Welcome to our site!

Main Menu

Ask a Catholic

Started by CatholicCrusader, July 19, 2014, 08:37:37 PM

Previous topic - Next topic


Quote from: Moralnihilist on July 19, 2014, 09:09:58 PM
An honest question for the OP. What makes you want to come to a place called Atheist forums and try to reach protestants? Would not your little crusade be better served by going where, you know, protestants are?
I have accounts on more than 5 Christian forums.


How do you view the crusades? and how does it differ from other genocides?


Okay as what one by one believes that's all yours, obviously as a gay man I see marriage as an open union to all regardless of faith, but that's just me.

Just out of curiosity, has there ever been an instance where you have been strongly confronted by someone of a non-theist belief and them have talked to you at length about casting off you faith to follow a non-theistic belief?
'Political correctness is fascism pretending to be manners' - George Carlin


Quote from: Simon Moon on July 19, 2014, 09:51:08 PM
But the religious ceremony has nothing to do with the legal contract.
Right!  The legal contract is the marriage.  The ritualistic foo fa done in the church in front of an audience is nothing more than a public celebration of a marriage that already exists.  It performs no necessary function to complete the act of marriage, although the Church would like people to believe you can't have marriage without a church, and indeed when the bride and groom finally kiss under the direction of the minister, at that precise moment, people think in their minds, "Now the couple is married!"  Actually, they were married when they were issued a license by the state days before that.  The ceremony in the church doesn't add any special status not already granted by the state.

When you wish to dissolve the marriage, this is done by the state.  For some reason, the Church does not have a ceremonial ritual to dissolve the marriage.  Of course, there's no special glory in it for the church, nor is it necessary since the church had nothing to do with the marriage to begin with.  It was just for show.

Now stop and ask yourself what right does the Church have to say who can be issued a marriage license?  There is no reason whatsoever for the Church to stick its nose into the matter.  It doesn't have that right.  It has no legal standing, and it should just fuck off and quit thinking it's so God all important when it comes to marrying people.

Hakurei Reimu

Why do you think that you're any more qualified to answer questions about catholicism than the infamous catholic idiot with the user-name 'Eve' was?

What made the Catholic church qualified to choose the first biblical canon?

Why should a protestant trust a papal definitive and summary pronouncement of scripture over any live, evolving scholarly discussion of said scripture?
Warning: Don't Tease The Miko!
(she bites!)
Spinny Miko Avatar shamelessly ripped off from Iosys' Neko Miko Reimu


Quote from: CatholicCrusader on July 19, 2014, 10:00:17 PM
I see nothing immoral, sinful, or dangerous about allowing a civil contract  between a gay couple.  But I personally do not believe that it is a marriage.
Those are two completely different things, civil contract and marriage. The language of civil contract is what is used to deny the same rights to homosexual couples as heterosexual couples otherwise the equality movement would have ground to a halt long ago. There's a lot of other issues a civil contract won't and can't cover such as decisions on life and death, who gets to pull the plug at the end of life, inheritance, insurance coverage, survivor benefits and so on. It's telling gay and lesbian couples, 'You can pretend to be married, but that's all.' It's how the church gets to skirt all the issues. If the church wants to be tax free and get all the billions of government money then they should have to recognize marriages in everyone, not just straight couples.
All hail my new signature!

Admit it. You're secretly green with envy.


Quote from: Munch on July 19, 2014, 10:40:21 PM
Okay as what one by one believes that's all yours, obviously as a gay man I see marriage as an open union to all regardless of faith, but that's just me.

Just out of curiosity, has there ever been an instance where you have been strongly confronted by someone of a non-theist belief and them have talked to you at length about casting off you faith to follow a non-theistic belief?
I love you my gay friend.  You are attracted to men?  So is God!  So was the virgin Mary and the vast majority of women.  What's wrong with finding men attractive?  Nothing!

I do not believe God will burn you in hell.  I am very ashamed of the results of theism and the embarrassing mess that Christianity and religion is in .  Which is one reason why I would rather be at an atheist forum  than a Christian forum even though I am Catholic.

I don't like how Christian forums are censored and you get banned for being a human being and you can t use profanity and you have to act like you've lived a sheltered puritanical life.


