Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 2,579 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 2,087,195
Pageviews Today: 2,794,150Threads Today: 542Posts Today: 11,903
06:24 PM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

I am a catholic apologist... ask me a question

 
Monkey Breath

User ID: 29392410
United States
12/09/2012 09:35 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: I am a catholic apologist... ask me a question
#9 Do you guys not relise that your being lied to. And are sheep who follow a stranger who leads you to be slautered. Instead of following the true shepard

I seek the truth, the only reason to believe anything is because its true. Are there blind spots in my thinking, Yes.

Are we sheep, Yes.

We do believe we are following the Good Shepard.
Monkey Breath

User ID: 29392410
United States
12/09/2012 09:39 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: I am a catholic apologist... ask me a question
#10 Follow his teachings, don't be ignorant or gullible to follow a man. But follow only what Jesus Christ says he will give you spiritual knowledge and understanding. Don't follow something because it's your custom or tradition but follow the truth.

We follow the teachings of Christ, this has come down through the ages to us from the Church in a Sacred deposit of Faith. The bible didn't fall out of the sky, our faith was preserved with great sacrifice by the ancients. Saint Paul taught us "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle." 2 Thessalonians 2 15
Monkey Breath

User ID: 29392410
United States
12/09/2012 10:00 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: I am a catholic apologist... ask me a question
Lastly, this idea that one can be a Christian without the Church is problematic. How does one know what the truth is after 2000 years. From where did you receive the Bible, which books were inspired which are not? To believe that the Church is unnecessary and Private Revelation is sufficient is the old heresy of Gnosticism.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 24011342
United States
12/09/2012 10:06 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: I am a catholic apologist... ask me a question
Lastly, this idea that one can be a Christian without the Church is problematic. How does one know what the truth is after 2000 years. From where did you receive the Bible, which books were inspired which are not? To believe that the Church is unnecessary and Private Revelation is sufficient is the old heresy of Gnosticism.
 Quoting: Monkey Breath


WOW!!! I have underlined part of your response. While I haven't been part of the discussion between you and whomever...I would say that you must view God as some sort of weakling...you don't think He can preserve something for a mere few millennia? Ummm, you might want to reread 2 Samuel 6...especially around verse 6...just sayin' ;-)
Monkey Breath

User ID: 29392410
United States
12/09/2012 10:08 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: I am a catholic apologist... ask me a question
Screw Christ. There has never been a more vicous violent human being than those that follow christ, jehovah or allah. Religion is a mental disease where you set yourself apart from others and this gives you authority as the "chosen" ones. Too many have died in the name of god to believe in them.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 23593144


Atheist love to talk about religion more than we do. Kind of funny!
Monkey Breath

User ID: 29392410
United States
12/09/2012 10:11 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: I am a catholic apologist... ask me a question
Lastly, this idea that one can be a Christian without the Church is problematic. How does one know what the truth is after 2000 years. From where did you receive the Bible, which books were inspired which are not? To believe that the Church is unnecessary and Private Revelation is sufficient is the old heresy of Gnosticism.
 Quoting: Monkey Breath


WOW!!! I have underlined part of your response. While I haven't been part of the discussion between you and whomever...I would say that you must view God as some sort of weakling...you don't think He can preserve something for a mere few millennia? Ummm, you might want to reread 2 Samuel 6...especially around verse 6...just sayin' ;-)
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 24011342


God said he would be with us always and the Gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church. By your line of reasoning, it wasn't necessary?

The point was the Church is a necessary conduit to our modern day to pass on the one True faith.

Last Edited by Monkey Breath on 12/09/2012 10:12 AM
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 24011342
United States
12/09/2012 10:19 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: I am a catholic apologist... ask me a question
Lastly, this idea that one can be a Christian without the Church is problematic. How does one know what the truth is after 2000 years. From where did you receive the Bible, which books were inspired which are not? To believe that the Church is unnecessary and Private Revelation is sufficient is the old heresy of Gnosticism.
 Quoting: Monkey Breath


WOW!!! I have underlined part of your response. While I haven't been part of the discussion between you and whomever...I would say that you must view God as some sort of weakling...you don't think He can preserve something for a mere few millennia? Ummm, you might want to reread 2 Samuel 6...especially around verse 6...just sayin' ;-)
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 24011342


God said he would be with us always and the Gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church. By your line of reasoning, it did? NO?

The point was the Church is a necessary conduit to our modern day to pass on the one True faith.
 Quoting: Monkey Breath


LOL! I must worship a different God than you. My God can use a donkey to speak to a human ( Numbers 22 ). My God can have a finger write on a wall ( Daniel 5 ). My God has no "necessary conduits" as He can do whatever He wants to bring somebody to my Christ Jesus.
chuckle
Monkey Breath

User ID: 29392410
United States
12/09/2012 10:30 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: I am a catholic apologist... ask me a question
I believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
he suffered death and was buried,
and rose again on the third day
in accordance with the Scriptures.
He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead
and his kingdom will have no end.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.

I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins
and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead
and the life of the world to come. Amen.



What God do you Worship? And please understand the meaning of worship as opposed to praise.

Last Edited by Monkey Breath on 12/09/2012 10:40 AM
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 24011342
United States
12/09/2012 10:42 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: I am a catholic apologist... ask me a question
You completely do not understand the situation...I am not trying to be offensive...it is just that your understanding is completely "upside down"...

The "gates of hell will not prevail against it" is NOT because the Church is necessary. Understand that..."the church is NOT necessary!" You are taking the view that the Church is necessary. The Church is not necessary to God. God can use whatever means God would like to communicate the message of Jesus Christ. God could use donkeys or hands writing on a wall to convey the message of Jesus. For the most part God has chosen humans to convey the message of Jesus.

The "gates of hell will not prevail against it" is a function of Him who preserves it. "the gates of hell will not prevail..." is a function of the care that Jesus takes for those who believe in Him. The believers are NOT necessary for the movement of the message. That is why Jesus said," I am the Vine and you are the branches." The Vine is necessary...the branches are not...the branches can be replaced.
Monkey Breath

User ID: 29392410
United States
12/09/2012 10:46 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: I am a catholic apologist... ask me a question
You completely do not understand the situation...I am not trying to be offensive...it is just that your understanding is completely "upside down"...

