The error is that we should be trying to reconcile our lives with the teachings of scripture, not the other way around.

to get back to the crux of the argument you can't even say that the Church's view of the truth is constant as there have been some pretty major changes since Jesus's time.

Such as?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Oh, please. So, why did the Second Vatican Council deem it necessary to explicitly state that the Jews did not bear this collective guilt?

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

If you want to use Mother Theresa as an example, tell me how she affects Church policy, for instance.

Interesting that you bring up Mother Teresa, too, and as an example of a woman excluded from power, no less.

You think, I guess, that because she wasn't a member of the Church heirarchy, she was denied the right to affect Church policy, or that she was denied the opportunity to have an impact on world affairs commensurate with her talents. I reject the conclusion. I think she had a tremendous impact, and she wasn't hampered in her ability to do so by the fact that she wasn't ordained, and couldn't say Mass.

Or if Mother Teresa didn't wield enough worldy power for you, how about St. Catherine of Sienna? Or St. Teresa of Avila? Or any religious sister we used to have teaching in our Catholic schools? Or every Catholic mother?

I won't even get into the importance and value of those women who serve the Church as cloistered nuns, Ken.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Cardinals, Popes, the Vatican itself

Huge expensive cathedrals and raiment for the priests in lieu of the homespun robes and simple churches. Why do I need to receive the Eucharist from a gold/crystal chalice when the money to buy said chalice would be better off serving the poor

Just because the Bible itself doesn't talk too much about women doesn't mean there aren't other writings from the same time period that DO talk about the women travelling with Jesus.

Change from Latin to the native language

The Inquisition

Treatment of nuns

Servers as participants in the Mass

Eucharistic Ministers

Holy Wars

Compare the Churches we worship in today to the way the Christ taught and tell me that you don't see some inconsistencies there.

That's just a few.

As a Christian, don't you think you should forgive Bill Clinton for his past human failings? and Jane Fonda for that matter? You seem to take distinct pleasure from constantly bringing Clinton into your messages. It is my understanding that forgiveness and acceptance are fundamental Christian values. WWJD?

---

_________
kangaroo -- please do not read or respond to any of my posts

Just because the Bible itself doesn't talk too much about women doesn't mean there aren't other writings from the same time period that DO talk about the women travelling with Jesus.

Don't muddle the issue. The Bible itself talks about women being around Jesus, often putting the men to shame by their example. But He didn't choose any of them as His apostles. It doesn't mean they don't have value.

Compare the Churches we worship in today to the way the Christ taught and tell me that you don't see some inconsistencies there.

I don't see any inconsistencies there, because there aren't any. What there is a natural growth. You're complaining about it the same way someone might complain that an oak tree isn't the same as an acorn. Well, OK, but an oak isn't a perversion of an acorn, and it isn't a totally different entity than an acorn. It's the fulfillment of an acorn. (Not to mention the fact that none of the items you listed are points of doctrine, really.)

John Newman wrote a classic treatise called "An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine." I haven't read it myself (just finished reading his "Apologia," which any Lavender Room regular should love.) but I intend to, and I'd recommend the same to you.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

I'm not going to get into this anymore. You know far more of the details of Cathlocism than I do, however, we'll both just disagre with our thoughts of where the Church is now versus when it was started.

I'll leave you with two of your own quotes from this thread

Quote 1 - "truth is a constant

"Perfect example of the flawed thinking that creates problems.

In your view, then, truth is a malleable thing, that changes with time?

See, cause, in my view, truth is a constant, and the advancement of humanity should be measured by how closely humanity manages to adhere to truth. "

Quote 2 - "natural growth"

"I don't see any inconsistencies there, because there aren't any. What there is a natural growth. You're complaining about it the same way someone might complain that an oak tree isn't the same as an acorn. Well, OK, but an oak isn't a perversion of an acorn, and it isn't a totally different entity than an acorn. It's the fulfillment of an acorn."

I thought truth was a constant and did not change, but now it grows as an acorn into an oak tree?

"Religious truth"? That sounds like a fancy-dan way of saying "religious belief" to me.

since the exposure of the pedophilia scandals with priests(caveat: no, i don't equate all or even a statistically significant number of priests with pedophilia) and the related role of church leadership in covering these scandals by simply moving the priests to other dioceses where they could inflict additional harm on other kids, i've wondered how catholics can place the same amount of trust in church leadership. in shuffling around the pedophiles, it's my opinion, that catholic leadership showed a remarkable disregard for the well-being of their constituents/adherents. i am fully aware that the existence of these scandals does not in any way affect the substance of catholic doctrine. but i am curious how catholics can remain loyal to the church/vatican, donate money, etc. in light of these issues.

and also, why is birth control wrong? is it catholic doctrine that sex is only for procreation?

