Needed, (by some), Additions to the Good News of Christ.

[Petro]

dyskolos,

You said Bethlehim, was not a city, the Bible says it is a city, and I have shown you two verse that plainly tells us both names refer to a city.

No doubt you believe the teaching of this Jewish website, otherwise why would you make such a claim.

I say stay away from such websites, consider what the Bible teaches and believe it.

By the way, the quotes out of Gen. I shared with you are out of the "Tanakh".

Petro in the first place you haven't 'corrected' any of my 'presumptions'!

Any text taken out of context is a pretext.

Sorry, but the Bible is correct, you are not..

Blessings,
Petro

[Petro]

First I need to point out that in your previous post you claimed these points were considered infallible by the Church.  But when I caught you in your error you change your tune to claim they are just official teachings.  But I will show below that, that is not ture either.  I just wish you would stand still for a moment and stick to one story so you could see your errors as easily as everyone else does.

I have given you solid information in so far as Ligouri's writings, you haven't shown anything which refutes they weren't.

I suppose, you would still deny that better than 40%, of catholic seminarians are NOT homosexuals??

Yes I would deny it until someone presented some scientific evidence to prove otherwise.  I am certainly not going to let the your rantings influence my opinion, because I don't have to accept you as an authority anymore than you accept me.  And I have never seen any claim to that affect by anyone let alone an unbiased source.

And deny the problem with pedophilia exists within this institution, pleeeaase..........you must be living in a bubble.

I do not deny the problem exists, I do deny it is any greater than in any other cross section of society.

Well, what else can you say, that would convince anyone you are current in current events, it is no secret, even books have been written by editors, who have written other articles for the RCC, about the matter, and priests themselves have spokne and written  about the problem, of, course the church isn't going to put their Nihil-Obstat, Imprimatur seal of approval on such writings now, would they?

"The "Nihil Obstat" and "Imprimatur" are official declarations that a book or pamphlet is free of doctrinal or moral error. No implication is contained therein that those who have granted the Nihil Obstat and the Imprimatur agree with the content, opinions or statements expressed."

Which is ridiculous, it would seem that if someone had to pay to have the church examnine, edit, endorse, and approve the content of the material printed, that the church would either agree or disagree to its content by issuing the stamp or not, clearly it is another way of simply making money.

The arrogance you must have, to feel that you can better claim for the Church what is an is not its own official teachings.  They plainly offer a disclaimer to show that this seal does not automatically include the writings within official Church teachings and you claim the disclaimer is invalid just so you can build your little strawmen so you attack can be successful.  That approach does not show a sincere search for the truth going on within your motives.

Well, them you ought to make sure you quote from a Catechism that has such a seal, because they all do not possess them, when and if you purchase a Catechism, which supposedly has official church teaching and does not posses the seal.

So if and when you quote your source show me the seal.

If you claim any information I am giving you is inaccurate, please choose your own website, and educate me.

Ok here is a website for you
http://www.cin.org/mateo/mat93008.html

On it the author, a Catholic Priest says,

"When an author of a religious book or article presents his work to the local bishop for review, the bishop gives the work to a knowledgeable priest, who reads it and, if corrections are needed, returns it to the writer.  When the reviewer is satisfied with the corrections, he marks it with his "Nihil obstat" (Latin for "no problem".) If the bishop is satisfied, he gives the work his "Imprimatur" (Latin for "let it be printed").
 
If the writer belongs to a religious order or congregation, the rules of the order may require a first review by a member of the order.  If the reviewer here is satisfied, he grants the work an "Imprimi potest" (Latin for "it can be printed".)
 
Commonly, the three symbols are in this order: IMPRIMI POTEST, NIHIL OBSTAT, IMPRIMATUR.  After the Imprimatur, one usually finds these words: "The NIHIL OBSTAT and IMPRIMATUR are official declarations that a book or pamphlet is free of doctrinal or moral error.  No implication is contained therein that those who have granted the NIHIL OBSTAT and the IMPRIMATUR agree with the content, opinions or
statements expressed."

