TheScout

Seems to be a very bad spokesman.

The one that got me the most was when he talked about "praying to" saints. Of course Catholics pray through them. A huge difference. Offers no defense for the proud Churches - the houses of God. Catholic doctrine of the Real Presence holds that God is ACTUALLY in every Church and the building glorifies Him.

"If Peter didn't choose his successor, how did he pass his authority down after he was dead and gone? And then we still have that pesky "get up and walk!" problem."

Of course Peter himself doesn't actually pass down the authority. It is God's authority. The authority comes due to being his successor in his high office. There is no get up and walk problem. Peter was not able to act like Jesus. The Holy Spirit the guides the Popes likewise chooses how to aid the Popes.

"The Church still needs an Earthly head."

"Why? Is God so limited that he cannot achieve our salvation without the help of a human princeling / avatar/ pharaoh here on earth? I always thought that Jesus was enough."

Cause Jesus wanted the Church to have an Earthly head and with the aid of the Holy Spirit interpret his work and the scriptures for mankind."

"Lord sure didn't make Peter infallible."

You don't understand that doctrine then. The Pope or even the Church is not infallible in all cases.

"Yah, then why has your church been so remiss that it has not canonized all of the popes as saints, eh? In fact, it seems that quite a few of 'em haven't merited that recognition. Indeed, only 2 in the last 750 years have become canonically recognized for their holiness."

Because the necesary requirements were not met?

"Yah, Peter was also the bishop of Antioch and Alexandria, eh? That's why they're called Petrine Sees. And the notion of da Roman episcopate bein' universal came from da declaration of a Roman Emperor around 600AD. I suppose he was also given keys and a special commission by the Holy Spirit?"

Peter was the Bishop of Rome last. Thats he died and was marytered. Its not just Catholics who recognize the primacy of that Bishop. Even Anglicans and Orthodox Christians do. Most Christians do.

I am not sure what Roman declaration you speak of? Accoding to most the Roman Empire fell in 476. Maybe you are referring to the Byzantines. Though they called themselves the Roman Empire most people today call them the Byzantines to avoid confusion.

"You're a bright lad. Doesn't all that dogmatic assertion seem a bit far fetched to yeh?."

No.

"I don't reckon that the Roman Catholic Church itself really believes things in quite the light that you claim, eh?"

In what way?

"So you claim. I'm left wonderin' how Peter and all the rest passed their special authority down to others when they were already dead at the time their supposed successors were chosen."

Pope's don't choose their successors. The Holy Spirt guides the College of Cardinals to find out who the next Pope shall be.

"And here I thought you believed in the communion of saints, the resurrection of the body, and life everlastin'. Are yeh now saying that St. Peter is truly gone after his death?"

The Church still needs an Earthly head.

"And are yeh truly making the claim that all da popes have been so inspired by the Spirit?"

Yes.

"Fact of course is there were initially five patriarchs ... in Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, three of which (Alexandria, Antioch, and Rome) were considered Sees of St. Peter. So I reckon honesty demands that we note from the earliest days of Christendom it was not at all clear that Jesus meant there to be only one human head, eh? More likely, we silly humans got that notion from the Empire, not from God."

Jesus appointed one head among his apostles. Not five. Peter was the Bishop of Rome. Most Christians accept the primacy of the Bishop of Rome in some form or another, even Anglicans and Orthodox Christians.

"My evidence that all have sinned is Biblical."

Not quite. All except Mary of course.

"I think it is a good trait to admit when you do not know something.

Yah, but only if yeh admit it before yeh start making definitive declarations, not after you've been asked to explain your declarations."

It is easy to repeat Church doctrine and rulings, anyone can do that. I admitted I do not have the education to explain it all as good as some.

"I have no problem with the Lord grantin' Simon Peter the keys to the Kingdom, eh? He was quite a special fellow. What doesn't follow is that every other patriarch of Rome has da same gift. Peter also was able to order the lame to get up and walk in the Lord's name. Yeh seen that from anybody recently who has claimed to stand in da shoes of The Fisherman?"

When Jesus consecrated the Apostles with the Holy Orders he gave them the same power to pass it down. Through Apostolic Succession, Peter passed his special authority down to others, who continue, guided by the Holy Spirit to be the Head of the Church on Earth to this day.

Clearly Jesus meant there to be one Earthly head on the Church. Why would he want this to be only a temporary feature? It should exist for all time. Remember he gave Peter the keys so Hell can not prevail against us. Why would he want Hell to win after Peter's death?(This message has been edited by TheScout)

The fact is that priests are much more educated than myself on Christian theology.

I think it is a good trait to admit when you do not know something.

"Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Phillipi, he asked his disciples, 'Who do men say that the Son of Man is?' And they said, 'Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.' He said to them, 'But who do you say that I am?' Simon Peter replied, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' And Jesus answered him, 'Blessed are you Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.'"

Matthew 16:13-19

I think you know there were many reasons behind the expansion into the Americas, nacesnt capitalism being only a small part.

So is that the only defense of communism? Other sytsems killed tens of millions too?

Yes Communism wasn't the only reason for mass murder throughout history.

What does that prove?

Capitalism is hardly as evil. Have tens of millions died for it? Have generations lost their personal liberty?

Well your view would matter . . . but you're not the successor to St. Peter as the head of the Church on Earth or guided by the Holy Ghost.

Tens of millions died in the process of trying to make communism a reality.

Generations were shortchanged from economic progress and personal liberty.

If thats not an evil idealogy what is?

If you teach children the wrong thing about their eternal salvation, isn't that wrong? Or is that ok?

You correctly point out that the Church has not been a big fan of capitalism either.

They have preached a 3rd way - distributism which to me is like capitalism light. Simply put it wants private property to be more widely owned than our system so everyone could work for themselves.

To me the Church has been more against socialism than capitalism though. Just looking at works through history there have been more vicious condemnations of it. Just look at the letter by John Paul II I cited. I have never seen such a condemnation of capitalism. Perhaps just an exhortation for it to do better.

I think you overstress the Marxist communist element of the condemnation. Especially in the late 19th century the Church came very much against socialism itself.

Private organizations have the right to ban whoever they wish.

If the members of an organization do not like to associate with another group why shouldn't they exclude them?

Should we let them live the lie that being gay is OK?

Children must be taught right from wrong at an early age.

A lot of people just don't like homosexuality and don't like to be around homosexuals.

Thats not being clean in your actions.

And nobody should ge kept out of the BSA?

Nobody? There are bad people out there. Perhaps you should rethink that statement.

Trev,

Ever think one might have studied communism and realized it was evil?

So they should take the alcohol and tobacco part out of the physically strong part.

Then would you be happy keeping the gays out?

From the Baltimore Catechism

LESSON SIXTH: ON SIN AND ITS KINDS

51. Q. Is original sin the only kind of sin?

A. Original sin is not the only kind of sin; there is another kind of sin, which we commit ourselves, called actual sin.

52. Q. What is actual sin?

A. Actual sin is any willful thought, word, deed, or omission contrary to the law of God.

53. Q. How many kinds of actual sin are there?

A. There are two kinds of actual sin-mortal and venial.

54. Q. What is mortal sin?

A. Mortal sin is a grievous offense against the law of God.

55. Q. Why is this sin called mortal?

A. This sin is called mortal because it deprives us of spiritual life, which is sanctifying grace, and brings everlasting death and damnation on the soul.

56. Q. How many things are necessary to make a sin mortal?

A. To make a sin mortal three things are necessary: a grievous matter, sufficient reflection, and full consent of the will.

57. Q. What is venial sin?

A. Venial sin is a slight offense against the law of God in matters of less importance, or in matters of great importance it is an offense committed without sufficient reflection or full consent of the will.

58. Q. Which are the effects of venial sin?

A. The effects of venial sin are the lessening of the love of God in our heart, the making us less worthy of His help, and the weakening of the power to resist mortal sin.

59. Q. Which are the chief sources of sin?

A. The chief sources of sin are seven: Pride, Covetousness, Lust, Anger, Gluttony, Envy, and Sloth; and they are commonly called capital sins

Its in Articl I, Section 9 - Limitations imposed by Congress.

Seems an odd position for you Merlyn to think the President has the unilateral right to suspend habeous corpus?(This message has been edited by TheScout)

Its not teaching politics.

Communism is an evil ideology. We should teach them what it is, and why it is wrong.

What about anti-semitism? Should we teach them that to and then allow them to make their own decision?

I hear you. The BSA definition says "harmful."

You didn't answer my last question!

I did. It says harmful smoking and alcohol.

I've had some of each. Haven't been harmed.

Should we teach a child democracy is right and communism is wrong?