Changes in the Vatican!

[Helen]

The Vatican now says celibacy not necessarily dogma, atheists and agnostics can be forgiven if they follow their consciences, and refuses to judge homosexuality. 

So much for Jesus and the Bible!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/the-pope/10302850/Pope-Francis-reaches-out-to-atheists-and-agnostics.html

[Catholica]

The Vatican now says celibacy not necessarily dogma, atheists and agnostics can be forgiven if they follow their consciences, and refuses to judge homosexuality. 

So much for Jesus and the Bible!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/the-pope/10302850/Pope-Francis-reaches-out-to-atheists-and-agnostics.html

Show me where the Catholic Church has ever proclaimed priestly celibacy as dogma.

Show me where people are taught in the gospel to judge others for their weaknesses without knowing of their interior life, whether they are striving to overcome them (rather than judge the acts themselves). 

In terms of people following their consciences, consider the following:

Romans 1
19 For what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it evident to them.
20 Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse;
21 for although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God or give him thanks. Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened.

Pope Francis' reply was one of loving correction.  He knows full well that atheists and agnostics are, to different degrees, violating their consciences.  If they are following their consciences, they recognize that there is good and evil, and to recognize good and evil is to recognize the existence of moral order, and is the beginning of recognizing the existence of God.

[Helen]

I don't much care about the celibacy thing, but it seems that there have been an awful lot of Catholic priests who have had trouble with it -- so it has been at least a 'rule!'

But the Bible says quite clearly there is only salvation in Jesus -- and that rules out those who refuse God, regardless of what any Pope might say.  As for homosexuality?  That same chapter you quote (Romans 1) states pretty clearly that sexual perversion/homosexuality is something God gives some over to who consistently suppress the truth and refuse Him. 

This Pope is, however, doing quite well by the world's standards.  I'll give him that!

[DaveW]

The RCC has a number of different "rites" within its umbrella.  To my knowledge the ONLY rite that insists on celibate priests is the Roman rite.  The Chaldean, Greek and other rites have married priests.

[Catholica]

I don't much care about the celibacy thing, but it seems that there have been an awful lot of Catholic priests who have had trouble with it -- so it has been at least a 'rule!'

So you see how the secular media skews and distorts the truth and has little knowledge of actual Catholic teaching.

But the Bible says quite clearly there is only salvation in Jesus -- and that rules out those who refuse God, regardless of what any Pope might say.

Yes there is only salvation in Jesus, but how can a person choose to obey their conscience unless first they have grace from God?  And their conscience will lead them to Jesus if they obey it.  As for whether they are ultimately saved, only God knows whether they have acted with good will.  There are many ways in which Jesus can come to people, in which Jesus can be found.

Ultimately those who follow their conscience with good will, will be led to be baptized and will have their minds enlightened with the Truth, and will be saved.

As for homosexuality?  That same chapter you quote (Romans 1) states pretty clearly that sexual perversion/homosexuality is something God gives some over to who consistently suppress the truth and refuse Him. 

We all have disordered desires.  They are a result of the fall.   It is only by God's grace that we can not only resist but actually grow in virtue.  When God "hands someone over to degrading passions" he basically pulls his hand of grace back, because the people willed it so.

But these desires don't damn us. What does make a difference is our choice to live in them or with the grace of God strive against them.  THAT is what Pope Francis means when he says "who am I to judge?"  If you read the original dialog, you can see that he is appealing to people separate from their sin.  If someone has good will, they are trying to do the will of God.  In the case of those with the particular weakness of same-sex desire, that means resisting the act itself and turning to God in humility for his help to overcome it.

This Pope is, however, doing quite well by the world's standards.  I'll give him that!

You clearly haven't witnessed much of this pope's actions.  Jesus shines more clearly through him than most.

[Catholica]

The RCC has a number of different "rites" within its umbrella.  To my knowledge the ONLY rite that insists on celibate priests is the Roman rite.  The Chaldean, Greek and other rites have married priests.