See not one mention of these representing official Catholic teachings.

Ridiculuos assumption, the "New American Bible" possess's the seal, because of its translation, and marginal comentaries, that support, official church teaching, for instances at Mathew 1:25, the marginal commentary makes the point;

"Moreover the New Testament makes no mention of children of Joseph or Mary." NAB

While the Scriptures clearly state at ;

Mk 6
3  Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, a brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters our neighbors here?"They found him too much for them. NAB

And again at;

Mat 27
56  Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of Zebedee's sons.

Of course this is in contradiction to what was written in the margin at Mat 1:25, but most importantly, the marginal reference is a set up for the teaching, Mary was perpetually a virign, which was never taught in the early church, but has become official teaching in recemnt generations.

I hope you accept Father Mateo from the Catholic Information Network, as an authority but since you don't accept the Churches own disclaimer I don't know what you will accept.

You may accept this, I don't. Clearly the contradicition is in the practice.

Having now, laid the foundation to what is the official and what isn't,

Don't be so quick to try to squirm out from under your error.  You have done nothing to lay the foundation for what is official teachings.  I have shown above you are ignoring the Churches own statements just so you don't have to change your world view.  You seem to have made up your mind and don't want anyone to confuse you with facts.  If you were truly searching for the truth you would be glad to have a concrete target to attack, such as the Catechism.  I surely wish Calvinism offered such a source to pin down instead I have to try to hit your bobbing and weaving doctrine and even if i prove it wrong you can always say well that isn't what Calvinism claims because it won't actually put anything in print for fear of the errors showing plainly through.  At least the Catholic Church has the courage of its convictions.

Smoke screen.....................Calvinism is not the subject here at all is it?




Petro

[michael_legna]

I have given you solid information in so far as Ligouri's writings, you haven't shown anything which refutes they weren't.

Refute they weren’t what?  Infallible?  I most certainly have shown they are not considered infallible.  Refute they weren’t accurate?  We can discuss Ligouri’s writings after you admit your mistake and are ready to address them as fallible writings of a scholar, not as some ultimate target of weakness in the Church’s doctrine.  Liguori’s writings are written in a form that is meant to engender reverence and when take in their entirety they do, but when phrases and even paragraphs are dragged out of context, as you intend to do, they can easily be misinterpreted.  Plainly put, until you understand the basics of Catholic teachings (which you don’t) you cannot understand the light in which Ligouri intends his comments to be viewed.

Well, what else can you say, that would convince anyone you are current in current events, it is no secret, even books have been written by editors, who have written other articles for the RCC, about the matter, and priests themselves have spokne and written  about the problem, of, course the church isn't going to put their Nihil-Obstat, Imprimatur seal of approval on such writings now, would they?

Writing about a problem and showing specific statistics of the magnitude you claim, are two different things to anyone who is objective and doesn’t have a secret agenda to push.  Priest and Catholic editors writing about a problem and you claiming to know specific percentages are a far cry from one another.  I never denied a problem I did deny the magnitude you wanted to claim without a reliable source.

Well, them you ought to make sure you quote from a Catechism that has such a seal, because they all do not possess them, when and if you purchase a Catechism, which supposedly has official church teaching and does not posses the seal.

So if and when you quote your source show me the seal.

I am not the outsider misrepresenting the position of the Church.  I am an active member of the Church, I am a reader and Eucharistic minister, I lead Bible studies in my parish, I have read the entire Catechism cover to cover.  Yes, the official Catechism and it has the Impimi Potest of Cardinal Ratzinger, the same Catechism Pope John Paul II declared to be “a sure norm for teaching the faith”.  I know what the Church teaches.  You on the other hand have access to anti-Catholic rhetoric and websites of dubious authenticity and want to claim to know Catholic doctrine from spotty quotes taken out of context.  You just continue to spout your misconceptions and I will correct them, if you need a source to aid your understanding, I will provide one.

