How Can the Catholic Church Change its Doctrines?



Q. If the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus and many doctrines are supposedly based upon the teaching of the apostles and scripture, how can it change its doctrines, like at Vatican II?

A. Actually the Catholic Church has never changed its doctrines. She has held fast. That is why so many reject her for not approving modern views of contraception, homosexuality, etc. What she does change however are her disciplines. Disciplines are changeable but doctrine is not changeable because they are truths revealed by God–such as the incarnation, Trinity, Virgin Birth, etc. But disciplines are practices the Church decides to use to help lead the faithful to a deeper Faith and relationship with Our Lord.

For instance, for years Catholics were to abstain from the flesh of land animals on Friday. They could eat fish instead. This was a small sacrifice for the sake of discipline; to suffer a little bit on Friday in memory and union with the sacrifice of Christ on the cross on Good Friday. It inserted the practice of our Faith into an additional day of the week besides Sundays only. But by the time of Vatican II, it was decided by the Magesterium of the Church to remove this particular discipline as mandatory and change it. The new discipline for Friday’s is that each of the faithful may choose their own sacrifice to join themselves to the suffering of Christ. They may choose whatever is meaningful for them but all are encouraged to do something. However, due to poor catechesis, many ordinary Catholics think the Friday discipline was dropped altogether.

CCC1438 The seasons and days of penance in the course of the liturgical year (Lent, and each Friday in memory of the death of the Lord) are intense moments of the Church’s penitential practice. These times are particularly appropriate for spiritual exercises, penitential liturgies, pilgrimages as signs of penance, voluntary self-denial such as fasting and almsgiving, and fraternal sharing (charitable and missionary works).

Another discipline that the Church has changed is married priests. We know that Peter was married, since scripture mentions his mother-in-law. We do not know if his wife was still living or if any of the other disciples were married. But there have been and still are married men who are priests of the Roman Catholic Church. Most are not, however. The practice of maintaining a predominately celibate priesthood is a discipline, not an unchangeable doctrine. That is why it is even possible at all, to have married priests in the Catholic Church. Theoretically this could change again. To learn more about the history of celibacy click —>HERE.

So, let me restate the fact that the Catholic Church does not change her Doctrine. It is easy to see, however, that many, even Catholics, could be confused and think, erroneously that the Church “changed her doctrines”, dropped doctrines, or made up new doctrines.

About these ads

85 Responses

  1. Actually the Catholic Church has never changed its doctrines..didn’t the Church teach for many years that usuray (lending money at an interest) a sin and today the Vatican bank traffics strongly on the stock exchange ?

    • Doctrines may not change, e.g. Christians will I imagine always believe that God created the world and that Jesus is the son of God, but what does change is the way we understand them. Those who talk most about unchanging doctrine seem really to be wanting to freeze understanding at a particular point in history. We do need to distinguish between doctrines and what they mean and how we understand their meaning. Vatican II took this seriously (Catholics often don’t), which is one reason why it is the greatest event in Christian history over the last 100 years or so.

  2. The CHANGES of Vatican II were an utter mistake.

  3. Dear Geo and Leon,

    You both cite changes but none of them are DOCTRINAL CHANGES. They were changes in PRACTICE. As for Vatican II many in the US have used it as an excuse to change anything and everything they wanted to change. However, I encourage you to read the Documents of Vatican II and see for yourself that “changes” you deplore are NOT EVEN IN THE DOCUMENTS. Mass in the vernacular is not commanded nor is orientum ad populum (my Latin is probably wrong) but having the priest face the people was NOT directed by Vatican II. Our Pope has his work cut out for him to bring the American Church back to the truths of Vatican II.

    As for usury the OT forbade it. But we live in a different economy than the OT societies. Do you have a credit card? Have you bought a car with a loan or a house?
    The primary problem with usury or interest was the lack of charity involved in loaning money to the poor and then charging interest. This is not charity but greed. However around the time of the 1600’s economies began to change and the loaning of money to someone for investment purposes was different than for buying bread to keep from starving. The one who loaned money took a risk of losing it all or never getting it all back and therefore, in justice, deserved some sort of extra to pay him back for the risk, when he could have used his money to buy land or some other safer investment. Click on the link for the article in the Catholic Encyclopedia on usury and the history of it. If you don’t want to read it all I at least encourage you to scroll down to about the 7th and 8th paragraphs.

    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15235c.htm

    Wikipedia also has a good general history of usury. Just google it.

    • Hi everyone,

      I’m still very new to the Catholic Church and some my protestant friends are slamming me with these questions that I haven’t the time to answer because I’m up to my eyeball in studies at the moment. I was wondering if someone could help me with the following statements posed by a former Catholic, I know it’s a lot but please help me. Any old Tesament references would also help. God Bless: Rome did not arrive at its dogmatic positions hastily nor lightly. She is

      the product of many centuries of gradual departure from the true faith of

      the Church found in the Word of God. For instance:

      * Prayers for the dead were introduced in 310

      * The lighting of candles in 320

      * The worship of saints about 375

      * The mass was adopted in 394

      * The worship of Mary began to develop about 432

      * Priests began to assume distinctive robes in 500

      * The doctrine of purgatory was introduced in 593

      * Worship in Latin (since repealed) was mandated in 600

      * Claims to Papal Supremacy took firm foot in 606

      * Feasts in honor of the Virgin Mary began in 650

      * The custom of kissing the Pope’s foot was introduced in 709

      * The worship of images and relics was authorized in 788

      * The invention of holy water was about 850

      * The canonization of saints was formalized in 993

      * Feasts for the dead were introduced 1003

      * ‘The celibacy of the priesthood was declared 1074

      * The dogma of Papal infallibility was announced 1076

      * Prayer beads were introduced in 1090

      * The doctrine that there are seven sacraments was introduced in 1140

      * The sale of indulgences began 1190

      * The wafer was substituted for the loaf in 1200

      * The dogma of transubstantiation was adopted 1215

      * Confession was instituted 1215

      * The adoration of the Wafer began 1220

      * ‘The Ave Maria was introduced 1316

      * The cup was taken from the laity in 1415

      * Purgatory was officially decreed In 1439

      * Roman tradition was placed on the same level as Scripture 1546

      * The Apocrypha was received into the Canon 1546

      * The immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary was announced 1854

      * ‘The doctrine of the temporal power of the Pope proclaimed 1864

      * The personal corporeal presence of the Virgin in heaven 1950

      This is Rome. These are the dogmas we associate with Rome. They are

      unscriptural. All of them are the very antithesis of New Testament doctrine.

      • Dear Anno,
        I have seen lists like these before. The dates for most and probably all correspond to a church document formally making a statement about the topics below. B/c Protestants eagerly latch on to anything that seems to “prove” the Catholic Church makes stuff up they accept these dates uncritically. However, with a little research you can show your friend that these dates DO NOT indicate in any way, shape or form the introduction of a new idea or doctrine on the stated date. The doctrine or practice merely mentioned, mandated, or formally instituted on that date.

        For instance, if the Church in the near future issues a document dogmatically stating that marriage is between one man and one woman in say 2015, that does not in any way mean that for Catholics this is a new belief that was made up in the year 2015AD. But due to the error and confusion of our times this could become necessary to make the Church’s stance perfectly clear to all. This is precisely why the Church had to make these statements in the past. Now it is easy to access these dates but much more difficult to explain the historical circumstances that led to the declarations.

        * Prayers for the dead were introduced in 310
        We have inscription on graves from 1st century asking for prayers for the deceased.

        * The lighting of candles in 320

        as opposed to what? Electric light bulbs?

        * The worship of saints about 375
        We do NOT worship saints now nor have we ever worshipped saints. Ask for document that proves their point….

        * The mass was adopted in 394
        So, Christians did….what?…. for 364 years? Have Protestant-stlye services? The mass is very reminiscent of Jewish worship services.

        * The worship of Mary began to develop about 432

        We do not nor have we ever worshipped Mary. Ask for document that proves their point….

        * Priests began to assume distinctive robes in 500
        Uhhhh….so what. Is there something instrinsincaly sinful about this?

        * The doctrine of purgatory was introduced in 593
        Uhhh…..no….the Jews believed in a period of purification before Heaven.

        * Worship in Latin (since repealed) was mandated in 600
        So what. The official language for the Jews is Hebrew and for Muslims Arabic. Is there supposed to be something evil about Latin?

        * Claims to Papal Supremacy took firm foot in 606
        Ask for proof.But note, at least they are not claiming it began at this date.

        * Feasts in honor of the Virgin Mary began in 650
        Ask for proof that none ever took place before. Besides, what is wrong with it?

        * The custom of kissing the Pope’s foot was introduced in 709
        Ask for proof.

        * The worship of images and relics was authorized in 788

        We do not nor have we ever worshipped images or relics.

        * The invention of holy water was about 850
        Ask for proof it was invented in 850.

        * The canonization of saints was formalized in 993
        So, the Church formalized the method of canonizing saints making it a difficult process. But this supposed to be somehow wrong?

        * Feasts for the dead were introduced 1003
        What? Ask for documentation to prove they were first introduced.

        * ‘The celibacy of the priesthood was declared 1074
        Ask for documentation that this was the beginning as implied.

        * The dogma of Papal infallibility was announced 1076
        This is interesting b/c they usually cite a much later date. Ask for proof.

        * Prayer beads were introduced in 1090
        So? Are rosaries evil?

        * The doctrine that there are seven sacraments was introduced in 1140

        Ask for documentation that this was the first introduction of seven sacraments.