This is correct.  The media doesn't seem to be able to tell the difference between a discipline and a dogma.  That priestly celibacy is not dogma has always been true.

[Helen]

Catholica,  was the secular media also skewing about the incredible number of pedophiles in the RC priesthood?  That seemed to be connected with the non-dogma of celibacy....

In the meantime, if people could actually win in the striving against their own evil desires, this world would be a much better place and not even need Jesus.  There is no way all the 'striving' in the world will save anyone.  It is only when one gives up and admits his/her helplessness, asking Christ to take over, and then being born again, that salvation is possible.  At least, that's what the Bible says.  Evidently the RC church says differently.

[Catholica]

Catholica,  was the secular media also skewing about the incredible number of pedophiles in the RC priesthood?  That seemed to be connected with the non-dogma of celibacy....

Yes, in fact they were.  It was skewed by many things.  There were legitimate cases of pedophilia, which is truly a heinous act.  But there were also cases which would not psychologically be called pedophilia, a condition called ephebophilia, which is altogether different, and more related to homosexual desires.  75% of the legitimate cases called "pedophilia" by the media were in fact "ephebophilia", which is desire for a young person of post-pubescent but young age.  In addition there were many accusations of abuse from unscrupulous people who wanted in on monetary settlements, who accused priests of abuse who were never abused.  These were also rolled in to the numbers.

Not only that, but the media turns a blind eye to the many cases of pedophilia elsewhere in our culture.  Pedophilia cases are far, far more common among school teachers in public schools and coaches in youth sports.  The media focused on priests, which just added to the scandal.

Also, the media didn't take into account the common secular beliefs at the time when the cases were "covered up".  The Church admittedly put too much trust in psychological practice which oversold the idea that people with this tendency could be reformed by psychological counseling.  Most of these abuser priests were sent to counseling and assured by the the therapists that they had been reformed.  Returned to ministry, these mentally disturbed priests abused again.

It truly was a scandal, and there is no excuse for pedophilia (or ephebophilia, for that matter) ever.  But in terms of the raw number of priests that actually abused, it was statistically less than in the rest of society.  The John Jay report can teach you more truth about the situation.

The cases of abuse had nothing to do with celibacy.  The idea that a man who isn't married would turn to children is truly misguided.  You do know that there are many men and women who are not married, who spend their whole life not married.  God calls them to chastity as well.  They are not more likely to abuse children.  That is a non-sequitur.  Statistically (by % in which it occurs within that population), the most likely person to abuse children is, in fact, a married man.  Another way to save that is the percentage of abusers among married men are higher than the percentage of abusers among priests, such that if the population of priests and married men were the same, there would be more married men abusing.

The Church has taken measures to eliminate this problem which the world has not and can not.  Men with deep-seated homosexual tendencies can not become priests.  Abusers (even ones simply accused but not convicted) have been removed from ministry.  Meanwhile the public school system continues to move their abusers around.

In addition one can also consider that there are also abuses among clergy of other faiths who are married.  At least an equal number by percentage, if not more.

In the meantime, if people could actually win in the striving against their own evil desires, this world would be a much better place and not even need Jesus.  There is no way all the 'striving' in the world will save anyone.  It is only when one gives up and admits his/her helplessness, asking Christ to take over, and then being born again, that salvation is possible.  At least, that's what the Bible says.  Evidently the RC church says differently.

The Church teaches what the Bible teaches, which is in humility with God's necessary help to resist passions of the flesh and turn to God, growing in virtue and love.  All of the sacraments that Jesus gave us are his greatest form of help.  As Christians we admit that these are necessary helps from God that we as weakened sinners need to be saved.

[Helen]

If you think the sacraments are the greatest form of help God has given us, you have missed out entirely.  When you are actually born again in Him, you are given the Holy Spirit to indwell you.  Compared to Him, the sacraments are like a grain of sand on a mountain.