Ridiculuos assumption, the "New American Bible" possess's the seal, because of its translation, and marginal comentaries, that support, official church teaching, for instances at Mathew 1:25, the marginal commentary makes the point;

"Moreover the New Testament makes no mention of children of Joseph or Mary." NAB

While the Scriptures clearly state at ;

Mk 6
3  Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, a brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters our neighbors here?"They found him too much for them. NAB

And again at;

Mat 27
56  Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of Zebedee's sons.

Of course this is in contradiction to what was written in the margin at Mat 1:25, but most importantly, the marginal reference is a set up for the teaching, Mary was perpetually a virign, which was never taught in the early church, but has become official teaching in recemnt generations.

This is just more of your rhetoric.  You attack a completely unrelated concept like the use of Imprimatur seals based on a disagreement you have with interpretation.  You know quite well that the Catholic Church interprets those verses to be referring to more distance relatives, such as cousins, due to the vagueness of the original languages and cultures concerning these relationships.  To make this about seals is merely grasping at straws.

As for Mary’s perpetual virginity I would direct you to the following website which shows quotes from many early Church Fathers defending the idea of Mary’s perpetual virginity.  So it appears that it certainly was taught in the early Church.

http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/virgin.htm

You may accept this, I don't. Clearly the contradicition is in the practice.

How so?  How does the catholic Church say one thing and practice another with regard to imprimatur or other seals?  They claim the writings have been reviewed for errors but then place a caveat that says even with this review they do not claim the writings present the official, infallible, teachings of the Church.  This is just a common sense approach admitting to man’s fallibility that extends even to reviewing texts as one would expect. Just because you want more does not make it the right way to handle a situation.

Smoke screen.....................Calvinism is not the subject here at all is it?

Calvinism is certainly the subject between us Petro, as much as Catholicism is, for Calvinism appears to others as adding to the Gospel as well with its doctrine of no freewill.  I have answered every question you have asked of me and shown in every case were our doctrines disagreed that your interpretation was wrong.  You on the other hand have answered none of my questions doing everything you could not to take a stand or offer an opinion, even on verses you claimed supported you position, whatever it was suppose to be.  And if I dared guess what that position was you would criticize me for assuming.  No the honesty and courage of the Catholic Church to publish a Catechism should and will be rewarded by you through addressing it if you want to continue this debate in a mature fashion.  You will not be allowed to focus on some random quote of your own choosing which you are not ready to understand.  I will do the same for you in the remainder of this discussion if you ever have the courage to state your position formally through interpretation of scripture.

[Dyskolos]

dyskolos,

You said Bethlehim, was not a city, the Bible says it is a city, and I have shown you two verse that plainly tells us both names refer to a city.

No doubt you believe the teaching of this Jewish website, otherwise why would you make such a claim.

Oh brother. Not much point in continuing, is there? The only 'teaching' I'm concerned with on that website is about written Hebrew. Clearly you didn't even bother to check it out. Sadly you don't seem to understand what our 'discussion' was about.

[Dyskolos]

Plus, how about taking some pride in your presentation? The spelling,  punctuation, and grammatical errors actually make your posts difficult to read.

To 'borrow' a quote from someone else:

"Your comment here isn't about any 'errorneous' teachings, it is a slam against [an] individual ...."

(bold is my addition)
 

Er, how is that a slam exactly? Honest criticism is what it was. Personally I don't feel too much like slogging through Petro's unorganized, unfocused, poorly written and poorly presented posts. If he actually wants people to pay attention to what he says, he should put forth some effort.

[Petro]

Writing about a problem and showing specific statistics of the magnitude you claim, are two different things to anyone who is objective and doesn’t have a secret agenda to push.  Priest and Catholic editors writing about a problem and you claiming to know specific percentages are a far cry from one another.  I never denied a problem I did deny the magnitude you wanted to claim without a reliable source.

I'm not going to spend any time searching out the article, but I remember very well, reading the percentage being at least 12 % higher than admitted by Catholic Priests within the church.

You can spend time looking it up yourself. I am sure there are more sources, but here is where you can start.