        * The sale of indulgences began 1190

        Ask for proof that the Church authorized the sale of indulgences. Not just that certain men abused this practice.

        * The wafer was substituted for the loaf in 1200
        So? Protestants substitute grape juice for wine. At least we still use bread…..

        * The dogma of transubstantiation was adopted 1215
        But not invented, merely formally promulgated.

        * Confession was instituted 1215
        Absolutely a lie.

        Prove it begun in 1215.

        * The adoration of the Wafer began 1220
        No, we adore and worship Jesus who is present Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity in the Eucharist. Why shouldn’t we worship HIM?

        * ‘The Ave Maria was introduced 1316

        Prove it. But even if true all prayers have a beginning.

        * The cup was taken from the laity in 1415
        Prove this.

        * Purgatory was officially decreed In 1439
        Prove it did not exist before 1493.

        * Roman tradition was placed on the same level as Scripture 1546
        Prove this was not the case before the Council of Trent which was reacting to Luther’s Sola Scriptura.

        * The Apocrypha was received into the Canon 1546

        The deuterocanon of the OT was received from the Jewish Septuagint that predated the birth of Christ by several hundred years. Even Jesus quoted mostly from it. The Jews and Martin Luther removed these books from the OT. The Apocrypha were never canonized but Protestants like to lump the apocrypha and the these Jewish OT books together. The same Church that canonized the books of the NT canonized the books of the OT in four church docs at about 400AD.

        * The immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary was announced 1854

        Prove it was never believed before this date…wait…Martin Luther believed in Mary’s immaculate conception.

        * ‘The doctrine of the temporal power of the Pope proclaimed 1864
        Ask your friend to clarify what this means exactly….

        * The personal corporeal presence of the Virgin in heaven 1950
        This was merely the dogma proclaimed, not the invention of the belief.

        Anno, take a couple of these, I would choose the Immaculate Conception, Assumption deuterocanon, confession, purgatory, transubstantiation or any of the dogmas or doctrines. Do a little research and show your friend that his list is very erroneous. I have posts dealing with what the Fathers in the first 3-4 hundred years of the the Church wrote proving very early dates for these beliefs. On Catholic Answers you can often find a list of quotes from the Early Fathers on various issues of doctrine and practice such at these. If you do a little research on two or three it will be very strengthening for your faith. Tell your friend you are very interested in responding to his questions but you have to wait till you have more free time.

        • Ok here we go…..just can’t resist this!!!!! Why do you guys ONLY have male priests? This is unbiblical just like repeating the Our Father.
          Let’s look what the Bible says about “Females ” shall we:
          Galations 3:28 “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor FEMALE; for you are all ONE in Christ Jesus” So if you like to work your way around this please do so….
          If you know the word, then I’m sure you would come back with this scripture:- If you don’t, then here it is_
          ! Timothy 2:11″ Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man but to be silence,”
          Paul was making a point here because the women of his day often sat in on the preaching and would call out {as they still do in the synagogs}for an explanation or some trifle matter to be heard……but this was not to do with “Preaching the Word” There is neither male OR FEMALE IN CHRIST!!!!!
          Phillipians 3:”And again I urge you also,true companion, help these WOMEN who LABOURED with me in the gospel…” so it’s obvious that Paul was encouraging Euodia and Syntyche to be of the same mind in the Lord, towards these women who had laboured with him in the gosple…
          About The Our Father:-
          If you remember the disciples were asking Jesus to TEACH them to pray, and so came about “The Our Father!” This was a PATTERN He was giving them for prayer! Just a pattern…..no where else in the Bible do you read of any of the Apostles or Disciples repeating that same prayer because Jesus also said in Matt 6:7 “And when you pray, do not use VAIN REPITITION as the HEATHEN do, for they think that they will be heard for their many words” Therefore do not be like them……”
          So There you have it. I don’t think you guys can wiggle outa this one

          • @Thetrueword: Nice try but none of your bible quotes mention “priests” textually and contextually so what’s so unbiblical about male priesthood? Yes, no male or female in Christ … but what does it mean? Was Christ female, any of the Apostles female? Where does it say that the “women” who worked with Paul were priests? Your own criteria of “Preaching of Word” for priesthood is unproven and unbiblical. It just to show that you have no idea what ministerial priesthood is all about.

            So you have a problem reciting the prayer which our Lord taught us to pray too? If you care to read anything in context, the “vain repetition” is a warning to not practice piety in order to be “seen by men” (like almsgiving, fasting, etc.). You obviously only know one form of praying … the long and wordy “articulating” type which is nothing biblical about it and also just as “repetitious” as the formal type of prayers. If anything, it has more tendency to contain “empty phrases … heard for their many words” (Matt 6:7). Moreover, you should really be praying in the closet behind closed door if you want to be literal about it all (v. 6).

            Keep learning …

          • Dear Trueword,
            You are correct. There is no verse that specifically says only men may be ordained to the priesthood. However Jesus was male, His apostles were male and He did not ordain His Immaculate Mother to the priesthood or any of His female followers. And we do have this:


            2 Timothy 2
            You therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. 2 The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

            No mention there of women. I am on vacation and don’t have my Greek interlinear and dictionary. But I suppose you could argue that perhaps “men” was the universal usage.

            So, the Church points out that after Jesus rose from the dead He told Mary Magdalene not to touch Him but a week later He invited Thomas one of the 12 first priests and bishops to touch Him. Thomas was a male priest.

            In addidtion the Priest (male) stands in persona Christi in the liturgy and the Faithful are the Bride of Christ. It would be weird for both the Bridegroom and the Bride to be female, except among certain quarters in our culture.

            This in no way accords a lesser dignity to women contrary to detractors for whom any stick will do to bash the Catholic Church.. I think you have been misinformed by anti-Catholic propaganda.

            As your verses point out women are of great importance in the Church. In fact, the highest honor that the Church bestows on any merely human person is open to women. This honor exceeds even the honor of being elected Pope. In fact the most honored position accorded to any merely human person happens to belong to a woman….Mary Most Holy. Sainthood is open to all. We also have Doctors of the Church and this also has been bestowed upon women. But anti-Catholics ignore these things b/c it does not serve their purposes.

            There is NOTHING in Scripture that forbids repeating the same prayer. It only condemns VAIN repetition not any and all repetition. Is reapeating, “I love you.” more than once always VAIN REPETITION?

      • “Rome did not arrive at its dogmatic positions hastily nor lightly. She is
        the product of many centuries of gradual departure from the true faith of
        the Church found in the Word of God”

        Actually, it’s Protestantism which only takes a tad 500 years to change “opinions” on murder (abortions), divorce and adultery, homosexuality … changing the proper ordering of The Ten Commandments, wrongly adding the doxology to the Lord’s Prayer, mistaking about the siblings of Christ, substituting biscuit and grape juice for the body and blood of Christ …. the list goes on and on. Nothing surprising considering how they have had obstinately refused to heed the bible’s very clear warning against private interpretation which results in “destructive heresies” (2 Pet 2:1).

        We are mindful of 2 Tim 4:3 which warns that “for the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths.” I will recommend a wonderful book “Catholicism and Fundamentalism” by Karl Keating which will be very helpful to debunk the hollowness and wickedness of such false claims.

        • Thank you so much for your support. As I said, I’m flat out with assignments and working to pay university fees off so not a lot of time to research, studying Philosophy so my eyes are strained from reading as it is. Thanks again. I will send a friend who is interested in coming home but has questions for you folks.

  4. As you know, I am “very Catholic,” but I’ve wondered about the doctrine, or teaching, of limbo for unbaptized babies that have died.

    I realize it was never declared a dogma by the Magesterium, but it was a teaching nevertheless. If I recall correctly, it was even taught in the old My Catholic Faith catechism. I’ve never seen a copy of the Baltimore Catechism — maybe it’s in there, too.

    I think it’s correct to explain that it was “a” theological solution to a theological question, but that it wasn’t an infallible teaching — just a common one.

    The lesson to learn, then, is that not all teachings are the same. Only some are dogma, and dogma is what’s here to stay.

  5. Darren,

    You raise a timely issue since Limbo has recently been in the news. In Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma I could not find Limbo in the index.

    I do not know how Limbo would be classified but according to Ott there are different Theological Grades of Certainty regarding the teachings of the Catholic Faith.

    First: Dogma
    Second: Catholic Doctrine or Catholic Truths
    Third:Teaching proximate to the Faith
    Fourth: A teaching pertaining to the faith
    Fifth: Common teaching
    Sixth: Theological Opinions

    And then within each of these grades there is also a heirarchy of levels of certainty.

    For instance within the 6th grade: Theological Opinion there are 5 further divisions.

    First is: Well Founded Opinion and the

    Fifth is: Tolerated opinion.

  6. This is tradition concerning eating fish that I do not want to condem. However, items first mentioned above
    Homosexual activity is notpermisable. As long as tradition can have a paralell to the Bible it is as the Bible. But do not be confused, some tradion is not Bibaly corect.

  7. The Catholic Church can change any tradition they have created. The first paragraph up above uses the word “supposedly” says something. The doctrine of Vatican II is something of Catholic and is not in the Bible..

  8. Dear Dennis,
    When the Catholic Church talks about Tradition it is referring to the Teachings of the Apostles. These are not the “teachings of Men” This is not changeable either. As the years passed we understood this teaching more deeply. For instance the Trinity is not explained anywhere in the Bible but it was taught in Oral TRADITION. It is only obliquely referred to in Scripture.