[Catholica]

If you think the sacraments are the greatest form of help God has given us, you have missed out entirely.  When you are actually born again in Him, you are given the Holy Spirit to indwell you.  Compared to Him, the sacraments are like a grain of sand on a mountain.

How do you explain, then, that there is not more charity in your posts than there is in mine?

[BlackSepulcher]

The Vatican now says celibacy not necessarily dogma, atheists and agnostics can be forgiven if they follow their consciences, and refuses to judge homosexuality. 

So much for Jesus and the Bible!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/the-pope/10302850/Pope-Francis-reaches-out-to-atheists-and-agnostics.html

-Celibacy was never an explicit dogma, it has simply been a glorified discipline of the Church.

-I have always wholeheartedly agreed that it is possible for non-Christians to be saved, it's about time a pope has had the courage to finally say it. If I'm not mistaken, the pope made a relevant proclamation from the get go, by which the Church had suppressed. I'm glad that he feels passionate enough to exercise his rite of papacy on the matter.

-We shouldn't judge anybody, even homosexuals. That doesn't mean that they can be sanctified in marriage, or that their sexuality is not contrary to nature.


Limited atonement and making wickedness & righteousness so black & white is what causes Protestants to not be able to see the view that the Church sees.
Held back by your own flawed doctrine.

[Helen]

I guess charity is in the eye of the beholder, catholica.  When Jesus confronted the Pharisees and teachers of the law about everything they had added to Scripture, He was not sounding terribly 'charitable' either. 

You already know I don't think the RC church is biblical.  You already know I will stand up for the truth.  You consider these things uncharitable, OK. 

[DaveW]

-Celibacy was never an explicit dogma, it has simply been a glorified discipline of the Church.

Actually, "celibacy" is a charismatic gift - more along the lines of prophecy or healings. 

It should not be looked at as a discipline. That would be "abstinence."

Matthew 19:10 The disciples said to Him, If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry.
11  But He said to them, Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given.


1 Corinthians 7:7  Yet I wish that all men were even as I myself am. However, each man has his own gift [χάρισμα charisma] from God, one in this manner, and another in that.

[BlackSepulcher]

If you think the sacraments are the greatest form of help God has given us, you have missed out entirely.  When you are actually born again in Him, you are given the Holy Spirit to indwell you.  Compared to Him, the sacraments are like a grain of sand on a mountain.

The sacraments are assurance. It is God's gift to believers in being assured by bishopric power rather then wondering if one has been forgiven or performed penance in satisfaction.

Acute grace, unconditional in the true Church.

[Catholica]

I guess charity is in the eye of the beholder, catholica.  When Jesus confronted the Pharisees and teachers of the law about everything they had added to Scripture, He was not sounding terribly 'charitable' either. 

You already know I don't think the RC church is biblical.  You already know I will stand up for the truth.  You consider these things uncharitable, OK. 

Perhaps you would be willing to share what exactly it is, what hurt you have inside, that has caused you to so visibly hate the Catholic Church?  Hurts can be healed, but we have to talk about them.

Your zeal for the truth is obvious, but I can't see in what you have posted thus far that your beliefs about the Catholic Church are actually founded in truth, but only in fabricated myths and secular disinformation. 

I hate false beliefs as much as the next guy, but I have a really hard time sustaining any attacks that I ever have made against other faiths.  I care more about the people than about proving that something is wrong.  I feel a great love in responding to inquiries and even attacks against my own faith, and I could do this all day, trying to break down barriers of misunderstanding.  I have a hard time understanding how someone can sustain attacks against someone else's beliefs unless there is some deep wound inside driving it.  That is why I ask the question.

[Catholica]

-Celibacy was never an explicit dogma, it has simply been a glorified discipline of the Church.

Actually, "celibacy" is a charismatic gift - more along the lines of prophecy or healings.

It should not be looked at as a discipline. That would be "abstinence."

