Slashdot Mirror

Doesn't the immaculate conception refer to the fact that Jesus was born of a virgin?

No. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is that *Mary* was free of original sin. This isn't some kind of Catholic secret. Anyone can read the catechism http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/cate chism/p122a3p2.htm.

Ah, yeah... The Pentateuch is the first five books of the Bible (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy). Check here and see for yourself.

JP II discussed this in an encyclical 1996, where he said that if science and religion disagree, it's useful to remember that truth cannot contradict truth. (Implying that if science and religion disagree, and you've checked your scientific facts, maybe you don't actually understand your religion.)

I also like this quote: "In the domain of inanimate and animate nature, the evolution of science and its applications give rise to new questions. The better the Church's knowledge is of their essential aspects, the more she will understand their impact." I.e., a good theologian is first a good scientist.

JP II emphasises that the interplay between science and religion was heavily discussed by theologians in the 16-18th centuries; his stance is not exactly terra nova. So this story is really only about 300 years old, or: slightly fresher than the SCO lawsuits.

Nothing new here. Sixty years ago Pope Pius XII said almost the same thing in the encyclical Humani generis: "The Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, insofar as it inquiries into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter."

Pope John Paul II reinforces this sentiment 9 years ago in an address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences.

This is just me but a lot of this "intelligent design" bull was cooked up by a bunch of fundamentalist using their religion to cover for their ignorance.

News items like these makes me proud to be part of the Roman Catholic Church.

The question is not whether the freshly-fertilised egg is 'alive', but whether it can be considered human. For example, St. Thomas Aquinas* considered an unborn boy to have a soul at 40 days, and an unborn girl to have one at 80; before those times, he saw the foetus to be non-human. At what point to we declare the bundle of multiplying cells to be human, and at what point are they afforded the same rights? I doubt these new findings will bring much insight to this rather contentious question.

Actually, Aquinas doesn't say when thinks that this happens. The discussion is part of Whether the intellectual soul is produced from the semen? . In particular, see the 'Reply to Objection 2'.

As I understand it, Aquinas's argument here is that the intellectual soul -- because it subsists in itself and is essentially independent of the form of the body -- can only be created by God, so it cannot be transmitted directly by a man's semen (nor by the "foetal matter" thought to be provided by the woman). But, he says, there must be some preexisting form which the intellectual soul replaces, and this is the sensitive soul which is bound wholly to the world. The intellectual soul supersedes the sensitive soul, having not only all the good parts of the sensitive soul, but also the capacity for rational thought and an inclination toward God.

Anyway, it seems to me that from this argument, it could happen at 40 days, or it could well happen at 40 nanoseconds.

In any case, Aquinas does not anywhere claim that there is any difference regarding the souls of male and female embryos. There is more on that in this article (from a rather conservative religious magazine).

As far as I can tell, people in medieval times knew that they were pretty ignorant of embryology. We have learned quite a lot since then, but like you say, it really doesn't bring that much insight to certain moral questions.

The article incorrectly reports the name of the High School. It's named after Pope John the 23rd of Vatican II fame, not the John XIII.

I regard the school's actions as ludicrous.

Yes. St. Thomas Aquinas addresses this in ST II-II.66.7. "It is not theft, properly speaking, to take secretly and use another's property in a case of extreme need: because that which he takes for the support of his life becomes his own property by reason of that need." Although this would not be a "secret" taking (it's in the headlines!), the principle still replies. IF (and I stress the "if" because I have no idea what the price tag was) Roche is truly being unreasonable in their demands, and IF (ditto) the need to act now is truly extreme, then the Taiwanese government does have the right to act in violation of the patent.

There's more than one Madonna.

Note that this doesn't say "earn eternal happiness", but rather "earn title" to it. Christ did earn our salvation for us, and we could never have earned it for ourselves. However, Jesus did explicitly say that we are rewarded for the good we do once we are saved; with the help of God's grace, we do earn a reward for ourselves. See the Catholic Encyclopedia article on merit.

...is bound to be wrong.