---

f/k/a mclamb6

"why is birth control wrong? is it catholic doctrine that sex is only for procreation? "

That's about it. They can't fathom that it could also be pleasureable. Even though I had long left the church I still got married in a Catholic church the first time, mostly to keep my ex wife's Italian parents happy. We had to suffer through what the church calls "marriage lessons" with a priest before the guy would marry us. Sitting there listening to a celibate preist telling couples how to live their marriage. One of the most ridiculous experiences of my life.

"In your view, then, truth is a malleable thing, that changes with time?"

I won't speak for Vitus, but I think the point is that although truth is constant, Mankind's understanding of the truth evolves and changes over time. Mankind does it's best to adhere to it's understanding of the truth, but if the best science we have says the Earth is flat, that's obviously not true to us now, but it was ground truth to men at the time.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

"They can't fathom that it could also be pleasureable."

Well that's simply not true. Understanding that something could be pleasurable, and thinking it should be done just for that pleasure are two entirely different things.

"Sitting there listening to a celibate preist telling couples how to live their marriage. One of the most ridiculous experiences of my life"

No offense, but you shouldn't have done it. These types of "lessons" or counseling are common in many churches, and it is how they ensure they aren't blessing people with the holy sacrament of marriage who don't believe in what the church teaches about how a married couple should,..well, be married. If you just went through the motions, or didn't agree with what he told you and didn't adress those issues with him, then you were basically pulling a fast one on the Priest to get him to marry you.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Once again Cerveloguy, you're incorrect.

I'm beginning to wonder how long you were actually a Catholic because you really know nothing about the doctrines you profess to know as being an "ex-Catholic." Your hatred and spite for the Church is amazing.

The church's stance on birth control is consistent with their belief that life is precious and nothing should come between the beginning of a potential life.

I just finished a round of marriage classes with our church with my fiance' and found it a very helpful and spiritual experience in building the foundation of a strong marriage. Maybe you should've paid a bit more attention in class.

"Understanding that something could be pleasurable, and thinking it should be done just for that pleasure are two entirely different things. "

So sex can't be just for pleasure? Only for creation? Sounds like you've been away at sea on that ship way too long. :)

"No offense, but you shouldn't have done it. "

In retrospect, I'd hav to agree. But trust me it wasn't our choice, but it would have upset my ex's parents very much if we had married elsewhere. We were young then. If it was now we would have done different.

I'm sure it varies from priest to priest how these lessons are taught but the guy who married us was an older gentleman who was right out of the Old Testament in his thinking. In his lessons he was adament that church guidelines on birth control (or lack of it) be followed as well as all the other doctrine. There were "sins of the devil" everywhere according to him and we were to bring lots of children into the world. (we had two, which was plenty for us). He was a very old style authoritarian type priest and there was no room for discussion or debate. It was all "yes father" and "no father". If we pulled a fast one by not following the teachings exactly as he taught them, then we weren't the only ones. I'm sure virtually every other couple he married did also.

He wouldn't have been our first choice, but he was my inlaws parish priest so we were making them happy. Her parents were immigrants from the "old world" and quite set in their ways so we got married in their church for their sake even though it wouldn't have been our first choice. My ex as the old common classic story of the first generation born here that works hard, goes on to university and became a professional to find herself distanced from her parents culture and beliefs. In fact she's no longer a member of the Catholic church either but converted to a more liberal Protestant denomination.

I'm not an expert on the scriptures but it's my understanding that there is nothing in the Bible to suggest that birth control is a no no or that priests have to be celibate. Celibacy for priests is something the RC church adapted a thousand years ago in the dark age period. It has become instilled as tradition but has no biblical basis.

Just do what the in-laws ask. The pain you avoid is worth anything.

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.

Old joke.

I went to Catholic school for 12 years and my friends are always asking...

"If you went to Catholic school for 12 years why aren't you Catholic?"

I say "I went to Catholic school for 12 years."



Stop busting Cerveloguy's balls about this. In my exprience Catholics are the number one group to call themselves part of a religion and not go or even care about the church. Being catholic is kinda like being Jewish. Your born into it.

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.

It may be your experience but don't let your experience speak for the rest of the world.

His thoughts speak for my experiences. Raised in a nearly 100% catholic town where if you weren't catholic you were an "outsider". I no longer consider myself a catholic, but a christian. I don't see the big hang ups between the major christian religions and the "exclusivity" of catholicism really "turns me off".

Catholicism is a christian religion.

In addition, how is the Catholic faith "exclusive"?

I realize that Catholicism is a Christian religion. However, it seems to hold itself apart from all other Christian religions.

One instance of exclusivity being that members of other christian religions are actively discouraged from receiving the eucharist.