Celibacy is both a charismatic gift AND a discipline of the Church.  A discipline of the Church is a rule bound by the Church for a time in order to bring about a needed good.  For example, when the Council of Jerusalem told the believers in Antioch to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, that was a temporary discipline.  We see later that Paul states the opposite, which is that that food can be eaten, but not if it causes scandal.

Matthew 19:10 The disciples said to Him, If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry.
11  But He said to them, Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given.


1 Corinthians 7:7  Yet I wish that all men were even as I myself am. However, each man has his own gift [χάρισμα charisma] from God, one in this manner, and another in that.

Agreed.  That is part of the discernment process to becoming a priest, to discern whether a priest has been given that gift.  At least, it should be, and priests should take it seriously.  There have been some failures to discern, such as by Albert Cutie.

[DaveW]

A discipline of the Church is a rule bound by the Church for a time in order to bring about a needed good.  For example, when the Council of Jerusalem told the believers in Antioch to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, that was a temporary discipline.  We see later that Paul states the opposite, which is that that food can be eaten, but not if it causes scandal.

I disagree with this point on a few levels.  But it is probably off topic here as it has NOTHING to do with the vatican or the pope.

Where do you think would be the correct forum for this discussion?

[HannahT]

I guess charity is in the eye of the beholder, catholica.  When Jesus confronted the Pharisees and teachers of the law about everything they had added to Scripture, He was not sounding terribly 'charitable' either. 

You already know I don't think the RC church is biblical.  You already know I will stand up for the truth.  You consider these things uncharitable, OK. 

I'm not a Catholic Helen, but I have to agree you are being extremely uncharitable. 

You have to remember the attitude that the Pharisees and teachers of the law had at the time.  You can't tell me that Jesus would not have been nice in response - if  they had been nice with their approach.  They were awful instead.  There were many reasons for why Jesus did what he did during that portion of scripture.

Non- Catholic churches add rules and regulations to scriptures constantly.  Its not hard to find news stories of non-catholic churches having issues with molestation either.  Every week you find stories of cover ups, etc.

You seem to have ignored the spirit of what the Pope stated, and I guess decided to listen to the current news media's opinion instead.  Then when you add in - what seems your current disdain for the Catholic church - and I honestly don't see your purpose of posting in this section.  To be perfectly honest - its seem rather mean spirited.  lol doubt you can find scripture to back up that behavior!

Did you pick this section just looking for fight, or do you feel your grace filled approach would win over some converts? 

Seriously.  There is no good reason for being ugly about this. 

[Catholica]

A discipline of the Church is a rule bound by the Church for a time in order to bring about a needed good.  For example, when the Council of Jerusalem told the believers in Antioch to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, that was a temporary discipline.  We see later that Paul states the opposite, which is that that food can be eaten, but not if it causes scandal.

I disagree with this point on a few levels.  But it is probably off topic here as it has NOTHING to do with the vatican or the pope.

Where do you think would be the correct forum for this discussion?

I'm guessing from your view it would be the (currently invisible but I'm sure its coming) Messianic Judaism forum.  hehe

I guess you could start it in the Catholic forum if you wish.   It's just a melting pot anyway. 

[DaveW]

I'm guessing from your view it would be the (currently invisible but I'm sure its coming) Messianic Judaism forum.  hehe

I guess you could start it in the Catholic forum if you wish.   It's just a melting pot anyway.

It is a melting pot. but this is not a catholic issue.

Theology perhaps?

[HannahT]

I find this current Pope very refreshing personally.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/20/world/europe/pope-bluntly-faults-churchs-focus-on-gays-and-abortion.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0

His surprising comments came in a lengthy interview in which he criticized the church for putting dogma before love, and for prioritizing moral doctrines over serving the poor and marginalized. He articulated his vision of an inclusive church, a "home for all" — which is a striking contrast with his predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI, the doctrinal defender who envisioned a smaller, purer church.

