Irish Catholics spread exorcism salt after Bidens visit - link in the comments
(media.communities.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (39)
sorted by:
The early Church was just a united entity, which eventually had splits to orthodox and Catholic, and from Catholic the protestants. So Catholics and orthodox trace back to the beginning basically, with protestants seeming to break off from Catholics more clearly.
I think most are with this claim? It's just the orthodox believe the title of pope to be more honorary?
I think Catholics, orthodox, and protestants have all been affected by this kind of thing. So I don't see this as specifically something that stands out against Catholicism.
Catholics have a more centralized institution, so some of us think they tried to elect a non-Catholic "pope" to take it over.
Orthodox have multiple patriarchs, I've seen one kind of compromising "agreement" I wouldn't expect either side to agree with:
https://infogalactic.com/info/Balamand_declaration
Protestants seem to lack hierarchy a bit, so there's all kinds of freedoms for "megachurches" or leftwing "churches" to be created and make protestantism look "non-Christian".
I'm not aware of what you're referring to, although the Scripture was originally passed by oral tradition and literacy wasn't universal so it took some time for there to be a codified Scripture and for the common person to be able to read it, and there were concerns the Scripture would be misread or mistranslated so reading Scripture may not have been encouraged for the common person.
Typically even secular entities like companies or governments have a singular leader, whether it is a CEO or the POTUS. So it would make sense for the Church to have a singular leader, with Christ as the founder. Such entities also have hierarchies, like with government having local, state, and federal levels of hierarchy.
To the contrary, I find protestantism's practice to be ahistorical. Both Catholic and orthodox observe to some extent what is mentioned, of having clergy and confession to a priest. A sinner is however encouraged to pray acts of contrition and to obtain perfect contrition for sin before God outside the confessional (but with the intent of confessing when possible).
For a millennium, I think people were allowed to marry and then become clergy. St. Paul is the example in the Bible that remained celibate for his whole life and wrote that such a state is good because it allows a person to focus entirely on God rather than have to attend to worldly issues. It's simple to follow this line of reasoning. The person who is married is typically working a secular job to provide for a family. The unmarried priest might be able to instead devote more time to prayer that would be otherwise devoted to work, or to devote time to religious works that might not generate necessary income for a family. So there is a practical and Biblical basis for this practice, as well as there being other benefits. Celibates are also able to perhaps observe more rigorous penitential fasts.
There are a few things to be said here, the first of which is that I don't think the numbers are statistically significant compared to other groups, who also have a certain percentage of abusers. Another point is that abusers decided to become clergy to make Christianity look bad. Some of us do think the would-be hierarchy has been taken over though and that the "shuffling around" of "clergy", rather than to send them to the government for secular punishment, has been another attack on Christianity.
Perhaps wasn't a good practice, I don't know about this one, but probably we're in agreement this isn't an issue necessary to resolve for people to be good Christians.
Would a comparable situation today be that of certain books that promote witchcraft or transgenderism to children? Such books were judged to be of no value back then, since they promoted things harmful to souls, and so were destroyed. Do you think they should have archived the books instead? They didn't want to promote the false ideas, which they thought might harm souls.
https://infogalactic.com/info/Intercession_of_saints
There was this concept of "baptizing" pagan practices, or removing sufficiently objectionable content and of doing something similar but in a "Christian" way. For example consider this about the feast of "Candlemas":
https://infogalactic.com/info/Presentation_of_Jesus_at_the_Temple
This has been done multiple times with a bunch of things, so it's not that they were trying to trick Christians in to observing pagan practices, but to transform pagan practices into Christian ones.
I guess feel free to continue to ask questions about Catholicism if there's some continued questions you have. (Crusades? Inquisition? Indulgences?)
There is no scriptural basis on the position of a "pope" or for Peter being crowned in this position. The Orthodox Church holding a viewpoint of this is moot, because they come from the same rotten tree.
There is a major difference in being affected by, and having the central most piece of the movement being corrupted. Though, I'd argue it was corrupt from its inception.
https://www.usccb.org/offices/new-american-bible/changes-catholic-attitudes-toward-bible-readings
For the majority of its existence it wasn't encouraged for people to read scripture for themselves. The concerns you list are almost the equivalent of our government discouraging us from reading the constitution, bill of rites, or any subject of law because we might misinterpret or misunderstand what we're reading. Yes literacy was lower then, but that is still not a suitable explanation. It was merely a method of control.
Would you not say there is a difference between a King and a President? Or a King and Mayor? There are vast differences and implications in the power that they wield or the level of reverence that is involved. So to is the difference between your average Pastor and the Pope.
https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/vicar-of-christ
The way Catholics view the position of Pope or Vicar of Christ is entirely different than what your average non-denominational Christian would view a pastor. Not only is it entirely different, there is no biblical basis for it. Also, not only is there any biblical basis for it, it completely spits in the face of the very teachings Jesus himself.
And yet, there is still no biblical basis for this.
https://attleborocatholics.org/sacraments/sacrament-confession
Nor is there any biblical basis for the quoted reference from the Catechism of the Catholic Church here. There is no scriptural support for the need to obtain reconciliation for your sins because they are also "wounding by their sins". This is just another deceptive way to weave their tentacles in and demand their involvement.
Furthermore, it states that the priest will say the words of absolution acting in the person of Christ. Yet, there is no biblical authority bestowed upon any man to have these powers. I don't necessarily take qualms with discussing your sins with a pastor and praying to god for forgiveness in their presence, as well as seeking guidance. However, this should be a completely optional process and make no mistake that pastor has no authority to act as an intercessor of Christ to forgive your sins. That is 100% between you and Jesus.
https://research.reading.ac.uk/research-blog/roman-catholic-priests-have-been-celibate-for-a-thousand-years-but-this-could-change/#:~:text=The%20universal%20requirement%20to%20celibacy,1123%20and%20again%20in%201139.