The "gates of hell will not prevail against it" is NOT because the Church is necessary. Understand that..."the church is NOT necessary!" You are taking the view that the Church is necessary. The Church is not necessary to God. God can use whatever means God would like to communicate the message of Jesus Christ. God could use donkeys or hands writing on a wall to convey the message of Jesus. For the most part God has chosen humans to convey the message of Jesus.

The "gates of hell will not prevail against it" is a function of Him who preserves it. "the gates of hell will not prevail..." is a function of the care that Jesus takes for those who believe in Him. The believers are NOT necessary for the movement of the message. That is why Jesus said," I am the Vine and you are the branches." The Vine is necessary...the branches are not...the branches can be replaced.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 24011342


God doesn't need the Church, we do.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 24011342
United States
12/09/2012 10:54 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: I am a catholic apologist... ask me a question
You completely do not understand the situation...I am not trying to be offensive...it is just that your understanding is completely "upside down"...

The "gates of hell will not prevail against it" is NOT because the Church is necessary. Understand that..."the church is NOT necessary!" You are taking the view that the Church is necessary. The Church is not necessary to God. God can use whatever means God would like to communicate the message of Jesus Christ. God could use donkeys or hands writing on a wall to convey the message of Jesus. For the most part God has chosen humans to convey the message of Jesus.

The "gates of hell will not prevail against it" is a function of Him who preserves it. "the gates of hell will not prevail..." is a function of the care that Jesus takes for those who believe in Him. The believers are NOT necessary for the movement of the message. That is why Jesus said," I am the Vine and you are the branches." The Vine is necessary...the branches are not...the branches can be replaced.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 24011342


God doesn't need the Church, we do.
 Quoting: Monkey Breath


LOL...sorry, I am tired...when I am tired I laugh at many things :-)

No, we do not "need" the church...we need Jesus. Again, I would relate to the Vine message. We are the branches. Collectively, the branches are the church. The branches do not need other branches...the branches need the Vine.

Your next question will be...but, how do they become branches...again, the message could be related by donkeys or fingers writing on a wall. God, as far as I know, mostly has used humans to convey the message of Jesus...although, God does not NEED humans to convey the message of Jesus.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 28909878
Bahamas
12/09/2012 10:59 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: I am a catholic apologist... ask me a question
Why did the Catholic Church put Galileo Galilei under house arrest for saying the earth was spherical and not flat? and also why did they wait so long(400 years) to give an official apology.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 13864401
United States
12/09/2012 11:07 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: I am a catholic apologist... ask me a question
Lastly, this idea that one can be a Christian without the Church is problematic. How does one know what the truth is after 2000 years. From where did you receive the Bible, which books were inspired which are not? To believe that the Church is unnecessary and Private Revelation is sufficient is the old heresy of Gnosticism.
 Quoting: Monkey Breath


WOW!!! I have underlined part of your response. While I haven't been part of the discussion between you and whomever...I would say that you must view God as some sort of weakling...you don't think He can preserve something for a mere few millennia? Ummm, you might want to reread 2 Samuel 6...especially around verse 6...just sayin' ;-)
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 24011342


Unlike you-most of us do view a physical church as a very neccessary part of being a Christian! Most people come to Christ through a church! The evil one would love nothing more than as you describe-no churches!
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 13864401
United States
12/09/2012 11:09 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: I am a catholic apologist... ask me a question
Why did the Catholic Church put Galileo Galilei under house arrest for saying the earth was spherical and not flat? and also why did they wait so long(400 years) to give an official apology.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 28909878


Why was the Catholic Church the ONLY church to speak out against Slavery in this country in the 1850's??? Why is it the only one out speaking against abortion today??
Monkey Breath

User ID: 29392410
United States
12/09/2012 11:11 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: I am a catholic apologist... ask me a question
You completely do not understand the situation...I am not trying to be offensive...it is just that your understanding is completely "upside down"...

The "gates of hell will not prevail against it" is NOT because the Church is necessary. Understand that..."the church is NOT necessary!" You are taking the view that the Church is necessary. The Church is not necessary to God. God can use whatever means God would like to communicate the message of Jesus Christ. God could use donkeys or hands writing on a wall to convey the message of Jesus. For the most part God has chosen humans to convey the message of Jesus.

The "gates of hell will not prevail against it" is a function of Him who preserves it. "the gates of hell will not prevail..." is a function of the care that Jesus takes for those who believe in Him. The believers are NOT necessary for the movement of the message. That is why Jesus said," I am the Vine and you are the branches." The Vine is necessary...the branches are not...the branches can be replaced.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 24011342


God doesn't need the Church, we do.
 Quoting: Monkey Breath


LOL...sorry, I am tired...when I am tired I laugh at many things :-)

No, we do not "need" the church...we need Jesus. Again, I would relate to the Vine message. We are the branches. Collectively, the branches are the church. The branches do not need other branches...the branches need the Vine.

Your next question will be...but, how do they become branches...again, the message could be related by donkeys or fingers writing on a wall. God, as far as I know, mostly has used humans to convey the message of Jesus...although, God does not NEED humans to convey the message of Jesus.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 24011342


Your line of reasoning doesnt add up. God is omnipotent, he can do anything and everything. God chose to work through men, to inspire them, to lead them, to allow us to participate in his divine plan. To deny the Church is to deny the Gospel. Under you view point, God could have sacrificed a donkey for our sins, could have dropped a bible from the sky. But he didn't, he said to the Apostles, he that hears you hears me. Jesus never wrote a single book, he gave us a mission and we today are privilege to carry out that mission to the ends of the earth proclaiming his Good News.

Last Edited by Monkey Breath on 12/09/2012 11:14 AM
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 13864401
United States
12/09/2012 11:11 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: I am a catholic apologist... ask me a question
You completely do not understand the situation...I am not trying to be offensive...it is just that your understanding is completely "upside down"...