Francis told the interviewer, a fellow Jesuit: "It is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time. The dogmatic and moral teachings of the church are not all equivalent. The church's pastoral ministry cannot be obsessed with the transmission of a disjointed multitude of doctrines to be imposed insistently.

"We have to find a new balance," the pope continued, "otherwise even the moral edifice of the church is likely to fall like a house of cards, losing the freshness and fragrance of the Gospel."

Sadly, there are many places of worship that have similar issues.

[Catholica]

I find this current Pope very refreshing personally.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/20/world/europe/pope-bluntly-faults-churchs-focus-on-gays-and-abortion.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0

His surprising comments came in a lengthy interview in which he criticized the church for putting dogma before love, and for prioritizing moral doctrines over serving the poor and marginalized. He articulated his vision of an inclusive church, a "home for all" — which is a striking contrast with his predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI, the doctrinal defender who envisioned a smaller, purer church.

Francis told the interviewer, a fellow Jesuit: "It is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time. The dogmatic and moral teachings of the church are not all equivalent. The church's pastoral ministry cannot be obsessed with the transmission of a disjointed multitude of doctrines to be imposed insistently.

"We have to find a new balance," the pope continued, "otherwise even the moral edifice of the church is likely to fall like a house of cards, losing the freshness and fragrance of the Gospel."

Sadly, there are many places of worship that have similar issues.

I think many find him refreshing.  I hate how the media tries to contrast him with Benedict though.  There is no contrast with Benedict except how he is portrayed by the media.  Benedict never envisioned a smaller, purer church.  Nor does Pope Francis endorse being accepting of sin, as the media portrays.  Francis' humility flows through his actions and life and his love for people is apparent.  Benedict was more reserved and introverted, but his teaching was equally charitable and pastoral.

[Catholica]

Here is a translation of what the Pope actually said, with regard to homosexuality.  It isn't a confirmed translation, but let's consider it anyway:

"We need to proclaim the Gospel on every street corner,"  the pope says, "preaching the good news of the kingdom and healing, even with our preaching, every kind of disease and wound. In Buenos Aires I used to receive letters from homosexual persons who are 'socially wounded' because they tell me that they feel like the church has always condemned them. But the church does not want to do this.  During the return flight from Rio de Janeiro I said that if a homosexual person is of good will and is in search of God, I am no one to judge. By saying this, I said what the catechism says. Religion has the right to express its opinion in the service of the people, but God in creation has set us free: it is not possible to interfere spiritually in the life of a person.

Notice how Francis said that "if the homosexual person is of good will..." and refers to the Catechism.  Here is what the Catechism says:

Chastity and homosexuality

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

141 Cf. Gen 191-29; Rom 1:24-27; 1 Cor 6:10; 1 Tim 1:10.
142 CDF, Persona humana 8.

Continuing:

"A person once asked me, in a provocative manner, if I approved of homosexuality. I replied with another question: 'Tell me: when God looks at a gay person, does he endorse the existence of this person with love, or reject and condemn this person?' We must always consider the person. Here we enter into the mystery of the human being. In life, God accompanies persons, and we must accompany them, starting from their situation. It is necessary to accompany them with mercy. When that happens, the Holy Spirit inspires the priest to say the right thing.

And the priest will walk with that person to lead them to reject their sin when the time is right, because people need to be led into truth in order for them to believe it, not just beat over the head with it and left for dead in the gutter.

"This is also the great benefit of confession as a sacrament: evaluating case by case and discerning what is the best thing to do for a person who seeks God and grace. The confessional is not a torture chamber, but the place in which the Lord's mercy motivates us to do better.  I also consider the situation of a woman with a failed marriage in her past and who also had an abortion. Then this woman remarries, and she is now happy and has five children. That abortion in her past weighs heavily on her conscience and she sincerely regrets it. She would like to move forward in her Christian life. What is the confessor to do?