    The reason no doctrine of the Catholic faith contradicts anything in scripture is because the Bible actually came out to the Teaching of the Apostles. Some of it got written down but a lot of it was taught and passed down orally. As St. Paul said

    2 Thessalonians 2:15 So then, brethren,stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.

    Unlike most of our Protestant brothers and sisters, who take the Bible and determine the doctrines of their faith by study of the scriptures the Catholic Faith came long before the Bible was canonized. Therefore, we do NOT sit down with the Bible and derive our doctrines OUT of Scripture Alone/ Sola Scriptura. Luther invented that doctrine 1500 years after the time of Christ. And the Catholic Church rejects Luther’s doctrine. We take all of our doctrines directly from the Teaching of the Apostles of Jesus Christ BOTH ORAL and WRITTEN.

    • The most critical apostolic doctrines are plainly written in the New Testament. These teachings are different than Catholic teachings. The Roman Catholic church had its beginning well after Nicea. The early church was not Roman Catholic in doctrine or practice.

      • Michael,
        What Bible “teachings are different than Catholic teachings?”
        Protestants always assert this but I have found over and over again that it is merely the Protestant INTERPRETATION that differs with Catholic teaching. And I have no doubt that the same will be true with what ever example you give.

        Jesus Christ founded the Catholic Church on Peter and the apostles. The fact that it was called the Catholic Church is proven by a letter written around the year A.D. 107, by a bishop, St. Ignatius of Antioch in the Near East. He was arrested, brought to Rome by armed guards, and eventually martyred there in the arena.

        In a farewell letter which this early bishop and martyr wrote to his fellow Christians in Smyrna (today Izmir in modern Turkey), he made the first written mention in history of “the Catholic Church.” He wrote,

        “Where the bishop is present, there is the Catholic Church” (To the Smyrnaeans 8:2).

        Thus, we have proof that the second century of Christianity had scarcely begun when the name of the Catholic Church had already been established.

        You have been taught many Protestant traditions that are neither true nor historical.

      • I so agree. There is a lack of historical hermeneutics here.

  9. well by what authority did the Catholic Church
    change God’s law of the original saturday sabbath
    to the now man maid sabbath sunday? As I study the word of
    God I found that it is very important to keep this commandment.

  10. The change of keeping the Lord’s Day on Sunday instead of Saturday was by the authority Jesus gave to Peter and the Church He founded. By giving the keys of the kingdom to Peter and the Church and the power to bind and loose (a rabbinic formula meaning “authority to Rule) the day of worship was changed to Sunday in celebration of the resurrection of Jesus.

    Interestingly, Jesus did nothing on Saturday or the Jewish Sabbath. But Friday was consecrated by His death and Sunday by His resurrection. Also, most, if not all, of His appearances to His apostles and others occured on SUNDAY.

    So, of course those who do not accept the authority of the Catholic Church to rule would reject this change based on scripture alone. And others who also reject the Catholic Church and yet accept the sabbath change to Sunday accept this Catholic TRADITION and several others. Some of the other Catholic TRADITIONS Protestants accept are the canon of the New Testament, the Doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation. Because as I have said elsewhere, the New Testament and even the whole Bible is NOT a Systematic Theology text. Someone must interpret it. The question is: Who has authority to interpret it infallibly?

  11. jesus also told peter:
    Mark 8:33

    But when Jesus turned and looked at his disciples, he rebuked Peter. “Get behind me, Satan!” he said. “You do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men.”

    as true christains we can’t
    take the scripture out of context!

    study for your self.

    its either tradition or scriptures.
    I my self choose scriptures cause tradition
    doesn’t meen a thing.

    back to the topic:

    jesus folowed the ten commandments also. so why is it again that the catholic church ecourages sunday worship
    when jews today still worship on the original sbbath sturday. jesus didn’t change anything just came to fulfill the promises from god.

  12. What about Mary Magdelene? For years, the church taught that she was the same as the “sinful woman”, but they have recently backpedaled on that. I believe Gregory said that in the 600s.

  13. There are still people of that opinion. People are free to have different opinions about that and many other things. Who the sinful woman is has nothing to do with doctrine so it is not germaine to the discussion here. When I am talking about Doctrine I am talking to statements in the Creeds and other de Fide kinds of beliefs like:

    “Jesus is present body and soul under the appearance of bread and wine in the Eucharist”

    Mary is sinless and a perpetual virgin.
    Doctrine of the Trinity
    Pope is infallible.
    The seven sacraments: Baptism, Confirmation, Communion, Marriage, Holy Orders, Confession, Annointing of the sick.

    These are the doctrines that don’t change.

    • Papal infallibility wasn’t made a dogma until the 19th century…Vatican I, hardly biblical.
      The seven sacraments weren’t decided upon until the 12 th century. Before that that was a lot of different opinion but only general agreement about baptism and Eucharist.

      • Dear Mona,
        You are mistaking the Defining of a Dogma of Faith with the beginning of an article of faith. Catholics believed all of those things from the beginning of the Church. But, over time heresies arise and the faithful become confused. In order to get rid of confusion and clarify what the Church authentically teaches and believes the Pope or the Magisterium will issue a dogma that must be believed.

        Did you know that the Catholic Church has not yet made it a dogma of faith that marriage is between one man and one woman? Our culture is now becoming so confused on this issue that perhaps the Church will have to issue a dogma on Marriage in order to clarify the issue for the Faithful. Let’s say that that happens in 2021. Would you say that Catholics never believed in marriage between a man and a woman until 2021?

        • I don’t know how you can generalize Catholics in such a way. Exceptionally good and credible teachers of the Catholic Church debated and disagreed about the nature of the relationship between the son and the Holy Spirit for the first few hundred years. Just as bishops, theologians and the faithful today disagree on women priests.

          Further, the definition of marriage between a man and a woman can be found in the Old Testament so Jews, Moslems and Christians can cite that authority if they wish. They hardly need to wait for a dogmatic statement on it. On the othe hand, what if all Catholics, or most Catholics now believe differently about marriage, does their belief constitute the basis for a change of doctrine? If not, then I don’t see how citing “Catholics believe” is ever a valid argument. Either you accept the senses fidelity or you don’t. You can’t choose to only when you happen to agree.

          • Dear Mona,
            You are correct about the confusion that existed in the the first centuries of the Church about the divinity and humanity of Jesus. The Doctrine of the Trinity is very mysterious. But that does not mean that no one knew this until it was dogmatically defined at the Nicean council. The truth was known by the apostles who Jesus taught and those taught by them. Heresies will always arise but that does not mean that the Church is confused by them.

            There are some Catholic clergy who believe that women should be ordained to the priesthood. However, that confusion does not mean that the Church is confused. The Church has always and everywhere taught that only men may be ordained to the priesthood. And this is abundantly clear in the documents of the Church. And yet heretics arise in every generation and seek to lead the faithful away into false beliefs. The priesthood issue arose in our generation. John Paul II issued a teaching to clarify and end the controversy in a short and to the point, two page encyclical Ordinatio Sacerdotalis in 1994.

            “…in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance… in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren. I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever, to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.”

            I totally agree that the Bible shows us what marriage is. But if you look at the Christian landscape in America you find churches ordaining active homosexuals and marrying them as well, despite what the Bible says. This sort of practice, along with the pressures of politics and the culture, over time begin to erode the certainty about marriage among the faithful. When the confusion reaches a certain point the Pope may issue a teaching that as Catholics we are to believe ONLY that Marriage is between one man and one woman. As you so correctly see, that will not in any way mean that Catholics only began to believe this when the teaching was dogmatically issued.

            No matter how many Catholics believe in gay marriage or women priests,the Church will NEVER change what she teaches. I guess I should have said, “The Church has always believed…” rather than “Catholics have always believed.” My point was that these beliefs, in the sacraments and the Trinity, did not come into existence on the day the Church issued a teaching document. But perhaps I misunderstood your point in your first comment?

  14. “Jesus is present body and soul under the appearance of bread and wine in the Eucharist”

    Mary is sinless and a perpetual virgin.
    Doctrine of the Trinity
    Pope is infallible.
    The seven sacraments: Baptism, Confirmation, Communion, Marriage, Holy Orders, Confession, Annointing of the sick.

    These are the doctrines that don’t change.

    **So you believe that Mary was sinless? But isnt Jesus the only ‘human’ who didnt sin? The Scriptures say that we are ALL sinners. And Mary stopped being a virgin as she conceived other sons (such as James) with Joseph, her husband.

  15. Dear Eli:
    Q. So you believe that Mary was sinless?
    A. Yes. I have posted on this and had several conversations about this.
    So I would like to refer you to the following posts.

    Martin Luther believed in Mary’s Immaculate Conception

    Immaculate Conception I

    Immaculate Conception 2

    Mary Was NOT Sinless

    Q. But isnt Jesus the only ‘human’ who didnt sin?
    A. Jesus was certainly sinless but millions of humans, at this moment are innocent of actual sin.
    They have been born with a fallen nature and will surely sin eventually. Adam, Eve, and Mary were not originally in possession of a sin nature.

    All Have Sinned

    All Have Sinned…Except Mary?

    Can Humans Be Sinless?


    Q. And Mary stopped being a virgin as she conceived other sons (such as James) with Joseph, her husband.

    A. This is a legitimate interpretation of scripture but it is not the only legitimate interpretation.

    Martin Luther and the Reformers on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary

    Brothers and Sisters of Jesus?

  16. The Cathlic Bible says there is but one
    mediator between God and man. But the church
    designates Mary as a mediatress. Is this not
    adding to the Word of God?