Catholicism on Happiness:

"Man has one ultimate purpose of existence: eternal happiness in a future life. But man also has a twofold proximate purpose: to earn his title to eternal happiness, and to attain to a measure of temporal happiness consistent with the prior proximate purpose."

This is from "State and Church," in New Advent's Catholic Encyclopedia.

...is bound to be wrong.

Catholicism on Happiness:

"Man has one ultimate purpose of existence: eternal happiness in a future life. But man also has a twofold proximate purpose: to earn his title to eternal happiness, and to attain to a measure of temporal happiness consistent with the prior proximate purpose."

This is from "State and Church," in New Advent's Catholic Encyclopedia.

A point I will conceed. Alas, George Bush isn't even close to being a John Adams, as a study of their mutual efforts pre-presidency will reveal. Adams at least had a height to fall from, to make his failures more tragic than farce.

Gee, it seems that Jefferson and Madison were religion neutral as well.

"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."
--James Madison

..."the successful experiment made under the prevalence of that delusion on the clause of the constitution, which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity thro' the U.S.; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians & Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes, & they believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."
--Thomas Jefferson, letter to To Dr. Benjamin Rush, Monticello, Sep. 23, 1800. (Emphasis added, because the quote fucking rocks. )

For some reason, Fundamentalist Evangelicals seldom cite Jefferson, and never do so referring to the full source. =)

As for the other issues which you don't address, again the 10th Amendment covers it very nicely. If it ain't in the Constitution, a document I swore a long time ago to preserve, protect and defend and still hold to that oath despite my country breaking faith from me, it is left to the states or the people.

Article V: Amendments "shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution". Which means you're still stuck (as I noted) with Amendment 14, not to mention assorted loons empowered by Article III until and unless they quit or keel over dead.

Sorry, but try another shot at my bows.

"Mister Christian! Man the Canons!"

The question is did you read their definition of interest. The link you gave is their definition of usury.

The question is did you read their definition of interest. The link you gave is their definition of usury.

Did you read their definition of interest? Vix Pervenit is relatively recent in the history of the Catholic Church and conscious of the greater financial activity of its day, and even it bans interest exacted for the sake of profit. Interest is only okay as a negation of loss. It mentions that there are people within the church who oppose even such interest.

Did you read their definition of interest? Vix Pervenit is relatively recent in the history of the Catholic Church and conscious of the greater financial activity of its day, and even it bans interest exacted for the sake of profit. Interest is only okay as a negation of loss. It mentions that there are people within the church who oppose even such interest.

Usury is an absurdly high level of interest, not a synonym for interest.

In fact the Vix Pervenit that you referred to(Thanks Google) they point out that interest is fine so long as you have a contract set out beforehand. What they seem to be deriding is the practice of charging interest on informal loans such as when you give someone money to buy groceries when they are short.

Gen 22:1 "And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham."
James 1:13 "Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man."
Hebrew translation
The word tempt here is ambiguous. In James it specifically lays out that it means God won't tempt man to do evil which means, God won't make a man do evil things. In Genesis it's been translated a couple of ways in which, if you read the chapter, God was testing Abraham, not tempting him to do evil.

MAT 1:16 "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
LUK 3:23 "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli." Here's an explanation
You must think these seeming contradictions are irrefutable, which means you have to make the claim that if they are refuted that the refuter is one of the "brain washed majority".

JOH 10:30 "I and my Father are one."
JOH 14:28 "Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I."
Understanding the trinity is difficult. I am a father, I am a son, I am a husband, I am a brother, I am an uncle. I as a son, have less authority, a.k.a. potential for greatness, as I do as a father. Jesus was fully flesh and bone and fully God at the same time. I guess I can take a stance much like you might... "I don't understand why there are missing links in the evolution evidence, but I'm sure those will be answered later." I'm sure Jesus meant what he said when he said it, but I don't fully understand it yet.

Again, as I have pointed out, scientists tend not to blindly accept a theory.
Your implication is that scientists must be atheists.
You accept them as "not false" until you have reason to believe otherwise.
When I say "atheistic scientists" I am using the word atheist as an adjective to describe the scientist. There are many many great Christians that use the scientific method to document God's creation. These Christians are scientists. They don't accept their findings as fact; rather, as tools to be used along with the creative possibility God gave them to create space programs, etc..
"Not false" to someone who believes in absolute truth means true. To someone who believes in relativism, "Not false" means "who knows?"