The sacrament of the confession is the place where the sinner confesses his or her sins.  That is why Francis next talks about the sacrament of confession, because he is confessing that homosexual sex is a sin.  As is abortion.  But healing from these takes more for most people, than just being hit over the head with the fact that they sinned.  Francis is calling for Christ-like compassion.

"We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods.  This is not possible. I have not spoken much about these things, and I was reprimanded for that.  But when we speak about these issues, we have to talk about them in a context. The teaching of the church, for that matter, is clear and I am a son of the church, but it is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time.

He is emphasizing that he holds the Church's teaching (being a "son of the Church", saying "the teaching of the Church...is clear").  He is saying the emphasis is on serving people and loving them through their pain, not pushing them aside by simply preaching at them.

[Catholica]

Here is another, I believe even better, article to better understand the pope's words (and then take into account just how badly the secular media spread disinformation):

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/09/20/breaking-pope-opposes-abortion/

[AnnaM]

-We shouldn't judge anybody, even homosexuals. That doesn't mean that they can be sanctified in marriage, or that their sexuality is not contrary to nature.

What you're saying is satanic. Sodomites and perverts are already judged by God. That's a fact. Sodomy is an abomination and one of the sins that cries out to Heaven for vengeance. It's mortally sinful, actually blasphemous to suggest they can be "sanctified in marriage."

"Sins against nature, therefore, like the sin of Sodom, are abominable and deserve punishment whenever and wherever they are committed. If all nations committed them, all alike would be held guilty of the same charge in God's law, for our Maker did not prescribe that we should use each other in this way. In fact, the relationship that we ought to have with God is itself violated when our nature, of which He is Author, is desecrated by perverted lust." (Saint Augustine)

"No sin has greater power over the soul than the one of cursed sodomy, which was always detested by all those who lived according to God... (Saint Bernadine of Siena

[AnnaM]

The Vatican now says celibacy not necessarily dogma, atheists and agnostics can be forgiven if they follow their consciences, and refuses to judge homosexuality. 

So much for Jesus and the Bible!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/the-pope/10302850/Pope-Francis-reaches-out-to-atheists-and-agnostics.html

All of which is a direct rejection of Catholic teaching. Still think Francis is pope? Still think the Vatican II sect is the Catholic Church? What more proof do you need? Wake up.

[BlackSepulcher]

-We shouldn't judge anybody, even homosexuals. That doesn't mean that they can be sanctified in marriage, or that their sexuality is not contrary to nature.

What you're saying is satanic. Sodomites and perverts are already judged by God. That's a fact. Sodomy is an abomination and one of the sins that cries out to Heaven for vengeance. It's mortally sinful, actually blasphemous to suggest they can be "sanctified in marriage."

"Sins against nature, therefore, like the sin of Sodom, are abominable and deserve punishment whenever and wherever they are committed. If all nations committed them, all alike would be held guilty of the same charge in God's law, for our Maker did not prescribe that we should use each other in this way. In fact, the relationship that we ought to have with God is itself violated when our nature, of which He is Author, is desecrated by perverted lust." (Saint Augustine)

"No sin has greater power over the soul than the one of cursed sodomy, which was always detested by all those who lived according to God... (Saint Bernadine of Siena

It is not 'Satanic' to refrain from judging people, and I stated that they cannot be sanctified in marriage and that it is contrary to nature.

What else are you going to do, ban them from their country club? Burn down a few gay bars..
Sometimes I wonder if those like yourself are even aware of Jesus' teachings of charity.

[AVZ]

The Vatican now says celibacy not necessarily dogma, atheists and agnostics can be forgiven if they follow their consciences, and refuses to judge homosexuality. 

So much for Jesus and the Bible!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/the-pope/10302850/Pope-Francis-reaches-out-to-atheists-and-agnostics.html

All of which is a direct rejection of Catholic teaching. Still think Francis is pope? Still think the Vatican II sect is the Catholic Church? What more proof do you need? Wake up.

