Catholic bishops canceled Christ wedding

Post Reply
User avatar
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 2153
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 7:03 pm

Post by admin » Tue Oct 25, 2005 10:51 pm

[quote]God is fired, obviously![/quote]
Bouli, that would not make sense, even from a business standpoint! Would Nestlé ban cocoa? Would Marlboro decide to switch to candies? Would Exxon sell bottled water instead of gasoil?

Even Mary is still a Virgin, Bouli. And some taxi drivers may still have an image of St. Christopher in a glove compartment, even though his sainthood has been left unprotected for many years. As for the wedding of Christ the Lamb, it may just have been postponed, so you have plenty of time to borrow a nice jacket from Jaf.

Seriously though, what is the wedding feast of Christ the Lamb about? I have not gotten that far in my Bible readings.

Overall, I think the Catholic Bishops are getting a bum rap for telling people that the Bible texts (and they are very careful to select only a few of them) should not be taken at face value, that is literally. They are not sayi
ng that God is dead. They are not saying that the Bible is trash. They are at best saying that it is not the literal truth, that parts of it must be interpreted intelligently. Now this is opening a can of worms, something that very few protestants are willing to handle. Ask any good protestant and he will tell you: if there is any passage in the Bible that does not square with another passage in the same sacred book, it means that the mind is not wise enough to reconcile the differences, but essentially both passages are the truth, no getting around that.

But what does Ratzinger say in all of this? If it were Gérard Latortue, we would have heard something already and probably more than we'd wish.

I think that this is probably a tempest in a tea pot. The catholic bishops in England can afford to distance themselves more from the fundamentalists who would have you believe that each sentence in the Bible is from divine origins, however incongruous that may be. They can afford to because how
many catholics are there in England, Wales, and Scotland? And among the faithful, how many really pay any attention?

On the other hand, consider the huge markets of Africa and Latin America, and ask yourself if you would be willing to change a successful formula.

Spiritually, God cannot be fired.

Financially, that would be a diaster of unimaginable proportions.

Biologically, though no scientist has isolated the God gene yet, it may be part and parcel of our DNA. I have read somewhere that we are wired to believe in God (a nice trick, and a sensible one too, if you happen to be the Creator).


Now, about that jacket... I can find you a nice one, if you can get me an invitation. Who's the lucky bride, by the way?

Gelin_

Post by Gelin_ » Wed Oct 26, 2005 1:40 pm

[quote]...Seriously though, what is the wedding feast of Christ the Lamb about? I have not gotten that far in my Bible readings.[/quote]
Let me try...

In the Bible, Jesus is called the lamb of God because he was beaten, tortured and ultimately killed for his claims about God (some would say his own faith) without fighting back but giving himself up as an offering to God the same way a lamb would not resist those who try to kill it.

Now regarding the 'wedding of the lamb', tne Bible again protrays Jesus as the spiritual leader and model for those who believe in him. Believers are not like Jesus, but they are encouraged to pattern their ways of thinking and acting after him. In that sense, a time will come when every believer will be made like him mentally, and spiritually, and that's what is called the wedding day - by comparison with a traditional weeding day/night when a man and his wife bec
ome one physically.

gelin

Tayi_

Re: Catholic bishops canceled Christ wedding

Post by Tayi_ » Fri Oct 28, 2005 3:37 am

[quote]Catholic bishops from England, Wales, and Scotland had chopped off the book of Mathieu, more importantly Genesis and Revelation where the Verb and the Holy Spirit reside. From now on we don't have to worry about the beginning and the end. God is fired, obviously! Everybody is trying to hold on to the son who seemed handling the situation well until the prelates chose to get rid of his wedding feast that was once postponed from earth. Worse of all we are left with the beast who probably will go after the Christ's women as the whole scene started in the first place.

What the Heck! I don't have a nice jacket anyway.[/quote]

Oh brother! Bouli, I consider you to be quite intelligent and I do not mean that in any patronizing way. In fact many of the participants on this forum truly make me feel proud at the level of knowledge they, as my Haitian br
others and sisters, have reached; it inspires me.

So you see why I cannot let your words above go unchallenged. You do not cease to make outrageous claims based on a document that you probably have not read. This is not scholarly; rather it is sloppy and deceitful. The fact that there are many parts of Scripture that should not be interpreted literally IS NOT NEWS! Any scamming of Church documents and Fathers will immediately show that. un-literal, however, does not mean untrue. The different parts of the Bible are true according to their genre (poetry, history, epistle, exhortation etc.)