Okay, so what you're saying is that when it comes to space programs, computers, and cars, science is wonderful. When it comes to your beliefs, suddenly it has a "weak foundation". Interesting.
Actually, what I am saying is that space programs, computers, and cars have nowhere near the significance as a creator/savior. When using science as a tool to create, its great. Using science as a tool to destroy lives and cause eternal consequence is evil.

I feel that my belief has a place in a science classroom. Your belief has a place in a church or your house,
Why do my tax dollars have to pay for your belief, but yours don't have to pay for mine? You might want to reconsider your position. Home schooling growth is beginning to become out of control. The government funds schools per student. Each student a school loses hurts the school and students are leaving the education system in droves. Capitalism and free choice are about to destroy the public education system and birth a superior education system that takes place in the home, unless the politicians attempt to destroy home schooling and send our children to forced education (which is actually what is beginning to happen)

So the rea

Next time you tell your little anecdote about the first copyright law, you might want to supply a bit more information.

That account misses some important points:

Columcille's side won the battle and the High King Diarmaid soon became an ex-High King, for starters.

If you are reading this and wondering wtf a priest was doing with a thousands-strong army, it helps to know Colum O'Donnell (Columcille was his nickname because he was associated with the church (cille) was a prince from a very powerful clan (he was a descendant of Niall of the Nine Hostages)), and thus himself potentially in line for the throne before he gave up his title and joined the church.

And Columcille didn't just "build a monastery and exile himself" - he travelled around the islands of Britannia and Hibernia, founding monasteries such as Iona dedicated in part to the preservation of ancient literature by its transcription (i.e. rampant copying :-) ).

That "battle cry" does represent the first recorded instance of a copyright law in Europe. And it is nothing to be proud of. The thing to be proud of is that Columcille spotted and defeated the nascent tyranny of the first copyright law.

Look also at Columcille's defence of the Bards - does that sound like a man who "repented" of his opposition to copyright??? No - Columcille repented the great loss of life in the battle with the High King's forces, but did all he could to oppose those who would stifle the free flow of information.

Columcille was made a saint. But he was a scholar first and foremost, and a truly good man who quickly saw what I ("even" as an atheist) consider a real evil and defeated it. His legacy made Ireland a beacon of knowledge and hope in the Europe of the Dark Ages after the fall of the Roman empire, a legacy then carried to continental europe by St. Columbanus (easily confused with Columba, but a different guy...)

People think I'm crazy when I say there might yet be another war about copyright. But there might have to be, or we might not ever escape its tyranny.

Nevertheless it was a churchman, Nicholas Copernicus, who first advanced the contrary doctrine that the sun and not the earth is the centre of our system, round which our planet revolves, rotating on its own axis. His great work, "De Revolutionibus orblure coelestium", was published at the earnest solicitation of two distinguished churchmen, Cardinal Schömberg and Tiedemann Giese, Bishop of Culm. It was dedicated by permission to Pope Paul III in order, as Copernicus explained,

that it might be thus protected from the attacks which it was sure to encounter on the part of the "mathematicians" (i.e. philosophers) for its apparent contradiction of the evidence of our senses, and even of common sense. He added that he made no account of objections which might be brought by ignorant wiseacres on Scriptural grounds. Indeed, for nearly three quarters of a century no such difficulties were raised on the Catholic side, although Luther and Melanchthon condemned the work of Copernicus in unmeasured terms. Neither Paul III, nor any of the nine popes who followed him, nor the Roman Congregations raised any alarm, and, as has been seen, Galileo himself in 1597, speaking of the risks he might run by an advocacy of Copernicanism, mentioned ridicule only and said nothing of persecution. Even when he had made his famous discoveries, no change occurred in this respect. On the contrary, coming to Rome in 1611, he was received in triumph; all the world, clerical and lay, flocked to see him, and, setting up his telescope in the Quirinal Garden belonging to Cardinal Bandim, he exhibited the sunspots and other objects to an admiring throng.

