Catholic Church teaching on life

[1.61803399]

This thread is spwaned off a thread on the beginning of life, particularly my discussion with shunyadragon.

Shuny has charged the Church with inconsistencies on life issues. I ask again for these issues, with some citation to back them up please.

Anyone is welcome to bring up questions, concerns, comments on this topic on limited condition (I can't mod, but I will ignore your post and any replies).
Condition 1) you can represent the teachings of your current profession, not of professions you have studied or professed in the past. Condition 2) you are not attacking anyone, no vicious ad hominems.

that's it.

chris

[shunyadragon]

This thread is spwaned off a thread on the beginning of life, particularly my discussion with shunyadragon.

Shuny has charged the Church with inconsistencies on life issues. I ask again for these issues, with some citation to back them up please.

Anyone is welcome to bring up questions, concerns, comments on this topic on limited condition (I can't mod, but I will ignore your post and any replies).
Condition 1) you can represent the teachings of your current profession, not of professions you have studied or professed in the past. Condition 2) you are not attacking anyone, no vicious ad hominems.

that's it.

chris

Okay thread, I will post my first response soon.

[1.61803399]

Okay thread, I will post my first response soon.

well, so much for that

[Ryokan]

Shunya was trained by very, very conservative Catholics in Latin America. So she thinks they are fascist. In the US the Church is much more liberal, and has different ideas abotu all kinds of things.

[shunyadragon]

Shunya was trained by very, very conservative Catholics in Latin America. So she thinks they are fascist. In the US the Church is much more liberal, and has different ideas abotu all kinds of things.

Yes I was raised in Latin America in the Roman Church, but the rest of this statement is nonsense. Yes theRoman church is very different in the US, but why is that so? Should the Roman church be so different?


I have been busy with some stuff and have not had time to respond properly to this, but I will.

[Ryokan]

Yes I was raised in Latin America in the Roman Church, but the rest of this statement is nonsense. Yes theRoman church is very different in the US, but why is that so? Should the Roman church be so different? Because its hard to get 1 billion people of varying ethnic and cultural backgrounds to agree on things?

[1.61803399]

Shunya was trained by very, very conservative Catholics in Latin America. So she thinks they are t. In the US the Church is much more liberal, and has different ideas abotu all kinds of things.

Those with different ideas tend towards dissent, schism, and heresy.

[shunyadragon]

Those with different ideas tend towards dissent, schism, and heresy.

Ithe punishment the iron maiden or being burned at the stake. I will be questioning the teachin of the church concerning life with the early history outlining the brutal persecution of Jews and Christian disenters in Rome who did not tow the state doctrine. When Rome became Christian the prosecuted became prosecutors, and there was little or no concern for life issues in the methods employed.

[shunyadragon]

Because its hard to get 1 billion people of varying ethnic and cultural backgrounds to agree on things?

This is not a good answer, when the Roman Church is relatively uniform outside the US, and quite variable concerning their culture.

[Ryokan]

This is not a good answer, when the Roman Church is relatively uniform outside the US, and quite variable concerning their culture.
See, I disagree. Korean Catholicsm, Latin American Catholicism (ultra-conservative and liberation), African Catholicism, European Catholicism... They all emphasize different things, in a different way.

[shunyadragon]

See, I disagree. Korean Catholicsm, Latin American Catholicism (ultra-conservative and liberation), African Catholicism, European Catholicism... They all emphasize different things, in a different way.

The variation you just described I acknowledged in the culture, but most retain a conservative view of the church and doctrine. A few like the Dutch would share the more liberal view as the US. The reality of the church is very conservative.

[Ryokan]

The variation you just described I acknowledged in the culture, but most retain a conservative view of the church and doctrine. A few like the Dutch would share the more liberal view as the US. The reality of the church is very conservative.
Koreans have a fairly conservative social views, but are pretty liberal doctrinally, given how much they incorporate Buddhism. The incorporation of shamanistic elements in Africa is similiar too this too. The reality of the Church is it is very big and varied, Shunya.

[XaositectCrayon]

few groups that survive to this day dont have a ton of blood on their hands... why the special attention to Catholicism?

[shunyadragon]

This thread is spwaned off a thread on the beginning of life, particularly my discussion with shunyadragon.