Yes, but "how" does it hold itself different from other religions?

In addition, do you know the significance the Eucharist holds in a Catholic service? The following is a good dialogue that explains the very question you ask.

Why Is Communion for Catholics Only?

By Kenneth J. Howell



This Rock
Volume 14, Number 2
February 2003

---

Frontispiece
By Karl Keating Letters Apologist’s Eye
Gazing on the Beauty of the Lord
By Fr. Thomas Dubay Come with Me and See Jesus
An interview with James Cardinal Stafford Salvation for Non-Christians Explained Sola Scriptura
By Joan Summers Yelling at Leslie
By Bonnie Landry Step by Step
Why Is Communion for Catholics Only?
By Kenneth J. Howell Fathers Know Best
Trinitarian Baptism Brass Tacks
Burial Box of St. James Found?
By Jimmy Akin Damascus Road
Our Prisons Can Be Instruments of Grace
By Jens Söring Review Classic Apologetics
The Disasters of "By Faith Alone"
By Fr. Leslie Rumble Quick Questions

---

Subscribe Permissions


OBJECTOR: Last weekend I went to a wedding of a Catholic friend. When it came time for Communion, the priest invited all non-Catholics to come forward with their arms crossed over their chest to receive a blessing. He implied that only Catholics could receive the bread and the wine. Why wasn’t I allowed to receive Communion? I am a Christian too, you know.

CATHOLIC: The priest probably invited you to receive a blessing because he didn’t want you to feel left out. You see, Catholics believe that a blessing can be given to anyone, Catholic or not, but they also believe that Holy Communion is only for those who profess the Catholic faith.

OBJECTOR: But I did feel left out. I still don’t understand why I was not allowed to take Communion. In fact, I asked a Catholic friend of mine after the wedding, and he said the priest was wrong and that he should have let me take Communion.

CATHOLIC: Unfortunately, not all Catholics understand the reasons for the practices of their Church. Your Catholic friend failed to understand that the Eucharist is only for those who believe it to be the body and blood of Jesus Christ in accord with the teachings of the Church.

OBJECTOR: Well, I believe that it is the body and blood of Christ. After all, didn’t Jesus say, "This is my body"? So why can only Catholics receive Communion? Does the Church think that I am not a Christian?

CATHOLIC: Oh, no. The Church makes no judgments about whether any person is a true Christian, not even about its own members. It knows that it cannot see into people’s hearts, so it has to have some outward way of distinguishing those who should take Communion from those who shouldn’t. The only way to do that is by whether a particular person is a member.

OBJECTOR: But in my church anybody who is a Christian can take communion whether he or she is a member or not. Our minister says that all Christians are welcome to come to the table of the Lord.

CATHOLIC: Given your belief in the nature of church, that makes perfect sense. You believe the church is invisible—that the church is only the members of the mystical body of Christ and that God did not specify what structure or form the church should have. Am I right in my understanding of your beliefs?

OBJECTOR: Yes, that’s basically what I believe.

CATHOLIC: And, if I am not mistaken, don’t you also believe that it doesn’t matter a lot whether different Christians hold different beliefs? Is it true, for example, that one person in your church may believe in the Eucharist as the true body and blood of Christ while another may not, and this difference doesn’t make much of a difference?

OBJECTOR: Yes. Even though I believe in the Eucharist the same as you Catholics, the man next to me in my church may not, and we don’t think that should keep him from receiving communion.

CATHOLIC: Well, you see, the Catholic Church teaches that it does make a difference—a huge difference—whether a person believes in the Eucharist as the body and blood of Christ.

OBJECTOR: Why should it matter? Aren’t we just splitting theological hairs?

CATHOLIC: The Church teaches it because Scripture teaches it. In 1 Corinthians 10:16 Paul asks a couple of rhetorical questions: "Isn’t the cup which we bless a communion in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, isn’t it a communion in the body of Christ?" Paul’s rhetorical questions assume that taking Communion is a union or a sharing in the body and blood of Christ. Now, if Paul as an apostle believed this, and it is written in Scripture, shouldn’t we believe this as Christians?

OBJECTOR: Well, I do believe it, but I shouldn’t judge my brother about his beliefs. Didn’t Jesus say, "Judge not that you be not judged?" (Matt 7:1).

CATHOLIC: You’re right—and the Church does not judge others’ personal beliefs. That is precisely why the Church asks non-Catholics not to receive Holy Communion. If it allowed non-Catholics, the Church would have to investigate each person’s beliefs. It clearly cannot do that, so it assumes that all Catholics believe in the Eucharist in the way the Church teaches.

OBJECTOR: But why can’t the Church just say, "Come all Christians!" and make no further judgments?

CATHOLIC: Because the Church has a responsibility to teach what Scripture teaches. Think of it this way: If the Church allowed everyone to take Communion, it would be giving up its responsibility to teach what Christ and his apostles taught. If Scripture says that receiving communion is a fellowship or a sharing in the body and blood of Christ, and the Church allowed a person to receive it who didn’t believe in it this way, then the person is engaging in a act of lying, even if he is not aware of it as lying. By his actions he is saying that he believes what the Catholic Church says is true, but in his mind he doesn’t believe it. The Church does not want to put anyone in the position of having to lie with their actions, so it insists that a person receiving Communion must believe in the Eucharist in the way that the Catholic Church teaches.

OBJECTOR: Maybe such a person wouldn’t be lying because he doesn’t believe in it as the body and blood of Christ.

CATHOLIC: That is entirely possible, but remember the prior issue. Either the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ or it isn’t. What any individual believes doesn’t alter the truth of the matter. If a person receives the Eucharist, he is receiving the body and blood of Christ, regardless of what he believes. So if he receives the body and blood while not believing it to be the body and blood, he is placed in the position of someone whose actions belie his beliefs. The Church wants to spare a person that contradiction between beliefs and actions.

OBJECTOR: Okay, I suppose I see what you mean about a person who doesn’t believe in the Eucharist. But I do believe in it. Why couldn’t I take Communion?

CATHOLIC: Let’s not be too quick to say that we believe the same thing on this matter. The Church holds that to receive the Eucharist we must believe all that the Catholic Church officially teaches as coming from Christ. To take two examples, it is necessary for Catholics to believe that the pope is the Vicar of Christ on earth and that the Virgin Mary was immaculately conceived in her mother’s womb. Do you believe these things?

OBJECTOR: Well, no—but I don’t see what that has to do with receiving Communion.

CATHOLIC: The Catholic Church follows ancient Christian practice on this matter. Ancient Christians believed that we cannot partake of the Eucharist unless we believe the Christian faith. You see this idea in Justin Martyr’s First Apology (1:66), which is quoted in our current Catechism in section 1355: "Because this bread and wine have been made Eucharist, we call this food Eucharist, and no one may partake in it unless he believes that what we teach is true, has received baptism for the forgiveness of sins and new birth, and lives in keeping with what Christ taught." In other words, to receive the Eucharist you must believe that these teachings are from Christ.

OBJECTOR: You’re falling back on that old Catholic standby: tradition. Maybe Justin Martyr was just plain wrong. Anyway, I don’t see this idea in the Bible.

CATHOLIC: I think you see Jesus our Lord saying this truth in Matthew 28:20 when he said "teaching them to observe everything that I have commanded you." Jesus is saying that all he taught is to be passed on. And you see Paul boasting to the leaders of the church in Ephesus that he had not "shrunk back from declaring to them the whole counsel of God" (Acts 20:27).

So, you see, the Church has the responsibility of teaching all of the truth that Christ taught. Whether you agree or disagree with all the Church’s teachings is beside the point just now. I only want you to see that partaking in the Eucharist requires one to believe all the Church’s teachings. You said earlier that we believe the same things about the Eucharist. I am only pointing out that we don’t, because for us Catholics receiving the Eucharist means embracing all of Christ’s teachings handed down through the Church.

"I'm beginning to wonder how long you were actually a Catholic "

Brian, I've never claimed to have ever been a devout Catholic, although I know a number of ex members who once were. It was something I was born into to and didn't have the option of chosing for myself. My parents were both Catholic but not particularly devout so when I told them at a young age that I wanted to attend church in another denomination it was no really big deal. My grandparents on both sides were very devout Catholics, but that is how they raised. They're all long gone now, but in later life they all seemed to become much less devout. I now don't consider myself a Catholic at all, but it was a part of my upbringing.

I'm not trying to critisize or challenge your faith, but am expressing my views of the Catholic church based upon my experience. The Catholic church in many ways is a church in crisis. It is certainly a church divided, especially in western culture. Normally I never discuss religion at all in my real life. For some reason I get drawn into discussion on this forum.

One thing stuck out in that long post.

"it is necessary for Catholics to believe that the pope is the Vicar of Christ on earth and that the Virgin Mary was immaculately conceived in her mother’s womb. Do you believe these things? "

The Virgin Mary was immaculately conceived? I thought that was just Jesus. I don't remember the Church ever saying that Mary was also immaculately conceived. Also, where in Christ's teaching does it say that a pope even exists and that he will be the Vicar of Christ?

Oh, and many other Christian religions believe that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Jesus Christ as it says in this quote

"Eucharist is only for those who believe it to be the body and blood of Jesus Christ"

So now you have certain religions that have the same beliefs as the Catholic religion that are barred from receiving communion because of what?