It was not until four years later that trouble arose, the ecclesiastical authorities taking alarm at the persistence with which Galileo proclaimed the truth of the Copernican doctrine. That their opposition was grounded, as is constantly assumed, upon a fear lest men should be enlightened by the diffusion of scientific truth, it is obviously absurd to maintain. On the contrary, they were firmly convinced, with Bacon and others, that the new teaching was radically false and unscientific, while it is now truly admitted that Galileo himself had no sufficient proof of what he so vehemently advocated, and Professor Huxley after examining the case avowed his opinion that the opponents of Galileo "had rather the best of it". But what, more than all, raised alarm was anxiety for the credit of Holy Scripture, the letter of which was then universally believed to be the supreme authority in matters of science, as in all others. When therefore it spoke of the sun staying his course at the prayer of Joshua, or the earth as being ever immovable, it was assumed that the doctrine of Copernicus and Galileo was anti-Scriptural; and therefore heretical. It is evident that, since the days of Copernicus himself, the Reformation controversy had done much to attach suspicion to novel interpretations of the Bible, which was not lessened by the endeavours of Galileo and his ally Foscarini to find positive arguments for Copernicanism in the inspired volume. Foscarini, a Carmelite friar of noble lineage, who had twice ruled Calabria as provincial, and had considerable reputation as a preacher and theologian, threw himself with more zeal than discretion into the controversy, as when he sought to find an argument for Copernicanism in the seven-branched candlestick of the Old Law. Above all, he excited alarm by publishing works on the subject in the vernacular, and thus spreading the new doctrine, which was startling even for the learned, amongst the masses who were incapable of forming any sound judgment concerning it. There was at the time an active sceptical party in Italy, which aimed at the overthrow of all religion, and, as Sir David Brewster ackn

Here ya go

The Catholic Encyclopedia states:

Perpetual Adoration
A term broadly used to designate the practically uninterrupted adoration of the Blessed Sacrament.

THE PERMANENCE AND ADORABLENESS OF THE EUCHARIST
...the Council of Trent (Sess. XIII, can. iv) by a special canon emphasized the fact, that after the Consecration Christ is truly present and, consequently, does not make His Presence dependent upon the act of eating or drinking. On the contrary, He continues His Eucharistic Presence even in the consecrated Hosts and Sacred particles that remain on the altar or in the ciborium after the distribution of Holy Communion.

Translation: Worshiping a piece of bread that is believed to be Jesus Christ.
I can assure you that for 2000 years Christians have not worshiped bread as God.
You sound like a "bad" Catholic who doesn't know what Catholicism teaches nor worships the bread god.

The Catholic Encyclopedia states:

Perpetual Adoration
A term broadly used to designate the practically uninterrupted adoration of the Blessed Sacrament.

THE PERMANENCE AND ADORABLENESS OF THE EUCHARIST
...the Council of Trent (Sess. XIII, can. iv) by a special canon emphasized the fact, that after the Consecration Christ is truly present and, consequently, does not make His Presence dependent upon the act of eating or drinking. On the contrary, He continues His Eucharistic Presence even in the consecrated Hosts and Sacred particles that remain on the altar or in the ciborium after the distribution of Holy Communion.

Translation: Worshiping a piece of bread that is believed to be Jesus Christ.
I can assure you that for 2000 years Christians have not worshiped bread as God.
You sound like a "bad" Catholic who doesn't know what Catholicism teaches nor worships the bread god.

The Catholic Encyclopedia states:

Perpetual Adoration
A term broadly used to designate the practically uninterrupted adoration of the Blessed Sacrament.

THE PERMANENCE AND ADORABLENESS OF THE EUCHARIST
...the Council of Trent (Sess. XIII, can. iv) by a special canon emphasized the fact, that after the Consecration Christ is truly present and, consequently, does not make His Presence dependent upon the act of eating or drinking. On the contrary, He continues His Eucharistic Presence even in the consecrated Hosts and Sacred particles that remain on the altar or in the ciborium after the distribution of Holy Communion.

Translation: Worshiping a piece of bread that is believed to be Jesus Christ.
I can assure you that for 2000 years Christians have not worshiped bread as God.
You sound like a "bad" Catholic who doesn't know what Catholicism teaches nor worships the bread god.

I'm not a fan of Aquinas's 5 Ways. But I agree that "What created God" is a silly question posing as profundity.

Aquinas is attempting to demonstrate that there must be an Unmoved Mover, or an Uncaused Causer. His arguments then lay out the case that either there is an infinitely long chain of causation extending into an infinite past, or else there was a first cause which itself was uncaused. He then labels the Uncaused Cause as "This we all understand to be God."

Asking what caused the Uncaused Cause is simply failing to understand the argument.

If, on the other hand, one wishes to simply deny the existence of anything uncaused, then it would probably be best to state it directly ...

One that should not be permissible to trademark.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10447b.htm

For all the 13-year olds on /. who think they're funny, here's where the word monad really comes from.

Hmm.. don't most scholars in the field believe that Aquinas seeked to prove the absense of proofs for God by exhausting the plausible avenues for proofs of His existence?

If they believe that, they're wrong. Aquinas explicitly said that "The existence of God can be proved".

Well, just to clarify, I think what you're saying is that Aquinas didn't argue that one could deduce everything the Catholic Church believes about God through reason alone. Some of His attributes we know from revelation alone (e.g. the Trinity).

However, Aquinas did say we can prove the existence (as opposed to the attributes) of God by reason alone. He says, "The existence of God can be proved in five ways."

Let's watch and enjoy the movie. But don't go looking for the meaning of life on them (insert Monty Python joke here). Same goes for Star Trek, the Matrix and The Lord of the Rings.

The Meaning of life is not revealed in either Star Trek or the Matrix.

Tolkien, on the other hand, pretty damn well exposed Christian theology through his portrayal of good and evil in LOTR.

1) An item whose temptation was power over enemies, and whose cost was a loss in the recognition of good and evil. (See the Old Testament, where the Ark of the Covenant, rather than being venerated and safeguarded, was used as a magic weapon of war.)

2) People who "use" the ring end up being "used" by it. This paradigm is almost as powerful as Foustus' exchange with Mephistopholes - where Meph says he comes immediately when summoned, not to serve, but to entice and gather the soul who summoned him by feigning service long enough to secure his possession.

3) True and false friends (Sam, Smeagol) (Jude Thaddeus, Judas Iscariot)

4) An unfit sub-hero whose position must be usurped (Bilbo Baggins) (bad popes)*

5) A falsely ill king, betrayed and poisoned by the man whose trused position was ill-used. (Herod and Herodias)

*Most popes were respectable, and some were great, but there were a few awful ones as well)

Let's watch and enjoy the movie. But don't go looking for the meaning of life on them (insert Monty Python joke here). Same goes for Star Trek, the Matrix and The Lord of the Rings.

The Meaning of life is not revealed in either Star Trek or the Matrix.

Tolkien, on the other hand, pretty damn well exposed Christian theology through his portrayal of good and evil in LOTR.

1) An item whose temptation was power over enemies, and whose cost was a loss in the recognition of good and evil. (See the Old Testament, where the Ark of the Covenant, rather than being venerated and safeguarded, was used as a magic weapon of war.)

2) People who "use" the ring end up being "used" by it. This paradigm is almost as powerful as Foustus' exchange with Mephistopholes - where Meph says he comes immediately when summoned, not to serve, but to entice and gather the soul who summoned him by feigning service long enough to secure his possession.

3) True and false friends (Sam, Smeagol) (Jude Thaddeus, Judas Iscariot)

4) An unfit sub-hero whose position must be usurped (Bilbo Baggins) (bad popes)*

5) A falsely ill king, betrayed and poisoned by the man whose trused position was ill-used. (Herod and Herodias)

*Most popes were respectable, and some were great, but there were a few awful ones as well)

-PS

As other replies have pointed out, the parent post is plagiarized. However, I would like to add that in addition to being plagiarized, the parent post is fictional. There was no pope elected in 1866. There was no need to elect a pope at that point, as Pope Pius IX (born GIOVANNI MARIA MASTAI-FERRETTI) was alive and well. He was pope from 1846-78. This can easily be verified by consulting http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm, a complete listing of popes from an online catholic encyclopedia.

Incidentally, the shortest reigning pope, according to wikipedia, was # Urban VII (September 15 - September 27, 1590): reigned on 13 calendar days. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_10_shortest-r eigning_Popes

... but perhaps he believed that true wisdom can only come when one figures out the metaphor for themself

Not likely. This is too much like the thinking of Gnosticism, which has been condemned by the Church.

It might just be that those disciples were not mentally ready for the statement to be personally meaningful.

This view is simply not supported by the Bible, nor anywhere in Christian history (except in heretical circles). The disciples knew that Christ was being quite literal, and the language used to record the event in the book of John is extremely clear and precise leaving it impossible to honestly formulate any theories of a metaphorical sense.

When Christ was being metaphorical, he spoke specifically in parables. The Bread of Life discourse in John 6 is clearly not a parable.

But we are also failing to recall what Paul wrote to the Corinthians, explaining that many of them were sick and had died because they had failed to discern the true body and blood of Christ when they came together to celebrate the Lord's Supper. This completely blows away any Protestant metaphorical fantasies about the Eucharist! If Christ was being metaphorical, then how come those people were eating and drinking themselves unto death?

Paul's letter to the Corinthians clearly demonstrates that the Apostles and the whole Church at that time truly believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. How can you possibly insist that they were in error?

Neither the Catholic Church nor any of the major liberal Protestant denominations believe in inerrancy -- the idea that the Bible is perfectly and literally true.

Actually, the inerrancy of the Bible is a Catholic belief. This is defended by the saints, fathers, and doctors of the Church (to their degrees of knowledge - remember, the apostles lived and died before the New Testament was collected, and the Fathers, such as Saint Athanasius , the Father of orthodoxy, though he did have access to collections of holy writings, did not have a collected Bible to read.)

The idea that the KJV (or any other Bible) dropped down from Heaven written in gold upon vellum, carried by Angels on a cloud-pillow, however, is not a Catholic belief. Nor is the idea that the meaning of the bible, or the full meaning of any given phrase contained within the Bible is immediately evident to every reader.

Think about ten years ago when the internet was new (to consumers) and how often people would have to be reminded to type in mixed case, interject "lol" or whatever emoticons they liked to indicate sarchasm, or otherwise indicate that they are not flaming, et cetera. How easy it is to misinterpret text without a "tone of voice" as a hint!

The Bible IS perfect and IS literally true, if it is a genuinely Catholic Bible.

According to Saint Thomas Aquinas, "the literal sense is that which the author intends, (ST, I,1, 10) not "Conforming or limited to the simplest, nonfigurative, or most obvious meaning of a word or words." (dictionary.com)

The idea that the Bible alone is sufficient to bring the knowledge of the Christian faith is not Catholic.
See 2 Peter 3:16
and John 20:30.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/index.htm
http:// www.newadvent.org/fathers/
http://www.newadvent.o rg/cathen/07271a.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cat hen/05692b.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02 543a.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/library/almanac _thisrock9 1.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm
http: //www.newadvent.org/cathen/12495a.htm

Neither the Catholic Church nor any of the major liberal Protestant denominations believe in inerrancy -- the idea that the Bible is perfectly and literally true.

Actually, the inerrancy of the Bible is a Catholic belief. This is defended by the saints, fathers, and doctors of the Church (to their degrees of knowledge - remember, the apostles lived and died before the New Testament was collected, and the Fathers, such as Saint Athanasius , the Father of orthodoxy, though he did have access to collections of holy writings, did not have a collected Bible to read.)

The idea that the KJV (or any other Bible) dropped down from Heaven written in gold upon vellum, carried by Angels on a cloud-pillow, however, is not a Catholic belief. Nor is the idea that the meaning of the bible, or the full meaning of any given phrase contained within the Bible is immediately evident to every reader.