Shuny has charged the Church with inconsistencies on life issues. I ask again for these issues, with some citation to back them up please.

Anyone is welcome to bring up questions, concerns, comments on this topic on limited condition (I can't mod, but I will ignore your post and any replies).
Condition 1) you can represent the teachings of your current profession, not of professions you have studied or professed in the past. Condition 2) you are not attacking anyone, no vicious ad hominems.

that's it.

chris

As I said in the previous post I would address the historic lack of concern for 'Life' by the Roman Church by reviewing its history beginning when Rome first became Christian. The main policy of Rome from that point on was to ethnically and religious cleanse Rome of any potential opposition.

Here is how Roman Christianity shows its concern for 'Life' in history

Circa 330 CE, Emperor Constantine decided to build a "New Rome" on the site of the Greek city of Byzantium (now at Istanbul, Turkey). It was called Constantinople. It became the center of the largely Christian empire. 2 By this time, the church had evolved from a small, scattering of congregations to a geographically widespread church under the authority of many bishops.

Later in the fourth century, Emperor Theodosian issued a series of decrees or rescripts to "suppress all rival religions, order the closing of the temples, and impose fines, confiscation, imprisonment or death upon any who cling to the older [Pagan] religions." 3 The period of relative religious tolerance under Paganism in the Roman Empire ended as non-Christian temples were seized and converted to Christian use or destroyed. Priests and Priestesses were exiled or killed. Pauline Christianity and Judaism were the only permitted religions. To follow another faith group was an offense punishable by death.

[Ryokan]

:blush: after dealing with a baby with an ear infection all day, I should not post on web forums. I get rude. Sorry.

[1.61803399]

As I said in the previous post I would address the historic lack of concern for 'Life' by the Roman Church by reviewing its history beginning when Rome first became Christian. The main policy of Rome from that point on was to ethnically and religious cleanse Rome of any potential opposition.

Here is how Roman Christianity shows its concern for 'Life' in history

Circa 330 CE, Emperor Constantine decided to build a "New Rome" on the site of the Greek city of Byzantium (now at Istanbul, Turkey). It was called Constantinople. It became the center of the largely Christian empire. 2 By this time, the church had evolved from a small, scattering of congregations to a geographically widespread church under the authority of many bishops.

Later in the fourth century, Emperor Theodosian issued a series of decrees or rescripts to "suppress all rival religions, order the closing of the temples, and impose fines, confiscation, imprisonment or upon any who cling to the older [Pagan] religions." 3 The period of relative religious tolerance under Paganism in the Roman Empire ended as non-Christian temples were seized and converted to Christian use or destroyed. Priests and Priestesses were exiled or killed. Pauline Christianity and Judaism were the only permitted religions. To follow another faith group was an offense punishable by .

1) ethnic cleansing? any support for that?

2) religious tolerance of the pagan Empire? The of martyrs crys out to God, from Jerusalem to England over the "tolerance" of Rome. Who fed the circus beasts?

3) who enacted this vicious order? The pope? No a layman, the Emperor of Rome. You have proved that 1 Catholic was not consistant with the teaching on life.

try again

chris

[shunyadragon]

1) ethnic cleansing? any support for that?

2) religious tolerance of the pagan Empire? The of martyrs crys out to God, from Jerusalem to England over the "tolerance" of Rome. Who fed the circus beasts?

3) who enacted this vicious order? The pope? No a layman, the Emperor of Rome. You have proved that 1 Catholic was not consistant with the teaching on life.

try again

chris

Your glossing over the point here with duck and weave. The behavior of the pagans is not at issue. Should the behavior of the Christians be compared to the pagans?

Emperor Theodosian issued a series of decrees or rescripts to "suppress all rival religions, order the closing of the temples, and impose fines, confiscation, imprisonment or upon any who cling to the older [Pagan] religions." He is basically the head of the church at this time.

I know of not one squeak of descent from any Bishop of the church to this decree. Passing the buck does not work. Rome was the church.

More to follow.

[1.61803399]

Your glossing over the point here with duck and weave. The behavior of the pagans is not at issue. Should the behavior of the Christians be compared to the pagans?

Emperor Theodosian issued a series of decrees or rescripts to "suppress all rival religions, order the closing of the temples, and impose fines, confiscation, imprisonment or upon any who cling to the older [Pagan] religions." He is basically the head of the church at this time.

I know of not one squeak of descent from any Bishop of the church to this decree. Passing the buck does not work. Rome was the church.

More to follow.

Speaking of duck and weave:

Source on ethnic cleansing. take 2

If anyone is to accept your theory, than the correctness of the rest of your historical context comes into play. It is only as pertinent as your character. It proves that I am right to demand sources for everything and to read your whole post critically, not just your main point. As to your question, I don't think so, but since you made the comparison, I assumed it mattered to you.

Rome was not the Church. The emperor and the Pope were two separate people. Passing the buck from Rome to Church doesn't work either. You picked a poor example, I can come up with better.

Hopefully that more includes source^ and new example.

[shunyadragon]

Speaking of duck and weave:

Source on ethnic cleansing. take 2

If anyone is to accept your theory, than the correctness of the rest of your historical context comes into play. It is only as pertinent as your character. It proves that I am right to demand sources for everything and to read your whole post critically, not just your main point. As to your question, I don't think so, but since you made the comparison, I assumed it mattered to you.

Rome was not the Church. The emperor and the Pope were two separate people. Passing the buck from Rome to Church doesn't work either. You picked a poor example, I can come up with better.

Hopefully that more includes source^ and new example.

You basically did not respond to the fact that the Pope nor the Bishops ever objected to the decrees of the emperor. Can you cite any words of descent? Surely if these commands by the Christian emperor were against the beliefs of the church than there would be xome record of an objection.

Ethnic cleansing take 2. There is a pattern of decrees and actions by both the empereror and Bishops of the Roman Church concerning the Ethnic cleansing of the Jews from Rome including the slaughter of many The following represents decrees that begin setting the stage for such actions concerning the Jews of Rome.



325: The Council of Nicea decided to separate the celebration of Easter from the Jewish Passover. They stated: "For it is unbecoming beyond measure that on this holiest of festivals we should follow the customs of the Jews. Henceforth let us have nothing in common with this odious people...We ought not, therefore, to have anything in common with the Jews...our worship follows a...more convenient course...we desire dearest brethren, to separate ourselves from the detestable company of the Jews...How, then, could we follow these Jews, who are almost certainly blinded."

337: Christian Emperor Constantius created a law which made the marriage of a Jewish man to a Christian punishable by death.

343-381: The Laodicean Synod approved Cannon XXXVIII: "It is not lawful [for Christians] to receive unleavened bread from the Jews, nor to be partakers of their impiety."

367 - 376: St. Hilary of Poitiers referred to Jews as a perverse people who God has cursed forever. St. Ephroem refers to synagogues as brothels.

379-395: Emperor Theodosius the Great permitted the destruction of synagogues if it served a religious purpose. Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire at this time.

380: The bishop of Milan was responsible for the burning of a synagogue; he referred to it as "an act pleasing to God."

415: The Bishop of Alexandria, St. Cyril, expelled the Jews from that Egyptian city.

415: St. Augustine wrote "The true image of the Hebrew is Judas Iscariot, who sells the Lord for silver. The Jew can never understand the Scriptures and forever will bear the guilt for the death of Jesus."

418: St. Jerome, who created the Vulgate translation of the Bible wrote of a synagogue: "If you call it a brothel, a den of vice, the Devil's refuge, Satan's fortress, a place to deprave the soul, an abyss of every conceivable disaster or whatever you will, you are still saying less than it deserves."

489 - 519: Christian mobs destroyed the synagogues in Antioch, Daphne (near Antioch) and Ravenna.

Enough for know. This sets the stage for the attempts to cleanse Rome of Jews, and shows that the emperor and the Bishops of the church act in harmony issueing similar decrees.

[1.61803399]

You basically did not respond to the fact that the Pope nor the Bishops ever objected to the decrees of the emperor. Can you cite any words of descent? Surely if these commands by the Christian emperor were against the beliefs of the church than there would be xome record of an objection.

Ethnic cleansing take 2. There is a pattern of decrees and actions by both the empereror and Bishops of the Roman Church concerning the Ethnic cleansing of the Jews from Rome including the slaughter of many The following represents decrees that begin setting the stage for such actions concerning the Jews of Rome.



325: The Council of Nicea decided to separate the celebration of Easter from the Jewish Passover. They stated: "For it is unbecoming beyond measure that on this holiest of festivals we should follow the customs of the Jews. Henceforth let us have nothing in common with this odious people...We ought not, therefore, to have anything in common with the Jews...our worship follows a...more convenient course...we desire dearest brethren, to separate ourselves from the detestable company of the Jews...How, then, could we follow these Jews, who are almost certainly blinded."

337: Christian Emperor Constantius created a law which made the marriage of a Jewish man to a Christian punishable by .

343-381: The Laodicean Synod approved Cannon VIII: "It is not lawful [for Christians] to receive unleavened bread from the Jews, nor to be partakers of their impiety."

367 - 376: St. Hilary of Poitiers referred to Jews as a perverse people who God has cursed forever. St. Ephroem refers to synagogues as s.

379-395: Emperor Theodosius the Great permitted the destruction of synagogues if it served a religious purpose. Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire at this time.

380: The bishop of Milan was responsible for the burning of a synagogue; he referred to it as "an act pleasing to God."

415: The Bishop of Alexandria, St. Cyril, expelled the Jews from that Egyptian city.

415: St. Augustine wrote "The true image of the Hebrew is Judas Iscariot, who sells the Lord for silver. The Jew can never understand the Scriptures and forever will bear the guilt for the of Jesus."

418: St. Jerome, who created the Vulgate translation of the Bible wrote of a synagogue: "If you call it a , a den of vice, the Devil's refuge, Satan's fortress, a place to deprave the soul, an abyss of every conceivable disaster or whatever you will, you are still saying less than it deserves."

489 - 519: Christian mobs destroyed the synagogues in Antioch, Daphne (near Antioch) and Ravenna.

Enough for know. This sets the stage for the attempts to cleanse Rome of Jews, and shows that the emperor and the Bishops of the church act in harmony issueing similar decrees.


As my time has grown more constrained of late, I don't have the time for the research required. As such I will give you benefit of the doubt, but will make such a note.

I'll grant (bofd) that we have no record of objections. This does not prove teaching on life. There was a bias against the Jews in the early church, which has been apologized for. No such apology for the persecution of the Apostles has been recieved as far as I know. The Jews, in particular their leaders, OF THE TIME OF JESUS, were responisble for His . In the Christian view deicide. This was unfortunatley transfered to the Jews in later times, but has long been dismissed in the Catholic Church. The case you are building is one for a religious clensing, not ethnic. You are also giving individual bishops, not the pope.

chris

as a side note; as for religioustolerance.org, I have little use for a site that would be forced to deny objective truth.

[shunyadragon]

I'll grant (bofd) that we have no record of objections. This does not prove teaching on life. There was a bias against the Jews in the early church, which has been apologized for. No such apology for the persecution of the Apostles has been recieved as far as I know. The Jews, in particular their leaders, OF THE TIME OF JESUS, were responisble for His . In the Christian view deicide. This was unfortunatley transfered to the Jews in later times, but has long been dismissed in the Catholic Church. The case you are building is one for a religious clensing, not ethnic. You are also giving individual bishops, not the pope.

You apparently saw what is coming, and I will continue if needed, but first to clarify some points.

The silence of the pope would be more than problematic. I have shown a consistent picture of statements of belief by leaders of the church. The results of the Councils of the church cited would indeed reflect the views of the pope without question.

Ethnicity is identified by three basic factors, race, culture, and religion. Jews qualify as being a cultural, religious, and sub-group of the semitic race.

Relatively recent apologies are nice, but they do not cut the mustard for almost two thousand years of the Jewish problem, as well as the persecution of other Christian and pagan minorities. From the Christian or any religious point of view it is not a good idea to justify ones own good or bad acts, based on anothers acts or the lack of action.

as a side note; as for religioustolerance.org, I have little use for a site that would be forced to deny objective truth. This statement would be classic, genuine and certified red herring. I would require the falsification of the information provided and not the denigration of the source.