  17. Please see my reply HERE

  18. Only a doctrine that is dogma is infallible. while every
    Dogma is a doctrine,not every doctrine is a dogma.Out of the 100s if not thousands of doctrines or teachings of the past 2000 years relatively few are dogmas. Popes like Honorius have been codemned for heresy & Vatican II teaches a constant tradition that reception of a teaching by the faithful is involved in the infallibilty of the church. Example people accept Jesus Christ is Redeemer(a dogma),they have not accepted the teaching that every act of birth control is evil—a teaching that is fallible.

  19. Kim,
    Every act of “birth control” would include NFP which is not evil. However, contraception has everywhere and always been condemned and it is an infallible magesterial teaching.

    Paul VI, in Humanae Vitae once again condemned all contraception as the Pope, teacher of the whole Church. This was on morals and therefore is infallible and should be accepted with docility by all the faithful.

    The heretics have put forth contrary teaching to justify contraception b/c they are unwilling to conform to Christ against this corrupt culture.

    Honorius NEVER taught heresy. He was NOT condemned for teaching heresy. He was condemned b/c he did not use his office to vigorously teach against heresy and thereby allowed the heresy to florish.

    Many heretics had recently been reunited to the Church without enough doctrinal clarity. So, in order to maintain the newly won unity he failed to teach with doctrinal clarity that Christ had two wills, one human and one divine, lest unity be dissolved. This allowed false teaching to continue. It was this fault that was later condemned.

    However, PAPAL infallibility resides only in what is TAUGHT to the WHOLE CHURCH on FAITH and MORALS. So Honorius is NOT an example of Papal Fallibility. Honorius’ failure could be likened to St. Peter, when he failed to eat with the gentiles in deference to the judeizers and was rebuked by St. Paul. Peter did not teach error to the whole church on faith and morals and neither did Honorius.

    You can read all the technicalities HERE

  20. Pam,

    I’m a Protestant, so please don’t berate me or anything if I misunderstand or misrepresent anything in my questions here. They are somewhat related to changes in Rome’s claims, and the questions themselves are rather closely related. Unfortunately, this might be somewhat long, so please bear with me.

    1. Why exactly is the Vatican allowed to change its position on Islam? From this link (http://bereanbeacon.org/articles/The_Papacy_and_Islam.pdf), it seems that the Vatican has changed its position on Islam from being opposed to it to declaring that “Included in the plan of salvation are Muslims…” Which leads to 2…

    2. This isn’t intended to be a stumper, but…I mean, Muslims claim that Allah is the same God as the God of the Bible, but from my reading of the Bible and of verses in the Quran, it just seems pretty clear to me that Allah and YHWH are NOT the same God. Allah isn’t triune, and he loves those who love him, while YHWH loves unbelievers as well.

    Furthermore, the unforgivable sin in Islam is to confess the deity of Jesus. So basically, the question is: with these glaring differences, how can Muslims be included in the plan of salvation? Which leads to 3…

    3. According to the Vatican, are Protestants excluded from the plan of salvation?

    Let me clarify…for a while, I was extremely opposed to Catholicism (my animosity has died down somewhat, though). For one, I came across those teachings and quotes about Mary, and my instant reaction was “WHAT?!?!?!” I was outraged by such blasphemy. I’m sure there have been and are many other Protestants like me in that regard. So, after being “introduced” to Roman Catholicism, many Protestants probably stop there and reject Catholicism outright.

    Now, if Rome is the Church that Jesus founded, I don’t think that anyone who is highly opposed to that Church would enter heaven. But…according to the Vatican, are the Protestants who truly love God with all their heart and soul and mind and strength, but who are outraged at what the Vatican teaches, going to hell, while the Muslims who vehemently deny the Trinity and the deity of Jesus going to heaven?

  21. FM,
    The Vatican has not changed its position on Islam. I did not read all six pages on the link but the author made assertions and interpretations of the Pope’s words that were not backed up by the quotations.

    The Pope is the Vicar of Christ on planet Earth. Christ’s representative in time and space. He seeks the salvation of all souls. And he is affirming those things that are good and true in Islam. T(hey are not true of the radical forms of Islam.) This does not mean that the Pope believes Islam is another path, among many, to salvation. That is the heresy of indifferentism. By finding common ground the Pope is hoping to overcome obstacles in the minds of Muslims so that they might be attracted to Christianity and convert.

    By saying that Muslims are included in the plan of salvation he merely means that God desires that all men be saved and He will save them but if so then it is NOT through Islam that they are saved but throught Jesus Christ and HIS Church. Anyone who makes it to Heaven makes it by what God finds in their heart and the love for Him that He finds there, in spite of their ignorance of Christianity per se. It is all through the loving MERCY of Christ.

    This is a very big difference between Catholicism and Protestantism. And it is such a blessing because the God of the Catholic Faith is truly more merciful and understanding than the God of Protestantism. Our Lord judges a soul based on what they knew and how they responded to that knowledge (ROM. 1). He does not condemn a soul to Hell b/c they knew nothing of Christianity or through invincible ignorance, or due to the evil acts of bad “Christans”. For instance, in Nazi Germany, Jews were both saved by Christians and betrayed by Christians.

    2) Muslims believe in ONE GOD. This is True. Through Ishmael they carried this religious truth down through the generations of Arabs. The Catholic Faith affirms what is true in other religions, but also attempts to correct what is wrong and draw all men to Christ. True Allah may not be triune but neither was it thought by the Jews that God was a trinity. We are not saved by correct knowledge but by loving hearts that worship Our Lord as best as we know. Our Father welcomes the love of His children even when they don’t know Him completely.

    Muslims are not included in the plan of salvation in the same way as Jesus or the Catholic Church is a part of the plan of salvation. It is just that Muslims too can be saved. But, it is much more difficult for them b/c they lack so much Truth and the grace of the Sacraments. But God can take all of this into account for each and every individual. “To whom much is given MUCH is required.” That is you and me.

    3) Protestants are included in the plan of salvation just as the Muslims but they have the great helps of much more Truth in their journey to God than Muslims. The documents of Vatican II refer to the Jews as our elder brothers in the Faith and to Protestants as our separated brethren in the Faith.

    As CS Lewis illustrated: The Trinity is like a fire in a cold room. Those who are closest to it are the most warmed and receive the most benefit. Those a bit more removed less benefit but still much warmth and light. Those farther away less and less as the location drifts further away from the fire, but still some light and some warmth.

    All religions have some “light” of Truth. We affirm that and based on our common beliefs we try to build on this to draw all men to Christ.
    Just like missionaries have done since the advent of Christianity.

    God will be the judge regarding someone who is highly opposed to the Catholic Church. God knows if this animosity is from true knowledge or if it is based completely on misinformation and lies. This is usually the case, especially for Protestants. If what the many anti-Catholics teach about the Catholic Church were true, Catholics would hate The Church too. But it is mostly lies, distortions, misunderstandings, and jumping to uncharitable conclusions. So, God will judge even anti Catholic Protestants with mercy, if they are truly invincibly ignorant. We will all be judged on what we knew and how we responded to that knowledge. Did we run away from truth out of self-will or cowardice? Have you read my conversion story?

  22. Thanks for the kind, reply, Pam. I’ve got a few comments, though, so please bear with me.

    1. “Anyone who makes it to Heaven makes it by what God finds in their heart and the love for Him that He finds there, in spite of their ignorance of Christianity …”

    Are the Muslims going to be let into heaven despite their vehement denial of Jesus’ divinity? And what about Acts 4:12? I think that anyone who has passed the age of accountability MUST be saved through faith in Jesus. The Muslims have certainly never asked Jesus to forgive their sins.

    And simply put…please read the Quran’s description of Allah (especially the part about Allah and nonbelievers), and then compare it with the Bible’s description of YHWH. From what we can see of the heart of Allah and YHWH, it just seems so clear to me that the god the Muslims worship is NOT the same God the Christians worship.

    2. “…neither was it thought by the Jews that God was a trinity.”

    From what I’ve read, I disagree. I think the Jews did indeed know that YHWH is triune. Here’s a link: http://www.tektonics.org/jesusclaims/trinitydefense.html

    3. I’m not too clear about this, but…http://www.ntrmin.org/images/questions/Cath-Prot-include.htm

  23. FM:
    Acts 4:12 Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.”

    BFHU: And we agree with this verse but it doesn’t say in there any of what you said. “I think that anyone who has passed the age of accountability MUST be saved through faith in Jesus. The Muslims have certainly never asked Jesus to forgive their sins.”

    So, you see this is your interpretation of this verse. All who will be saved ARE SAVED by JESUS and no one or anything else. It was His death that opened salvation and the Father’s judgment of who has been saved by Jesus’ death and resurrection. So, you see it is still under the name of Jesus. But Catholics deny the narrow Protestant interpretation “that only those who have asked Jesus to forgive their sins can be saved.”

    Do you then say that all the people who lived in the western hemisphere are doomed to Hell b/c they did not ask Jesus to forgive their sins until the Spaniards and Jesuits and Pilgrims came to these two continents in the 1500’s AD? As for the Muslims or any other group We let God judge. It is none of our business.

    The God of the Quran may be a demon but individual Muslims in their heart of hearts are destined to seek their God as are all human beings. So regardless of what the Quran says or doesn’t say God will judge the soul of each and we can count on His mercy and fairness.