Think about ten years ago when the internet was new (to consumers) and how often people would have to be reminded to type in mixed case, interject "lol" or whatever emoticons they liked to indicate sarchasm, or otherwise indicate that they are not flaming, et cetera. How easy it is to misinterpret text without a "tone of voice" as a hint!

The Bible IS perfect and IS literally true, if it is a genuinely Catholic Bible.

According to Saint Thomas Aquinas, "the literal sense is that which the author intends, (ST, I,1, 10) not "Conforming or limited to the simplest, nonfigurative, or most obvious meaning of a word or words." (dictionary.com)

The idea that the Bible alone is sufficient to bring the knowledge of the Christian faith is not Catholic.
See 2 Peter 3:16
and John 20:30.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/index.htm
http:// www.newadvent.org/fathers/
http://www.newadvent.o rg/cathen/07271a.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cat hen/05692b.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02 543a.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/library/almanac _thisrock9 1.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm
http: //www.newadvent.org/cathen/12495a.htm

I'm sorry, but I think you are unfamiliar with the terminology as well. Agnosticism does not mean that God may or may not exist and Atheism does not necessarily mean that God must not exist. Agnosticism means that the existence or non-existence of God is unknowable and an Atheist simply looks at the current evidence for the existence of God and arrives at the belief that He does not exist.

You can see definitions for Agnosticism here and here. One of the links comes from a religious source and the other a non-religious one.

This is a popular fiction with no evidence whatsoever to back it up. As someone else mentioned, most relics of the True Cross are smaller than a splinter. The total volume of all known True Cross relics is about .004 cu. m out of an estimated volume for the entire Cross of .174 cu. m. See both Wikipedia and The Catholic Encyclopedia.

A Catholic is supposed to defer to the authority of the Pope when he declares an infallible decision. Such decisions are generally made on questions of theology. Indeed, in two thousand years there has been only one infallible declaration by the Pope (Mary was assumed into heaven). Yes, most Catholics tend to give the Pope's opinion weight, but it is not a requirement. There are tons of priests, bishops and indeed a whole half of the Church (Eastern Orthodox) who have disagreements with the Pope, but are still Catholic.

A Catholic believes in the sancitity of life. They are not directly supposed to be anti-abortion. For example, if not having an abortion will kill the mother, the mother is not required to sacrifice her life for that of her child.

The essence of Catholicism is contained in the Creed/Profession of Faith read each week at Mass. It doesn't mention Pope or abortion.

It is not your place to declare whether someone is Catholic. By doing so you are passing judgement. As the name Catholic (meaning 'universal') implies, the Catholic Church encompasses a huge range of people and opinions, including conflicting ones.

If you really want to understand what makes a Catholic, read the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It's easier to read in book form. It's a pretty mind blowing document (apart from the length!) when you consider the number and quality of minds which have worked on it. It's interesting that the aforementioned 'creed' is used at the table of contents for first part of the Catechism, so that prayer really is a neat summary of what makes a Catholic.

In case you haven't twigged I am Catholic. It makes me seethe with anger to see what US (and other) religious wackos are doing in the name of Christ. I feel justified in my anger in that I equate the wackos with the moneychangers who hijacked the temple in Jerusalem for their own ends, and got driven out by an angry Jesus.

As a former Catholic, I feel compelled to point out (for clarification purposes only) that the Catholic Church is not opposed to the theory of Evolution. It does question some of the "ape-to-human" points in the theory, but, from what I have read, that appears more to be from a lack of evidence than from some overall dogmatic opposition to humans evolving from apes -- check these out link and link.

Both links are very long articles that go into significant detail, but from the summaries I read, I interpret them to mean the Catholic Church is concerned where the human "soul" came from. They are not caught up in a creationistic point of view and they appear to be quite accepting in many of the finer points in evolution.

And, to go a step further, the Catholic Church, unlike some of the Evangalicals, does NOT believe in a literal interpretation of the bible.

As a former Catholic, I feel compelled to point out (for clarification purposes only) that the Catholic Church is not opposed to the theory of Evolution. It does question some of the "ape-to-human" points in the theory, but, from what I have read, that appears more to be from a lack of evidence than from some overall dogmatic opposition to humans evolving from apes -- check these out link and link.

Both links are very long articles that go into significant detail, but from the summaries I read, I interpret them to mean the Catholic Church is concerned where the human "soul" came from. They are not caught up in a creationistic point of view and they appear to be quite accepting in many of the finer points in evolution.

And, to go a step further, the Catholic Church, unlike some of the Evangalicals, does NOT believe in a literal interpretation of the bible.

I hate responding to AC's ... google search on Torquemada, first result: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14783a.htm. Torquemada is claimed to be quite reasonable, compared to civil law at the time. In other words, enlightened. Cruelty, death - still possible. But more rare than before Torquemada.

Not necessarily so.

More info:

http://www.touchstonemag.com/docs/issues/16.10docs /16-10pg12.html

Fixing the original date is problematic at best.

More info:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03724b.htm

It's not that easy; Easter tracks a "virtual" full moon that doesn't necessarily match the actual full moon, and there's the whole Dominical Letter rigamarole, and... let's just say that its hair has hair. Check out this site.

Should we also pray for Patrick? What are your thoughts on that aspect or method of helping someone?

From what I've been taught and come to believe:

The Chaplet of The Divine Mercy is an especially powerful prayer that can be offered to God for the sake of those who are sick and dying. [Note: Jesus == "The Divine Mercy"]

This prayer, in a moral sense, takes on special power when prayed in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament. Here is a directory for Catholic Churches and Chapels that have set times for or perpetual adoration of Jesus Christ really and bodily present in the Eucharist.

Here is a nice audio recording (RealAudio) that can be used to learn this prayer in song/chant form. Most people simply recite, rather than sing it.

There is also a popular "praise and worship" style sung-version of this prayer. Here is a sample recording; you can buy the full-recording on CD.

I have prayed this chaplet many times for sick, dying, despairing, addicted, and/or lonely family members, friends and strangers. Try it! The mercy of God is awesome!

Learn more about Saint Faustinaand The Divine Mercy Devotion, thanks to the Marians of the Immaculate Conception.

You got it wrong, buddy. The Catholic Church states that Holy Scripture was "inspired" by God, not "dictated" by God. Here's a reference for you.

"According to the Encyclical Prov. Deus, "God stirred up and impelled the sacred writers to determine to write all that God meant them to write" (Denz., 1952). Theologians discuss the question whether, in order to impart this motion, God moves the will of the writer directly or decides it by proposing maotvies of an intellectual order. At any rate, everybody admits that the Holy Ghost can arouse or simply utilize external influences capable of acting on the will of the sacred writer. According to an ancient tradition, St. Mark and St. John wrote their Gospels at the instance of the faithful."

(1) I have a process for constructing very light, portable bridges, for the pursuit of the enemy; others more solid, which will resist fire and assault and may be easily set in place and taken to pieces. I also know ways of burning and destroying those of the enemy. . . (4) I can also construct a very manageable piece of artillery which projects inflammable materials, causing great damage to the enemy and also great terror because of the smoke . . . (8) Where the used of cannon is impracticable I can replace them with catapults and engines for casting shafts with wonderful and hitherto unknown effect; briefly, whatever the circumstances I can contrive countless methods of attack. (9) In the event of a naval battle I have numerous engines of great power both for attack and defense: vessels which are proof against the hottest fire, powder or steam. (10) In times of peace I believe that I can equal anyone in architecture, whether for the building of public or private monuments. I sculpture in marble, bronze and terra cotta; in painting I can do what another can do, it matters not who he may be. Moreover I pledge myself to execute a bronze horse to the eternal memory of your father and the very illustrious House of Sforza, and if any of the above things seem impracticable or impossible I offer to give a test of it in your Excellency's park or in any other place pleasing to your lordship, to whom I commend myself in all humility.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08537a.htm

I'm guessing from your e-mail address that you have the standard "personal, then optional middle, then family" name structure most Americans do.

Even if yours wasn't "John," your first name is historically known as your Christian name, while your last name is sometimes known as a "surname."

Stratovarius is a Finnish metal band. Antonio Stradivari made violins.