So, why so much on an unknown document? I have a feeling that you probably would be much more careful to check your data if you were writing just about any other text. But this is just the Catholic Church, just another chance to vent my frustation at it; who cares about what they might really be trying to say? I really hope I am wrong, but sadly I don't think I am. If a
ll your opinions about the Church are based on such "reports" such as that one by Gledhill, then that explains a lot. (I know I've just opened another can of worms--we seem to do that a lot lately--but let us stick to the issue at hand)

Also, even if a bishop or group of bishops were to explicitly deny the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture, that would not represent the views of the universal Church. Again for the views of the Catholic Church, read Dei Verbum or The Catechism of the Catholic Church (Look up "Scripture, Sacred" in the index) or another universal document, accessible to all. Again, the Catholic Church has never denied, and never will deny the Sacred Scriptures, sadly for some who would like to see that done.

Some of the errors that Gledhill made in her report can be found here: http://www.jimmyakin.org/bible/

So brother, all I am asking is that you refrain from making these claims as if you read them from t
he document itself. If you want something to criticize, read the recommended texts I gave you above and then let's talk. But I warn you they may not be as sensational as that "news report".

God bless!
Tayi

P.S. If I let you borrow a jacket, do yo promise to return it?

Gelin_

Re: Catholic bishops canceled Christ wedding

Post by Gelin_ » Fri Oct 28, 2005 9:40 am

[quote]...The fact that there are many parts of Scripture that should not be interpreted literally IS NOT NEWS! Any scamming of Church documents and Fathers will immediately show that. un-literal, however, does not mean untrue. The different parts of the Bible are true according to their genre (poetry, history, epistle, exhortation etc.)[/quote]
I agree.

[quote]...Also, even if a bishop or group of bishops were to explicitly deny the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture, that would not represent the views of the universal Church...[/quote]
Another good point.

gelin

User avatar
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 2153
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 7:03 pm

Post by admin » Sat Oct 29, 2005 12:55 pm


[quote]The different parts of the Bible are true according to their genre (poetry, history, epistle, exhortation etc.)[/quote]
That's not surprising. In a sense, this blind faith in the inerrancy of the Bible is closely related to the Catholics' affirmation of the infallability of the Pope, in matters having to do with religious doctrine (Yes, all Popes, even Borgia and others who led the Crusades and made treaties with the Kings and Princes of present-day England, France, Italy, Germany, Spain, for wars based on unapologetic land grab, all in the name of Jesus-Christ and with justifications no less frivolously advanced than the search for Weapons of Mass Destruction. In fact, no world leader today typifies the behaviors of those Papacies than U.S. President George W. Bush with his imperialistic adventurism.)

Yet these
Popes could also inerringly instruct church members that Mary is still a Virgin (untouched by Joseph, in the most bizarre of marriages that one could think of), that she did not have other children (contrary to what the "sacred book" suggests), that Mary's body went up in Heaven, etc. Of course, all those points of Catholic doctrine about Mary (just to narrow the field of the so-called inerring nature of Catholic doctrine) are for Catholics to submit their will and intellect to, not good protestants from the Church of God, who know better.

Though they will not believe that Mary's body went up in heaven (part of the inerring dogma of the Catholic Church, even though Pope John Paul II admitted, not a long time before his death, that heaven is not a physical place, and no one thought of asking where the bodies of Jesus and Mary are situated -- well, at least with Mary, we know that she is always busy
making appearances, visiting all corners of the globe, as Notre-Dame d'ici ou Notre-Dame de là-bas, la Vierge de ceci ou la Vierge de cela, and some claim as "la Vierge Noire" or even as one of Haitian Vodou's many Erzulies), the good protestants nevertheless are willed to believe that "Elie est monté au ciel dans un chariot de feu" (Eli went up in heaven in a chariot of fire) because the good book says so and we all know that the good book cannot err, though it can adopt many styles of course.

So we know that in the non-physical universe, the physical bodies of Eli and Jesus are somewhere, and the Catholics would add to that the body of Mary as well, when she takes a rest from making all those appearances.

Then we have the souls of the departed: According to the Catholic Church, they all receive a lighning quick judgment as to their im
mediate, and in some cases final, destination:

a) those who have never been baptized, including days-old babies and aborted fetuses, "whose souls have not been purified of the Original Sin" go to "Les Limbes", where they lie basically in limbo, with access to neither the Biblical God nor "God's creation turned horrifically bad", the Devil;

b) those who have been baptized, "whose souls have therefore been purified of the Original Sin, but not of its consequences", and who have led "saintly" lives, and who in addition may have received a number of indulgences due the many prayers of the faithful or masses celebrated for
the purpose of their salvation, go to heaven to sit on the right (or the left?) of Jesus-Christ. Of course, some of those souls receive "Express" tickets, such as the souls of Sister Teresa and John Paul II, for having more indulgences than I could dream of in a thousand years.

