

Peter's vision was also given to him so that he would know to speak to a gentile man who visited him- up until this point I believe the disciples had very little contact with the gentiles and it was widely believed that Jesus had come only to save the Jews.

Circumcision was a point of argument between the new Christ followers, because some believed that new Christians needed to be circumcised and to follow all of the Jewish ordinances from the Torah regarding ceremonial cleansing etc.

I'm not too sure about the 613 laws, they are part of the sanctification (setting apart) of the Jews yeah? - because God wants his people to be holy so that the rest of the world will see and worship Him?

Jesus said Love God, and Love people, because the whole law is summed up in those two commands - love does no harm. I think that's the simplest way to put it...

I'm feeling a bit scatterbrained. I hope some of that makes sense. :(

Furrtil
May 2nd, 2005, 03:42 PM
I'm starting to understand, thanks Piaras.

Although there are many laws in regards to the separation of Jews, not all laws are like that. Don't forget the laws against animal cruelty, of giving to the poor, letting the land rest, not to take revenge, not to stand idly by when a human life is in danger, etc. Of course, I'm not saying that by not teaching these commandments the Christian Church is saying that not following any of these are okay.

On the confirmation note, my best friend is getting confirmed soon, and I'm very excited. I'm going to the service. Man, I haven't been in a church in a really long time. :)

Jodan
May 2nd, 2005, 04:26 PM
Although there are many laws in regards to the separation of Jews, not all laws are like that. Don't forget the laws against animal cruelty, of giving to the poor, letting the land rest, not to take revenge, not to stand idly by when a human life is in danger, etc. Of course, I'm not saying that by not teaching these commandments the Christian Church is saying that not following any of these are okay.

Those are basic tenements of Catholic doctrine. They're not listed in the Catechism as commandments, but they are part of our faith.



On the confirmation note, my best friend is getting confirmed soon, and I'm very excited. I'm going to the service. Man, I haven't been in a church in a really long time. :)

It's always time to go back. ;)

Furrtil
May 2nd, 2005, 04:42 PM
I've only been in a church for my neighbor's wedding and a previous best friend's first communion. My friend and I talk about religion, but we don't try to convert eachother either way. She went to my Bat Mitzvah. We don't go for the religious aspects as much as just showing up and being there at an important occasion. We're happy. :)

Jodan
May 2nd, 2005, 04:46 PM
I've only been in a church for my neighbor's wedding and a previous best friend's first communion. My friend and I talk about religion, but we don't try to convert eachother either way. She went to my Bat Mitzvah. We don't go for the religious aspects as much as just showing up and being there at an important occasion. We're happy. :)

Oh, you're Jewish? Never knew that. Ok revising my last statement- it's never too late to go back to temple (or synagogue, I don't know the proper term), but Catholocism is always recruiting.....

PiarasJ
May 2nd, 2005, 04:59 PM
I remember hearing about one man, I think he may have been a president of somewhere or other, and when asked the reason he believed in God he said "The Jews, look at the Jews."

One thing to remember is that Christians don't think that they have replaced the Jews, but have been "grafted in" to God's family.

With Jewish law, I found something last night that Jesus said to the Pharisees. He got quite distressed, because he saw the religious leaders putting heavy burdens on the people's shoulders that even they couldn't carry. "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices--mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law--justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel." It's Matthew 23:23 I think that sort of explains Jesus' attitude to the law.

And here's a couple of paragraphs that talks about New Christians and whether they need to follow Jewish customs.
Acts 15:5 "Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses."
The apostles and elders met to consider this question. After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: "Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are."

Sorry they're so long, I'd prune them back, but then I'd lose most of the flowers along with the dead wood. :p

Then in Romans Paul reminds the new Christians of this:
Romans 3:1 "What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? Much in every way! First of all, they have been entrusted with the very words of God."

Some references that escaped me earlier: read Acts 1 for the account of Peter's vision of the white sheet and all the animals, and one place where all food is declared clean is here: 1Corinthians 10:25 "Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, for, "The earth is the Lord's, and everything in it.""

And I'll stop there. Please excuse my verbosity......blame Paul. ;)

LordTBT
May 2nd, 2005, 05:01 PM
How was your Passover Furrtil? TBT is a big fan of the manishevitz :D


What are the consequences of breaking the Catholic church's doctrine?

Possible excommunication.

PiarasJ
May 2nd, 2005, 05:05 PM
Thanks Teebs. :cool: Not trying to be irritating, but do you believe a non-Catholic-Christ-Follower be excommunicated? (I believe excommunication means sent to hell by a man?)

Jodan
May 2nd, 2005, 05:17 PM
Excommunication is being disowned by the Church. An excommunicee cannot receive any sacrament, including reconciliation. If you're not Catholic, and don't believe in the sacraments, then it doesn't really affect you. Excommunication was a political tool for controlling the masses during the Middle Ages (ex- Martin Luther was excommunicated for refusing to stop supporting his 95 Theses), but it is practically unheard of this day and age. I don't know of any offense that is punishable by excommunication. I can't even conceive of anything that serious. It certainly doesn't mean being sent straight to hell.

PiarasJ
May 2nd, 2005, 05:27 PM
Ah, I see, coolness. Thanks J, You've been doing your homework. ;)

Furrtil
May 2nd, 2005, 08:28 PM
TBT
How was your Passover Furrtil? TBT is a big fan of the manishevitz

*barfgaspchoke* You like manishewitz food? And/or manishewitz wine? *dies* My grandparents give us a bottle of manishewitz wine every year.... I think we have three and a half bottles on us right now. And the Manishewitz mixes have to be the saddest impression of food ever made. Every year, my grandmother makes a Passover mix -- this year she gave us a sponge cake. Oh the dreaded sponge cakes! All crumbly and dry and really hard to digest!

Actually, my Passover wasn't too bad, thanks for asking. :) My parents went down to a kosher butchery, so we had lots and lots of meat - a chicken, chicken wings, a corned beef, and a roast. I am a definite fan of meat, but seeing as we make steak about twice a year, I end up eating a lot of salad. Because I was in Boston for part of Passover, of course the food I ate wasn't strictly kosher because it hadn't been inspected, but I made sure not to eat anything that rose... And so I ate a whole lot of salad and fish. There is nothing like going into an Au Bon Pain and buying a fruit cup. :rolleyes:

Thanks as always for the info, Piaras.

LordTBT
May 2nd, 2005, 10:48 PM
And/or manishewitz wine?

Oh the wine Furrtil. The manishevitz wine. I believe the brand is "King David" or something like that.

Furrtil
May 3rd, 2005, 02:04 PM
It has to be among the nastiest things I have ever tasted.