The "gates of hell will not prevail against it" is NOT because the Church is necessary. Understand that..."the church is NOT necessary!" You are taking the view that the Church is necessary. The Church is not necessary to God. God can use whatever means God would like to communicate the message of Jesus Christ. God could use donkeys or hands writing on a wall to convey the message of Jesus. For the most part God has chosen humans to convey the message of Jesus.

The "gates of hell will not prevail against it" is a function of Him who preserves it. "the gates of hell will not prevail..." is a function of the care that Jesus takes for those who believe in Him. The believers are NOT necessary for the movement of the message. That is why Jesus said," I am the Vine and you are the branches." The Vine is necessary...the branches are not...the branches can be replaced.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 24011342


God doesn't need the Church, we do.
 Quoting: Monkey Breath


Exactly!!! I need a physical church to attend every week, where I can hear the word, worship with fellow believers and openly express by Christianity to others...As Christians (catholic, protestant, etc.) we need to stick together in these difficult times. So I ask my fellow protestants to stop with the Catholic bashing! They are our brothers in Christ!!
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 13864401
United States
12/09/2012 11:16 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: I am a catholic apologist... ask me a question
You completely do not understand the situation...I am not trying to be offensive...it is just that your understanding is completely "upside down"...

The "gates of hell will not prevail against it" is NOT because the Church is necessary. Understand that..."the church is NOT necessary!" You are taking the view that the Church is necessary. The Church is not necessary to God. God can use whatever means God would like to communicate the message of Jesus Christ. God could use donkeys or hands writing on a wall to convey the message of Jesus. For the most part God has chosen humans to convey the message of Jesus.

The "gates of hell will not prevail against it" is a function of Him who preserves it. "the gates of hell will not prevail..." is a function of the care that Jesus takes for those who believe in Him. The believers are NOT necessary for the movement of the message. That is why Jesus said," I am the Vine and you are the branches." The Vine is necessary...the branches are not...the branches can be replaced.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 24011342


God doesn't need the Church, we do.
 Quoting: Monkey Breath


Exactly!!! I need a physical church to attend every week, where I can hear the word, worship with fellow believers and openly express by Christianity to others...As Christians (catholic, protestant, etc.) we need to stick together in these difficult times. So I ask my fellow protestants to stop with the Catholic bashing! They are our brothers in Christ!!
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 13864401


Why is always Protestants on these threads who cause such division? why must they prove to anyone they are right? If one chooses to be Catholic, I support that as long as they study the word and truly believe Christ as their savior!
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 24011342
United States
12/09/2012 11:40 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: I am a catholic apologist... ask me a question
You completely do not understand the situation...I am not trying to be offensive...it is just that your understanding is completely "upside down"...

The "gates of hell will not prevail against it" is NOT because the Church is necessary. Understand that..."the church is NOT necessary!" You are taking the view that the Church is necessary. The Church is not necessary to God. God can use whatever means God would like to communicate the message of Jesus Christ. God could use donkeys or hands writing on a wall to convey the message of Jesus. For the most part God has chosen humans to convey the message of Jesus.

The "gates of hell will not prevail against it" is a function of Him who preserves it. "the gates of hell will not prevail..." is a function of the care that Jesus takes for those who believe in Him. The believers are NOT necessary for the movement of the message. That is why Jesus said," I am the Vine and you are the branches." The Vine is necessary...the branches are not...the branches can be replaced.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 24011342


God doesn't need the Church, we do.
 Quoting: Monkey Breath


LOL...sorry, I am tired...when I am tired I laugh at many things :-)

No, we do not "need" the church...we need Jesus. Again, I would relate to the Vine message. We are the branches. Collectively, the branches are the church. The branches do not need other branches...the branches need the Vine.

Your next question will be...but, how do they become branches...again, the message could be related by donkeys or fingers writing on a wall. God, as far as I know, mostly has used humans to convey the message of Jesus...although, God does not NEED humans to convey the message of Jesus.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 24011342


Your line of reasoning doesnt add up. God is omnipotent, he can do anything and everything. God chose to work through men, to inspire them, to lead them, to allow us to participate in his divine plan. To deny the Church is to deny the Gospel. Under you view point, God could have sacrificed a donkey for our sins, could have dropped a bible from the sky. But he didn't, he said to the Apostles, he that hears you hears me. Jesus never wrote a single book, he gave us a mission and we today are privilege to carry out that mission to the ends of the earth proclaiming his Good News.
 Quoting: Monkey Breath


Again, LOL! My reasoning doesn't add up? Do you not see the difference in what you have written? Your first statement was that the church was necessary...and now you are saying that God chose to work through men.

Let's take some of your points and analyze them..."Tod deny the Church is to deny the Gospel" The message of God is (shortened form here): Jesus died on the cross to save us. The church is a body of believers in that message. How have I denied that a body of believers in the message exists and how do I, concurrently, deny the message? I do not deny the existence of the church or the message.

Your point (briefly)...donkey sacrificed for sins and Bible from the sky: Absolutely not! God CHOSE to sacrifice His only begotten Son for our sins. God CHOSE to send the message of salvation by the cross of Jesus. To me, it is a far more precious thing that God chose to sacrifice His only begotten Son to save us! If some unknown outside entity forced God to sacrifice His Son to save us...we would have to be thankful to that unknown outside entity...God would have just been doing what He was forced to do. No, the beauty of the message of Jesus is that God CHOSE to save us.

Your point (briefly)...privilege part: No doubt agree with you...it is an honor bestowed upon man to preach the message of God! We in no way were worthy of the sacrifice of Jesus and the spreading of God's message of salvation!

Hope that helps clarify my position :-)
Monkey Breath

User ID: 29392410
United States
12/09/2012 11:52 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: I am a catholic apologist... ask me a question
my point is that God made the Church an instrumental part of Salvation.
Monkey Breath

User ID: 29392410
United States
12/09/2012 12:06 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: I am a catholic apologist... ask me a question
Jesus spent time in the Synagogue (torah) and Temple (sacrifice of Thanksgiving). The Church is the blending of the two, the liturgy of the Word and Liturgy of the Eucharist. Would he recognize your Church today.