Quote from: PickelledEggs on July 19, 2014, 10:07:38 PM
How do you view the crusades? and how does it differ from other genocides?
The Crusades were  a failure and sometimes an embarrassment or atrocious.  However it was very political.  Spain was almost entirely conquered by the Moors.  The Moors also conquered much of France.  Had the the Pope not declared  a crusade against the Ottoman Empire that lead to the destruction of the Turkish Navy at lepanto,  St Peter's Basilica would've been turned in to a mosque, the Koran would have replaced the Bible and  Italy would have become another country like the middle east.   The Crusades were fought on land that was Christian that had been invaded and conquered by Muslims.

If it wasn't for the Crusades, Spain, France, Italy, and possibly the entire European continent would have been conquered by the Ottoman Empire and the Moors.


So basically you're admitting your beliefs are kinda fucked up and yet you can't let go knowing the historical savagery inflicted by the Catholic church over the centuries? Something is kind of screwey there.
All hail my new signature!

Admit it. You're secretly green with envy.

Poison Tree

Quote from: CatholicCrusader on July 19, 2014, 08:37:37 PM
Catholicism formally (although, sadly, not always in practice) prevents the theological "pick and choose" state of affairs

Quote from: CatholicCrusader on July 19, 2014, 08:48:14 PM

by the way, I can see biblically why the Church teaches about contraceptives but personally I think contraceptives are a good thing.
Also I believe priests should be allowed to marry.

I think the ban on women priests is very biblical but I certainly do not feel strong about that issue and believed that is a vocation that women could do very well at.
"Observe that noses were made to wear spectacles; and so we have spectacles. Legs were visibly instituted to be breeched, and we have breeches" Voltaire�s Candide


I do not believe that homosexual acts are nearly as bad as  pride,  unforgiveness, self-righteousness , judging other people, calumny, hatred, theft, or murder.

But homosexual acts are on the same list with all these things eh? That's like saying to someone "hurting you is the last thing I wanted to do." It implies that there is a list, and that hurting them is on it - even tho it's the last item.
Q for theists; how can there be freewill and miracles? And, how can prayer exist in an environment as regimented as "gods plan"?

"I'm a polyatheist, there are many gods I don't believe in." - Dan Fouts


LOL.. hurting you is the last thing I want to do to you. Wanna know what came right before hurting you?  Mutilation, disfigurement and dragged down the freeway by your feet, but it might have killed you so I settled with hurting you.  :lol:
All hail my new signature!

Admit it. You're secretly green with envy.

Hijiri Byakuren

Quote from: CatholicCrusader on July 19, 2014, 08:37:37 PM
this is a thread where I answer questions anyone has about the Catholic Church. 

please do not continue reading this OP if you are not interested in reasons why Protestants aree converting to Catholicism in large numbers and why the Catholic Church is biblical and the most biblically accurate Christian faith.

Try not to see this as an attack on protestantism but rather a list of reasons why people become Catholic for those of you who think we are a bunch of hellbound pagans.The councils that decided the Canon of Scripture that would be in the first Christian Bible took place after Christianity became the official Religion of the Roman Empire and therefore it was the Roman Catholic Church that put together the first Bible and decided the New Testament Canon that is accepted by noncatholics. There is overwhelming evidence that the Catholic Church began in the first century and that the Papacy is nearly 2,000 years old

Most of what people think is extremely Unchristian (Satanic) about the Church like Mariology, confession of sin to a priest, the sacrifice of the mass, seven sacraments, communion of Saints, Holy images etc. was practiced by the Roman Catholics, Eastern Catholics, Coptic, and Orthodox if those practices are Satanic and therefore not Christian as many claim, that would mean that every Christian Church on the face of the earth was propagating Satanic practices and therefore, there was not a Christian Church the earth before the 16th Century.if you follow that philosophy

So you Protestants say the Bible decides, but this begs the question when the two warring parties agree that the Bible is the final authority yet disagree on the interpretation where do we go?Since there is a document that many are divided on wouldnt God leave us with a Supreme Court to interpret it and settle Doctrinal or interpretational disputes?

Catholicism avoids theological relativism, by means of dogmatic certainty and the centrality of the papacy.

