Reader Responses | Home
| |
Sunshine for
Women Reader Responses | Home |
> I can see where you are coming from. You are by no means alone in your idea that an individual can have a better idea of what scripture means than the Church, that historians agree, determined the canon of scripture.
> Also you, along with many protestants, forget the central fact that Jesus promised not only that He would be with us until the end of the age, but also promised that the Holy Spirit would guide the Church to all truth. The fact that the Church had members who did commit terrible crimes does in no way minimize this fact. Jesus Himself said that there would be sheep and goats in His church. It is for Him to decide which is which.
I think if Jesus came back to earth today and took one look at the RC church, indeed, most Christian churches, he would be appalled at what has been done in his name. When he spoke of church, he spoke of the community of believers; he did not mean an institution as mired in earthly concerns as the RC church where the leader wears a triple crown, symbolizing his pretenses to spiritual, temporal, and other-worldly domains, while he, Jesus, wore a crown of thorns. Jesus would be appalled that he was being worshipped in an edifice such as St. Peter's in Rome while millions died of starvation each year, for he said, "What you do unto the least of these my brethren, you do unto me." Jesus would be appalled at the wealth of the church, derived from businesses owned and operated by the church, that went into creating more businesses and building up the power of the church and into political actions while ignoring the injustices done to the masses.
> Your feeling that Catholics who are faithful and loyal to the church are somehow brainwashed and blinded to any errors that the Pope or Church in general may make, is absurd too.
Oh, do you really think that most Catholics understand that if they commit any of the actions which can get one ipso facto excommunicated that they are from the moment that they commit the action in fact excommunicated from Holy Mother church and doomed to spend eternity in perdition unless absolved by a priest for their sin? Do you think that most Catholics know what sins get them ipso facto excommunicated?
For example, did you know that if a Catholic believes that priests are subject to the same secular laws as non-ecclesiastics that they are ipso facto excommunicated. Let me be more specific. If say, a priest murders some one for any reason and that priest is brought before a secular court, any Catholic who does not denounce the civil officials for presuming to sit in judgment of a Catholic priest is ipso facto excommunicated.
Ipso facto excommunication is a neat rule, isn't it? No messy business of evidence, no messy trial, no embarrassment that the public might find out about some silly canon law that gets one condemned to perdition are needed to condemn a person to hell for eternity. The person doesn't have to know that his action will put him in purgatory for eternity unless he seeks absolution from a priest for him to be ipso facto excommunicated. I was staunchly for religious equality - until I discovered that because I am a Protestant I have been excommunicated from the entire Christian church by your Pope who pretends that God will listen to his ranting and ravings and damn me to hell for eternity because I do not consider him God's Vicar on earth. Why should I fight for the religious freedoms of such a church? You would think the man would say, "Thank you" for the help, but no, he sends my soul to hell for all of eternity. It behooves you to find out what sins constitute ipso facto excommunication - then think about the idea that your Pope has probably condemned you to hell for all eternity because of your sin. Then ask yourself why you keep giving the guy your money, your time, and your trust. For my part, he can fight his own battles and his minions can fight their own battles, too. Why should I trouble myself to make life better for his supporters when he has so little gratitude for my trouble that he condemns my soul to hell for not believing his hooey?
> Many of the most educated, brilliant and open minded people have joined the Catholic Church.
Many of the most educated, brilliant and open minded people have left the Catholic Church, remained in the church in name only, or turned to deism. Montaigne, Bayle, Voltaire, many of the 19th century French philosophes, to name just a few
> They found this from diligently reading scripture and prayer.
They have found the true path to enlightenment by reading scripture and through prayer.
> Scott Hahn is one that comes to mind. He holds a doctorate in theology and was a Prysbeterian minister. At one time, he was an avowed hater of the Catholic Church and had a personal mission to save Catholics from the fate that awaited them. He knows well the adage to know your enemy. Thus he read everything he could find on the church and its claims as far as its origin, sacraments, canon of scripture, the Papacy, Marian doctrine and so forth. He delved deep into scripture and through his studies, ultimately saw the truth of the Church and became a member.
Father Charles Chiniquy comes to mind. He wrote 2 books: The Priest, the Woman, and the Confessional, an expose on the sex lives of priests and how they use the confessional to extort sex from women, and Fifty Years in Rome, an autobiographical work that discussed his intellectual journey from his role as Catholic Priest to Protestant minister. He used his inside knowledge of the working of the Catholic church to warn Protestants of the dangers of the Catholic church.
> G.K. Chesterton is another notable name who had a similar course to become a Catholic. These are only two of a multitude of names from contemporary times to the early centuries of the Catholic Church. Many notable leaders, educators, scientists and other thinkers became Catholic and were not "brainwashed" to believe all the Pope said. This merely underscores your misconceptions about what the Church is all about.
Hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, were sent to the stake by the Catholic church for their religious faith, including Jan Hus and St. Jerome of Prague. Proto-Protestant annals are filled with the hallowed names of religious reformers who tried to remain true to the Catholic church and at the same time to reform the church - often being posthumously declared heretical, such as Wycliffe and Savaronla. At times whole communities were sacked and every one, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, was killed as in the anti-Cathar and anti-Waldensian crusades of the 13th century.
> Now as to your claim that the Catholic Church came into being three centuries after Jesus rose from the dead, that is wrong too. The name does in no way change what the nature of a thing is.
Oh. In the period you are discussing, Gnostics, Manichean, Donatists, and others, in addition to those who would become the Catholic sect, all claimed to be the true followers of Jesus. The Catholic church won, primarily because it emphasized institution building and seeking the favor of Emperor Constantine over everything else, not because it won the hearts and minds of the people.
> What was later referred to as the Catholic Church, was the exact same institution with the same beliefs and teachings of what the Apostles taught and passed on to those who would take their place.
Oh. You mean like the teaching that a bishop shall be the husband of one wife?
> Historians universally agree that the Protestant Churches did not come into being with their distinct teachings and doctrines until the 16th century.
Oh. The church has always fought what it considered to be heretics. The existing Protestant Churches, which some believe to be the legacy of older "heretical" sects, survived the 16th century because the Protestant Reformers were finally strong enough, (and the RC church weakened enough by its corruption) to defeat the attempt by the RC church to exterminate them.
> If the Catholic Church, as you say, was corrupt and evil, and needed to be reformed by Luther and others, it would nullify the promise of Jesus for the Spirit to guide the Church to all truth.
That is precisely why some Protestants believe that the mantle of true church of Christ shifted from the Catholic church to the Protestant churches during the Reformation.
> Also Jesus promise that the Gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church. That would also be meaningless.
Yep. Even the corruption of the Catholic church could not keep the true church of God from arising from its rotted carcass.
> But as to the Reformers. If as you say, that these reformers were only the first and thus could be ignored by those who follow them because these others may understand scripture better, then where is it to end? Each generation will not have anything to build on from the previous one.
Oh, BS. Each generation takes the best from the past and builds on it. You do believe that the world today is much more moral than it was 2000, or 1000, or 500, or 100 years ago, don't you?
> Rather, each will have to forge its own way with its own beliefs based on who knows what?
Why are you deliberately truing to misinterpret what I wrote?
> That sounds rather like a house built on sand. The Catholic Church on the other hand, holds firmly to the teachings of the Apostles and early church fathers who learned first hand from the Apostles;
Oh. Which of the apostles taught the Immaculate Conception of Mary? Not until 1869 did the Catholic church officially accepted the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary.
Which of the apostles taught the infallibility of the Pope? Indeed, which of the apostles even taught that there was a need for a pope?
Which of the apostles taught that Jesus' ministers on earth are above earthly law?
Which of the apostles taught that the church is supreme to the civil government? What happened to "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's; render unto God what is God's?"
Most of Catholic doctrine was made up by the clergy to suit the church's purposes and to augment the power of the church, often with the needs and desires of God, women, and children a far second to the church's needs.
> unlike the protestants who are like leaves blown about by every social convention that comes along.
Yes, like condemning Galileo to house arrest for heresy in claiming that the earth circles the sun, then posthumously negating his condemnation three hundred and some years later. Like claiming for 1500 years that any sexual act that is not intended for procreation is a sin - then suddenly in about 1959, deciding that sex with your spouse which is not intended for procreation is not a sin. The RC church changes its position all of the time - usually after having been made a laughing stock over it by 99% of the people in the world.
While we are on the topic of posthumous excommunication and absolution, the church has long maintained that it can declare even a man long dead to be a heretic then to dig up his bones from consecrated ground and burn them for his heresy. Hitler was a faithful son of the RC church who was *never* excommunicated. Well, it isn't too late for the church, according to its own rules, to excommunicate Hitler. I can understand not excommunicating Hitler when he was powerful for fear of bringing his wrath down on the innocents in the church. So, now that Hitler and his henchmen have long since lost all power, why doesn't the church do justice to those Hitler murdered and excommunicate him?
> Fifty years ago, all christian denominations across the board, all held that abortion was sinful and immoral.
Yes, and 125 years ago, all Christian denominations including the Catholic church held that abortion before quickening was not a sin.
> Subsequently, all denominations except the Catholic Church, now say it is a woman's right.