Catholic Scandal
http://www.newsmax.com/hottopics/Catholic_Scandal.shtml

Catholic Priests admit Homosexual Subculture

Http://newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/8/16/162808.shtml

Calvinism is certainly the subject between us Petro, as much as Catholicism is, for Calvinism appears to others as adding to the Gospel as well with its doctrine of no freewill.  I have answered every question you have asked of me and shown in every case were our doctrines disagreed that your interpretation was wrong.  You on the other hand have answered none of my questions doing everything you could not to take a stand or offer an opinion, even on verses you claimed supported you position, whatever it was suppose to be.  And if I dared guess what that position was you would criticize me for assuming.  No the honesty and courage of the Catholic Church to publish a Catechism should and will be rewarded by you through addressing it if you want to continue this debate in a mature fashion.  You will not be allowed to focus on some random quote of your own choosing which you are not ready to understand.  I will do the same for you in the remainder of this discussion if you ever have the courage to state your position formally through interpretation of scripture.

How about Peligianism vs Augustinianism the church embraced Augustianism, since the synod or Carthiginia 418 Ad, only in these last 50 some off years has this new leaning towards free will treaching taken precedence within the establishment, I am sure you are not even 50 years old, so of course unless you boned yourself up, on what your xchurch really taught you would be able to share it, with credibility.

Blesisngs,

Petro



Well, them you ought to make sure you quote from a Catechism that has such a seal, because they all do not possess them, when and if you purchase a Catechism, which supposedly has official church teaching and does not posses the seal.

So if and when you quote your source show me the seal.

I am not the outsider misrepresenting the position of the Church.  I am an active member of the Church, I am a reader and Eucharistic minister, I lead Bible studies in my parish, I have read the entire Catechism cover to cover.  Yes, the official Catechism and it has the Impimi Potest of Cardinal Ratzinger, the same Catechism Pope John Paul II declared to be “a sure norm for teaching the faith”.  I know what the Church teaches.  You on the other hand have access to anti-Catholic rhetoric and websites of dubious authenticity and want to claim to know Catholic doctrine from spotty quotes taken out of context.  You just continue to spout your misconceptions and I will correct them, if you need a source to aid your understanding, I will provide one.

Ridiculuos assumption, the "New American Bible" possess's the seal, because of its translation, and marginal comentaries, that support, official church teaching, for instances at Mathew 1:25, the marginal commentary makes the point;

"Moreover the New Testament makes no mention of children of Joseph or Mary." NAB

While the Scriptures clearly state at ;

Mk 6
3  Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, a brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters our neighbors here?"They found him too much for them. NAB

And again at;

Mat 27
56  Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of Zebedee's sons.

Of course this is in contradiction to what was written in the margin at Mat 1:25, but most importantly, the marginal reference is a set up for the teaching, Mary was perpetually a virign, which was never taught in the early church, but has become official teaching in recemnt generations.

This is just more of your rhetoric.  You attack a completely unrelated concept like the use of Imprimatur seals based on a disagreement you have with interpretation.  You know quite well that the Catholic Church interprets those verses to be referring to more distance relatives, such as cousins, due to the vagueness of the original languages and cultures concerning these relationships.  To make this about seals is merely grasping at straws.

As for Mary’s perpetual virginity I would direct you to the following website which shows quotes from many early Church Fathers defending the idea of Mary’s perpetual virginity.  So it appears that it certainly was taught in the early Church.

http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/virgin.htm

You may accept this, I don't. Clearly the contradicition is in the practice.

How so?  How does the catholic Church say one thing and practice another with regard to imprimatur or other seals?  They claim the writings have been reviewed for errors but then place a caveat that says even with this review they do not claim the writings present the official, infallible, teachings of the Church.  This is just a common sense approach admitting to man’s fallibility that extends even to reviewing texts as one would expect. Just because you want more does not make it the right way to handle a situation.

Smoke screen.....................Calvinism is not the subject here at all is it?