Catholicism formally (although, sadly, not always in practice) prevents the theological "pick and choose" state of affairs, which leads to the uncertainties and "every man for himself" confusion within the private interpretation system among laypeople.Catholicism retains apostolic succession, necessary to know what is true Christian apostolic Tradition. It was the criterion of Christian truth used by the early Christians and the Church Fathers.

Protestantism arose in 1517, and is a "Johnny-come-lately" in the history of Christianity (having introduced many doctrines previously accepted by no Church, or very few individuals). Therefore it cannot possibly be the "restoration" of "pure", "primitive" Christianity, since this is ruled out by the fact of its novelties and absurdly late appearance. The Catholic Church accepts the authority of the great ecumenical councils which defined and developed Christian doctrine such as the Trinity and the Nicene Creed which are embraced by most Protestants

Protestantism has too often neglected the place of liturgy in worship (with notable exceptions such as Anglicanism and Lutheranism). This is the way Christians had always worshiped down through the centuries, and thus cant be so lightly dismissed. Many Protestant denominations have removed the Eucharist from the center and focus of Christian worship services. Some Protestants observe it only monthly, or even quarterly (the Reformed are notorious for this). This is against many centuries of Christian Tradition and therefore should not be lightly dismissed. Most Protestants (Lutherans and high-church Anglicans being the exception) believe in a merely symbolic Eucharist, which is contrary to universal Christian Tradition up to 1517, the teachings of the Early Church Fathers, and the Bible (Mt 26:26-8; Jn 6:47-63; 1 Cor 10:14-22; 11:23-30), which hold to the Real Presence

Protestantism has abolished the priesthood (Mt 18:18) and the sacrament of ordination, contrary to Christian Tradition and the Bible (Acts 6:6; 14:22; 1 Tim 4:14; 2 Tim 1:6).The majority of Protestants deny baptismal regeneration, contrary to Christian Tradition and the Bible (Mk 16:16; Jn 3:5; Acts 2:38; 22:16; Rom 6:3-4; 1 Cor 6:11; Titus 3:5).Protestantism is divided into five major camps on the question of baptism. Protestantism denies the indissolubility of sacramental marriage and allows divorce, contrary to Christian Tradition and the Bible (Gen 2:24; Mal 2:14-16; Mt 5:32; 19:6,9; Mk10:11-12; Lk 16:18; Rom 7:2-3; 1 Cor 7:10-14,39)

.Many Protestant denominations (mostly its liberal wing, but alarmingly in many other places, too) have changed their previous stances on women pastors, abortion, and homosexuality.
Catholicism remains firm on what it has always taught of such behavior being forbidden or gravely sinful.Women pastors is contrary to Christian Tradition (including traditional Protestant theology) and the Bible (Mt 10:1-4; 1 Tim 2:11-15; 3:1-12; Titus 1:6).

Protestantism sanctions contraception,(they changed their stance) in defiance of universal Christian Tradition (Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant) up until 1930 - when the Anglicans first allowed it - and the Bible (Gen 38:8-10; 41:52; Ex 23:25-6; Lev 26:9; Deut 7:14; Ruth 4:13; Lk 1:24-5). Luther and Calvin, e.g., regarded it as murder. Now, only Catholicism retains the ancient Tradition.

Protestantism has contradictory views of church government, or ecclesiology (episcopal, presbyterian, congregational, or no collective authority at all), thusmaking widespread discipline, unity and order impossible.Some sects even claim to have "apostles" or "prophets" among them, with all the accompanying abuses of authority resulting there from and false predictions of the end times and belief's like the Rapture.

Sola scriptura could be considered an abuse of the Bible, since it is a use of the Bible contrary to its explicit and implicit testimony about itself and Tradition.The Bible is, in fact, undeniably a Christian Tradition itself.

Most Protestants do not have bishops, a Christian office which is biblical (1 Tim 3:1-2) and which has existed from the earliest Christian history and Tradition.

Protestantism has no way of settling doctrinal issues definitively. At best, the individual Protestant can only take a head count of how many Protestant scholars, commentators, etc. take such-and-such a view on Doctrine or interpretation x, y, or z; Or (in a more sophisticated fashion), the Protestant can simply accept the authority of some denominational tradition, confession, or creed (which then has to be justified over against the other competing ones). There is no unified Protestant Tradition.
Black lives matter, feminism is good, religion is bullshit, and if you disagree with me on any of these points you are a fucking moron.<br /><br />Sargon The Grape - My Youtube Channel


Quote from: Poison fTree on July 20, 2014, 01:53:03 AM
Those are my personal opinions as a sinner not the teachings of the Church. There's a difference. 

Yes I do admit that I have many doubts and would consider myself quite lukewarm at the moment.

I guarantee you mother T eresa, the Pope, and every priest, and every Bishop, and all 12 apostles ALL had doubts , and sins, and transgressions, and acts of rebellion and defiance against God.


Thee Hand of God is seen in the Miracle of the Church's Durability

Is there any institution on the face of the earth that has inspired more people, survived so much persecution, had more people hate and utter every thing false against it, preached the Gospel to more people, and 2,000 years later remains the strongest and most influential organization on the planet?

Is there any other Christ-centered establishment that has brought so many millions of people to the Adoration of the Holy Trinity? Is there any other Church that dates back to the time of Christ? However, even the authors of the World Book Encyclopedia who have no Catholic persuasion will confess that the Catholic Church dates back to the first Century with an unbreakable chain of Bishops of Rome dating back to the Apostle Peter.

The durability of the Catholic Church is the marvel of her enemies. It is only the hand of God that could have brought her safely through such perils, which have proved fatal to merely human institutions. Often death seemed to have come upon her, but, sustained by her Divine vitality, she cast off disease as a garment, and rose from her bed of sickness. She is like the house or which Christ speaks in the gospel: "And the rain fell and the floods came, and they beat upon that house, and it fell not, for it was founded on a rock" (Matt. 7:25).

Often have her children heard the demons' exultant cry that, at last, she was overwhelmed in the wave of death. But the tempest passed, and day broke anew, and the eyes of men beheld her still firmly fixed as of old on the rock of Peter, triumphant amid the wreckage of her enemies."There is not," says the Protestant writer Macaulay (Essay on Ranke's 'History of the Popes'), "and there never was on this earth, a work of human policy so well deserving of examination as the Roman Catholic Church. The proudest royal houses are but of yesterday, when compared with the line of the Supreme Pontiffs.That line we trace back in unbroken series from the Pope who crowned Napoleon in the nineteenth century to the Pope who crowned Pepin in the eighth; and far beyond the time of Pepin, the dynasty extends. .

The republic of Venice came next in antiquity. But the republic of Venice was modern when compared with the Papacy; and the republic of Venice is gone, and the Papacy remains . . . Nor do we see any sign which indicates that the term of her long domination is approaching. She saw the commencement of all the ecclesiastical establishments that now exist in the world; and we feel no assurance that she is not destined to see the end of them all.

It is not strange that, in the year 1799, even sagacious observers should have thought that, at length, the hour of the Church of Rome was come? An infidel power ascendant, the Pope dying in captivity, the most illustrious prelates of France living in a foreign non Catholic country .... . But the end was not yet.Anarchy had had its day. A new order of things rose out of the confusion . . . and amidst them emerged the ancient religion.

The Arabs have a fable that the Great Pyramid was built by antediluvian kings, and alone, of all the works of men, bore the weight of the flood.  Such as this was the fate of the Papacy.It had been buried under the great inundation; but its deep foundations had remained unshaken; and, when the waters abated, it appeared alone amidst the ruins of a world that had passed away. The Republic of Holland was gone, and the Empire of Germany, and . . . the House of Bourbon, and the parliaments and aristocracy of France.

Europe was full of young creations, a French empire, a kingdom of Italy, a Confederation of the Rhine. Nor had the late events affected only territorial limits and political institutions. The distribution of property, the composition and spirit of society had, through a great part of Catholic Europe, undergone a complete change. But the unchangeable Church was still there."We may summarize the argument as follows: (1) The Papacy, the Rock on which the Church is built, is the only institution which has survived all the vast social and political changes and revolutions in the life and government of Europe since the days of the Roman Emperors. (2) It has survived in spite of persecution, and political intrigue; in spite of heresy and schism among its subjects, in spite of the worldliness and the weakness or incompetency of some of the Popes. Such a survival is miraculous.
The Papacy and the Church over which it presides must, therefore, be the work of God many believe. 

"The Ark of the Church may be swept by the waves, but it can never sink because Christ is there" (St. Anseim).