  24. I think I said this before, but thank you, Pam, for kindly responding! In the area of “religious” websites and discussion boards, there have unfortunately been too many attacks on the arguer and not the argument itself. So thank you for not pulling off ad hominems and cheap rhetorical tricks. I shall endeavor to do the same as well.

    You said: “Do you then say that all the people who lived in the western hemisphere are doomed to Hell b/c they did not ask Jesus to forgive their sins until the Spaniards and Jesuits and Pilgrims came to these two continents in the 1500’s AD?”

    I understand this might not intellectually be the best answer, but missionaries travelling to far away lands have reported amazing accounts of people having already heard things that prepared them for the missionaries’ arrival. Here’s a link:

    http://net-burst.net/hot/miracle.htm

    So, I think my point remains valid.

  25. Yes, I have heard these reports as well but the fact remains that those who lived and died for millenia before the arrival of the missionaries (on the western continent) NEVER asked Jesus to forgive them for their sins. They never even heard of Jesus.

    In the Protestant view of salvation: They are all going to Hell.

    In the Catholic view of salvation: They will be judged by our merciful God based on the knowledge they had and how they responded to that knowledge and if they did well they may enter eternal life.

  26. Hello Pam,

    I haven’t posted here in quite a while…been busy with school. Just a question: does the Vatican say that ALL Muslims are included in the plan of salvation?

    See, I was thinking…verses like John 8:19 (“If you knew Me, you would know My Father also”) and John 8:42 (“…if God were your Father, you would love Me…”) and John 8:47 (“He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.”) seem to be saying that if anyone truly has a relationship with God the Father, then he or she would recognize God the Son.

    Now, I don’t think that if one never hears the name of Jesus, then he or she will go to hell. I do think, though, that when and if someone hears or reads about Jesus, then he or she will realize who He is.

    In light of this…if these Muslims are going to heaven, then they’re probably saved, though they don’t know it. It would be odd if they were left spiritually unregenerate in this life. But if they are born again, then that means they have established a relationship with the Father. But if that’s the case, then why are they still Muslims? If they truly have a relationship with the Father, then according to those verses in John, they should have realized upon reading the Bible (and MANY Muslims have read the Bible) that Jesus is indeed divine. So…how can they remain in Islam?

  27. I am not sure what you mean by “included in the plan of salvation.” ALL people who have ever lived or will ever live have access to salvation through the merits of Jesus Christ.
    so, in that sense they are included in the plan of salvation. Anyone who makes it to Heaven makes it by the death and resurrection of Jesus. Islam DOES NOT save them.

    Regarding the salvation of Muslims I don’t know the answers to your questions. They must seek salvation of their own souls and you must save your soul using all the knowledge you can. Leave the intricacies to Our Lord. No general answer to your questions would suffice anyway b/c each individual case is different.

    We need to be able to rejoice with the rest of Heaven when we finally realize who is in Heaven. Even if it is Hitler, Manson, or Osama bin Laden. I am not saying they will be there, but we must realize that God loves their souls just as much as He loves ours. We must be merciful as He is merciful and rejoice that even someone very evil in this life can still be saved by the mercy of Christ. I have been able to rejoice in this but it was difficult it was at first. What helped is to realize that these people will need to spend a lot more time in Purgatory—a doctrine you lack in Protestantism. This lack makes it more difficult to accept how MERCIFUL Our LORD really is. Purgatory is on the way to Heaven. That is where Justice and Mercy kiss…..

  28. Hi everyone,

    I had a discussion yesterday with a Protestant friend of mine and I was maintaining my belief that the Catholic Church has not changed its doctrine. But he mentioned that ST Irenaeus was clearly for the doctrine of election and so was the Catholic Church and this doctrine changed years after to what we believe today that Jesus died for everyone.

  29. Dear Laurel,

    The fact that a Saint, even one as great as St. Irenaeus, taught something does not mean their teaching was infallible or that it is what the Church taught. Besides this,all kinds of heresies were taught for centuries by Catholic Heretics. But these were opposed by the Pope and the Magesterium. Ask your friend for the citation or where it can be found that the Church taught limited atonement, predestination and/or the doctrine of election. I do not believe she will be able to prove it.

    The Sacred Scripture:

    I Tim 2:3This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 5For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all men—the testimony given in its proper time.

    The Catholic Church has always taught that not everyone will BE saved but as far as I know it has never taught that Christ died only for the elect. So, I would love to have her try to prove her contention.

  30. How can you say the church has not changed doctrine? You are 100% correct the church has never changed any doctrines and can’t. God would cease to be God before any doctrines could change in the Catholic Church. The real question; just who is in the Catholic Church? The Catholic Church can boast indefectibility because it is none other than Christ. The Church is the visible mystical body of Christ in the world. One who changes doctrine or believes foreign doctrine in the Church knowingly is automatically outside the Church. Like a section of grape vine that has been severed from the vine, the shape is there and seems good and healthy and indeed there is life in it but it is not a part of the vineyard any longer. This severed vine can be grafted back after a change of heart as long as there is life left in it. Paul talked about that in the book of Romans.

    When you look to Rome and the Vatican do you assume all or any are in the Church? How would you know? What a man says and what he believes today are not connected. For example, I asked the parish priest how was it that the word all replaced the word many in the consecration of the Eucharist. His reply was “If it makes you happy, they are changing back to the word many because it is a little closer to the Latin translation than the word all is.” This he said will occur in two years. I wonder what the writers of the Trent catechism would tell him if they were here today; because they explained the reason they have used many and not all these past two thousand years: “Therefore were the words FOR ALL not used, because here alone it speaks of the fruit of Christ’s passion.”

    So to conclude, you are right; Catholic doctrine has not changed, but any Mass that has changed the form of consecration to mean something other than what was intended in doctrine, has in fact not changed church doctrine but their personal doctrine. Impenetrable ignorance is notwithstanding. But what priest has not read the catechism of Trent? What priest can say pro multis (for many) is close in meaning to pro omnibus (for all)? I would suggest one who believes in a new doctrine of universal salvation.

    • Joseph, I agree with most of what you have said here. The Catholic Church is indefectible b/c it is the body of Christ. The Catholic Church is the Church founded by Jesus Christ. And He promised that the Gates of Hell would not overcome it. Therefore I trust the Church founded by Jesus Himself. I reject the “churches” founded by men even though i am sure their motives were good. It can be established that the doctrines of the Catholic Church are continuous with the doctrines of the Christian Church of the first 100-300 years of its infant history. Protestant doctrine is nowhere to be found for 1500 years. Therefore, I converted to the Catholic Church.

      Unfortunately, as I am sure you know Satan HATES the Catholic Church. At times in her history he has had some tactical victories. The chaos following the second Vatican Council created much that has weakened the faith of many Catholics. The “pro multis” vs “pro omnibus” changes are a small example. Many much worse practices have occurred that directly abuse the Holy Eucharist. But our Pope is rectifying these abuses slowly but surely. In addition, those who hijacked Vatican II are aging and retiring and becoming less able to influence the Church. The young faithful and priests are much more faithful to the orthodox Catholic Church.

      I am sure there are a lot of rebellious priests in the Church today that would NEVER even consider reading the Council of Trent. But, things they are a-changing…..

      God Bless Pam Forrester bfhu.wordpress.com

  31. Dear Pam,

    Your optimism and faith is admirable. I was 16 in 1969 when our parish priest would read letter after letter from Rome making change upon change, month after month. One of the movers and shakers in Vatican II was you-know-who and you are waiting for him to fix things. All the changes were made to the Mass in about one year. So tell me; why does it take two years to change just one word in the liturgy?

    I am convinced this is the great apostasy predicted by Paul. Of course, I could be wrong. But reading as much as one can read on the subject, the evidence is overwhelming. I am compelled to comment on your words about “pro multis” being “a small example”. There are days of reading available concerning this controversy. After reading all one can find on both sides of the issue, a decision must be made. Does the word ALL invalidate what is for Catholics their very life? The form of a sacrament must signify what it affects. The sacrament of the Eucharist signifies and affects the mystical body of Christ according to Pope Leo XIII. All men are not a part of Christ’s body, hence universal salvation is a false doctrine signified by the word ALL. Ipso facto, when I came upon the question on this site (How Can the Catholic Church Change its Doctrines?), I gave an example.

    Forty years have now expired since the implementation of the Novus Ordo mass. The Jews spent forty years in the desert. We are starting forty days of lent today. Let us pray for a resolution to this controversy so my family and I can return to Mass.

    • Dear Joseph, I never heard that letters were read in 1969. Were they from the bishop or the Vatican? I have only been Catholic for 10 years and I have a lot of sympathy for Catholics that had to go through the clown years following Vatican II. I have read the documents and they are fine. But change agents seized the opportunity to cram change down every Catholic throat. And now they are the ones complaining that the changes to the English lectionary are being made too fast. As Paul VI said, the “Smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God.”

      There are many loyal and faithful Catholics in every parish church, you just have to keep your eyes and ears open to find them. You might enjoy website of Fr. Z. He has some fun posts but most about the advance of our Holy Faith and the defeat of the rebels in the Church. He is NOT SSPX, just a loyal orthodox Catholic.

      God Bless Pam Forrester bfhu.wordpress.com

  32. Dear Pam

    The letters to my parish priest concerning the changes most likely came from the bishop. Until you asked, I never thought about it. I remember our priest saying these changes are from the pope and we must make these changes by such-and-such date. There is no doubt the content of the letters were instructions originating from Rome, most likely in Latin, translated by the bishop.