**************************
Calvinism is certainly the subject between us Petro, as much as Catholicism is, for Calvinism appears to others as adding to the Gospel as well with its doctrine of no freewill.  I have answered every question you have asked of me and shown in every case were our doctrines disagreed that your interpretation was wrong.  You on the other hand have answered none of my questions doing everything you could not to take a stand or offer an opinion, even on verses you claimed supported you position, whatever it was suppose to be.  And if I dared guess what that position was you would criticize me for assuming.  No the honesty and courage of the Catholic Church to publish a Catechism should and will be rewarded by you through addressing it if you want to continue this debate in a mature fashion.  You will not be allowed to focus on some random quote of your own choosing which you are not ready to understand.  I will do the same for you in the remainder of this discussion if you ever have the courage to state your position formally through interpretation of scripture.

[ollie]

I have given you solid information in so far as Ligouri's writings, you haven't shown anything which refutes they weren't.

Refute they weren’t what?  Infallible?  I most certainly have shown they are not considered infallible.  Refute they weren’t accurate?  We can discuss Ligouri’s writings after you admit your mistake and are ready to address them as fallible writings of a scholar, not as some ultimate target of weakness in the Church’s doctrine.  Liguori’s writings are written in a form that is meant to engender reverence and when take in their entirety they do, but when phrases and even paragraphs are dragged out of context, as you intend to do, they can easily be misinterpreted.  Plainly put, until you understand the basics of Catholic teachings (which you don’t) you cannot understand the light in which Ligouri intends his comments to be viewed.

Well, what else can you say, that would convince anyone you are current in current events, it is no secret, even books have been written by editors, who have written other articles for the RCC, about the matter, and priests themselves have spokne and written  about the problem, of, course the church isn't going to put their Nihil-Obstat, Imprimatur seal of approval on such writings now, would they?

Writing about a problem and showing specific statistics of the magnitude you claim, are two different things to anyone who is objective and doesn’t have a secret agenda to push.  Priest and Catholic editors writing about a problem and you claiming to know specific percentages are a far cry from one another.  I never denied a problem I did deny the magnitude you wanted to claim without a reliable source.

Well, them you ought to make sure you quote from a Catechism that has such a seal, because they all do not possess them, when and if you purchase a Catechism, which supposedly has official church teaching and does not posses the seal.

So if and when you quote your source show me the seal.

I am not the outsider misrepresenting the position of the Church.  I am an active member of the Church, I am a reader and Eucharistic minister, I lead Bible studies in my parish, I have read the entire Catechism cover to cover.  Yes, the official Catechism and it has the Impimi Potest of Cardinal Ratzinger, the same Catechism Pope John Paul II declared to be “a sure norm for teaching the faith”.  I know what the Church teaches.  You on the other hand have access to anti-Catholic rhetoric and websites of dubious authenticity and want to claim to know Catholic doctrine from spotty quotes taken out of context.  You just continue to spout your misconceptions and I will correct them, if you need a source to aid your understanding, I will provide one.

Ridiculuos assumption, the "New American Bible" possess's the seal, because of its translation, and marginal comentaries, that support, official church teaching, for instances at Mathew 1:25, the marginal commentary makes the point;

"Moreover the New Testament makes no mention of children of Joseph or Mary." NAB

While the Scriptures clearly state at ;

Mk 6
3  Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, a brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters our neighbors here?"They found him too much for them. NAB

And again at;

Mat 27
56  Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of Zebedee's sons.

Of course this is in contradiction to what was written in the margin at Mat 1:25, but most importantly, the marginal reference is a set up for the teaching, Mary was perpetually a virign, which was never taught in the early church, but has become official teaching in recemnt generations.

This is just more of your rhetoric.  You attack a completely unrelated concept like the use of Imprimatur seals based on a disagreement you have with interpretation.  You know quite well that the Catholic Church interprets those verses to be referring to more distance relatives, such as cousins, due to the vagueness of the original languages and cultures concerning these relationships.  To make this about seals is merely grasping at straws.

As for Mary’s perpetual virginity I would direct you to the following website which shows quotes from many early Church Fathers defending the idea of Mary’s perpetual virginity.  So it appears that it certainly was taught in the early Church.

http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/virgin.htm

You may accept this, I don't. Clearly the contradicition is in the practice.