Yep. We got most of the Christian denominations to reinstitute the same policies they held for hundreds of years.
> What made something sinful and immoral fifty years ago that is now a fundamental right?
What made something wrong fifty years ago that was right 125 years ago?
> Is this progress?
Yep. Restoring to women an unjustly usurped, time-honored liberty is progress.
> Clearly that was not the teaching of the Apostles, nor is it a spirit guided teaching but rather, a man-made philosophy attributed to God.
The Bible is silent on abortion and contraception in both the Old and New Testaments. I understand that the RC church is now handing out birth control tablets to nuns in war torn areas who might become impregnated if they are raped by the enemy. The same areas, by the way, were AIDS is endemic and priests have taken to raping nuns because they believe they won't get AIDS from the nuns. Coincidence?
> I guess though, my basic problem with feminism as pertains to the Church, is that it seeks only to make God in woman's image.
Feminists don't create God, feminist Christian theologians only interpret scripture to come to an understanding of the Christian God. So please do not accuse feminists of "making God." I shall have to rewrite your assertion: feminism, as it pertains to the Church, seeks to envision only woman in God's image. Sorry, that is not true either. "Only" is the wrong word. Feminist believe that woman was created as much in the image of God as man was.
> That is its ultimate goal and is using every means to get it.
What about the goal of deepening humankind's understanding of the true nature of God? What about the goal of bringing honor and dignity to women?
> The offspring of feminism: political correctness, is also a flawed philosophy.
Oh. What do you call the RC church who tries to brainwash all humanity into believing its teachings? Religious correctness?
Regarding the words "political correctness": I only know one or two people who use the phrase, at least around me. Hence, I have come to associate the phrase with ideas like, "You're politically correct because you won't listen to me run my mouth about which women deserve to be raped" and "You're politically correct because you won't listen to me pontificate about men's right to rule over women" and "You're politically correct because you won't put up with my obnoxious insults." If you want me to close my mind to your argument, just claim that any opposition to it is political correctness. That is a sure sign that you don't have a real argument and you have stooped to insulting your opponent because you can't win otherwise.
> It is mind control as no one has ever believed it could be.
Oh come now. The RC church is the true master of mind manipulation.
> It mandates that one describe a concept as those who are of that concept demand or they are labelled "insensitive" or even "racist" and "sexist".
Oh, my, what nasty names feminist calls their opponents. Do you think a man who won't listen to a woman pontificate on which men deserve to be raped is oversensitive? Do you think that a woman who insists on pontificating about which men deserve to be raped is insensitive? Do you think women have the right demand that men listen to them spend hours hashing over a news story about a gang rape of a man by other men and concluding that the rape victim was asking for it because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time of his own volition or wearing the wrong thing or had previously had sex with someone he wasn't married to or was known to like having sex with his spouse? Would you like women to be politically correct and refrain from blaming male rape victims for being raped or would you prefer women to act like politically incorrect men?
How about some of the language the RC church has used over the centuries to describe female feminist foe and non-feminist female supporter alike:
At least the labels that feminists apply are usually accurate.
> It is feminists who are the brainwashed ones.
Well, if they were brainwashed, they were brainwashed by ones like you. We are trying our best to unbrainwash them from the false training of their early years.
> They claim they are for free choice for women, but the women who choose to stay at home and raise a family, they denounce.
Oh, horse-apples.
> Feminists are also anti-family.
Do you know how to do anything other than repeat lies and slander?
> Not to say that feminists dont have families, but that the concept of a father and mother with children as the norm for family structure is clearly not on their agenda.
Oh. Haven't you been listening for the last 25 years as women denounced men for dumping all of the tasks for maintaining a household and a home on them? Haven't you been paying attention to the women who demand that men take their fair share of domestic responsibilities so that they as women can balance their work and private lives better?
> They are for homosexual rights and demonstrate on their behalf.
So. Women got tired of listening to men ruin their female leaders careers and lives by denouncing them, often unjustly, for homosexuality. Then one day, in a great big collective sigh, men started attacking a woman leader for being a lesbian and women said, "So what." The world didn't fall apart and women learned that men's lies and slander could be stood up to. You don't like lesbian rights, then don't be a lesbian.
By the way, your Pope claims that one reason that he is against artificial contraception for women is that it makes women mores sexually available to men, enabling men to allow their animal lusts to be expressed without fear of impregnating a woman. Do you agree with the Pope that most men are sex-crazed animals?
> Thus two things in the bible are addressed but clearly in the wrong way. The family is a cherished institution by Christianity, and homosexuality is sinful and immoral.
Feminists believe in the institution of the family. As far as homosexuality, the matter is between a woman and her maker.
Sunny