    There is a Chinese saying “the faintest ink is better than the best memory”. I wonder if those letters are in a file somewhere. You gave me things to think about when you said you were a Catholic for ten years. I accepted the changes in 1970 until some three years ago.

    But that’s not the thought you gave me. If we have the same faith, the complete Catholic faith, is what I wonder. By that I mean, do we know the same relationship with God the priest and the other people? I don’t doubt your trust and faith in Jesus. I asked a bishop once about the difference between having faith and what the faith is. He said the Catholic faith is what you choose to turn your spiritual eyes towards.

    Pam, please allow me to briefly pontificate on what my aged spiritual eyes see as the nature of the Catholic Church. The church is the vehicle in which the priest offers God the only acceptable cures for our sins; His only begotten son, Jesus. This Christ offered himself as payment for sin. The Catholic Priest offers Jesus to the Almighty Father in the Mass, as a sacrifice for the sins of the people. If you are fortunate enough to be present at the Mass and your heart is right you receive this grace.

    Those attending the Mass add nothing to the sacrifice, because alone it’s perfect and the sacrament is only confected by the priest. For an example, here is where the Protestants’ spiritual eyes look at a different faith. In there worship of the Almighty, they offer Him their adoration, songs and love and the like, which are good things but not an acceptable propitiation for sin. This is not the method that God chose for us to receive his Son’s fruit of salvation, his life giving body for the forgiveness of our sins and eternal life. God will only accept His Christ as an offering for the remission of sins. The Novus Ordo mass removed the verse “mystery of faith” from the form of consecration. Of course, a perfect act of contrition can forgive sin, but attending Mass is the more perfect method of removing venial sin.

    I don’t mean to lecture you, but when Rome turned the altar around and the priest faces the people and the people respond as if they were altar boys, that’s not tradition of the Catholic faith. The Protestant faith hates the concept of priest and altar and sacrifice; that’s why they have a table in place of an altar and a minister rather than a priest and a service and not a sacrifice. Whether you believe it or not Rome is changing the faith to become what I just described. The priest is becoming a president; the altar is becoming a table; the sacrifice a spiritual banquette or the Lord’s Supper or a memorial meal.

    I stopped reading the prayers and Intercessions part of the Universalis because of the many references to this stuff.
    For example, I took this from Universalis Lauds this year: “Let us join together with joy at our Sunday gathering, around the table of your word and your body”. That is not remotely Catholic. “Sunday gathering”? Oh my, is the word Mass offensive? “The table of your word and body.” Do you see what I mean? “The table of your body.” There are no tables in the Catholic Church that hold our Lord’s Body; There is the altar and the tabernacle. You see how they are changing doctrine here.

    The average person that calls themselves Catholic could care less about Pro Multis or an altar opposed to a table. I believe the last poll I read 70% don’t believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The poison of Vatican II has done its work. You said you read the documents of Vatican II and have no problem with them. We have a different opinion apparently, because I find them completely offensive and not the Roman Catholic Faith and I am ashamed it took me 40 years to read them. Dear Pam, I am not a hateful person and I don’t want to hurt anyone. Please read this as my opinion and then let it go. God loves us Pam – on that we can agree.

  33. REVELATION:
    The Catholic Church, should be guided by continuing revelation. It should have prophet and the authority from God. (Peter is not the ROCK, the ROCK is revelation) The Pope should be able to communicate directly with God and be able to clarify doctrines as did the original Apostles. Too many of the beliefs of the Catholic Church are doctrines of men mingled with scripture. If the Church was governed by revelation there would not be so many contradicting doctrines.

    The Catholic Church is not founded upon revelation:

    Realizing the importance of knowing the true nature of God, men had struggled to find a way to define Him. Learned clerics argued with one another. When Constantine became a Christian in the fourth century, he called together a great convocation of learned men with the hope that they could reach a conclusion of understanding concerning the true nature of Deity. All they reached was a compromise of various points of view. The result was the Nicene Creed of a.d. 325. This and subsequent creeds have become the declaration of doctrine concerning the nature of Deity for most of Christianity ever since.

    Mary The Virgin:
    I give to Mary the utmost respect, but she should not be worshiped as if she were another God, as she is worshiped in the Catholic Church. This goes against every doctrine in the scriptures. (Worshiping idols, and having other god’s before God himself)
    You cannot simply dismiss the fact that Mary had other children. She was a virgin at the time of conception of Jesus but did not remain a virgin. This cannot be dismissed simply with ” This is a legitimate interpretation of scripture but it is not the only legitimate interpretation. ” It is THE ONLY interpretation.
    Nor was Mary sinless, Jesus was the only sinless person to ever live, allowing him to atone for our sins. He was the only pure and spotless lamb.

    • Jeff: REVELATION:
      The Catholic Church, should be guided by continuing revelation. It should have prophet and the authority from God. (Peter is not the ROCK, the ROCK is revelation)

      BFHU:Jeff where does Jesus say that the ROCK is revelation!!! for our readers here is what Jesus actually said, to Peter:

      “you are Rock and on this Rock I will build MY Church.”

      I do not see the word “revelation” in there at all.

      Jeff: The Pope should be able to communicate directly with God and be able to clarify doctrines as did the original Apostles.

      BFHU: Where does this assertion come from? Can you back this up with scripture?

      Jeff: Too many of the beliefs of the Catholic Church are doctrines of men mingled with scripture.

      BFHU: You are correct. They are the doctrines taught by the man, Jesus, to His men the apostles, and passed down to the present time in written and oral form just as the man St. Paul asserted in I Thess.

      Jeff:If the Church was governed by revelation there would not be so many contradicting doctrines.

      BFHU: Uhhhh…such as? We have no contradicting doctrines. Some of our doctrines CONTRADICT PROTESTANT DOCTRINES or PROTESTANT INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE. But we do not have any contradicting doctrines. That is one of the sublime beauties of the Catholic Faith. It is soooooo much more intellectually satisfying, cohesive, deep and complete than the Protestantism I was involved in.

      Jeff: The Catholic Church is not founded upon revelation:

      BFHU: It certainly is. It is founded upon ALL that Jesus Revealed and taught to his apostles, along with the OT. It is founded on more revelation than Protestantism, which has only written revelation to rely upon.

      Jeff: Mary The Virgin:I give to Mary the utmost respect, but she should not be worshiped as if she were another God, as she is worshiped in the Catholic Church.

      BFHU: WORSHIP OF MARY IS CONDEMNED BY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. WE DO NOT WORSHIP MARY.

      Jeff: You cannot simply dismiss the fact that Mary had other children. She was a virgin at the time of conception of Jesus but did not remain a virgin.

      BFHU: Historically Mary had no other children. That is why Jesus gave her into the care of St. John from the cross. Even Luther, Calvin and Zwingli believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary. Upon what reliable source document do you assert that Mary had other children?

      Jeff: This cannot be dismissed simply with ” This is a legitimate interpretation of scripture but it is not the only legitimate interpretation. ” It is THE ONLY interpretation.

      BFHU: Is your interpretation infallible then? The so called brothers and sisters of Jesus were merely kinsmen.

      Jeff:Nor was Mary sinless, Jesus was the only sinless person to ever live, allowing him to atone for our sins. He was the only pure and spotless lamb.

      BFHU: Where does it say this in Scripture? You are espousing a Protestant Tradition of Men. What about babies who die? They have a fallen nature but they are sinless.

    • Dear Jeff,
      I doubt you will read this as you have not been active in this thread for quite some time. I will post my thoughts anyway. Jesus did not speak English. I’m not saying He did not understand English because as God He was and is omniscient. But in his day to day life He spoke Aramaic. In the time that Jesus walked the earth as God-incarnate it was normal to call one’s cousins “brothers” and “sisters.” Mary did not have sexual intercourse with Joseph. Ever. This may sound strange in today’s world but it did not sound strange in biblical times. The word “until”as translated from the Greek of the NT does not mean what it means today. You seem to fail to understand that the bible is almost 2,000 years old. Surely the use of language has changed since then. Also, the bible was not originally written in English but in Greek and Hebrew.

      Why do you say your interpretation of Scripture is the only interpretation? Do you speak and understand Latin, Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic? Are you an expert in the history of biblical times? Do you know the geography of the lands that Jesus visited and lived in?

      Are you aware that the Catholic Church put the bible together? You claim to follow bible teaching but I wonder whether you know that you are claiming to follow the teaching of a Catholic document! To say that your interpretation is the only correct one is arrogant. Why would your interpretation be correct and mine wrong? We could both believe fully that we are guided by the Holy Spirit. Why are you right and Catholics wrong?

      • Hi Jurrine

        How can you question someone, expressing an authority, but with the same misguided ignorance and arrogance?

        How is it that yours is the only opinion that matters? Let’s put it this way.

        If you were both guided by the holy spirit, you would understand without shadow of any doubt whatsoever, that you are wrong and that Jeff is right!

        Jesus had brothers and sisters. He was the first born and of a natural conception. Mary was a virgin in the respect that she took no part in Original Sin.

        If you are to educate people it would be best to do some research instead of relying on Chinese whispers.