How so?  How does the catholic Church say one thing and practice another with regard to imprimatur or other seals?  They claim the writings have been reviewed for errors but then place a caveat that says even with this review they do not claim the writings present the official, infallible, teachings of the Church.  This is just a common sense approach admitting to man’s fallibility that extends even to reviewing texts as one would expect. Just because you want more does not make it the right way to handle a situation.

Smoke screen.....................Calvinism is not the subject here at all is it?

Calvinism is certainly the subject between us Petro, as much as Catholicism is, for Calvinism appears to others as adding to the Gospel as well with its doctrine of no freewill.  I have answered every question you have asked of me and shown in every case were our doctrines disagreed that your interpretation was wrong.  You on the other hand have answered none of my questions doing everything you could not to take a stand or offer an opinion, even on verses you claimed supported you position, whatever it was suppose to be.  And if I dared guess what that position was you would criticize me for assuming.  No the honesty and courage of the Catholic Church to publish a Catechism should and will be rewarded by you through addressing it if you want to continue this debate in a mature fashion.  You will not be allowed to focus on some random quote of your own choosing which you are not ready to understand.  I will do the same for you in the remainder of this discussion if you ever have the courage to state your position formally through interpretation of scripture.

'the same Catechism Pope John Paul II declared to be a sure norm for teaching the faith."

Is faith something that is taught or is it something that comes upon hearing the word of God when ones heart is pricked and responds to that heard word?

[sincereheart]

michael_legna,

I'm still reading through the links.
Right now I'm looking at the Joseph aspects since those are new to me.
The second site is a compendium of many more Church Fathers statements supporting the idea.

On the second site http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/virgin.htm, in the 8th paragraph, it states that Joseph was also a virgin and then explains that belief.  

Any thoughts on it?  



Dyskolos,
Er, how is that a slam exactly? Honest criticism is what it was. Personally I don't feel too much like slogging through Petro's unorganized, unfocused, poorly written and poorly presented posts. If he actually wants people to pay attention to what he says, he should put forth some effort.

No one else seems to have a problem following his thoughts.    Who is it that has required you to 'slog' through anything?  
So 'honest criticism' of an individual is acceptable to you, but 'honest criticism' of a religion is not?

[michael_legna]

'the same Catechism Pope John Paul II declared to be a sure norm for teaching the faith."

Is faith something that is taught or is it something that comes upon hearing the word of God when ones heart is pricked and responds to that heard word?

The use of the word faith John Paul II intends in his quote is the term used to represent the sum total of the Church's beliefs from the Gospel.  Like when you defend the faith, you are not defending the saving faith you recieve by cooperating with grace, you are defending the teachings of Christ in the Gospel.  And yes the Gospel teachings must be learned in order to be obeyed.  Of course even the saving faith we recieve through cooperation with the free gift of grace must be a faith based on understanding, so it too has a learning aspect to it.  So in that regard the hearing that you reference in the verse must be a hearing with understanding.

[michael_legna]

On the second site http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/virgin.htm, in the 8th paragraph, it states that Joseph was also a virgin and then explains that belief.  

Any thoughts on it?  

I have to admit that is new to me.  I have never heard that taught anywhere but it makes sense if you accept Jerome's first postulate.    

In looking through the quote it appears Jerome is arguing that since there is no record of Jospeh having a wife previously he for one does not accept the idea, in fact rejects it.  His next postulate is that because Joseph was a holy man he certainly did not have relations prior to marriage with Mary.  His final postulate is that since Mary remained a virgin (an idea Jerome fully accepts - which is the point we are discussing) Joseph did not have relations with her (or anyone outside of wedlock - since he was a holy man) therefore Joseph must have remained a virgin too.  This is logically consistent if you accept the first premise - that Joseph never married prior to Mary.  However I do not know that even with this sound line of reasoning it is official Church teachings.  The Church just doesn't know for sure if Joseph had a prior marriage, though it remains a possibility.

No one else seems to have a problem following his thoughts.    Who is it that has required you to 'slog' through anything?  
So 'honest criticism' of an individual is acceptable to you, but 'honest criticism' of a religion is not?

