Big Al

Hibbing, MN

#66 Jul 2, 2013
Nettiebelle wrote:
<quoted text>IMO, this is the reason that over half of American Catholics support same sex marriage and still go to Mass and partake of Holy Communion; they have searched their heart and conscience.
Should Catholics support a legal regime that permits divorce?
Should Catholic lawyers who have a family-law practice never take a divorce case?
Should the Catholic Church support any government that has abortion rights? Birth control access?
What about in vitro fertilization?
Just some thoughts.
I can certainly appreciate your inclusive interpretation of the Christian doctrine of salvation but I think “extra ecclesiam nulla salas”(there is no salvation outside the church) is still the official teaching of the Catholic Church and Protestants generally believe that faith in Jesus is absolutely necessary for salvation. My reason tells me that such an inequitable and unjust concept can only be the product of an ordinary human mind and not the product of an intelligence capable of creating this universe.
Big Al

Hibbing, MN

#67 Jul 2, 2013
janeebee wrote:
<quoted text>
Conscience is innate, just as will is innate. And while either one can subordinate the other, it's the individual that determines which one will take precedence in themselves.
For example: When an individual knowingly does something that isn't right, the will was allowed to prevail.
When an individual doesn't do something BECAUSE it wouldn't be right, conscience was given precendence.
People are influenced by EVERYTHING they experience.
Whether an individual does what they want (will), or what they should (conscience), is the result.
I agree that conscience and will are innate human qualities but what is innate conscience?

Innate conscience is certainly not equal to the teachings of any particular religious belief system because of the fact there are so many different religious belief systems. Innate conscience would have to be something more universal such as the ability to reason coupled with the ability to feel empathy for one’s fellow man. We all have the ability to reason (to some degree) and we all can feel empathy for others regardless of the circumstances of our birth. Also, the ability to reason together with empathy would seem to equate to the Golden Rule which is taught by nearly all religious belief systems but seldom followed.

Since: Dec 09

Chicago, IL

#68 Jul 2, 2013
Cisco Kid wrote:
<quoted text>
Your 'We' is not necessarily all inclusive.
"We" meaning Mankind, humanity, all human beings.
Unless you can provide a realistic example of a person who does NOT, in ANY way, contribute to the world's present condition?

“God Loves Ilks!”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#69 Jul 2, 2013
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>
I can certainly appreciate your inclusive interpretation of the Christian doctrine of salvation but I think “extra ecclesiam nulla salas”(there is no salvation outside the church) is still the official teaching of the Catholic Church and Protestants generally believe that faith in Jesus is absolutely necessary for salvation. My reason tells me that such an inequitable and unjust concept can only be the product of an ordinary human mind and not the product of an intelligence capable of creating this universe.
Well, IMO, Vatican II tells me that the Church sort of changed its view there and now embraces inclusivism.
Big Al

Hibbing, MN

#70 Jul 2, 2013
Nettiebelle wrote:
<quoted text>Well, IMO, Vatican II tells me that the Church sort of changed its view there and now embraces inclusivism.
I am aware that in the modern world there is more conflict of ideas and politics within the Church than would have been allowed in the past. The participants at Vatican II understood how irrational “extra ecclesiam nulla salas” sounded and very cleverly redefined it to include everyone - even atheists. Of course there are many in the Catholic hierarchy today who believe that Vatican II erred in attempting to change a dogma which for hundreds of years had been affirmed by councils and decreed Ex Cathedra by the proclamations of several Popes and as such cannot be changed.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence,“Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic
Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire…”

When I was in grade school (admittedly before Vatican II) I was told by the parish priest that my best friend who was Jewish would burn in hell for all eternity unless he converted to Catholicism and was baptized. I think that is still the teaching of the Church.
Johnny Trunk