Even though those are part of the inerring teachings of the Catholic Church, some of those "express" tickets have been invalidated on occasion. But overall, the system stays solidly in place. [Just one more miracle for Sister Teresa, two for John Paul II, a few more for Pierre Toussaint to overcome his slave mentality and Jaf's objections... and TOUCHDOWN! Game over!]

c) those who have been baptised, but who have sinned one time too many, and died without confessing or accepting the salvation that has been handed to them.

I think of the death of Nelson Rockfeller, U.S. Vice President, who died of a heart attack while he was on top of his
secretary [ Do you think his last words were "Oh God, I am coming!" ? ], but who unfortunately was not Catholic. If he were, his ecstasy might be continuing almost uninterrupted, because his very last thought might have turned to God. On the other hand, since he was Protestant, he has no such luck and will have to wait, unconscious, like all other non-Catholic Christians, for the Day of the Last Judgment, when he will have to explain to the Lord what he was doing on top of his secretary, and whether he simply wanted to stimulate the feeling of what it must feel like to be in a state of perpetual ecstasy in order to increase his motivation for the acceptance of God's salvation.

Whether Nelson Rockefeller will one day join them or not (one hopes not because, after all, we need to practice charity like all good Christians), one may be certain that presently Hell is full of bad Catholics [according to the inerring teachings of the Catholic Church]. I wonder how eagerly those poor souls may be waiting fo
r the bad Protestants to join them on the day of the Last Judgment. Everybody knows that Misery Loves Company.

Being a Catholic is a bit comparable to playing Russian Roulette. You may win your bet sooner than the others who do not share your beliefs, but you may lose your bet sooner than them as well. But what's a few thousand years, when measured against eternity?

d) finally, we cannot forget "Purgatory", again a place reserved for Catholics -- the good kind, who may stay there in a place as hot as Hell, but with the comfort of an EXIT door that one day will open up for them. How much comfort is that, I wonder? Nevertheless, the time required to stay there may be shortened by the celebration of "Messes des Morts" and prayers from friends and loved ones. Those prayers of course are exchanged as indulgences that can be used as "monnaie" to buy your way out as soon as possible. Of course, when you die as a Pope, with the benefit of millions of people clamoring for your saintho
od and praying for your soul, you can expect an expedited process. "Moun Pa" pa janm chanje mòd. Yo toujou la!

If you are a Catholic, I have a question for you: What is the mathematical expectation (express it in fractions) of the number of souls in Limbo, in Purgatory, in Heaven, and in Hell? What are the odds? And does an aborted fetus have about the same chances as a Chinese Buddhist, a Hindu, a Jew, a Moslem, or an Atheist? Well.. at least some of those also believe that Eli went up in heaven in a chariot of fire, so they approximatively may have better odds.

And in the majority of cases, we can truly say that "ignorance is bliss" ? Like, "Oh boy, how fortunate we were that our people were never evangelized by Christian Missionaries!! We barely escaped Hell, for never having heard about it, though we ate eating plenty of delicious fruit from the Forbidden Tree!"


Finally, I would like to point out to Bouli that all those passages that he excerpted from the Bible
can be easily explained by "plausible solutions". They were tenets of a "previous Covenant" [and don't you know that we should only pay attention to the "new Covenant" as the "previous Covenant" no longer applies, since God changed Her Mind!] It is time for you to yield your will and intellect, Bouli. If not... "pa gen yon tayè sou latè beni ki ka sove w. Menm jacket Tayi a pap chita sou ou."

Gelin_

Post by Gelin_ » Mon Oct 31, 2005 10:17 am

[quote]
[quote]The different parts of the Bible are true according to their genre (poetry, history, epistle, exhortation etc.)[/quote]
That's not surprising. In a sense, this blind faith in the inerrancy of the Bible is closely related to the Catholics' affirmation of the infallability of the Pope...[/quote]
Not so fast, Guy. If you take one poetic book in the Bible, you will find that the context and style of the writing is different from a prophetic book. That's all I meant. To analyze and study a prophetic book, like Daniel for example, you'd have to consider it in a different light compared with a book like Acts of the Apostles. That's all I meant. We do that all the time whether we are reading a journal article, a scientific paper or just the news. The type and context of what we are re
ading determine (to some extent) how we analyze it.

gelin

Gelin_

Post by Gelin_ » Mon Oct 31, 2005 5:03 pm

[quote]Gélin, Tayi, Please, can you tell us what "genre" God was using to present his "Word", in the following passages that Bouli shared with us...[/quote]
Gen ladan yo ki liv istorik, liv listwa pèp izrayèl, gen lòt ki pale de bagay ki gen pou vini, sa yo rele liv pwofetik yo.

[quote]"se konprann n ap chache konprann. Men, malerezman save yo gen lè pito woule n tout bò - tankou Siméus..."[/quote]
M pa kwè ou voye wòch sa sou mwen non, Jaf. M pa janm eseye woule w ni 2 bò ni tout bò. Gen kote nou dakò, e gen anpil kote nou pa dakò.

gelin

Tayi_

Post by Tayi_ » Mon Oct 31, 2005 9:01 pm

Fanmi m yo,
Fe m kado on ti moman; M a gentan vini ak repons.

Tayi

Tayi_

Post by Tayi_ » Thu Nov 17, 2005 4:56 am

Hello Guy,

It's been a while, again :-). I was just looking at the long post where you had a lot of fun with some Catholic (and some Protestant Theology). I was actually quite impressed with the range of your familiarity, though there are quite a few errors as well. For a more accurate and fuller discussion on these topics please consult the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC). Here are a few comments though to clarify some things, only some:

On the issue of innerancy, I would not call it blind Faith. Faith, yes, but not blind. I think there are great reasons to believe in it. Again you can start with the Scriptures as historical documents and argue the credibility of Jesus who indicated the inspiration of the Sciptures and who taught the Church to teach all that He taught (Matthew 28:19-20). From inspiration follows innerancy.

Papal infallibility (protection from error) is not equiva
lent to impeccability (inability to sin). Infallibility on the matters of faith or morals follows from the fact that there is a "Deposit of Faith" which had been left by Christ and taught and developped by the Apostles and their successors. It is not the pope's own teachings but that of Christ through the pope that is protected from error; this underlines the other point that it is not with their own power they do this but the power of God protects His Truth. Other teachings of the pope are quite fallible as we see in some of the evils some popes encouraged.
---

Your description of Limbo takes Limbo further than the Church does. Check out CCC paragraph 1261.
---

[quote]Even though those are part of the inerring teachings of the Catholic Church, some of those "express" tickets have been invalidated on occasion.[/quote]

You may be referring to some cases where devotion to a certain "saint" started based on a legend and so the Church clarifies that thes
e are not official canonized saints, separating legend from fact.
---

A comment about the graphic scene of Rockefeller. Not all Protestants hold this "soul sleep" between death and the Second Coming. Some share the Catholic position.
---

[quote]finally, we cannot forget "Purgatory", again a place reserved for Catholics[/quote]
Purgatory is the last stage of sanctification for all, not just Catholics. Just because one does not believe in it does not mean he will not experience it. We know that we are now sinful (up till death) but in heaven there is so stain (sin), so there must be a final sanctification between death and heaven (Purgatory).
---

[quote]If you are a Catholic, I have a question for you: What is the mathematical expectation (express it in fractions) of the number of souls in Limbo, in Purgatory, in Heaven, and in Hell? What are the odds? And does an aborted fetus have about the same chances as a Chinese Buddhist,
a Hindu, a Jew, a Moslem, or an Atheist? Well.. at least some of those also believe that Eli went up in heaven in a chariot of fire, so they approximatively may have better odds. [/quote]

OK here is your fraction...?/?/?/? and my answer to the last question about the odds is ...?
---

[quote]It is time for you to yield your will and intellect [to God], Bouli.[/quote] And you and Gelin and me...

Guy, Thank you for your sharing. God bless you!
Tayi
P.S. Bouli, read your PM on the forum; I sent you a message.

Tayi_

Post by Tayi_ » Sat Nov 19, 2005 1:25 am

Hi Nekita,

If you are the person I think I've met then I met you in Cambridge years ago in a Church where your daughter (?) attended the Haitian youth group. I believe Pè Roi was the pastor. Si m pa manti m kwè jou sa a jèn yo t ap pratike pou yon mim yo ta pwal fè nan Conferans Karismatik Ayisyen yo t ap fè a Lowell. Another time I think I met you was at a Mass in Mission Church (Our Lady of Perpetual Help). You probably don't remember me, that's ok. I remember you told me then you were pursuing your doctorate in Theology and that probably contributed to my memory of you.

Like I mentioned before I am not a priest; neither did I ever enroll in a seminary (Guy fè yon pwen sou mwen wi la a :-)). Just a simple layman in love with Our Lord in His Church! It's a fearful honor though that you would mistake me for a priest.

Tayi
P.S. If we continue in this line of conversation maybe we can switch to PM, since this is not directly related to the topic of the thread--anvan Guy rale matinèt li pou l mete nou nan lòd :-)

Hey I finally got some of the accents to work, YEHH!

Post Reply