I know this wasn't directed to me but for what it is worth, I agree with you.  I have to spend alot of time slogging through his poorly formed arguments and I see alot of his criticisms to be other than honest criticism of a religion.  He often uses strawman arguments and avoids presenting his alternative views just to keep the attack one sided.  Not something one does when sincerely searching for the truth.

[michael_legna]

author=Petro link=board=3;threadid=2237;start=45#msg34091 date=1072842874]

I'm not going to spend any time searching out the article, but I remember very well, reading the percentage being at least 12 % higher than admitted by Catholic Priests within the church.

You can spend time looking it up yourself. I am sure there are more sources, but here is where you can start.

So I am supposed to take your biased memory and inability to offer any source (let alone a verifiable unbiased one) as proof of that serious an accusation?  Where were you during the Salem witch hunts?  Our country is based on a lot fairer justice than you want to hand out it seems.  As for the idea that a statistic being 12% higher than what the Priests are willing to admit, one has to immediately wonder how this is a knowable statistic if they aren’t getting from the Priests?  Who are they believing?  Who else knows the level of homosexuality in the seminaries?   I will do the research but when I find that your numbers are inflated I am sure it will do nothing to your prejudicial opinion to report them back to you.

How about Peligianism vs Augustinianism the church embraced Augustianism, since the synod or Carthiginia 418 Ad, only in these last 50 some off years has this new leaning towards free will treaching taken precedence within the establishment, I am sure you are not even 50 years old, so of course unless you boned yourself up, on what your xchurch really taught you would be able to share it, with credibility.

Nonsense, your own Church history proves that the Catholic Church has always taught that man has a free will.  Otherwise why did Calvin need to start his own Church?  Or did Calvinism only start in the last 50 years?  

The Catholic Church does not support Peligianism.  If you think so you either don’t understand Peligianism, or don’t understand Augustine’s concept of predestination and freewill or else don’t understand the subtle differences between them or maybe all three.  My bet is on the latter.

[sincereheart]

michael_legna,

In looking through the quote it appears Jerome is arguing that since there is no record of Jospeh having a wife previously he for one does not accept the idea, in fact rejects it.  His next postulate is that because Joseph was a holy man he certainly did not have relations prior to marriage with Mary.  His final postulate is that since Mary remained a virgin (an idea Jerome fully accepts - which is the point we are discussing) Joseph did not have relations with her (or anyone outside of wedlock - since he was a holy man) therefore Joseph must have remained a virgin too.  This is logically consistent if you accept the first premise - that Joseph never married prior to Mary.  However I do not know that even with this sound line of reasoning it is official Church teachings.  The Church just doesn't know for sure if Joseph had a prior marriage, though it remains a possibility.

In order to understand the Joseph aspects of the RCC, where do I go to find the official stance? I'm not trying to argue for, or against, the Joseph aspects. Just trying to get a clearer understanding.... I'm also going in with the assumption that the official stance is what most in the RCC would adhere to. Is that a correct assumption?  

I know this wasn't directed to me but for what it is worth, I agree with you.  I have to spend alot of time slogging through his poorly formed arguments and I see alot of his criticisms to be other than honest criticism of a religion.  He often uses strawman arguments and avoids presenting his alternative views just to keep the attack one sided.  Not something one does when sincerely searching for the truth.

But then you'd be attacking something other than what 'Dyskolos' was. His first response was:

Plus, how about taking some pride in your presentation? The spelling,  punctuation, and grammatical errors actually make your posts difficult to read.

Here's a free add-on for Internet Explorer that you can use to spell-check:
http://www.iespell.com/

which is a personal attack.

[michael_legna]

In order to understand the Joseph aspects of the RCC, where do I go to find the official stance? I'm not trying to argue for, or against, the Joseph aspects. Just trying to get a clearer understanding....