Philadelphia, PA

#71 Jul 2, 2013
JJJ wrote:
While I haven't got the exact stats, by far the majority of people that have or belong to a religious faith (active or not), belong to the same religion that were raised in, the religion of their parents and culture.
Many may change denominations within a faith, like Catholic to Methodist etc but by comparison those that convert to a completely different religion than the one they were raised in are very few.
People of the Jewish faith converting to say Christianity or Islam, Muslims converting to Buddhism, etc, these sort of conversions are definitely few when compared to the number of people that stay with the religion of their parents.
So if it is a fact that the majority of people stick to the religion of their parents (regardless of whether they are active in their religion or not) then this means that where they are born plays a major factor of the religion that they will grow up in.
I was raised in a majority Christian society, and while I'm not a Christian in a religious sense, I'm still influenced by the philosophy of Christianity, had I been born in Israel I'd probably belong to the Jewish religion or at least influenced by the Jewish religion.
So if it is true that there is only one god and that salvation depends on us believing in this one true god and following the doctrines of the one true faith......
Then really this would make this god if not a little racist.......definitely playing favouritism.
If as the majority of people on this forum believe, Christianity was the true religion and the only way to salvation was to express faith in Christ and the ransom.......
What of kids born in say India, kids that may never learn to read, may never leave their village and never meet a Christian?
Christians tell me that god will make sure that if a person deserves salvation he'll make sure they get the chance to hear the 'truth' and convert etc.... but how is it just that god has decreed that certain geographic locations have a better opportunity of salvation?
I've read that one of the four cardinal qualities of god is listed as justice..... how is just and fair that to a large degree, one's salvation pretty much depends on the geographic lottery of where they are born and raised?
John>>

John 6:44
Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (RSVCE)
44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him...

“God Loves Ilks!”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#72 Jul 2, 2013
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>
I am aware that in the modern world there is more conflict of ideas and politics within the Church than would have been allowed in the past. The participants at Vatican II understood how irrational “extra ecclesiam nulla salas” sounded and very cleverly redefined it to include everyone - even atheists. Of course there are many in the Catholic hierarchy today who believe that Vatican II erred in attempting to change a dogma which for hundreds of years had been affirmed by councils and decreed Ex Cathedra by the proclamations of several Popes and as such cannot be changed.
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence,“Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic
Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire…”
When I was in grade school (admittedly before Vatican II) I was told by the parish priest that my best friend who was Jewish would burn in hell for all eternity unless he converted to Catholicism and was baptized. I think that is still the teaching of the Church.
There are some of the 'old' priests who do hold to this teaching, but yet, just about every Catholic website I visited and quote from, and I use quite a few, say that the Vatican II change which is limited inclusivism is the correct teaching now.
Big Al

Hibbing, MN

#73 Jul 2, 2013
Nettiebelle wrote:
<quoted text>There are some of the 'old' priests who do hold to this teaching, but yet, just about every Catholic website I visited and quote from, and I use quite a few, say that the Vatican II change which is limited inclusivism is the correct teaching now.
I commend modernist Catholics like yourself for recognizing the absurdity of believing that only those who are baptized and professed Catholics could be judged worthy of salvation regardless of the circumstances they were born into or their knowledge of Catholic Christian teaching. I came to that very same conclusion at just about the same time Vatican II was coming to its conclusion (even though I was taught different), and my views were not well received by my parish priest (I suspect Vatican II wasn’t either). Make no mistake, however, the traditionalists are alive and well in the Catholic Church today.

“The term Traditionalist Catholic encompasses a wide range of Catholics… Those in line with the Church generally prefer pre-Vatican-II forms of Roman Catholic liturgy and spirituality, but do not disagree with the Church on issues of doctrine and morals. Those more or less at odds with the Church not only prefer pre-Vatican-II forms of worship and spirituality but also have trouble understanding the development of doctrine and morals since Vatican II and believe that their own understanding of pre-Vatican-II doctrinal and moral teaching remains binding on all Catholics today.”- Michelle Arnold, Catholic Answers, EWTN Global Catholic Network

“God Loves Ilks!”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#74 Jul 2, 2013
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>
I commend modernist Catholics like yourself for recognizing the absurdity of believing that only those who are baptized and professed Catholics could be judged worthy of salvation regardless of the circumstances they were born into or their knowledge of Catholic Christian teaching. I came to that very same conclusion at just about the same time Vatican II was coming to its conclusion (even though I was taught different), and my views were not well received by my parish priest (I suspect Vatican II wasn’t either). Make no mistake, however, the traditionalists are alive and well in the Catholic Church today.
“The term Traditionalist Catholic encompasses a wide range of Catholics… Those in line with the Church generally prefer pre-Vatican-II forms of Roman Catholic liturgy and spirituality, but do not disagree with the Church on issues of doctrine and morals. Those more or less at odds with the Church not only prefer pre-Vatican-II forms of worship and spirituality but also have trouble understanding the development of doctrine and morals since Vatican II and believe that their own understanding of pre-Vatican-II doctrinal and moral teaching remains binding on all Catholics today.”- Michelle Arnold, Catholic Answers, EWTN Global Catholic Network
Yes, I am aware of the Traditional Catholic Churches but these are not recognized by the Vatican.
Lots of people had trouble accepting the changes that actually started, that I remember anyway, around 1964. That was right after I got married and the church on the Army post we were attending started making changes and lots of people just got up and walked out.

“Invisible Pink Unicorn”

Since: May 08

Location hidden

#75 Jul 3, 2013
JJJ wrote:
While I haven't got the exact stats, by far the majority of people that have or belong to a religious faith (active or not), belong to the same religion that were raised in, the religion of their parents and culture.
Many may change denominations within a faith, like Catholic to Methodist etc but by comparison those that convert to a completely different religion than the one they were raised in are very few.
People of the Jewish faith converting to say Christianity or Islam, Muslims converting to Buddhism, etc, these sort of conversions are definitely few when compared to the number of people that stay with the religion of their parents.
So if it is a fact that the majority of people stick to the religion of their parents (regardless of whether they are active in their religion or not) then this means that where they are born plays a major factor of the religion that they will grow up in.
I was raised in a majority Christian society, and while I'm not a Christian in a religious sense, I'm still influenced by the philosophy of Christianity, had I been born in Israel I'd probably belong to the Jewish religion or at least influenced by the Jewish religion.
So if it is true that there is only one god and that salvation depends on us believing in this one true god and following the doctrines of the one true faith......
Then really this would make this god if not a little racist.......definitely playing favouritism.
If as the majority of people on this forum believe, Christianity was the true religion and the only way to salvation was to express faith in Christ and the ransom.......
What of kids born in say India, kids that may never learn to read, may never leave their village and never meet a Christian?
Christians tell me that god will make sure that if a person deserves salvation he'll make sure they get the chance to hear the 'truth' and convert etc.... but how is it just that god has decreed that certain geographic locations have a better opportunity of salvation?
I've read that one of the four cardinal qualities of god is listed as justice..... how is just and fair that to a large degree, one's salvation pretty much depends on the geographic lottery of where they are born and raised?
Goes to show a parent can easily teach a child to believe anything.Takes loads of faith for a teen aged boy to strap a bomb on a blow himself to bits for a super being he has never only heard about never seen.
Big Al

Hibbing, MN

#76 Jul 3, 2013
Nettiebelle wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, I am aware of the Traditional Catholic Churches but these are not recognized by the Vatican.
Lots of people had trouble accepting the changes that actually started, that I remember anyway, around 1964. That was right after I got married and the church on the Army post we were attending started making changes and lots of people just got up and walked out.
Yes there are groups such as The Society of Saint Pius X that consider Vatican II to have erred (and are currently in negotiation with the Vatican) that have been declared non- canonical. However there are also groups such as The Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter that also believe that Vatican II erred by contradicting previous Ex Cathedra infallible teaching that retain canonical status with the Church.

Vatican II merely changed the dogma that there is no salvation outside the Church by redefining what constitutes the Church. The new definition, however, would not have helped my Jewish friend who grew up in a mostly Christian community yet chose to remain Jewish. Nor would it help the Hindu who grew up in a Hindu community and heard the teaching of missionaries but never seriously considered converting because he was comfortable with Hindu teaching. Think about yourself. Have you ever seriously considered Hinduism? You are Christian mostly because of where you were born. It’s still a matter of geography in most cases.

“God Loves Ilks!”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#77 Jul 3, 2013
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes there are groups such as The Society of Saint Pius X that consider Vatican II to have erred (and are currently in negotiation with the Vatican) that have been declared non- canonical. However there are also groups such as The Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter that also believe that Vatican II erred by contradicting previous Ex Cathedra infallible teaching that retain canonical status with the Church.
Vatican II merely changed the dogma that there is no salvation outside the Church by redefining what constitutes the Church. The new definition, however, would not have helped my Jewish friend who grew up in a mostly Christian community yet chose to remain Jewish. Nor would it help the Hindu who grew up in a Hindu community and heard the teaching of missionaries but never seriously considered converting because he was comfortable with Hindu teaching. Think about yourself. Have you ever seriously considered Hinduism? You are Christian mostly because of where you were born. It’s still a matter of geography in most cases.
I have never considered Hinduism, no.
However, I am a great example of geography and religion.
Being born in the deep south, U.S.A almost 70 years ago surely ensured what church I would be brought up in and that was the Southern Baptist Church.
I converted to Catholicism around 35 years of age, so I pretty much know both faiths.
Of course you know that when one grows up with Hindu teachings, it is just about impossible to switch to Christianity, just about as impossible as it is for someone with, let's say Pentecostal background to easily accept Catholic Church teachings.
Yet there are holy things within the Hindu faith and the Pentecostal faith and these should not be ignored.:)
JJJ

Surry Hills, Australia

#78 Jul 3, 2013
Johnny Trunk wrote:
<quoted text>
John>>
John 6:44
Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (RSVCE)
44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him...
I won't argue that.... but it does not change the fact that IF the christian religion is the path to salvation...

Then it's a statistical fact that if you are born in a western Christian democracy your chances of being 'drawn by the father' are way better than if you were born in a country like India ...

Your scripture does nothing to refute the fact that god(s) appears to based on geography, culture or worse race seems to play favourtism.
Big Al

Hibbing, MN

#79 Jul 4, 2013
Nettiebelle wrote:
<quoted text>I have never considered Hinduism, no.
However, I am a great example of geography and religion.
Being born in the deep south, U.S.A almost 70 years ago surely ensured what church I would be brought up in and that was the Southern Baptist Church.
I converted to Catholicism around 35 years of age, so I pretty much know both faiths.
Of course you know that when one grows up with Hindu teachings, it is just about impossible to switch to Christianity, just about as impossible as it is for someone with, let's say Pentecostal background to easily accept Catholic Church teachings.
Yet there are holy things within the Hindu faith and the Pentecostal faith and these should not be ignored.:)
It has been an interesting discussion from two different points of view relating to Catholic Christian teaching. I think we are in agreement that belief in in particular religious teaching regardless of life circumstances cannot be the basis of the judgment of a just “God”. My thoughts, I think, are summed up well by this quote from Thomas Paine:

"Had the news of salvation by Jesus Christ been inscribed on the face of the sun and the moon, in characters that all nations would have understood, the whole earth had known it in twenty-four hours, and all nations would have believed it; whereas, though it is now almost two thousand years since, as they tell us, Christ came upon earth, not a twentieth part of the people of the earth know anything of it, and among those who do, the wiser part do not believe it."- Thomas Paine,“The Age of Reason”

“God Loves Ilks!”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#80 Jul 4, 2013
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>
It has been an interesting discussion from two different points of view relating to Catholic Christian teaching. I think we are in agreement that belief in in particular religious teaching regardless of life circumstances cannot be the basis of the judgment of a just “God”. My thoughts, I think, are summed up well by this quote from Thomas Paine:
"Had the news of salvation by Jesus Christ been inscribed on the face of the sun and the moon, in characters that all nations would have understood, the whole earth had known it in twenty-four hours, and all nations would have believed it; whereas, though it is now almost two thousand years since, as they tell us, Christ came upon earth, not a twentieth part of the people of the earth know anything of it, and among those who do, the wiser part do not believe it."- Thomas Paine,“The Age of Reason”
Yes, IMO we agree on many things!

Have a great and safe 4th, Big Al!
Big Al

Hibbing, MN

#81 Jul 4, 2013
Nettiebelle wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, IMO we agree on many things!
Have a great and safe 4th, Big Al!
Same to you!

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#82 Jul 4, 2013
Nettiebelle wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, I am aware of the Traditional Catholic Churches but these are not recognized by the Vatican.
Lots of people had trouble accepting the changes that actually started, that I remember anyway, around 1964. That was right after I got married and the church on the Army post we were attending started making changes and lots of people just got up and walked out.
Hi Nettiebelle,

We're Old School. Some Traditional Catholic Chuches are recognized by the Vatican, unless Papa Francisco is telling Padre otherwise as we speak. I told him don't come back without Rosaries blessed by the Pope and judging by the furrow in his brow he was giving that some consideration. At times I found practices at the mission unfamiliar but now understand we do maintain many traditional, also known as extraordinary, practices. Nevertheless, the focus of the mission is on the post-Vatican law of belief rather than the pre-Vatican law of prayer. Neverthenevertheless, we sure do pray a lot.

Art 1. The Roman Missal promulgated by Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the 'Lex orandi'(Law of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. Nonetheless, the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and reissued by Bl. John XXIII is to be considered as an extraordinary expression of that same 'Lex orandi,' and must be given due honour for its venerable and ancient usage. These two expressions of the Church's Lex orandi will in no any way lead to a division in the Church's 'Lex credendi'(Law of belief). They are, in fact two usages of the one Roman rite.
-- http://www.sanctamissa.org/en/resources/summo...

God bless you.

“Invisible Pink Unicorn”

Since: May 08

Location hidden

#83 Jul 4, 2013
Justice wrote:
<quoted text>Exactly what evidence are you referring to. Rejecting truth is not evidence and need is opinion. I must ask this one thing. If you believe that you are simply dirt, maggot food and you have no purpose, then why do you plan and hope to wake up in the morning? If you say it is for your spouse, mom, and/or children,then that would be a lie and an illusion since they would have to have no more significance than characters in a dream you have chosen to make.
Now, can you try to explain this evidence that you have, in other terms than what it seems you have presented.
Martyr
What keeps you from becoming a Martyr for your god?

“Life Force One”

Since: Mar 09

The Spiritual Universe

#84 Jul 4, 2013
Cisco Kid wrote:
<quoted text>
Who died and appointed You as carbon dioxide poisoned brain OCD freak Topix judge and interpreter?
Janeebee is more than capable of speaking for herself.
Why don't you let her?
Ya Creep.
And to those reading these posts, this poster is a Christian. Or so he claims. I doubt it though, no real Christian would be so hateful and insulting. More of a low life dreg of a "Christian" wannabe loser.

“Life Force One”

Since: Mar 09

The Spiritual Universe

#85 Jul 4, 2013
Justice wrote:
<quoted text>Exactly what evidence are you referring to. Rejecting truth is not evidence and need is opinion. I must ask this one thing. If you believe that you are simply dirt, maggot food and you have no purpose, then why do you plan and hope to wake up in the morning? If you say it is for your spouse, mom, and/or children,then that would be a lie and an illusion since they would have to have no more significance than characters in a dream you have chosen to make.
Now, can you try to explain this evidence that you have, in other terms than what it seems you have presented.
Your Logic 101 grade = F-

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Christian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Evoution Frauds 9 min 15th Dalai Lama 1,612
The post count of Dollarsbill 12 min 15th Dalai Lama 52
Was Paul a False Apostle? (May '08) 25 min Brother Lee Love 2,413
Being Ready ? 44 min The blackbird 249
Should Homosexuals be accepted in the church? (Sep '09) 52 min The blackbird 1,000
YOU HAVE BEEN DECEIVED by THE DEVIL --------#1 1 hr Cat 69
The Heathen's Home Page (Jun '13) 3 hr Sundog512 3,141
What's Dumber than a Catholic who doesn't ... 12 hr 15th Dalai Lama 204
More from around the web