True this wasn't mandated until 1123 AD, however it also implies that even before the decree it was widely practiced. The teachings of Paul are presented as an option and a reasoning for abstaining from marriage if you can. It is fine if someone chooses this path, but it is not biblical nor is it fine for it to be mandated to be ordained.
Burning these books is an act of evil, but allowing these books to exist is not synonymous with promoting them to children. If we were to advocate for the destruction of these books then we'd be no better than the left. However, conservatives are not advocating for their destruction, instead they are protesting the education systems forcing these materials upon our children. Huge difference.
I don't even think this act in of itself is good, because you are still invoking the symbolism of the Pagan ritual it stems from. However, even we ignored that, this example with the saints acting as a form of replacement for the Roman pantheon is very different.
Catholics actually engage in prayers to these saints which is absolute blasphemy. There is no biblical argument for this act. These saints are normal humans and have no difference from you and I, and when they pass from this realm there is nothing they can do for you. It's even worse than praying to your ancestors for protection, this is more in line with a form of deification. Praying to Marry? Absolute blasphemy, she has no heavenly power to help you. There is one God to pray to and that is Jesus.
https://www.catholicdoors.com/prayers/english5/p03100.htm
However it's even worse than that. There are prayers for many of the saints for many different purposes. This prayer to the Blessed Anna Maria for example, hailing her as a "Queen of Heaven". Calling here the the Mother of divine piety, and calling on her power.
https://footnote.wordpress.ncsu.edu/2020/10/27/agricultural-saints-gods-and-godesses/#:~:text=However%2C%20most%20people%20don't,nearby%20and%20angels%20surrounding%20him.
Or even worse, looking at this example of St. Isidore who is "the patron saint of farmers". And actually praying that through his intercession they can receive blessing for their crops.
Do you not see the connections and therein the issues here? This is disguised polytheism. They are doing the same things the Roman pagans did before them. They have gods or "saints" that are of a certain archetype, and then they pray to this "god" or "saint" to provide intercession based on their identity. Catholicism from its very core is a corrupted bastardization of Christianity. I don't relish in saying that, but I do want the truth to be prevail.
well there are Scripture passages that are pointed to as being related to some of these beliefs and practices, but some protestants reject these interpretations of Scripture.
This brings up the question of who decides which interpretation is correct. Catholics believe Scripture and Tradition to be authoritative. A critique of the approach of the "Scripture alone" view is that it has led to the fragmented creation of many groups that have broken away from each other, since without an authority to decide on which interpretation is authoritative, then multiple people might disagree on the correct interpretation, and then schisms result.
So Catholics might say that there is a Biblical basis for certain things, protestants might argue there isn't, and then Catholics might additionally argue there is a continuous authoritative support for such beliefs and practices.
This is slightly more complicated today with the current Vatican, which has said things which seem to contradict past Catholic teaching, leading some to conclude that such Vatican is not Catholic currently.
So a handful of us don't consider the USCCB or "Catechism of the Catholic Church" to be Catholic currently, but I see where you read the bit that Catholics weren't as interested in laymen reading Scripture up to the 1940s. That doesn't sound totally accurate, but it's probably true that Catholics (and orthodox?) weren't as concerned with laymen reading Scripture.
Well, the protestant view is often that "faith alone" saves, which wouldn't require reading Scripture anyway. For Catholics, the belief is in the necessity of "faith and good works". So reading Scripture is not necessary to salvation in the belief of either group. Probably instead catechism (which included Scripture) and being a good person were emphasized instead?
I understand what you're saying, although probably you still make use of experts like lawyers or doctors for things? Catholicism is an "authority" based (or "authoritarian") view. While the American culture tends towards "anti-authoritarianism" and "anarchism", there was still always the design of there being an authority of a president (kind of like the pope) and a hierarchy of government.
Even in the modern right-wing anarchism (like of "anarcho-capitalism"), they have acknowledged hierarchy often naturally emerges as a way to organize businesses and institutions. "Experts" as kinds of "natural authorities" emerge; I suppose the Catholic religion simply takes the view of such authorities being supernaturally imposed instead.
I don't view it as being simply a method of control. In Romans 13 St. Paul talks about obeying government authorities - does this acknowledge that to some extent government authorities might exist? So too, wouldn't it seem reasonable to think that Church authorities might exist, with one leader like a pope? If having authority is thought to be "too controlling", might there being no authority be "too out of control"?
well there is James 5:16, "Confess therefore your sins one to another: and pray one for another, that you may be saved."
Converts had burned their books in Acts 19:19 to destroy what was bad: "And many of them who had followed curious arts, brought together their books, and burnt them before all". So book burning is Biblical, Catholic / Christian. It's not good to steal books from others to burn necessarily (since stealing is wrong).
It's been debated if it is good or ok for censorship of books to take place and under what conditions (like the current attempt to remove objectionable materials from public school libraries). Catholics have the Index of Forbidden Books.
I think it's supposed to be like passing a message along. Think about the idea of people "pulling some strings" in the world. Maybe you want permission to do something, so someone has connections to a leader and can "put in a good word". That kind of thing.
Again it's an ancient practice and tradition.
Ok, this site looks confusing: this is a prayer by Anna Maria to the Blessed Virgin Mary, so when it says "Queen of Heaven", that is being addressed to Mary. It's a prayer to Mary.
I can see how someone might view it that way. The lives of saints are read and thought about as good examples to imitate. I guess they are believed to be saved, and able to pray for us, and are part of a heavenly family of sorts. They are not thought to be gods, so it is not polytheism. They are individuals with varied stories though.