Splendid, rich and ornate temple of God
Priests in rich vestments
Set readings from the Old Testament
the Chanting of psalms
the burning of incense
an altar of sacrifice
golden candlesticks
the bread of the presence
the holy of holies (the Catholic tabernacle)
the lamp of the presence
processions of priests and people
the offering of the holy sacrifice
The laver or font for cleansing the offerings
water fonts for ritual ablutions before entering worship
Beautiful decorations of fabrics, carvings and embroidery
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 24011342
United States
12/09/2012 12:11 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: I am a catholic apologist... ask me a question
my point is that God made the Church an instrumental part of Salvation.
 Quoting: Monkey Breath


Are you differentiating between instrumental and necessary? I would say that the church is instrumental in the salvation of many people...but, it is not necessary for salvation.

I would say that the message cannot change. The message that Jesus died upon a cross for our salvation cannot change.

Many people do hear that message through church. Is it necessary to hear the message through church...no. We (humans) do have the privilege of spreading the message...but, if God chose to use a donkey or a finger on a wall...He could choose such a thing. Us humans spreading the message is an honor to us...it is not an undeniable right that we have before God. God did not limit Himself to our human abilities.
Monkey Breath

User ID: 29392410
United States
12/09/2012 12:18 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: I am a catholic apologist... ask me a question
my point is that God made the Church an instrumental part of Salvation.
 Quoting: Monkey Breath


Are you differentiating between instrumental and necessary? I would say that the church is instrumental in the salvation of many people...but, it is not necessary for salvation.

I would say that the message cannot change. The message that Jesus died upon a cross for our salvation cannot change.

Many people do hear that message through church. Is it necessary to hear the message through church...no. We (humans) do have the privilege of spreading the message...but, if God chose to use a donkey or a finger on a wall...He could choose such a thing. Us humans spreading the message is an honor to us...it is not an undeniable right that we have before God. God did not limit Himself to our human abilities.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 24011342




The Good News (Gospel) was and is spread by members of the Church. Jesus could have announced to the world his resurrection and ended all debate. Rather he chose his Apostles to go and spread the Good News and Baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirt. Why did he do so? I think it was because he wanted those who had walked with him, those who loved him to share in this work of Salvation. So God gave the Church a special mission, from which we came to know of our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ.

Last Edited by Monkey Breath on 12/09/2012 12:19 PM
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 28909878
Bahamas
12/09/2012 12:40 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: I am a catholic apologist... ask me a question
Why did the Catholic Church put Galileo Galilei under house arrest for saying the earth was spherical and not flat? and also why did they wait so long(400 years) to give an official apology.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 28909878


Why was the Catholic Church the ONLY church to speak out against Slavery in this country in the 1850's??? Why is it the only one out speaking against abortion today??
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 13864401


Logical fallacy, you dodged my question why can't you answer that.
Monkey Breath

User ID: 29392410
United States
12/09/2012 12:42 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: I am a catholic apologist... ask me a question
Why did the Catholic Church put Galileo Galilei under house arrest for saying the earth was spherical and not flat? and also why did they wait so long(400 years) to give an official apology.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 28909878


Why was the Catholic Church the ONLY church to speak out against Slavery in this country in the 1850's??? Why is it the only one out speaking against abortion today??
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 13864401


Logical fallacy, you dodged my question why can't you answer that.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 28909878




Sorry didnt mean to dodge your question, this is one of my favorite topics. Do to the complicated nature of the subject and to save time responding, i pasted an article on the matter.

Last Edited by Monkey Breath on 12/09/2012 12:51 PM
Monkey Breath

User ID: 29392410
United States
12/09/2012 12:47 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: I am a catholic apologist... ask me a question
It is commonly believed that the Catholic Church persecuted Galileo for abandoning the geocentric (earth-at-the-center) view of the solar system for the heliocentric (sun-at-the-center) view.

The Galileo case, for many anti-Catholics, is thought to prove that the Church abhors science, refuses to abandon outdated teachings, and is not infallible. For Catholics, the episode is often an embarrassment. It shouldn’t be.

This tract provides a brief explanation of what really happened to Galileo.



Anti-scientific?

The Church is not anti-scientific. It has supported scientific endeavors for centuries. During Galileo’s time, the Jesuits had a highly respected group of astronomers and scientists in Rome. In addition, many notable scientists received encouragement and funding from the Church and from individual Church officials. Many of the scientific advances during this period were made either by clerics or as a result of Church funding.

Nicolaus Copernicus dedicated his most famous work, On the Revolution of the Celestial Orbs, in which he gave an excellent account of heliocentricity, to Pope Paul III. Copernicus entrusted this work to Andreas Osiander, a Lutheran clergyman who knew that Protestant reaction to it would be negative, since Martin Luther seemed to have condemned the new theory, and, as a result, the book would be condemned. Osiander wrote a preface to the book, in which heliocentrism was presented only as a theory that would account for the movements of the planets more simply than geocentrism did—something Copernicus did not intend.

Ten years prior to Galileo, Johannes Kepler
published a heliocentric work that expanded on Copernicus’ work. As a result, Kepler also found opposition among his fellow Protestants for his heliocentric views and found a welcome reception among some Jesuits who were known for their scientific achievements.



Clinging to Tradition?

Anti-Catholics often cite the Galileo case as an example of the Church refusing to abandon outdated or incorrect teaching, and clinging to a "tradition." They fail to realize that the judges who presided over Galileo’s case were not the only people who held to a geocentric view of the universe. It was the received view among scientists at the time.

Centuries earlier, Aristotle had refuted heliocentricity, and by Galileo’s time, nearly every major thinker subscribed to a geocentric view. Copernicus refrained from publishing his heliocentric theory for some time, not out of fear of censure from the Church, but out of fear of ridicule from his colleagues.

Many people wrongly believe Galileo proved heliocentricity. He could not answer the strongest argument against it, which had been made nearly two thousand years earlier by Aristotle: If heliocentrism were true, then there would be observable parallax shifts in the stars’ positions as the earth moved in its orbit around the sun. However, given the technology of Galileo’s time, no such shifts in their positions could be observed. It would require more sensitive measuring equipment than was available in Galileo’s day to document the existence of these shifts, given the stars’ great distance. Until then, the available evidence suggested that the stars were fixed in their positions relative to the earth, and, thus, that the earth and the stars were not moving in space—only the sun, moon, and planets were.

Thus Galileo did not prove the theory by the Aristotelian standards of science in his day. In his Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina and other documents, Galileo claimed that the Copernican theory had the "sensible demonstrations" needed according to Aristotelian science, but most knew that such demonstrations were not yet forthcoming. Most astronomers in that day were not convinced of the great distance of the stars that the Copernican theory required to account for the absence of observable parallax shifts. This is one of the main reasons why the respected astronomer Tycho Brahe refused to adopt Copernicus fully.

Galileo could have safely proposed heliocentricity as a theory or a method to more simply account for the planets’ motions. His problem arose when he stopped proposing it as a scientific theory and began proclaiming it as truth, though there was no conclusive proof of it at the time. Even so, Galileo would not have been in so much trouble if he had chosen to stay within the realm of science and out of the realm of theology. But, despite his friends’ warnings, he insisted on moving the debate onto theological grounds.

In 1614, Galileo felt compelled to answer the charge that this "new science" was contrary to certain Scripture passages. His opponents pointed to Bible passages with statements like, "And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed . . ." (Josh. 10:13). This is not an isolated occurrence. Psalms 93 and 104 and Ecclesiastes 1:5 also speak of celestial motion and terrestrial stability. A literalistic reading of these passages would have to be abandoned if the heliocentric theory were adopted. Yet this should not have posed a problem. As Augustine put it, "One does not read in the Gospel that the Lord said: ‘I will send you the Paraclete who will teach you about the course of the sun and moon.’ For he willed to make them Christians, not mathematicians." Following Augustine’s example, Galileo urged caution in not interpreting these biblical statements too literally.

Unfortunately, throughout Church history there have been those who insist on reading the Bible in a more literal sense than it was intended. They fail to appreciate, for example, instances in which Scripture uses what is called "phenomenological" language—that is, the language of appearances. Just as we today speak of the sun rising and setting to cause day and night, rather than the earth turning, so did the ancients. From an earthbound perspective, the sun does appear to rise and appear to set, and the earth appears to be immobile. When we describe these things according to their appearances, we are using phenomenological language.

The phenomenological language concerning the motion of the heavens and the non-motion of the earth is obvious to us today, but was less so in previous centuries. Scripture scholars of the past were willing to consider whether particular statements were to be taken literally or phenomenologically, but they did not like being told by a non-Scripture scholar, such as Galileo, that the words of the sacred page must be taken in a particular sense.

During this period, personal interpretation of Scripture was a sensitive subject. In the early 1600s, the Church had just been through the Reformation experience, and one of the chief quarrels with Protestants was over individual interpretation of the Bible.

Theologians were not prepared to entertain the heliocentric theory based on a layman’s interpretation. Yet Galileo insisted on moving the debate into a theological realm. There is little question that if Galileo had kept the discussion within the accepted boundaries of astronomy (i.e., predicting planetary motions) and had not claimed physical truth for the heliocentric theory, the issue would not have escalated to the point it did. After all, he had not proved the new theory beyond reasonable doubt.



Galileo "Confronts" Rome

Galileo came to Rome to see Pope Paul V (1605-1621). The pope, weary of controversy, turned the matter over to the Holy Office, which issued a condemnation of Galileo’s theory in 1616. Things returned to relative quiet for a time, until Galileo forced another showdown.

At Galileo’s request, Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, a Jesuit—one of the most important Catholic theologians of the day—issued a certificate that, although it forbade Galileo to hold or defend the heliocentric theory, did not prevent him from conjecturing it. When Galileo met with the new pope, Urban VIII, in 1623, he received permission from his longtime friend to write a work on heliocentrism, but the new pontiff cautioned him not to advocate the new position, only to present arguments for and against it. When Galileo wrote the Dialogue on the Two World Systems, he used an argument the pope had offered, and placed it in the mouth of his character Simplicio. Galileo, perhaps inadvertently, made fun of the pope, a result that could only have disastrous consequences. Urban felt mocked and could not believe how his friend could disgrace him publicly. Galileo had mocked the very person he needed as a benefactor. He also alienated his long-time supporters, the Jesuits, with attacks on one of their astronomers. The result was the infamous trial, which is still heralded as the final separation of science and religion.



Tortured for His Beliefs?

In the end, Galileo recanted his heliocentric teachings, but it was not—as is commonly supposed—under torture nor after a harsh imprison- ment. Galileo was, in fact, treated surprisingly well.

As historian Giorgio de Santillana, who is not overly fond of the Catholic Church, noted, "We must, if anything, admire the cautiousness and legal scruples of the Roman authorities." Galileo was offered every convenience possible to make his imprisonment in his home bearable.

Galileo’s friend Nicolini, Tuscan ambassador to the Vatican, sent regular reports to the court regarding affairs in Rome. Many of his letters dealt with the ongoing controversy surrounding Galileo.

Nicolini revealed the circumstances surrounding Galileo’s "imprisonment" when he reported to the Tuscan king: "The pope told me that he had shown Galileo a favor never accorded to another" (letter dated Feb. 13, 1633); " . . . he has a servant and every convenience" (letter, April 16); and "n regard to the person of Galileo, he ought to be imprisoned for some time because he disobeyed the orders of 1616, but the pope says that after the publication of the sentence he will consider with me as to what can be done to afflict him as little as possible" (letter, June 18).

Had Galileo been tortured, Nicolini would have reported it to his king. While instruments of torture may have been present during Galileo’s recantation (this was the custom of the legal system in Europe at that time), they definitely were not used.

The records demonstrate that Galileo could not be tortured because of regulations laid down in The Directory for Inquisitors (Nicholas Eymeric, 1595). This was the official guide of the Holy Office, the Church office charged with dealing with such matters, and was followed to the letter.

As noted scientist and philosopher Alfred North Whitehead remarked, in an age that saw a large number of "witches" subjected to torture and execution by Protestants in New England, "the worst that happened to the men of science was that Galileo suffered an honorable detention and a mild reproof." Even so, the Catholic Church today acknowledges that Galileo’s condemnation was wrong. The Vatican has even issued two stamps of Galileo as an expression of regret for his mistreatment.



Infallibility

Although three of the ten cardinals who judged Galileo refused to sign the verdict, his works were eventually condemned. Anti-Catholics often assert that his conviction and later rehabilitation somehow disproves the doctrine of papal infallibility, but this is not the case, for the pope never tried to make an infallible ruling concerning Galileo’s views.

The Church has never claimed ordinary tribunals, such as the one that judged Galileo, to be infallible. Church tribunals have disciplinary and juridical authority only; neither they nor their decisions are infallible.

No ecumenical council met concerning Galileo, and the pope was not at the center of the discussions, which were handled by the Holy Office. When the Holy Office finished its work, Urban VIII ratified its verdict, but did not attempt to engage infallibility.

Three conditions must be met for a pope to exercise the charism of infallibility: (1) he must speak in his official capacity as the successor of Peter; (2) he must speak on a matter of faith or morals; and (3) he must solemnly define the doctrine as one that must be held by all the faithful.

In Galileo’s case, the second and third conditions were not present, and possibly not even the first. Catholic theology has never claimed that a mere papal ratification of a tribunal decree is an exercise of infallibility. It is a straw man argument to represent the Catholic Church as having infallibly defined a scientific theory that turned out to be false. The strongest claim that can be made is that the Church of Galileo’s day issued a non-infallible disciplinary ruling concerning a scientist who was advocating a new and still-unproved theory and demanding that the Church change its understanding of Scripture to fit his.

It is a good thing that the Church did not rush to embrace Galileo’s views, because it turned out that his ideas were not entirely correct, either. Galileo believed that the sun was not just the fixed center of the solar system but the fixed center of the universe. We now know that the sun is not the center of the universe and that it does move—it simply orbits the center of the galaxy rather than the earth.

As more recent science has shown, both Galileo and his opponents were partly right and partly wrong. Galileo was right in asserting the mobility of the earth and wrong in asserting the immobility of the sun. His opponents were right in asserting the mobility of the sun and wrong in asserting the immobility of the earth.

Had the Catholic Church rushed to endorse Galileo’s views—and there were many in the Church who were quite favorable to them—the Church would have embraced what modern science has disproved.




NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004
IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004
Lester
User ID: 29066040
United States
12/09/2012 01:16 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: I am a catholic apologist... ask me a question
15 pages of catholic DENIAL....


Really ought APOLOGIZE Unto God for your inability to Hear The Gospel and argue with those who would share it with you...




But you have an Unction from The Holy One & KNOW All Things!
Witnesses St. John, Jesus' Beloved Apostle...

In verse 27 of 1st John Epistle ch.2 he Witnesses that you "need no man to instruct you" because you Have The Holy Spirit Dwelling Within....

20. But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.
21. I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth.

22. Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
23. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.
24. Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father.
25. And this is the promise that he hath promised us, even eternal life.
26. These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you.


27. But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.



roman catholicism DENIES The Gospel, the Good News that God Wants To Abide With Us Directly and Know Us Personally... Therefore, the rcc DENIES The Sacrifice of Christ Jesus on the cross, no matter how blatant HE is thus displayed over their altar, and the rcc DENIES God The Father and ALL HIS Will For Mankind.



catholicism is an affront to every Christian.


Saddest thing about it is, virtually ALL catholics DO NOT Understand the LIES & DENIAL of their religion. Such is THE NATURE Of CULTS.

Just like Americans Buy Into The Cults of Left/Right Politics, not able to see that they are one and the same, working together against American Constitution and Institutions.


catholicism is evil, but not the "believers".


Pity that you poor in spirit fucktards cannot Trust God and Worship HIM instead of your blind fealty to a Perverted religion.
JD2011

User ID: 4557471
12/09/2012 01:17 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: I am a catholic apologist... ask me a question
Since I global pinned this, I think I get the last word:

Catholic Common Sense -


First, if no physical organized Church, who was going to read the scriptures to all those people who could not read back then; 95% could not. Do you think God would create a bible for the illiterate and say you're saved if you can read and believe, and if not, too bad for you.

Second, it took over two years for "one" bible to be created. THERE WAS NO PRINTING PRESS BACK THEN.

Third, only the super rich could afford the bible back then.

Fourth, the bible was put together by the Catholic Church around 400 AD. There was a council that voted on which books and letters should be included and which should not. They voted because there were thousands of writings back then and many people were claiming different writings were inspired by God. The bible did not just fall down from heaven into book stores.

Fifth, for the first 400 years there was no bible.

And last, Jesus said He would create a physical Church that would never end.


[link to www.scripturecatholic.com]

God Bless
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 28909878
Bahamas
12/09/2012 01:19 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: I am a catholic apologist... ask me a question
It is commonly believed that the Catholic Church persecuted Galileo for abandoning the geocentric (earth-at-the-center) view of the solar system for the heliocentric (sun-at-the-center) view.

The Galileo case, for many anti-Catholics, is thought to prove that the Church abhors science, refuses to abandon outdated teachings, and is not infallible. For Catholics, the episode is often an embarrassment. It shouldn’t be.

This tract provides a brief explanation of what really happened to Galileo.



Anti-scientific?

The Church is not anti-scientific. It has supported scientific endeavors for centuries. During Galileo’s time, the Jesuits had a highly respected group of astronomers and scientists in Rome. In addition, many notable scientists received encouragement and funding from the Church and from individual Church officials. Many of the scientific advances during this period were made either by clerics or as a result of Church funding.

Nicolaus Copernicus dedicated his most famous work, On the Revolution of the Celestial Orbs, in which he gave an excellent account of heliocentricity, to Pope Paul III. Copernicus entrusted this work to Andreas Osiander, a Lutheran clergyman who knew that Protestant reaction to it would be negative, since Martin Luther seemed to have condemned the new theory, and, as a result, the book would be condemned. Osiander wrote a preface to the book, in which heliocentrism was presented only as a theory that would account for the movements of the planets more simply than geocentrism did—something Copernicus did not intend.

Ten years prior to Galileo, Johannes Kepler
published a heliocentric work that expanded on Copernicus’ work. As a result, Kepler also found opposition among his fellow Protestants for his heliocentric views and found a welcome reception among some Jesuits who were known for their scientific achievements.



Clinging to Tradition?

Anti-Catholics often cite the Galileo case as an example of the Church refusing to abandon outdated or incorrect teaching, and clinging to a "tradition." They fail to realize that the judges who presided over Galileo’s case were not the only people who held to a geocentric view of the universe. It was the received view among scientists at the time.

Centuries earlier, Aristotle had refuted heliocentricity, and by Galileo’s time, nearly every major thinker subscribed to a geocentric view. Copernicus refrained from publishing his heliocentric theory for some time, not out of fear of censure from the Church, but out of fear of ridicule from his colleagues.

Many people wrongly believe Galileo proved heliocentricity. He could not answer the strongest argument against it, which had been made nearly two thousand years earlier by Aristotle: If heliocentrism were true, then there would be observable parallax shifts in the stars’ positions as the earth moved in its orbit around the sun. However, given the technology of Galileo’s time, no such shifts in their positions could be observed. It would require more sensitive measuring equipment than was available in Galileo’s day to document the existence of these shifts, given the stars’ great distance. Until then, the available evidence suggested that the stars were fixed in their positions relative to the earth, and, thus, that the earth and the stars were not moving in space—only the sun, moon, and planets were.

Thus Galileo did not prove the theory by the Aristotelian standards of science in his day. In his Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina and other documents, Galileo claimed that the Copernican theory had the "sensible demonstrations" needed according to Aristotelian science, but most knew that such demonstrations were not yet forthcoming. Most astronomers in that day were not convinced of the great distance of the stars that the Copernican theory required to account for the absence of observable parallax shifts. This is one of the main reasons why the respected astronomer Tycho Brahe refused to adopt Copernicus fully.

Galileo could have safely proposed heliocentricity as a theory or a method to more simply account for the planets’ motions. His problem arose when he stopped proposing it as a scientific theory and began proclaiming it as truth, though there was no conclusive proof of it at the time. Even so, Galileo would not have been in so much trouble if he had chosen to stay within the realm of science and out of the realm of theology. But, despite his friends’ warnings, he insisted on moving the debate onto theological grounds.

In 1614, Galileo felt compelled to answer the charge that this "new science" was contrary to certain Scripture passages. His opponents pointed to Bible passages with statements like, "And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed . . ." (Josh. 10:13). This is not an isolated occurrence. Psalms 93 and 104 and Ecclesiastes 1:5 also speak of celestial motion and terrestrial stability. A literalistic reading of these passages would have to be abandoned if the heliocentric theory were adopted. Yet this should not have posed a problem. As Augustine put it, "One does not read in the Gospel that the Lord said: ‘I will send you the Paraclete who will teach you about the course of the sun and moon.’ For he willed to make them Christians, not mathematicians." Following Augustine’s example, Galileo urged caution in not interpreting these biblical statements too literally.

Unfortunately, throughout Church history there have been those who insist on reading the Bible in a more literal sense than it was intended. They fail to appreciate, for example, instances in which Scripture uses what is called "phenomenological" language—that is, the language of appearances. Just as we today speak of the sun rising and setting to cause day and night, rather than the earth turning, so did the ancients. From an earthbound perspective, the sun does appear to rise and appear to set, and the earth appears to be immobile. When we describe these things according to their appearances, we are using phenomenological language.

The phenomenological language concerning the motion of the heavens and the non-motion of the earth is obvious to us today, but was less so in previous centuries. Scripture scholars of the past were willing to consider whether particular statements were to be taken literally or phenomenologically, but they did not like being told by a non-Scripture scholar, such as Galileo, that the words of the sacred page must be taken in a particular sense.

During this period, personal interpretation of Scripture was a sensitive subject. In the early 1600s, the Church had just been through the Reformation experience, and one of the chief quarrels with Protestants was over individual interpretation of the Bible.

Theologians were not prepared to entertain the heliocentric theory based on a layman’s interpretation. Yet Galileo insisted on moving the debate into a theological realm. There is little question that if Galileo had kept the discussion within the accepted boundaries of astronomy (i.e., predicting planetary motions) and had not claimed physical truth for the heliocentric theory, the issue would not have escalated to the point it did. After all, he had not proved the new theory beyond reasonable doubt.



Galileo "Confronts" Rome

Galileo came to Rome to see Pope Paul V (1605-1621). The pope, weary of controversy, turned the matter over to the Holy Office, which issued a condemnation of Galileo’s theory in 1616. Things returned to relative quiet for a time, until Galileo forced another showdown.

At Galileo’s request, Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, a Jesuit—one of the most important Catholic theologians of the day—issued a certificate that, although it forbade Galileo to hold or defend the heliocentric theory, did not prevent him from conjecturing it. When Galileo met with the new pope, Urban VIII, in 1623, he received permission from his longtime friend to write a work on heliocentrism, but the new pontiff cautioned him not to advocate the new position, only to present arguments for and against it. When Galileo wrote the Dialogue on the Two World Systems, he used an argument the pope had offered, and placed it in the mouth of his character Simplicio. Galileo, perhaps inadvertently, made fun of the pope, a result that could only have disastrous consequences. Urban felt mocked and could not believe how his friend could disgrace him publicly. Galileo had mocked the very person he needed as a benefactor. He also alienated his long-time supporters, the Jesuits, with attacks on one of their astronomers. The result was the infamous trial, which is still heralded as the final separation of science and religion.



Tortured for His Beliefs?

In the end, Galileo recanted his heliocentric teachings, but it was not—as is commonly supposed—under torture nor after a harsh imprison- ment. Galileo was, in fact, treated surprisingly well.

As historian Giorgio de Santillana, who is not overly fond of the Catholic Church, noted, "We must, if anything, admire the cautiousness and legal scruples of the Roman authorities." Galileo was offered every convenience possible to make his imprisonment in his home bearable.

Galileo’s friend Nicolini, Tuscan ambassador to the Vatican, sent regular reports to the court regarding affairs in Rome. Many of his letters dealt with the ongoing controversy surrounding Galileo.

Nicolini revealed the circumstances surrounding Galileo’s "imprisonment" when he reported to the Tuscan king: "The pope told me that he had shown Galileo a favor never accorded to another" (letter dated Feb. 13, 1633); " . . . he has a servant and every convenience" (letter, April 16); and "n regard to the person of Galileo, he ought to be imprisoned for some time because he disobeyed the orders of 1616, but the pope says that after the publication of the sentence he will consider with me as to what can be done to afflict him as little as possible" (letter, June 18).

Had Galileo been tortured, Nicolini would have reported it to his king. While instruments of torture may have been present during Galileo’s recantation (this was the custom of the legal system in Europe at that time), they definitely were not used.

The records demonstrate that Galileo could not be tortured because of regulations laid down in The Directory for Inquisitors (Nicholas Eymeric, 1595). This was the official guide of the Holy Office, the Church office charged with dealing with such matters, and was followed to the letter.

As noted scientist and philosopher Alfred North Whitehead remarked, in an age that saw a large number of "witches" subjected to torture and execution by Protestants in New England, "the worst that happened to the men of science was that Galileo suffered an honorable detention and a mild reproof." Even so, the Catholic Church today acknowledges that Galileo’s condemnation was wrong. The Vatican has even issued two stamps of Galileo as an expression of regret for his mistreatment.



Infallibility

Although three of the ten cardinals who judged Galileo refused to sign the verdict, his works were eventually condemned. Anti-Catholics often assert that his conviction and later rehabilitation somehow disproves the doctrine of papal infallibility, but this is not the case, for the pope never tried to make an infallible ruling concerning Galileo’s views.

The Church has never claimed ordinary tribunals, such as the one that judged Galileo, to be infallible. Church tribunals have disciplinary and juridical authority only; neither they nor their decisions are infallible.

No ecumenical council met concerning Galileo, and the pope was not at the center of the discussions, which were handled by the Holy Office. When the Holy Office finished its work, Urban VIII ratified its verdict, but did not attempt to engage infallibility.

Three conditions must be met for a pope to exercise the charism of infallibility: (1) he must speak in his official capacity as the successor of Peter; (2) he must speak on a matter of faith or morals; and (3) he must solemnly define the doctrine as one that must be held by all the faithful.

In Galileo’s case, the second and third conditions were not present, and possibly not even the first. Catholic theology has never claimed that a mere papal ratification of a tribunal decree is an exercise of infallibility. It is a straw man argument to represent the Catholic Church as having infallibly defined a scientific theory that turned out to be false. The strongest claim that can be made is that the Church of Galileo’s day issued a non-infallible disciplinary ruling concerning a scientist who was advocating a new and still-unproved theory and demanding that the Church change its understanding of Scripture to fit his.

It is a good thing that the Church did not rush to embrace Galileo’s views, because it turned out that his ideas were not entirely correct, either. Galileo believed that the sun was not just the fixed center of the solar system but the fixed center of the universe. We now know that the sun is not the center of the universe and that it does move—it simply orbits the center of the galaxy rather than the earth.

As more recent science has shown, both Galileo and his opponents were partly right and partly wrong. Galileo was right in asserting the mobility of the earth and wrong in asserting the immobility of the sun. His opponents were right in asserting the mobility of the sun and wrong in asserting the immobility of the earth.

Had the Catholic Church rushed to endorse Galileo’s views—and there were many in the Church who were quite favorable to them—the Church would have embraced what modern science has disproved.




NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004
IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004
 Quoting: Monkey Breath


Thanks for answering my question.hf


Oct. 27, 1986, Antipope John Paul II prayed with over 100 different religious leaders of various false religions, thereby repudiating the teaching of Scripture and the 2000-year teaching of the Catholic Church outlawing prayer with false religions. [link to www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com]

I would like to know your opinion on this
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 22787868
Canada
12/09/2012 01:20 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: I am a catholic apologist... ask me a question
I led my life astray many years ago, and found peace and love with my return to the One Holy Catholic Apostolic church.. Ask me a Question
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 24484272


Op you are either a freemason who sold themselves to lucifer or you are following a freemason who sold themselves to lucifer. Either way you are dammed. Anyone who denies that Our Lady is God is dammed.
Monkey Breath

User ID: 29392410
United States
12/09/2012 01:29 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: I am a catholic apologist... ask me a question
Since I global pinned this, I think I get the last word:

Catholic Common Sense -


First, if no physical organized Church, who was going to read the scriptures to all those people who could not read back then; 95% could not. Do you think God would create a bible for the illiterate and say you're saved if you can read and believe, and if not, too bad for you.

Second, it took over two years for "one" bible to be created. THERE WAS NO PRINTING PRESS BACK THEN.

Third, only the super rich could afford the bible back then.

Fourth, the bible was put together by the Catholic Church around 400 AD. There was a council that voted on which books and letters should be included and which should not. They voted because there were thousands of writings back then and many people were claiming different writings were inspired by God. The bible did not just fall down from heaven into book stores.

Fifth, for the first 400 years there was no bible.

And last, Jesus said He would create a physical Church that would never end.


[link to www.scripturecatholic.com]

God Bless
 Quoting: JD2011


excellent points

News