        • Are you seriously going to hang the word UNTIL in the verse that says UNTIL she bore a Son? really! Ok by that manner of thinking then Mica had children after the day of her death and Jesus will not be with us after the end of time and there are many more etc,etc…that use the word UNTIL And if there were brothers and sisters then would Our Lord assign John to take Mary as his Mother while on the cross? Such an inult to forsake these imaginary siblings at the time of salvation. Makes no sence. I mean, the Holy Spirit tells St. Joseph to take Her as a bride so She would’nt get stoned to death, Not in a fleshy manner. You should start your own religion buddy. Call it Church of the blind because it’s obvious you’re not wise in your understanding of scripture. Don’t forget there is no word in aramaik for cousins they are refered to as brothers. Lets put it this way, there are non Biblical historical facts thats show that the early christians went to their death because they believed that the Eucharist was the real Body and blood of Jesus and you wish to believe that St. Joseph,knowing that the incarnation of God was in the next room or probably in the same room thought to himself, hmmm I feel like a little rumpy pumpy and had a go at Our Lady? Now that’s an unholy way to think of it but it’s nothing new we hear this herresy all the time. We like to think of the Holy Family as exactly that, HOLY. I’m afraid of how you think of them.

          • Anno Domine, you are perhaps the most aggressive and most ignorant individual I have ever had the displeasure of meeting. Your views are antiquated as is your mindset. Together we have a combustable mixture that incites intolerance, hate (which you have in abundance) violence and war. You actually scare me!

          • Jaybee, i believe you are really showing disrespect in the first place. I have seen numerous of your posts and you are attempting to ‘expose’ the Catholic Church with your private understandings and interpretations. Regarding the brothers & sisters, there are synonyms for relatives or friends in Aramaic. In church, we call one another Brothers & Sisters, are we really brothers and sisters by blood? Not necessary, but definitely in Christ.

            In my honest 2cents worth of opinion, if you do not show respect in the first place, but not expect to be respected. But as Catholics, we are taught to honor everyone and protect our Faith. Despite that, I believe you & Anno Domine may have misunderstood each other’s tones of expression, no harmful descriptions should be used nonetheless; unless you’re a hypocritic (which I hope you are not)

            • Spencer, I find Anno Domine comments offensive vulgar and crass. I see you support him by suggesting I might be a hypocrite. Neither one of you are doing anything to encourage anyone back into Catholicism.
              Your Modus Operandi leaves a lot to be desired.

              As for “exposing” Catholics, again you forget I was raised into this faith. My parish in the UK was host to many pilgramages for many years with people from all over the world attending. I know what I’m talking about in respect of the faith you defend with such hostility.

              This not only shows your ignorance of scripture, it displays magnanimously your inept approach to truth and to those seeking it.

              I am not about “exposing” Catholics as you so inappropriatley and incorrectly suggest, but to pick up on Anno Domine insulting comment regarding my starting my own church for the blind, ironically does he not see he is following scripture blindly? Perhaps then he should take note of Matthew 23:13

              “You hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.”

              Its a sad day for Catholicism as portrayed here. Perhaps then we should all take note of Timothy 3:5

              “They will act religious, but they will reject the power that could make them godly. Stay away from people like that!”

  34. If this thread is still active:

    I’ve been reading all this with great interest. BFHU – I am impressed with your knowledge and your charity in your responses. Your knowledge of Catholic Apologetics is excellent. I’ve read a lot of anti-Catholic sentiments on many blogs and websites. It’s refreshing to see one that presents truth and explains why the misconceptions about Catholicism are just that – misconceptions.

    It is true that most people do not understand the Catholic Church. If they did they would not hate her as they do. If what they believe were true I would hate the Catholic Church, too. As a revert I spent much too much time without the grace that would have been imparted to me via the Sacraments. I thank God that I was led back home and I will never let go of my faith and love for God again.

    God bless you!! You are in my prayers, as are all who have participated in this discussion. May God grant us all peace and joy. Amen.

  35. You can have married priests but they are not clerics correct? And I also think that the people have to be married before hand correct? Ex. A protestant married pastor converting and wanting to be a priest in the church.

    Thanks

  36. Sam, I think a cleric is synonymous with a priest.But a cleric can also refer to pastors of other religions who may not even have priests per se. But in the Catholic Church a cleric and a priest are the same thing.

    There are some Eastern Rite Catholic Churches in union with the Pope who have married priests. But they must be married before they are ordained to the priesthood. After ordination they cannot marry even if their wife dies. And the married clergy cannot be chosen to be a bishop. In the Latin Rite Catholic Church we do not ordain married men to the priesthood except those who were clergy in the Anglican/Episcopalian or Lutheran churches, were married and later became Catholic. Their ordination must be approved by the pope.

  37. Ok but what I meant was during our penticostal service, our women call out, admittedly distractfully, encouraging the pastor yelling comments like “thats right” and “yes, tell it” and “Halleluya” and “come on”. According to scripture, should women refrain from this aswell and remain silent and not make any kind of noise in the service, or in your case the Mass? Or is this permitted scripturaly? I’ve always wondered where this calling out originated from but even my pastor does’nt have an answer.

    • Dear TrueWord,
      It certainly would seem that shouting out during the teaching would not be permitted by St Paul:

      1 Corinthians 14:34
      Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

      This verse comes in the context of speaking in tongues in Church WITH and interpreter and/or asking questions in church out loud. So, no doubt this is why churches where women speak out like you explain think it does not apply to this sort of speaking out. But then again, this was probably not done in St. Paul’s day so he did not address it specifically. In general it would seem that he is wanting to explain how worship should be dignified and orderly and I would tend to think silence while the pastor is speaking is a better practice. We do nothing of the sort at a Catholic mass. The faithful are silent except for proper responses, reciting the creed, singing. Shouting out of any sort is not socially acceptable at Catholic mass.

  38. But the Our father was ONLY a PATERN, was it not. It was never meant to be recited repititiously.

    • Dear Trueword,
      If you say it was a pattern then what does that mean exactly. Does every prayer need to follow this pattern in its entirety? Does this mean that any prayer that does not follow this pattern is illegitimate? Do all of your prayers follow this pattern. As a Protestant I heard this said about the Lord’s Prayer. But there are also many Protestant churches that recite the Lord’s Prayer or Our Father. I think that the fear many Protestants have of “repetitious prayer” is unfounded. Scripture NOWHERE says how many times a prayer may be repeated. If a child is dying of cancer can you only pray one time for healing before it becomes repetitious? Or two times? Three times? ten times?

      As Catholics we believe that the repetitious prayer our Lord was speaking about was that for show or as the heathen pray. I am not certain what that was exactly but I think the Protestant view is inaccurate and they don’t know exactly how the heathen prayed either. All they know is that Catholics say prayers repeatedly. But what did our Lord mean by VAIN repetition? He did not condemn all repetition which is really what Protestant tend to do. But that is not what He condemned.

      Besides Our Lord Himself said the same prayer three times in a row in the Garden of Gethsemene. So repetition, in and of itself is not the problem.

      Matthew 26:39 And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.40 And he cometh unto the disciples, and findeth them asleep, and saith unto Peter, What, could ye not watch with me one hour? 41 Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.42 He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done.43 And he came and found them asleep again: for their eyes were heavy.44 And he left them, and went away again, and prayed the third time, saying the same words.

      • One prayer is sufficient! If it comes from the heart, it will be heard and acted upon.

        He was referring to the repetition of vanity!

  39. You are all missing the absolute fundamental FACTS here! God is not interested in dogma and creed that nobody seems to be able to agree on as can be seen from the above flagrant ignorance of Him and His laws.

    He cares not if we are male, female, gay, straight, priest, nun, saint or sinner. He loves each and every one of us including Lucifer himself and is waiting very patiently (so far it’s taken about 4.5 billion years) for us ALL to return to Him.

    Unfortunately I was raised a Roman Catholic and having read most posts here there is but one comment I would like to make in regard to how retarded catholicism actually is and to the comment about worshipping Jesus.

    Read your bible! Does it not say “worship God”

    I think you’ll find that it does

    • Dear Jaybee,
      The doctrine of the “Compiled Bible” is also the doctrine of the Catholic Church and remember that Jesus gave Peter the authority to “what ever you loose on earth will be loosed in Heaven and what ever you bind on Earth will be bound in Heaven”. No other church, sorry, no other christian community, (because there is only one church, The Catholic Church, because jesus was not a poligamist and he does’nt believe in divorce.) has the Authority to do the above. Such things like the Trinity, Christmas and Easter are not found in the Bible yet the majority of protestants follow these doctrinal traditions initiated by the Catholic Church and yet are NOT found in the Bible are they? So when you read your Bible realise that you are reading a Catholic Church compiled book. Please stop using our book against us, you have NO more right to do so than anyone telling you how your autobiography should be written and yet this is exactly what protestants do with such gusto it’s sickening and completely hipocrytical. God Bless

      • Hi Anno Domine

        I truly don’t want to sound rude but I am stunned at your unashamed and blatant ignorance. First and foremost above every mutilated truth called the bible – I love God!

        I am not one bit interested in a creed which was “compiled” by a group of pagan Roman theologians 1700 years ago. Neither am I interested in any protestant version “compiled” 400 years ago by a similar council of theologians. These are historical FACTS!

        I am interested in truth and helping others to see the truth. I’m sure that as a christian you are too, but like many of your ilk, this is not how you come across.

        Your comments in regard to protestants as sickening hypocrites are offensive, they are disgraceful and above all – ungodly. How can you say such things when they may well love God with all their heart and soul.

        Please rise above the tired creed of a man made book and the crippling dogma of yet another controlling institution. Have compassion for all of God’s children and learn the number 1 lesson which Jesus taught us. It is the only law that matters.