Anna

Who cares what the Vatican or the Pope teaches? It has always been tradition of the Catholics to consume whatever the Vatican decides, and the Vatican is always right and the Pope is always right.
Regardless whether it is Vatican I or Vatican II.

See, the problem comes in when you take the Bible and compare Vatican II against it.
And then you also compare Vatican I and run into more problems.

But then again, why would you ask a Catholic to pick up a Bible?
Most of them don't have one, and its not that Bible reading is promoted by the Church.

So most Catholics will follow Vatican II because they have always been told to trust the Church and the Pope because they cannot be wrong.
And there the whole system goes....

[mclees8]

The Vatican now says celibacy not necessarily dogma, atheists and agnostics can be forgiven if they follow their consciences, and refuses to judge homosexuality. 

So much for Jesus and the Bible!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/the-pope/10302850/Pope-Francis-reaches-out-to-atheists-and-agnostics.html

All of which is a direct rejection of Catholic teaching. Still think Francis is pope? Still think the Vatican II sect is the Catholic Church? What more proof do you need? Wake up.

Anna

Who cares what the Vatican or the Pope teaches? It has always been tradition of the Catholics to consume whatever the Vatican decides, and the Vatican is always right and the Pope is always right.
Regardless whether it is Vatican I or Vatican II.

See, the problem comes in when you take the Bible and compare Vatican II against it.
And then you also compare Vatican I and run into more problems.

But then again, why would you ask a Catholic to pick up a Bible?
Most of them don't have one, and its not that Bible reading is promoted by the Church.

So most Catholics will follow Vatican II because they have always been told to trust the Church and the Pope because they cannot be wrong.
And there the whole system goes....

It is also a sad state that trusting the clergy leaves many protestant bibles in closets as well .

[BlackSepulcher]

It is also a sad state that trusting the clergy leaves many protestant bibles in closets as well .

What's so much better about a bible with missing books?

[FireSword]

It is also a sad state that trusting the clergy leaves many protestant bibles in closets as well .

What's so much better about a bible with missing books?

There were 3 Jewish sects, Pharisse, seduces and Nazarene. Only one of these had the missing books.

I think one only had the Torah.

The other I think the Nazarene had the same books as the typical Prot old testament we have today, not including various editions that do contain the Apocrypha books sometimes adding as a complimentary reading.

[AVZ]

It is also a sad state that trusting the clergy leaves many protestant bibles in closets as well .

What's so much better about a bible with missing books?

Does it matter if you have a "more complete" Bible but no people who actually possess it or even read it?
For all it matters you add or extract another 20 books...the average Catholic wont notice the difference anyhow.

And for the Catholic clergy it also doesn't matter, because if they can't slot in in the canon, well...then they just declare it tradition.

[Red Baker]

It is also a sad state that trusting the clergy leaves many protestant bibles in closets as well .

What's so much better about a bible with missing books?

Does it matter if you have a "more complete" Bible but no people who actually possess it or even read it?
For all it matters you add or extract another 20 books...the average Catholic wont notice the difference anyhow.

And for the Catholic clergy it also doesn't matter, because if they can't slot in in the canon, well...then they just declare it tradition.

Your words are SO TRUE.

[BlackSepulcher]

It is also a sad state that trusting the clergy leaves many protestant bibles in closets as well .

What's so much better about a bible with missing books?

Does it matter if you have a "more complete" Bible but no people who actually possess it or even read it?
For all it matters you add or extract another 20 books...the average Catholic wont notice the difference anyhow.

And for the Catholic clergy it also doesn't matter, because if they can't slot in in the canon, well...then they just declare it tradition.

The Bible is not the only source of information, even those who put the canon together knew this. It was not the intent to make Christianity 'sola scriptura', it was to simply have a Bible.

I know that seems like mincing to you protestants, because you've been warped to believe that there is no difference. But there is, there is a gargantuan difference- your denominations of Christianity are severely limited, you all have no insight on a great deal of things.

The greatest extent of non-Catholic belief is it's fantastically self-declared grandness.  Not one single paragraph or point can be made by you all that doesn't mention something along the lines of "the Church is the Devil and we are true saints". Your beliefs aren't really rooted in scripture, but prejudice.

When you can't slot in truth, your interpretation of the Bible trumps it.
Really?
That's what arguing with a Protestant is.

[Red Baker]

It is also a sad state that trusting the clergy leaves many protestant bibles in closets as well .

What's so much better about a bible with missing books?

Does it matter if you have a "more complete" Bible but no people who actually possess it or even read it?
For all it matters you add or extract another 20 books...the average Catholic wont notice the difference anyhow.

And for the Catholic clergy it also doesn't matter, because if they can't slot in in the canon, well...then they just declare it tradition.

The Bible is not the only source of information, even those who put the canon together knew this. It was not the intent to make Christianity 'sola scriptura', it was to simply have a Bible.

I know that seems like mincing to you protestants, because you've been warped to believe that there is no difference. But there is, there is a gargantuan difference- your denominations of Christianity are severely limited, you all have no insight on a great deal of things.

The greatest extent of non-Catholic belief is it's fantastically self-declared grandness.  Not one single paragraph or point can be made by you all that doesn't mention something along the lines of "the Church is the Devil and we are true saints". Your beliefs aren't really rooted in scripture, but prejudice.

When you can't slot in truth, your interpretation of the Bible trumps it.
Really?
That's what arguing with a Protestant is.

You said: "The Bible is not the only source of information,"

There are other sources of information, we will freely admit.  There are tons of books in the world on many things~from science, to math, sex, history, etc. But there is "only ONE source of TRUTH concerning the TESTIMONY OF GOD in matters of godliness life and death, and life after death.

1 Corinthians 2:1

"For I brethren, when I came unto you, came not with excellency of speech, declaring unto you the testimony of God."

Also such scriptures as 1 John 5:7-12, etc.

You said: "even those who put the canon together knew this."~Prove your words.  Jesus said otherwise: Matthew 4:4

You said: "It was not the intent to make Christianity 'sola Scripture', it was to simply have a Bible."

Again, you say things base upon assumptions, without proof.  Peter said these words:

1 Peter 4:11a

"If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God; ....."

Isaiah said these words in 8:20

"To the law and to the testimony: if any speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them."

So, who are you trying to fool?

You said: "you all have no insight on a great deal of things. "

If you and your cohorts ever want to even try to convince true children of Abraham that they are wrong, you must to it with the word of God.  We are children of faith, not self righteous Pharisees who love their traditions above the written of God!  We are children of faith, not men who exalt their wisdom above the words of God.

You said: "Your beliefs aren't really rooted in scripture, but prejudice."

Listen to the kettle calling the pot black! Prejudice only toward "thus saith the Lord God of heaven and earth"! Our faith is rooted in the words of Almighty God, not in any form of traditions, along with a few scriptures added to make it seem to be of God.

You said: "When you can't slot in truth, your interpretation of the Bible trumps it. Really? That's what arguing with a Protestant is."


Not sure what you mean by "slot in truth"and it really does not matter.  But as a bible believer (not an Protestant, sir, other than, protesting against the many, teachings that men like you embrace as doctrines of the scriptures, when it truth they are nothing more than your own doctrines and commandments~Matthew 15; Mark 7) ) who does labor to give scriptural support for every words that we believe are a bible doctrine, that God has graciously given to us.

You said: "That's what arguing with a Protestant is."~A protestant to you and what God may call a protestant are two different things.  Beside, folks have trouble with true children of FAITH, because of the source of information for their doctrine are not one and the same!  Let us be honest.  Something you folk have trouble doing.  I know your spirit, for I know the spirit of Phariseeism from reading the NT, and you are their children, for you have the same father. If that is too hard for you to accept, then better hear it from me, than from the lips of Jesus Christ in that day!  Matthew 23; Matthew 7.

RB