The official position of the Church can be found in the Catechism.  You can find one on line at the following link...

http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/ccc.html

I also have one I built from copying and pasting the text on that site into a MS Access database so it is searchable.  It is 3.6 Mb in size but I could try sending you a copy if you would like it.  Don't know how my e-mail host will feel about something that large but I am willing to give it a try.

I'm also going in with the assumption that the official stance is what most in the RCC would adhere to. Is that a correct assumption?  

I wish that were true, but with billions of Catholic's world wide I cannot vouche for how good the average Catholic's understanding is of official Church teachings.  That is why one should always choose a Church based on the correctness of it's doctrines not on how the followers adhere to them.

[Petro]

author=Petro link=board=3;threadid=2237;start=45#msg34091 date=1072842874]

I'm not going to spend any time searching out the article, but I remember very well, reading the percentage being at least 12 % higher than admitted by Catholic Priests within the church.

You can spend time looking it up yourself. I am sure there are more sources, but here is where you can start.

So I am supposed to take your biased memory and inability to offer any source (let alone a verifiable unbiased one) as proof of that serious an accusation?  Where were you during the Salem witch hunts?  Our country is based on a lot fairer justice than you want to hand out it seems.  As for the idea that a statistic being 12% higher than what the Priests are willing to admit, one has to immediately wonder how this is a knowable statistic if they aren’t getting from the Priests?  Who are they believing?  Who else knows the level of homosexuality in the seminaries?   I will do the research but when I find that your numbers are inflated I am sure it will do nothing to your prejudicial opinion to report them back to you.

michael,

I have been awaiting the result of your research....where is it??

Have you done the research which disproves the factual information I have provided??

Here are sound results of a study conducted by honest people.


 Http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/1611/sins1badulteryfornication.html


7. Incest, Intrafamilial Child Abuse, Molestation

Sexual abuse by the clergy:


"It is widely believed among those familiar with the church that the Catholic priesthood today, especially priests under age 40, are disproportionately gay, given the norm of society. Estimates of the gayness of the Catholic clergy vary considerably from somewhat above the norm to more than 50 percent of the Catholic clergy. Some say that among the newly ordained this figure may even run higher."




I am posting this to show you, this is not just something I pulled out of thin air, as you can see I was even lower than these and,

since you are in denial about these truths,

you must first come to the reality of this matter an accept it, before you can accept the truth of Gods Word.


Catholics would deny this report and argue that the percentages are much lower since they do not consider pedophiliacs as being homosexuals, but the reality is that pedophiliacs are for the most part homosexuals, those that pray on young boys at least and should be included no doubt this is why the percentage figures are much higher, you really do not believe the Catholic church would release an accurate report , do you??

Be honest know, post what your church is telling you..I am interested in hearing it.


Blessings,
petro

[michael_legna]

Here are sound results of a study conducted by honest people.
Http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/1611/sins1badulteryfornication.html

Petro did you read the article and look at the sources before you claim honesty and objectiveness for the study?  This study was done at the behest of the Christian Science monitor, run by the Christian Scientist.  Do you really think they are objective and honest when evaluating the Catholic Church?  Comeon Petro get a grip!

Here is some objective research for you.

"Ms. Demarest's numbers conform with estimates by Thomas Plante, a California psychologist at Santa Clara University who treats priests who have molested minors. "The best data we have is that approximately 5 percent of priests have a predilection toward minors," he declared. "That seems consistent with other clergy who are not priests (such as Protestant ministers or rabbis)." Moreover, Plante cites research suggesting that among the general population, 8 percent feel sexually attracted to children – a higher percentage than among priests or other clergy. Such numbers, or course, reflect those who feel sexually drawn to contact with kids, rather than indicating the percentage who actually act upon this inclination.

The Washington Post, an establishment liberal journal with no reason to whitewash the church, approvingly cites Gary Schoener, a psychologist in Minneapolis whose Walk-In Counseling Center has consulted with more than 1,000 victims of sexual abuse by clergy. He also affirms that the percentage of abusers among Catholic priests is no higher than among Protestant ministers."

You can read the whole article at the following website

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26955


The numbers you offer are just lies by organizations with a prejudice against the Catholic Church.