        You’ll find it in 1 Corinthians 13:4-7

        • Wow, Amazing!! What I get from your statement is this. Deny Church that compiled the Bible then quote what jesus tought from it (hypocracy, plain and simple). Call someone a judger by being an even bigger judger. I never said that protestants aren’t sincere in their love for God or in what they believe but just innocently misled into ignorance.I may be mistaken but you seem to very influenced by “New age” idealisms. I I’ve had these conversations with Catholics who use crystals and other things outside of what the Church teaches and I’ll put it to you simply. We are Catholics and we want be Catholics, if a boxer goes into the ring and starts kicking, it no longer boxing but now it Mixed martial Arts. If you have a hate for the Church as it looks like you do while wearing the vail of love then please go on your own way and leave us in peace, we’d rather you’d come home. And before you spout off about my “sickening regard for protestants” and quote historical “facts”, which are actually coming to light as untrue such as the economic situation of the “dark ages”. You probably already know that the one thing that unites protestants is their hate for the Church, We are meerly defending our beliefs here and we have a right to them. YOU are on the offensive just like all those God Loving protestants who hate our beloved Church. Have a look at some of the posts by a person on this site called “IloveJesus” and you’ll find that your are in cadence with this person and that you are not bringing anything that we haven’t already seen here before. I stand by my statement about the protestants using Our book against us as sickening and hypocritycal, as I said post you autobiography and let me make changes to it and let me criticise you from it and then let a person like yourself come along and deffend me for doing it as you are defending them. God Bless you, I’ll pray for you

      • Hi Jaybee,

        I believe that the Nicean and Apostles creeds, with biblical proofs, are meant to be easy reminders for us of Christ’s passion.

        Next, your command of language has hinted your ‘hatred’ for the Catholic Church. In your previous post, you criticized indirectly that Catholics ‘do not worship God’ and follow the Vatican and man-made dogmas/doctrines & yet now you’re attempting to say that we’re all Christians and should be loving. Did you act on what you had preached? If you didn’t, that hypocrisy that Christ hates. Besides, what good do you see in the thousands of different Protestant churches that do not agree with one another’s teachings? A Body of Christ that does not agree with one another within?

        Lastly, you mentioned Christ’s commandment of Love from Corinthians. Yes, love is greater than Hope & Faith, God is love himself! Have you yourself showed Love for others in the first place? Or are you trying to protect yourself from further criticisms after posting remarks on this page? Love entails more than just mutual respect and honouring. You know yourself best and The Lord knows more about your intentions.

  40. I give up already!

    Your mindsets are no different to the pagans of old Rome who persecuted, maimed and killed those who understood the true meaning of christianity. I wouldn’t last two minutes with you people. You’d throw me to the lions just for looking different

    In case you are interested I do actually love the church. Unfortunately they involve religion. You seem to forget, I was raised RC and in almost 50 years I’ve seen enough hipocrisy and double standards served as religious or spiritual fact which only compounds and confirms that which history has already very painfully recorded.

    Evidently though in your “blinkered” opinions you espouse to change world history too. Where does this new historical information come from? Ah of course, it must surely be the new Vatican publication, Convenient Catholic Theories for You Monthly.

    I am stunned that you “hate” so much. Christ never hated anyone and yet you twist his words to suit. It’s little wonder the rest of the world see’s catholics as dangerous people.

    Shame on you!

    And now I shall do as Christ suggested:

    “And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet” Matthew 10:14

    • True, we have dusted your feet with our beliefs but you have pebbles of hate and ignorance in your shoes, stop, sit down, and take a good look in the mirror. The passage from scripture that reminds me of you is the one that states when people have eyes but do not see. I really like how articulated your writing is, and I admire your flow of words (it’s truely a gift from God) but it massively lacks wisdom and knowledge. A few points though:

      1) If this is how you love the Church and Catholics then I really don’t want to see you when you hate something, You scare me.

      2) Please don’t think we don’t have lives or study outside the Church, we do. Here is a link for all those who would like to read about the dark ages. AND it’s not the “Church monthly”. in it you’ll find that the fabrication of the dark ages is protestant propaganda.

      http://www.realitysandwich.com/beyond_life_inc_talking_douglas_rushkoff

      3) Yes Christ never hates anyone and since you’re quoting scripture let’s look at a few and define “hate” shall we, this from a protestant bible:
      John 2:15
      English Standard Version (©2001)
      And making a whip of cords, he drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and oxen. And he poured out the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables.
      WOW!!! He made a whip, which means He sat down and wove it. This is not hate, it’s tough love.

      OR THIS also from a protestant bible:
      Revelation 21:6
      King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
      And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.
      ALPHA AND OMEGA!!! So the Trinity was there before Jesus came in the flesh and if you look with wisdom you can confirm that He was triune with God and Holy spirit when Adam and Eve were cast out, When sodom and gamora were destroyed, when Egypt was plagued and it’s first born killed and He was part of the Trinity that gave the orders for Israel to wage war against it’s enemies, I guess that explains the crucades too. Our Lord is the prince of peace but not a pacifist, read your Bible with wisdom and see this to be true. Scriptual FACT or am I just twisting His words?

      4) Riligion? Let’s look at what one definition of religion: Doing something repetitiously and that’s exactly what you are doing here isn’t it. Repeatedly condemming us. Take a look arround, we live in pagan times. When Rome was in power it’s culture consisted money making at any cost, Gladiator style battles like UFC, Idolatry (just look at the entertainment industry) and personal as well as architecual asthetics and you’ll find it far more amoungst the non-believer and wishy washy christians including Catholics but they are united with you in condemnation of true Catholics. YOU are the pagan yet you see it not. And you can stop playing the victim because as I see it you come across as a wolfe in sheeps clothing. Your lack scriptual knowledge and scriptual wisdom makes you a blind folded man with a gun.

      5) Hypocracy? Yes, Me, You, All of us are to an extent but you must realise it is in you for you over come it or atleast subdue it as much as possible. Look inward and mend.

      6) When you say those early Christians who were persecuted by the Pagan Romans, do you mean those ones that believed that the Eucharist was really the Body and Blood of Jesus? Are you talking about the same Christians who painted Holy images (HISTORICAL FACT) of that which is heaven on the walls of the catecombs and other locations? That sounds like a Catholic mindset to me. History doesn’t repeat itself but it’s rhyming here.

      I’ll quote a line from a movie: You are not the plucky hero, The Catholic Church is not the evil empire and this is not the grand arena. In ending I have one thing to say to you. Pax Domini Vobiscum.

      • Just how deluded are you? How can you say Jesus was not a pacifist? Did he not say:

        But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

        And I’m the one supposed to be lacking wisdom and knowledge?

        I am not condemming anyone! Perhaps you’re condemming yourself?

        You should!

        It seems I am casting my pearl before swine anyhow.

        You win! You’re right! You’re always right because you shout the loudest. You’re consistent too.

        The Lord is indeed with me Anno, thank you. Judging by your retort, I very much doubt he is with you.

        You are a disgrace to your faith sir!

        • Jaybee, You need to realise that when you come to these forums you will get what you give. Just recall all you’ve said to everyone, you’ve used harsh words to describe ALL of us not just me and pointed the finger many, many times. No, Christ was no a pacifist, He said what you quoted as how we should live in our daily lives but He, being part of the eternal Trinity was present as God in the Old Testament (Torah). It’s undeniable TRUTH! If I saw someone harming someone on the street I would fight to prevent it, not turn the other cheek. And that’s exactly what we are doing here. When I saw you hurtfull words towards my sisters and brothers in your posts, calling them all manner of nasty things and now you’re calling us pigs (swine), I feel a duty to defend them (not that they need it) and Our Beloved Church. When you come onto these forums, you must expect sarcasm returned if you dish it out and the funny thing is that you claim to be preaching “love”. What do you expect? For us to just sit back take all of your bad mouthing without offering any retortion. You also jump to conclusions about my gender too, well I won’t say what it is just to prove my point. You claim that you know what you’re talking about because you were a Catholic at one time. That gives you no more credebility or right to condemn us or our Church, if someone was Jewish does that give them the right to persecute Jews? Clearly not, it just means they are an Uncle Tom. I think I can safely say for all of us that we do love you and we want to come home but we will defend our faith whatever the cost may be. We will never surender. You need to realise that this zeal you deomstrate against us is something we are used to, it’s typical in the way ex Catholics behave, it’s just another brick in the protestant wall. God Bless and keep you, Anno
          P.S. Don’t say who the Lord is with or without. You have no right. We will find out when we stand naked and alone before the Most high God, not infront of you.

  41. Your conceit and self appointed worth is astounding. You are an expert in twisting everything anyone says. Like Lucifer himself!

    I thank you though for confirming my reasons for leaving the RC faith. Your conduct is typical of the religious bullies called Catholics.

    • Wow. From how you posted & responded, I thank you too for confirming my reasons to join the RC church to worship God.

    • Jaybee,
      God bless you mate. I’m sorry you’ve been hurt so much in your life but know that we’ve got nothing but love for you. All the best and I truely hope and pray that you will find happiness. God Love and keep you. Love Anno D

  42. Anno, I was about to leave this board well alone until I read your last post.

    Can I ask, what on earth makes you think I’ve been hurt so much in my life and what pray tell, gives you the impression that I am not the happiest person on the face of the earth?

    Your irrational conclusions stagger me! Thank God Himself that you play no part in Anglo American relations

    I’m outa here!

    I’ve found another Catholic board who are far more friendly, tolerant and inquisitive than they are on here.

    And thanks – but your feined and cunning piety sticks in my throat to be honest.

    Now that hurts!!!

    Love????

    You haven’t the first idea of the word!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 305 other followers

%d bloggers like this: