Wow!Citing the New York Catechism – actually the Catechism of Anti-Catholicism!
There's too many catechisms. They are basically formal declarations of creed.
We have the Baltimore Catechism, the Dutch Catechism etc. etc.
Beginning and end of Christianity?
- Thread starter 2ndpillar
- Start date
There's too many catechisms. They are basically formal declarations of creed.
We have the Baltimore Catechism, the Dutch Catechism etc. etc.
The Baltimore Catechism was a childrens' catechismThere's too many catechisms. They are basically formal declarations of creed.
We have the Baltimore Catechism, the Dutch Catechism etc. etc.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltimore_Catechism
"the standard Catholic school text in the country from 1885 to the late 1960s. From its publication, however, there were calls to revise it, and many other catechisms were used during this period. It was officially replaced by the United States Catholic Catechism for Adults in 2004, based on the revised universal Catechism of the Catholic Church"
The Vatican in 1972 ordered withdrawal of the Dutch Catechism, intended for high schools
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_Catechism
https://www.nytimes.com/1972/10/13/archives/vatican-orders-dutch-to-cancel-catechism.html
I believe there is only one Vatican approved Catholic Catechism
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catechism_of_the_Catholic_Church
@Thomas will correct me if I'm wrong?
Last edited:
I think you're right..
However, it is constantly under review,
which means to me that it is NOT a very good representation of "what Jesus believed".
This might be the current official position, but should "the teachings" keep changing in order to appease modern society?
The Church interprets the teachings in light of new knowledge. The church does not deny science to support dogma. First you have a problem with dogma and creeds, and then you have a problem with progress when those fail in the real world.
I will tell you one thing: you will not find a single line in any Catholic book which contradicts any of Jesus' words. Did Jesus demand the death penalty? That is why the Catholic church still disallows divorce, because Jesus himself forbade it.
The whole problem is you don't know or understand the religion and the scripture that you have made it your whole mission on this website to try to disprove and dismiss, based on quick references from wikipedia?
I think balanced against the fact that all your energy on this site is directed against another religion, you should actually be ashamed of your ignorance about that religion and its scriptures and structures.
You do yourself no credit at all.
Last edited:
I don't know, do you?
I thought the Pope was supposed to be infallible..
I didn't start this thread, and don't think that this sort of conversation should be encouraged.
I don't see why I shouldn't participate if others do.
I do know
As always there's a little more to it. It's 'buck stops here' scenario with God's guidance, after exhaustive debate. Why don't you ask wiki?
Why do you not?
You can continue displaying your ignorance if that's what you like doing
Last edited:
Yeshua didn't "forbade" divorce. Divorce was part of the law (Matthew 5:31) He simply said it was not originally part of God making man and women one flesh, and that if one divorces, it must be for probable cause, which he gave, and that if one divorces for no probable cause, one commits adultery. He also said if you look at a women with lust you have already committed adultery.
Looks like Jimmy Carter, and presumably, RJM Corbet, has committed adultery. In the case of my Catholic mom, I think she simply paid the church and got an annulment after have 2 daughters by the guy she legally divorced. I think the cost of a Catholic annulment is around $500, but that may not be the current price, although I think they can put you on a payment plan. Catholic Annulment FAQs: Process, Cost, Forms, Requirements (togetherforlifeonline.com)
The 2nd commandment was not to have any graven images. You would have been hard pressed to not find graven images in Catholic church in my early days of going to church with my parents.
Yeshua's message was to keep the Law/Commandments (Matthew 5:17), and to not annul the smallest letter (Matthew 5:18). The Catholic church has substituted it's Lord's day, for the Sabbath. Catechism of the Catholic Church - The third commandment (vatican.va)
Last edited by a moderator:
In Matthew divorce is forbidden except for reason of adultery alone:
But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery
(Matt 5:32)
Mark, which many consider to be the original gospel, forbids divorce altogether:
“Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?”
"What did Moses command you?” he replied.
They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away.”
“It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,” Jesus replied. “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’
‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one flesh.
Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
(Mark 10:2-9)
I'm not denying it because I haven't checked it out properly. I suppose if you don't want a church annulment you can just split through the courts anyway, which probably also costs something -- I don't know?
However you are quite correct that the Catholic solution to the conundrum is to try to find a reason for annulment where possible.
The point is: if that's what Jesus said, the church cannot go against the direct word of Jesus?
Concerning these wrangles about whether or not Yeshua fulfilled and taught 'the law' IMO Christ made the point of showing by his life and teaching that he was true to the spiritual law, against the written and 'oft abused letter of the law, so valued by the hypocrites?
Last edited:
Context !
³¹It has been said, "Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce."
³²But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.
Jesus, peace be with him, is not saying that divorce is forbidden .. he is saying that a man SHOULD NOT divorce his wife without good reason.
..and that includes if his wife is not happy with him.
Not what 'Jesus is saying' but what Jesus said?
In Mark, the first synoptic gospel, he point blank forbids divorce. Matthew softens it slightly to exclude adultery. That's what Jesus said. The Catholic church cannot go against what Jesus said?
..again .. context !
1 And he arose from thence, and cometh into the coasts of Judaea by the farther side of Jordan: and the people resort unto him again; and, as he was wont, he taught them again.
2 And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.
3 And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?
4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.
5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.
6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
10 And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter.
11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.
- Mark -
It is morally right that a man should not "put his wife away" and it is morally right that a woman should not ask for a divorce without good reason.
i.e. because they want to have sex with somebody else
To make the conclusion that divorce is forbidden for any reason condemns people to lives of misery.
Is that what you think Jesus was teaching? Do you think that he wanted people to be unhappy?
Last edited:
Are you asking me I think Jesus should have said?
No .. I'm saying that it is a matter of interpretation.
A man is responsible for his wife. Divorcing her and marrying another due to sexual desire is not responsible.
Jesus also said if you look at a women with lust you have already committed adultery.
In other words, we should not look at other than our partner for sexual desire.
It doesn't mean that we have literally committed adultery.
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Interpretation is always a tricky thing.
Divorce is a tragic moment in a lifetime, and shouldn't be done lightly. Divorce divides families and affects the mental health of all parties, including the children. Where possible it should be avoided, but there will be times when there is no alternative.
I think what Jesus was trying to get across, is that divorce shouldn't be a casual, carefree event. "I'm tired of this one so I'll just move on to another." That would not be suitable for a Christian, yet such a carefree attitude was common in the Roman world.
My opinion, your mileage may vary.
PS, may I remind about the woman at the well? How many times was she married? Should that not suffice, while I don't recall any textual evidence, tradition holds the Magdalen as being a woman of ill repute, a harlot, a prostitute - something the "if you lay together you are married" bunch doesn't bother to take into consideration. Both of these fallen women played important roles in Jesus' ministry.
<the bottom line as always is: judge not, that ye be not judged, for with what measure ye mete...>
Divorce is a tragic moment in a lifetime, and shouldn't be done lightly. Divorce divides families and affects the mental health of all parties, including the children. Where possible it should be avoided, but there will be times when there is no alternative.
I think what Jesus was trying to get across, is that divorce shouldn't be a casual, carefree event. "I'm tired of this one so I'll just move on to another." That would not be suitable for a Christian, yet such a carefree attitude was common in the Roman world.
My opinion, your mileage may vary.
PS, may I remind about the woman at the well? How many times was she married? Should that not suffice, while I don't recall any textual evidence, tradition holds the Magdalen as being a woman of ill repute, a harlot, a prostitute - something the "if you lay together you are married" bunch doesn't bother to take into consideration. Both of these fallen women played important roles in Jesus' ministry.
<the bottom line as always is: judge not, that ye be not judged, for with what measure ye mete...>
Last edited:
Yeshua's message was repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. The kingdom of heaven he is speaking of is a spiritual kingdom, one of spirit and power. He told his disciples to heal the sick, raise the dead, etc. and then tell them the kingdom of heaven is at hand, which is a kingdom of heart, spirit and mind, and one of power. If one looks at women with lust, he has already committed adultery "in his heart". Adultery of the flesh always starts with adultery of the mind and heart. (Matthew 5:28). Yeshua means that a man that looks with lust in their heart, has literally committed adultery in their heart. Literal adultery of the flesh is another thing. Watching kiddy porn has consequence just as well as raping children. The only difference is possibly in the jail sentence one will catch if caught. People think they can lust after their neighbor's wife with no consequences. That is only true in a secular legal sense.
You had said the Yeshua had "forbade" divorce. That was an untrue statement. He gave the grounds for divorce, but that was not the intended original purpose of God joining man and women as one. The grounds for an annulment are many. Divorce was enacted because of the hardness of the hearts of men. Yeshua didn't say he fulfilled the law and the prophets, for certainly the prophets haven't been fulfilled. And certainly "heaven and earth" hasn't passed away (Matthew 5:17-18).
And Yeshua said to call no man "father" or "leader"/Christ, or "teacher". The church considers the pope as Christ on earth, and their leader, teacher, and the Catholic priest and popes are called "fathers". I think you are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. Generally you have to deform the square for it to closely fit. And then you become double minded, in the same square peg as the Pharisees, the sellers of hypocrisy, which is to say, pay the tithes to the priest before honoring your mother and father. No, apparently, the so called fat shepherds, the pope with his "foolish" (Zechariah 11:15) shepherds staff, will be the first to be judged (Ezekiel 34:1-16) with destruction. Although Judas preceded Peter in destruction (Zechariah 11:8), both supposedly being hung on a tree/pole into the night, which is to say, both being cursed as their hanging hung on into the night. (Deuteronomy 21:22-23) Not to say Peter made all these claims made by his church, but his ego might let the claims go unanswered.
Last edited by a moderator:
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
I don't disagree, but there is a good deal more to it than this. I can't think of a single deed (not talking about property conveyance) that doesn't begin with a thought. While looking at a married woman with lust (for a single man, or any woman with lust for a married man, the reverse also being true) is considered inappropriate, nevertheless the animal drive is instinctive in humans...doesn't matter if you see it as G-d putting it there or G-d neglecting to remove it, it is there. And being there, it also forms the basis of love, eros. Teaching that lust, all lust, any lust, is wrong, I don't think is appropriate. It has a "proper" place.
Now, back to thoughts preceding deeds, is where (or when or how) impure thoughts ferment. It is the mind that dwells on these matters, if you wish - entertaining devilish ideas, allows them to overtake the mind until one reaches out to perform. So I do agree, we do need to monitor and check our thoughts, but we also need to keep matters in perspective. In one context something may be or seem evil, in another context it may be perfectly pure and innocent. The problem is, so many moralistic teachings don't differentiate - if it has any possibility of being bad, then it is always bad. To this I strongly disagree.
Last edited:
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
I think you are more than a little carried away here. The previous post was done so well, and this post slips off into judgment...and you are not the judge.
Just to defend myself: no it is not an untrue statement. As I said: Mark is regarded by many as the first synoptic gospel. I know you disagree about that, but whether right or wrong it is generally accepted by churches. And in Mark 10:2-9 Yeshua forbids divorce without qualification. In Matthew 5:32 it is softened slightly to permit grounds of adultery. So I did not make an untrue statement.
Regarding the rest of your post: Christ came down pretty hard on many of the 'religious professionals' of his own time, and might probably do the same again in the 21st Century, imo
I realise that that is how you INTERPRET it..
but think about it..
11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
You interpret this as Jesus saying that divorce is forbidden.
..but it doesn't say that, imo.
The implication is that a man who divorces his wife FOR NO GOOD REASON is guilty.
In other words, the Pharisees's question about the law of divorce is not straightforward.
If Jesus had answered .. "Yes, it is lawful to divorce your wife", that implies that that is all there is to it.
Marriage is a contract between a man and a woman.
A man promises "to love and to cherish"
A woman promises to "honour and obey"
The contract can be broken by either party, but the man has the ultimate responsibility, as it is his responsibility to provide.
Making divorce unlawful, results in misery for many .. it is an example of how "idealism" can destroy a civilisation.
Do you really think that a man should keep a woman by force, for example?
Last edited: