Porteroso said:

---

This is a Catholic denying a person communion with God. You or I can disagree on whether you need a priest to commune with God or not, but that's irrelevant.

---

This is not the case. He is not denying her from mass, he is stating that until she publicly repents and goes to confession, she should be denied the Eucharist.

This didn't decision was not a rash jump to judgement. The Archbishop has met with NP and discussed the abortion topic several times. When he took office in SF, he began praying for her conversion on this issue. He has attempted to reach out to her again (after comments after the leak) and she has will not respond to him.

Per Canon Law, can. 383, 1, he not only has the right, but also the responsibility to be "concerned for all the Christian faithful entrusted to his care" which is the archdiocese of SF, Pelosi's home diocese.

The Archbishop stated in the Notification that her public stance on abortion

"those who are directly involved in lawmaking bodies have a 'grave and clear obligation to oppose' any law that attacks human life. For them, as for every Catholic, it is impossible to promote such laws or to vote for them" (cf. Doctrinal Note on some questions regarding the participation of Catholics in political life [November 24, 2002], n. 4, 1). A Catholic legislator who supports procured abortion, after knowing the teaching of the Church, commits a manifestly grave sin which is a cause of most serious scandal to others. Therefore, universal Church law provides that such persons "are not to be admitted to Holy Communion" (Code of Canon Law, can. 915)."

Since the Last Supper, confirmed in Acts and practiced for the last 2000 years, the Eucharist is the actual body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ.

Receiving the Eucharist in the state of mortal sin in also committed another mortal sin and potentially disastrous for one's soul.

1 Corinthians 11:27, 29-30:
27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner (in the state of mortal sin) will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. 29 For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. 30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

BearN said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

BearN said:

---

Pro-Life is about being for saving the lives of innocent children.

It is also about believing there are some crimes so heinous, and some murderers that have no regard for earthly laws, courts, and human decency, that the convicted deserves to be remanded to a higher court than what exists on this earth. There is only one way to do that. Send them on to meet their maker.

There is zero inconsistency in believing that abortion is murder while also believing that the most heinous murderers should pay the ultimate price.

Why do you hold life in such low regard that you think otherwise?

---

You guys are all saddling up to play high horses, but please. Read the Bible if you think God ever thought there were just some people so bad, they should be denied the opportunity to meet with God.

Before you giddy-up next time, use that good ole Baylor education addled brain of yours.

---

It's not my high horse, it's what is in the Bible. My response is 100% biblically based. Capital punishment is in the Old Testament and the New. Romans 13. You are the one that ignores scripture.

And you have leapt to an illogical conclusion. Nobody is keeping these people from God except themselves. You can't come to God on your own terms. You come on His terms. Repent and be saved. Repent. Confess. Believe. Be Saved. Don't repent? Don't believe in Christ as Savior? Then you can't be saved.

You are also making a common mistake mixing forgiveness from sin in a spiritual sense for the eternal salvation, and forgiveness from sins on this earth. The murderer can repent and be saved and be forgiven their sins and become a child of God as much as any of us, but the earthly authorities appointed by God owe a duty to God to punish murderers on this earth.

---

You're still skirting the issue in an attempt to be right. You also made a ton of assumptions about my post. Please just read what it says, not what you want it to say.

This is a Catholic denying a person communion with God. You or I can disagree on whether you need a priest to commune with God or not, but that's irrelevant.

If you will do as I suggest and open up that dusty Bible you may or may not have, you will find that regardless of the sin, God seeks communion with us. Far before we reciprocate, He is already waiting. No human needs to try to stop that. You will not find anything to support that, but please try, it will do you some good.

---

The purpose is to bring her back to communion with God, not to stand in the way of it.

---

According to the Catechism, it could be whether they consider it a Venial or Mortal Sin. If Mortal, no communion. If Venial, communion heals. Up for a academic exercise that will piss off many...

For example. Abortion is a mortal sin, period. No discussion.
But, with Pelosi we are not talking her have committed an Abortion. We are talking policy and creating law allowing it.
Free Choice still exists and anyone that uses that law and commits an Abortion commits a Mortal Sin.
So, the question is allowing or creating the law, is that a Mortal Sin, Venial Sin or no sin?

Arch Bishop - Mortal, hence the ban on Communion
Pope - Venial, hence is comments.

Since she is in SF, the ArchBishop would have jurisdiction. Pope did not step in.

All of this is man-made administrative stuff, but nobody really knows until much later.

Every aspect of this should piss off someone... Even though it is a rational execise.

---

What were the pope's comments?

---

"On September 15, 2021, Francis was asked about the issue of bishops denying pro-abortion politicians the right to participate in Communion and said he had never refused the Eucharist to anyone. "What should a shepherd do? Be a shepherd and not going around condemning or not condemning," the pope said.

"They must be a shepherd with God's style. And God's style is closeness, compassion and tenderness.
"If we look at the history of the church, we will see that every time the bishops have not managed a problem as pastors, they have taken a political stance on a political problem."

While Pope Francis reiterated the Catholic Church's position that "abortion is homicide" he went on to say: "No, I have never denied the Eucharist to anyone, to anyone. "I don't know if someone came to me under these conditions, but I have never refused them the Eucharist, since the time I was a priest."

The pontiff also said at the time that "Communion is not a prize for the perfect" but was "a gift, the presence of Jesus in his church and in the community. That is the theology."

That is his position. He also has not weighed in on the Arch Bishop and Pelosi, either supporting or undoing. The Arch Bishop is her local Pastor. I think the theology is that both are correct, it is up to the Priest issuing communion. Keep in mind, Francis is probably the most liberal Pontiff since, ever...

The Eucharist is a means to grace which in United Methodist Church all are invited to the table. It is our hope that table that people will experience the living and become disciples or strengthen their discipleship because of their encounter with God at the table.

Waco1947 said:

---

The Eucharist is a means to grace which in United Methodist Church all are invited to the table. It is our hope that table that people will experience the living and become disciples or strengthen their discipleship because of their encounter with God at the table.

---

That is similar to the effects of the Euncharist on venial sins.

"1416 Communion with the Body and Blood of Christ increases the communicant's union with the Lord, forgives his venial sins, and preserves him from grave sins. Since receiving this sacrament strengthens the bonds of charity between the communicant and Christ, it also reinforces the unity of the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ."

RMF5630 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

The Eucharist is a means to grace which in United Methodist Church all are invited to the table. It is our hope that table that people will experience the living and become disciples or strengthen their discipleship because of their encounter with God at the table.

---

That is similar to the effects of the Euncharist on venial sins.

"1416 Communion with the Body and Blood of Christ increases the communicant's union with the Lord, forgives his venial sins, and preserves him from grave sins. Since receiving this sacrament strengthens the bonds of charity between the communicant and Christ, it also reinforces the unity of the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ."

---

Which I totally agree with but we, Protestants, are barred from the sacrament which is why the Methodists call for an open table.

Waco1947 said:

---

The Eucharist is a means to grace which in United Methodist Church all are invited to the table. It is our hope that table that people will experience the living and become disciples or strengthen their discipleship because of their encounter with God at the table.

---

This because it is just a symbol in the Methodist church. It is just Welches Grape juice and a wafer.

In the Catholic Church, through apostolic succession, the Eucharist is the actual body, blood, soul, and divinity. Practiced and believed for 2000 years.

1 Corinthians 10:16 -

"The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?"

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

The Eucharist is a means to grace which in United Methodist Church all are invited to the table. It is our hope that table that people will experience the living and become disciples or strengthen their discipleship because of their encounter with God at the table.

---

This because it is just a symbol in the Methodist church. It is just Welches Grape juice and a wafer.

In the Catholic Church, through apostolic succession, the Eucharist is the actual body, blood, soul, and divinity. Practiced and believed for 2000 years.

1 Corinthians 10:16 -

"The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?"

---

Please do not tell me what Methodists believe. You may represent your faith but not mine. Grape juice/wine are neither one scriptural. Regardless of the juice we, Methodists, take it for the nourishment of souls and participation of the suffering and dying of Christ.

Waco1947 said:

---

]Which I totally agree with but we, Protestants, are barred from the sacrament which is why the Methodists call for an open table.

---

When the priest is administering Communion, he says to the (worthy) recipient "The Body of Christ". The recipient responds with, "Amen."

By saying "Amen" one is stating that they are 100% agreement in communion with all the the teaching of the Church.

To take Communion without 100% agreement of the Church is to put one's soul into jeopardy. The Church does not exclude Protestants (and Catholics not is a state of grace) to be exclusive. She does it to protect their souls.

Waco1947 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

The Eucharist is a means to grace which in United Methodist Church all are invited to the table. It is our hope that table that people will experience the living and become disciples or strengthen their discipleship because of their encounter with God at the table.

---

That is similar to the effects of the Euncharist on venial sins.

"1416 Communion with the Body and Blood of Christ increases the communicant's union with the Lord, forgives his venial sins, and preserves him from grave sins. Since receiving this sacrament strengthens the bonds of charity between the communicant and Christ, it also reinforces the unity of the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ."

---

Which I totally agree with but we, Protestants, are barred from the sacrament which is why the Methodists call for an open table.

---

My wife in Amarillo, was Wisconsin Synod Lutheran. Nearest church was Dallas. Catholic Priest at the Abby allowed her to take communion because of believe in real presence. Rather than her go without. I found the missions and the churches on the outskirts operated closer to what I picture Christ would do.

Waco1947 said:

---

Please do not tell me what Methodists believe. You may represent your faith but not mine.

---

My apologies.

Waco1947 said:

---

Grape juice/wine are neither one scriptural.

---

I'm pretty sure wine was present at the last supper.

Waco1947 said:

---

Regardless of the juice we, Methodists, take it for the nourishment of souls and participation of the suffering and dying of Christ.

---

Fair enough, but is the substance of the juice/wine and wafer changed into anything while the accidents remain the same? If so, what and by what authority?

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

BearN said:

---

Pro-Life is about being for saving the lives of innocent children.

It is also about believing there are some crimes so heinous, and some murderers that have no regard for earthly laws, courts, and human decency, that the convicted deserves to be remanded to a higher court than what exists on this earth. There is only one way to do that. Send them on to meet their maker.

There is zero inconsistency in believing that abortion is murder while also believing that the most heinous murderers should pay the ultimate price.

Why do you hold life in such low regard that you think otherwise?

---

You guys are all saddling up to play high horses, but please. Read the Bible if you think God ever thought there were just some people so bad, they should be denied the opportunity to meet with God.

Before you giddy-up next time, use that good ole Baylor education addled brain of yours.

---

I thought being a Catholic was voluntary. If she does not believe what is being taught, go where you do belief. Why does the Church have to change to accommodate hers and your view? The whole Protestant movement is based on that. The Episcopal Church is much more open to that line of thinking and is Sacramental. Have at it.

Personally, I agree with Pope Francis that Communion is to bring us closer to God and is a healing act. But, that is not the position of the Church. Even the Pope cannot change basic Catholic dogma, her position on Abortion is not possible and staying in good standing.

---

Weren't you on another thread, saying the resurrection of Jesus seems more of a parable or hyperbole than actual historic fact? How does that jibe with Catholic church dogma, and hence, with your standing with regard to communion?

---

No, what I said was that IF it turned out that it was a parable it would not change my belief or how I live my life. I don't need miracles to "cement" my belief system. That is different than saying I don't believe it happened.

This came out of a conversation with a Moslem friend of mine that I used to share an office. We used to discuss religion. This was in the 90's, I was less than 5 years back from Desert Storm, so I had some conversations over there as well.

He said he liked how logical Islam was and that it did not rely on supernatural leaps of faith. He also put to me the question if the requirement of "miracles" is a sign of strong or weak faith? He believed weak faith, if you need some type of supernatural occurrence to convince you it is God. I said the point was moot, it would not impact my believe, where I worship or how I live my life.

That set some people off, that I was not a Christian. But, based on past conversations ranging from the QB choice at BU to Ukraine to Religion, I could say the sky is blue and they would say I was an idiot...

---

Well, no, you said exactly that: "Some facts are documrntable[sic], there was a Census. Pilate existed. Etc... But some also seem to be parables or hyperbole, such as walking on water, calming the storm, fisher of man, even resurrection". Was this in error?

Also, it would be correct to say that if your beliefs don't require the resurrection of Jesus to actually have happened, then your beliefs are definitely not Christian.

---

Believe what you will. I don't give a ***** Whether you think I am Christian or not is irrelevant. Direct enough?

---

It has nothing to do with what I believe. If it is true that your beliefs do not require the resurrection of Jesus to actually have happened, then it is definitional/logically correct to say your beliefs aren't Christian. Cursing doesn't change that fact.

I'm not asking you to give a **** about what I believe. You should give a **** about what is truth, though.

---

You took one line of an 8 page discussion on the Bible and a question a Moslem asked me 25 years ago and turned it into a faith statement. If you would read the other 10 or so posts you would see the context of the discussion was does the Bible HAVE to be literal. Obviously, you believe so. I do not, as it does not impact the way I live my life. I am done with this.

---

Okay, let's be clear. Do you believe that our salvation is only possible through the actual, literal death and resurrection of Jesus?

---

The resurrection offers that sinful humans can be reconciled to God and thereby are offered salvation. Catholics, including me, believe in the resurrection of Jesus. None of that was what the conversation was about. The conversation was a "what if" and how it impacts you. But, you seem stuck on three words out of 8 pages. What it matters to you, I have no idea. We are not going to agree if this conversation is going where I expect.

---

So, if you believe a literal resurrection was necessary for salvation, then IF the resurrection isn't true, how would that NOT change your belief about salvation?

If it would change your belief, then your belief system actually does require a literal miracle. The miracle isn't "cementing" the belief as you suggested, it is foundational to it. It can't exist without it. That's my point.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

BearN said:

---

Pro-Life is about being for saving the lives of innocent children.

It is also about believing there are some crimes so heinous, and some murderers that have no regard for earthly laws, courts, and human decency, that the convicted deserves to be remanded to a higher court than what exists on this earth. There is only one way to do that. Send them on to meet their maker.

There is zero inconsistency in believing that abortion is murder while also believing that the most heinous murderers should pay the ultimate price.

Why do you hold life in such low regard that you think otherwise?

---

You guys are all saddling up to play high horses, but please. Read the Bible if you think God ever thought there were just some people so bad, they should be denied the opportunity to meet with God.

Before you giddy-up next time, use that good ole Baylor education addled brain of yours.

---

I thought being a Catholic was voluntary. If she does not believe what is being taught, go where you do belief. Why does the Church have to change to accommodate hers and your view? The whole Protestant movement is based on that. The Episcopal Church is much more open to that line of thinking and is Sacramental. Have at it.

Personally, I agree with Pope Francis that Communion is to bring us closer to God and is a healing act. But, that is not the position of the Church. Even the Pope cannot change basic Catholic dogma, her position on Abortion is not possible and staying in good standing.

---

Weren't you on another thread, saying the resurrection of Jesus seems more of a parable or hyperbole than actual historic fact? How does that jibe with Catholic church dogma, and hence, with your standing with regard to communion?

---

No, what I said was that IF it turned out that it was a parable it would not change my belief or how I live my life. I don't need miracles to "cement" my belief system. That is different than saying I don't believe it happened.

This came out of a conversation with a Moslem friend of mine that I used to share an office. We used to discuss religion. This was in the 90's, I was less than 5 years back from Desert Storm, so I had some conversations over there as well.

He said he liked how logical Islam was and that it did not rely on supernatural leaps of faith. He also put to me the question if the requirement of "miracles" is a sign of strong or weak faith? He believed weak faith, if you need some type of supernatural occurrence to convince you it is God. I said the point was moot, it would not impact my believe, where I worship or how I live my life.

That set some people off, that I was not a Christian. But, based on past conversations ranging from the QB choice at BU to Ukraine to Religion, I could say the sky is blue and they would say I was an idiot...

---

Well, no, you said exactly that: "Some facts are documrntable[sic], there was a Census. Pilate existed. Etc... But some also seem to be parables or hyperbole, such as walking on water, calming the storm, fisher of man, even resurrection". Was this in error?

Also, it would be correct to say that if your beliefs don't require the resurrection of Jesus to actually have happened, then your beliefs are definitely not Christian.

---

Believe what you will. I don't give a ***** Whether you think I am Christian or not is irrelevant. Direct enough?

---

It has nothing to do with what I believe. If it is true that your beliefs do not require the resurrection of Jesus to actually have happened, then it is definitional/logically correct to say your beliefs aren't Christian. Cursing doesn't change that fact.

I'm not asking you to give a **** about what I believe. You should give a **** about what is truth, though.

---

You took one line of an 8 page discussion on the Bible and a question a Moslem asked me 25 years ago and turned it into a faith statement. If you would read the other 10 or so posts you would see the context of the discussion was does the Bible HAVE to be literal. Obviously, you believe so. I do not, as it does not impact the way I live my life. I am done with this.

---

Okay, let's be clear. Do you believe that our salvation is only possible through the actual, literal death and resurrection of Jesus?

---

The resurrection offers that sinful humans can be reconciled to God and thereby are offered salvation. Catholics, including me, believe in the resurrection of Jesus. None of that was what the conversation was about. The conversation was a "what if" and how it impacts you. But, you seem stuck on three words out of 8 pages. What it matters to you, I have no idea. We are not going to agree if this conversation is going where I expect.

---

So, if you believe a literal resurrection was necessary for salvation, then IF the resurrection isn't true, how would that NOT change your belief about salvation?

If it would change your belief, then your belief system actually does require a literal miracle. The miracle isn't "cementing" the belief as you suggested, it is foundational to it. It can't exist without it. That's my point.

---

And if you learned it didn't, it was a parable. Remember, this is a philosophical discussion, not an attack Could you still believe that God sent his son with the same message and had the same impact on the world? Would it change how and what you worshiped?

The basis of the question was that the Koran is very logical, you can find and follow quite easily. My Moslem friend used this to show that it was superior to the Bible. Why? Because the Bible required believe in supernatural events. Events that could not be proved and a lot that went against what we know from science. After much thought, my answer was NO. It would not change what I believe, the message Christ has and the structure of the Church for worship and the impact his message had on the world would be enough to stay where I am.

Does that make sense? It is not an argument over what I believe, it is a "what if" from a Moslem with a logical Koran under his arm. Would you abandon Christ's message if the miracles did not take place?

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

BearN said:

---

Pro-Life is about being for saving the lives of innocent children.

It is also about believing there are some crimes so heinous, and some murderers that have no regard for earthly laws, courts, and human decency, that the convicted deserves to be remanded to a higher court than what exists on this earth. There is only one way to do that. Send them on to meet their maker.

There is zero inconsistency in believing that abortion is murder while also believing that the most heinous murderers should pay the ultimate price.

Why do you hold life in such low regard that you think otherwise?

---

You guys are all saddling up to play high horses, but please. Read the Bible if you think God ever thought there were just some people so bad, they should be denied the opportunity to meet with God.

Before you giddy-up next time, use that good ole Baylor education addled brain of yours.

---

I thought being a Catholic was voluntary. If she does not believe what is being taught, go where you do belief. Why does the Church have to change to accommodate hers and your view? The whole Protestant movement is based on that. The Episcopal Church is much more open to that line of thinking and is Sacramental. Have at it.

Personally, I agree with Pope Francis that Communion is to bring us closer to God and is a healing act. But, that is not the position of the Church. Even the Pope cannot change basic Catholic dogma, her position on Abortion is not possible and staying in good standing.

---

Weren't you on another thread, saying the resurrection of Jesus seems more of a parable or hyperbole than actual historic fact? How does that jibe with Catholic church dogma, and hence, with your standing with regard to communion?

---

No, what I said was that IF it turned out that it was a parable it would not change my belief or how I live my life. I don't need miracles to "cement" my belief system. That is different than saying I don't believe it happened.

This came out of a conversation with a Moslem friend of mine that I used to share an office. We used to discuss religion. This was in the 90's, I was less than 5 years back from Desert Storm, so I had some conversations over there as well.

He said he liked how logical Islam was and that it did not rely on supernatural leaps of faith. He also put to me the question if the requirement of "miracles" is a sign of strong or weak faith? He believed weak faith, if you need some type of supernatural occurrence to convince you it is God. I said the point was moot, it would not impact my believe, where I worship or how I live my life.

That set some people off, that I was not a Christian. But, based on past conversations ranging from the QB choice at BU to Ukraine to Religion, I could say the sky is blue and they would say I was an idiot...

---

Well, no, you said exactly that: "Some facts are documrntable[sic], there was a Census. Pilate existed. Etc... But some also seem to be parables or hyperbole, such as walking on water, calming the storm, fisher of man, even resurrection". Was this in error?

Also, it would be correct to say that if your beliefs don't require the resurrection of Jesus to actually have happened, then your beliefs are definitely not Christian.

---

Believe what you will. I don't give a ***** Whether you think I am Christian or not is irrelevant. Direct enough?

---

It has nothing to do with what I believe. If it is true that your beliefs do not require the resurrection of Jesus to actually have happened, then it is definitional/logically correct to say your beliefs aren't Christian. Cursing doesn't change that fact.

I'm not asking you to give a **** about what I believe. You should give a **** about what is truth, though.

---

You took one line of an 8 page discussion on the Bible and a question a Moslem asked me 25 years ago and turned it into a faith statement. If you would read the other 10 or so posts you would see the context of the discussion was does the Bible HAVE to be literal. Obviously, you believe so. I do not, as it does not impact the way I live my life. I am done with this.

---

Okay, let's be clear. Do you believe that our salvation is only possible through the actual, literal death and resurrection of Jesus?

---

The resurrection offers that sinful humans can be reconciled to God and thereby are offered salvation. Catholics, including me, believe in the resurrection of Jesus. None of that was what the conversation was about. The conversation was a "what if" and how it impacts you. But, you seem stuck on three words out of 8 pages. What it matters to you, I have no idea. We are not going to agree if this conversation is going where I expect.

---

So, if you believe a literal resurrection was necessary for salvation, then IF the resurrection isn't true, how would that NOT change your belief about salvation?

If it would change your belief, then your belief system actually does require a literal miracle. The miracle isn't "cementing" the belief as you suggested, it is foundational to it. It can't exist without it. That's my point.

---

And if you learned it didn't, it was a parable. Remember, this is a philosophical discussion, not an attack Could you still believe that God sent his son with the same message and had the same impact on the world? Would it change how and what you worshiped?

The basis of the question was that the Koran is very logical, you can find and follow quite easily. My Moslem friend used this to show that it was superior to the Bible. Why? Because the Bible required believe in supernatural events. Events that could not be proved and a lot that went against what we know from science. After much thought, my answer was NO. It would not change what I believe, the message Christ has and the structure of the Church for worship and the impact his message had on the world would be enough to stay where I am.

Does that make sense? It is not an argument over what I believe, it is a "what if" from a Moslem with a logical Koran under his arm. Would you abandon Christ's message if the miracles did not take place?

---

You didn't answer my question.

To answer yours, if the resurrection didn't really happen, then yes, it changes everything, being that is the central belief in Christianity. That's just logical.

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

BearN said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

BearN said:

---

Pro-Life is about being for saving the lives of innocent children.

It is also about believing there are some crimes so heinous, and some murderers that have no regard for earthly laws, courts, and human decency, that the convicted deserves to be remanded to a higher court than what exists on this earth. There is only one way to do that. Send them on to meet their maker.

There is zero inconsistency in believing that abortion is murder while also believing that the most heinous murderers should pay the ultimate price.

Why do you hold life in such low regard that you think otherwise?

---

You guys are all saddling up to play high horses, but please. Read the Bible if you think God ever thought there were just some people so bad, they should be denied the opportunity to meet with God.

Before you giddy-up next time, use that good ole Baylor education addled brain of yours.

---

It's not my high horse, it's what is in the Bible. My response is 100% biblically based. Capital punishment is in the Old Testament and the New. Romans 13. You are the one that ignores scripture.

And you have leapt to an illogical conclusion. Nobody is keeping these people from God except themselves. You can't come to God on your own terms. You come on His terms. Repent and be saved. Repent. Confess. Believe. Be Saved. Don't repent? Don't believe in Christ as Savior? Then you can't be saved.

You are also making a common mistake mixing forgiveness from sin in a spiritual sense for the eternal salvation, and forgiveness from sins on this earth. The murderer can repent and be saved and be forgiven their sins and become a child of God as much as any of us, but the earthly authorities appointed by God owe a duty to God to punish murderers on this earth.

---

You're still skirting the issue in an attempt to be right. You also made a ton of assumptions about my post. Please just read what it says, not what you want it to say.

This is a Catholic denying a person communion with God. You or I can disagree on whether you need a priest to commune with God or not, but that's irrelevant.

If you will do as I suggest and open up that dusty Bible you may or may not have, you will find that regardless of the sin, God seeks communion with us. Far before we reciprocate, He is already waiting. No human needs to try to stop that. You will not find anything to support that, but please try, it will do you some good.

---

The purpose is to bring her back to communion with God, not to stand in the way of it.

---

According to the Catechism, it could be whether they consider it a Venial or Mortal Sin. If Mortal, no communion. If Venial, communion heals. Up for a academic exercise that will piss off many...

For example. Abortion is a mortal sin, period. No discussion.
But, with Pelosi we are not talking her have committed an Abortion. We are talking policy and creating law allowing it.
Free Choice still exists and anyone that uses that law and commits an Abortion commits a Mortal Sin.
So, the question is allowing or creating the law, is that a Mortal Sin, Venial Sin or no sin?

Arch Bishop - Mortal, hence the ban on Communion
Pope - Venial, hence is comments.

Since she is in SF, the ArchBishop would have jurisdiction. Pope did not step in.

All of this is man-made administrative stuff, but nobody really knows until much later.

Every aspect of this should piss off someone... Even though it is a rational execise.

---

You are leaving out or overlooking the $$$$$$$$$$$$ received from the sin she supports up and until after birth.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

BearN said:

---

Pro-Life is about being for saving the lives of innocent children.

It is also about believing there are some crimes so heinous, and some murderers that have no regard for earthly laws, courts, and human decency, that the convicted deserves to be remanded to a higher court than what exists on this earth. There is only one way to do that. Send them on to meet their maker.

There is zero inconsistency in believing that abortion is murder while also believing that the most heinous murderers should pay the ultimate price.

Why do you hold life in such low regard that you think otherwise?

---

You guys are all saddling up to play high horses, but please. Read the Bible if you think God ever thought there were just some people so bad, they should be denied the opportunity to meet with God.

Before you giddy-up next time, use that good ole Baylor education addled brain of yours.

---

I thought being a Catholic was voluntary. If she does not believe what is being taught, go where you do belief. Why does the Church have to change to accommodate hers and your view? The whole Protestant movement is based on that. The Episcopal Church is much more open to that line of thinking and is Sacramental. Have at it.

Personally, I agree with Pope Francis that Communion is to bring us closer to God and is a healing act. But, that is not the position of the Church. Even the Pope cannot change basic Catholic dogma, her position on Abortion is not possible and staying in good standing.

---

Weren't you on another thread, saying the resurrection of Jesus seems more of a parable or hyperbole than actual historic fact? How does that jibe with Catholic church dogma, and hence, with your standing with regard to communion?

---

No, what I said was that IF it turned out that it was a parable it would not change my belief or how I live my life. I don't need miracles to "cement" my belief system. That is different than saying I don't believe it happened.

This came out of a conversation with a Moslem friend of mine that I used to share an office. We used to discuss religion. This was in the 90's, I was less than 5 years back from Desert Storm, so I had some conversations over there as well.

He said he liked how logical Islam was and that it did not rely on supernatural leaps of faith. He also put to me the question if the requirement of "miracles" is a sign of strong or weak faith? He believed weak faith, if you need some type of supernatural occurrence to convince you it is God. I said the point was moot, it would not impact my believe, where I worship or how I live my life.

That set some people off, that I was not a Christian. But, based on past conversations ranging from the QB choice at BU to Ukraine to Religion, I could say the sky is blue and they would say I was an idiot...

---

Well, no, you said exactly that: "Some facts are documrntable[sic], there was a Census. Pilate existed. Etc... But some also seem to be parables or hyperbole, such as walking on water, calming the storm, fisher of man, even resurrection". Was this in error?

Also, it would be correct to say that if your beliefs don't require the resurrection of Jesus to actually have happened, then your beliefs are definitely not Christian.

---

Believe what you will. I don't give a ***** Whether you think I am Christian or not is irrelevant. Direct enough?

---

It has nothing to do with what I believe. If it is true that your beliefs do not require the resurrection of Jesus to actually have happened, then it is definitional/logically correct to say your beliefs aren't Christian. Cursing doesn't change that fact.

I'm not asking you to give a **** about what I believe. You should give a **** about what is truth, though.

---

You took one line of an 8 page discussion on the Bible and a question a Moslem asked me 25 years ago and turned it into a faith statement. If you would read the other 10 or so posts you would see the context of the discussion was does the Bible HAVE to be literal. Obviously, you believe so. I do not, as it does not impact the way I live my life. I am done with this.

---

Okay, let's be clear. Do you believe that our salvation is only possible through the actual, literal death and resurrection of Jesus?

---

The resurrection offers that sinful humans can be reconciled to God and thereby are offered salvation. Catholics, including me, believe in the resurrection of Jesus. None of that was what the conversation was about. The conversation was a "what if" and how it impacts you. But, you seem stuck on three words out of 8 pages. What it matters to you, I have no idea. We are not going to agree if this conversation is going where I expect.

---

So, if you believe a literal resurrection was necessary for salvation, then IF the resurrection isn't true, how would that NOT change your belief about salvation?

If it would change your belief, then your belief system actually does require a literal miracle. The miracle isn't "cementing" the belief as you suggested, it is foundational to it. It can't exist without it. That's my point.

---

And if you learned it didn't, it was a parable. Remember, this is a philosophical discussion, not an attack Could you still believe that God sent his son with the same message and had the same impact on the world? Would it change how and what you worshiped?

The basis of the question was that the Koran is very logical, you can find and follow quite easily. My Moslem friend used this to show that it was superior to the Bible. Why? Because the Bible required believe in supernatural events. Events that could not be proved and a lot that went against what we know from science. After much thought, my answer was NO. It would not change what I believe, the message Christ has and the structure of the Church for worship and the impact his message had on the world would be enough to stay where I am.

Does that make sense? It is not an argument over what I believe, it is a "what if" from a Moslem with a logical Koran under his arm. Would you abandon Christ's message if the miracles did not take place?

---

You didn't answer my question.

---

Yes, I did.
"After much thought, my answer was NO. It would not change what I believe, that God sent his son, the message Christ has and the structure of the Church for worship and the impact his message had on the world would be enough to stay where I am."

If I found out it was not true, it would not change a thing I do. I would not go running to the Koran. I would not abandon the believe in God. I would not go looking for a new moral code.

The question was asked by a Moslem to make his religion more attractive, get it? You keep coming back to fundamental arguments of the Christian Faith.

By your response to all this, I have to believe you would walk away and look for something else.

RMF5630 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

BearN said:

---

Pro-Life is about being for saving the lives of innocent children.

It is also about believing there are some crimes so heinous, and some murderers that have no regard for earthly laws, courts, and human decency, that the convicted deserves to be remanded to a higher court than what exists on this earth. There is only one way to do that. Send them on to meet their maker.

There is zero inconsistency in believing that abortion is murder while also believing that the most heinous murderers should pay the ultimate price.

Why do you hold life in such low regard that you think otherwise?

---

You guys are all saddling up to play high horses, but please. Read the Bible if you think God ever thought there were just some people so bad, they should be denied the opportunity to meet with God.

Before you giddy-up next time, use that good ole Baylor education addled brain of yours.

---

I thought being a Catholic was voluntary. If she does not believe what is being taught, go where you do belief. Why does the Church have to change to accommodate hers and your view? The whole Protestant movement is based on that. The Episcopal Church is much more open to that line of thinking and is Sacramental. Have at it.

Personally, I agree with Pope Francis that Communion is to bring us closer to God and is a healing act. But, that is not the position of the Church. Even the Pope cannot change basic Catholic dogma, her position on Abortion is not possible and staying in good standing.

---

No Catholic is supposed to receive communion if they are guilty of any sin. To do so is to take on still another sin .

And mortal sins can only by removed by the sacrament of confession .

So like one poster said......being Catholic is voluntary....and (certainly humbling) .



Of course there are dozens of 'pick and choose' faiths available.
Maybe Pelosi should join Waco47's pseudo congregation instead.

---

But, to many a sin is a sin is a sin.

---

To many God is an inconvenience .

An unwelcomed reminder that there are legitimate rules of conduct .

Sam Lowry said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

BearN said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

BearN said:

---

Pro-Life is about being for saving the lives of innocent children.

It is also about believing there are some crimes so heinous, and some murderers that have no regard for earthly laws, courts, and human decency, that the convicted deserves to be remanded to a higher court than what exists on this earth. There is only one way to do that. Send them on to meet their maker.

There is zero inconsistency in believing that abortion is murder while also believing that the most heinous murderers should pay the ultimate price.

Why do you hold life in such low regard that you think otherwise?

---

You guys are all saddling up to play high horses, but please. Read the Bible if you think God ever thought there were just some people so bad, they should be denied the opportunity to meet with God.

Before you giddy-up next time, use that good ole Baylor education addled brain of yours.

---

It's not my high horse, it's what is in the Bible. My response is 100% biblically based. Capital punishment is in the Old Testament and the New. Romans 13. You are the one that ignores scripture.

And you have leapt to an illogical conclusion. Nobody is keeping these people from God except themselves. You can't come to God on your own terms. You come on His terms. Repent and be saved. Repent. Confess. Believe. Be Saved. Don't repent? Don't believe in Christ as Savior? Then you can't be saved.

You are also making a common mistake mixing forgiveness from sin in a spiritual sense for the eternal salvation, and forgiveness from sins on this earth. The murderer can repent and be saved and be forgiven their sins and become a child of God as much as any of us, but the earthly authorities appointed by God owe a duty to God to punish murderers on this earth.

---

You're still skirting the issue in an attempt to be right. You also made a ton of assumptions about my post. Please just read what it says, not what you want it to say.

This is a Catholic denying a person communion with God. You or I can disagree on whether you need a priest to commune with God or not, but that's irrelevant.

If you will do as I suggest and open up that dusty Bible you may or may not have, you will find that regardless of the sin, God seeks communion with us. Far before we reciprocate, He is already waiting. No human needs to try to stop that. You will not find anything to support that, but please try, it will do you some good.

---

The purpose is to bring her back to communion with God, not to stand in the way of it.

---

Denying someone communion to bring them back to communion is exactly the kind of logic I come back to this forum for.

Canada2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

BearN said:

---

Pro-Life is about being for saving the lives of innocent children.

It is also about believing there are some crimes so heinous, and some murderers that have no regard for earthly laws, courts, and human decency, that the convicted deserves to be remanded to a higher court than what exists on this earth. There is only one way to do that. Send them on to meet their maker.

There is zero inconsistency in believing that abortion is murder while also believing that the most heinous murderers should pay the ultimate price.

Why do you hold life in such low regard that you think otherwise?

---

You guys are all saddling up to play high horses, but please. Read the Bible if you think God ever thought there were just some people so bad, they should be denied the opportunity to meet with God.

Before you giddy-up next time, use that good ole Baylor education addled brain of yours.

---

I thought being a Catholic was voluntary. If she does not believe what is being taught, go where you do belief. Why does the Church have to change to accommodate hers and your view? The whole Protestant movement is based on that. The Episcopal Church is much more open to that line of thinking and is Sacramental. Have at it.

Personally, I agree with Pope Francis that Communion is to bring us closer to God and is a healing act. But, that is not the position of the Church. Even the Pope cannot change basic Catholic dogma, her position on Abortion is not possible and staying in good standing.

---

No Catholic is supposed to receive communion if they are guilty of any sin. To do so is to take on still another sin .

And mortal sins can only by removed by the sacrament of confession .

So like one poster said......being Catholic is voluntary....and (certainly humbling) .



Of course there are dozens of 'pick and choose' faiths available.
Maybe Pelosi should join Waco47's pseudo congregation instead.

---

But, to many a sin is a sin is a sin.

---

To many God is an inconvenience .

An unwelcomed reminder that there are legitimate rules of conduct .

---

Yes, there are. I am not always good at some of them! Holy Days and Communion if I miss Mass are my 2 biggies. Other than that, I am pretty up to speed on following.

RMF5630 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

BearN said:

---

Pro-Life is about being for saving the lives of innocent children.

It is also about believing there are some crimes so heinous, and some murderers that have no regard for earthly laws, courts, and human decency, that the convicted deserves to be remanded to a higher court than what exists on this earth. There is only one way to do that. Send them on to meet their maker.

There is zero inconsistency in believing that abortion is murder while also believing that the most heinous murderers should pay the ultimate price.

Why do you hold life in such low regard that you think otherwise?

---

You guys are all saddling up to play high horses, but please. Read the Bible if you think God ever thought there were just some people so bad, they should be denied the opportunity to meet with God.

Before you giddy-up next time, use that good ole Baylor education addled brain of yours.

---

I thought being a Catholic was voluntary. If she does not believe what is being taught, go where you do belief. Why does the Church have to change to accommodate hers and your view? The whole Protestant movement is based on that. The Episcopal Church is much more open to that line of thinking and is Sacramental. Have at it.

Personally, I agree with Pope Francis that Communion is to bring us closer to God and is a healing act. But, that is not the position of the Church. Even the Pope cannot change basic Catholic dogma, her position on Abortion is not possible and staying in good standing.

---

No Catholic is supposed to receive communion if they are guilty of any sin. To do so is to take on still another sin .

And mortal sins can only by removed by the sacrament of confession .

So like one poster said......being Catholic is voluntary....and (certainly humbling) .



Of course there are dozens of 'pick and choose' faiths available.
Maybe Pelosi should join Waco47's pseudo congregation instead.

---

But, to many a sin is a sin is a sin.

---

To many God is an inconvenience .

An unwelcomed reminder that there are legitimate rules of conduct .

---

Yes, there are. I am not always good at some of them! Holy Days and Communion if I miss Mass are my 2 biggies. Other than that, I am pretty up to speed on following.

---

The older I get....the better I was.

Porteroso said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

BearN said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

BearN said:

---

Pro-Life is about being for saving the lives of innocent children.

It is also about believing there are some crimes so heinous, and some murderers that have no regard for earthly laws, courts, and human decency, that the convicted deserves to be remanded to a higher court than what exists on this earth. There is only one way to do that. Send them on to meet their maker.

There is zero inconsistency in believing that abortion is murder while also believing that the most heinous murderers should pay the ultimate price.

Why do you hold life in such low regard that you think otherwise?

---

You guys are all saddling up to play high horses, but please. Read the Bible if you think God ever thought there were just some people so bad, they should be denied the opportunity to meet with God.

Before you giddy-up next time, use that good ole Baylor education addled brain of yours.

---

It's not my high horse, it's what is in the Bible. My response is 100% biblically based. Capital punishment is in the Old Testament and the New. Romans 13. You are the one that ignores scripture.

And you have leapt to an illogical conclusion. Nobody is keeping these people from God except themselves. You can't come to God on your own terms. You come on His terms. Repent and be saved. Repent. Confess. Believe. Be Saved. Don't repent? Don't believe in Christ as Savior? Then you can't be saved.

You are also making a common mistake mixing forgiveness from sin in a spiritual sense for the eternal salvation, and forgiveness from sins on this earth. The murderer can repent and be saved and be forgiven their sins and become a child of God as much as any of us, but the earthly authorities appointed by God owe a duty to God to punish murderers on this earth.

---

You're still skirting the issue in an attempt to be right. You also made a ton of assumptions about my post. Please just read what it says, not what you want it to say.

This is a Catholic denying a person communion with God. You or I can disagree on whether you need a priest to commune with God or not, but that's irrelevant.

If you will do as I suggest and open up that dusty Bible you may or may not have, you will find that regardless of the sin, God seeks communion with us. Far before we reciprocate, He is already waiting. No human needs to try to stop that. You will not find anything to support that, but please try, it will do you some good.

---

The purpose is to bring her back to communion with God, not to stand in the way of it.

---

Denying someone communion to bring them back to communion is exactly the kind of logic I come back to this forum for.

---

No communion is happening anyway if you're not in a state of grace. Withholding the bread and wine is only a reminder of that fact.

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

BearN said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

BearN said:

---

Pro-Life is about being for saving the lives of innocent children.

It is also about believing there are some crimes so heinous, and some murderers that have no regard for earthly laws, courts, and human decency, that the convicted deserves to be remanded to a higher court than what exists on this earth. There is only one way to do that. Send them on to meet their maker.

There is zero inconsistency in believing that abortion is murder while also believing that the most heinous murderers should pay the ultimate price.

Why do you hold life in such low regard that you think otherwise?

---

You guys are all saddling up to play high horses, but please. Read the Bible if you think God ever thought there were just some people so bad, they should be denied the opportunity to meet with God.

Before you giddy-up next time, use that good ole Baylor education addled brain of yours.

---

It's not my high horse, it's what is in the Bible. My response is 100% biblically based. Capital punishment is in the Old Testament and the New. Romans 13. You are the one that ignores scripture.

And you have leapt to an illogical conclusion. Nobody is keeping these people from God except themselves. You can't come to God on your own terms. You come on His terms. Repent and be saved. Repent. Confess. Believe. Be Saved. Don't repent? Don't believe in Christ as Savior? Then you can't be saved.

You are also making a common mistake mixing forgiveness from sin in a spiritual sense for the eternal salvation, and forgiveness from sins on this earth. The murderer can repent and be saved and be forgiven their sins and become a child of God as much as any of us, but the earthly authorities appointed by God owe a duty to God to punish murderers on this earth.

---

You're still skirting the issue in an attempt to be right. You also made a ton of assumptions about my post. Please just read what it says, not what you want it to say.

This is a Catholic denying a person communion with God. You or I can disagree on whether you need a priest to commune with God or not, but that's irrelevant.

If you will do as I suggest and open up that dusty Bible you may or may not have, you will find that regardless of the sin, God seeks communion with us. Far before we reciprocate, He is already waiting. No human needs to try to stop that. You will not find anything to support that, but please try, it will do you some good.

---

The purpose is to bring her back to communion with God, not to stand in the way of it.

---

According to the Catechism, it could be whether they consider it a Venial or Mortal Sin. If Mortal, no communion. If Venial, communion heals. Up for a academic exercise that will piss off many...

For example. Abortion is a mortal sin, period. No discussion.
But, with Pelosi we are not talking her have committed an Abortion. We are talking policy and creating law allowing it.
Free Choice still exists and anyone that uses that law and commits an Abortion commits a Mortal Sin.
So, the question is allowing or creating the law, is that a Mortal Sin, Venial Sin or no sin?

Arch Bishop - Mortal, hence the ban on Communion
Pope - Venial, hence is comments.

Since she is in SF, the ArchBishop would have jurisdiction. Pope did not step in.

All of this is man-made administrative stuff, but nobody really knows until much later.

Every aspect of this should piss off someone... Even though it is a rational execise.

---

What were the pope's comments?

---

"On September 15, 2021, Francis was asked about the issue of bishops denying pro-abortion politicians the right to participate in Communion and said he had never refused the Eucharist to anyone. "What should a shepherd do? Be a shepherd and not going around condemning or not condemning," the pope said.

"They must be a shepherd with God's style. And God's style is closeness, compassion and tenderness.
"If we look at the history of the church, we will see that every time the bishops have not managed a problem as pastors, they have taken a political stance on a political problem."

While Pope Francis reiterated the Catholic Church's position that "abortion is homicide" he went on to say: "No, I have never denied the Eucharist to anyone, to anyone. "I don't know if someone came to me under these conditions, but I have never refused them the Eucharist, since the time I was a priest."

The pontiff also said at the time that "Communion is not a prize for the perfect" but was "a gift, the presence of Jesus in his church and in the community. That is the theology."

That is his position. He also has not weighed in on the Arch Bishop and Pelosi, either supporting or undoing. The Arch Bishop is her local Pastor. I think the theology is that both are correct, it is up to the Priest issuing communion. Keep in mind, Francis is probably the most liberal Pontiff since, ever...

---

Thanks. I was curious whether he'd actually said it was venial. As I read it, I don't take it to mean that.

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

BearN said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

BearN said:

---

Pro-Life is about being for saving the lives of innocent children.

It is also about believing there are some crimes so heinous, and some murderers that have no regard for earthly laws, courts, and human decency, that the convicted deserves to be remanded to a higher court than what exists on this earth. There is only one way to do that. Send them on to meet their maker.

There is zero inconsistency in believing that abortion is murder while also believing that the most heinous murderers should pay the ultimate price.

Why do you hold life in such low regard that you think otherwise?

---

You guys are all saddling up to play high horses, but please. Read the Bible if you think God ever thought there were just some people so bad, they should be denied the opportunity to meet with God.

Before you giddy-up next time, use that good ole Baylor education addled brain of yours.

---

It's not my high horse, it's what is in the Bible. My response is 100% biblically based. Capital punishment is in the Old Testament and the New. Romans 13. You are the one that ignores scripture.

And you have leapt to an illogical conclusion. Nobody is keeping these people from God except themselves. You can't come to God on your own terms. You come on His terms. Repent and be saved. Repent. Confess. Believe. Be Saved. Don't repent? Don't believe in Christ as Savior? Then you can't be saved.

You are also making a common mistake mixing forgiveness from sin in a spiritual sense for the eternal salvation, and forgiveness from sins on this earth. The murderer can repent and be saved and be forgiven their sins and become a child of God as much as any of us, but the earthly authorities appointed by God owe a duty to God to punish murderers on this earth.

---

You're still skirting the issue in an attempt to be right. You also made a ton of assumptions about my post. Please just read what it says, not what you want it to say.

This is a Catholic denying a person communion with God. You or I can disagree on whether you need a priest to commune with God or not, but that's irrelevant.

If you will do as I suggest and open up that dusty Bible you may or may not have, you will find that regardless of the sin, God seeks communion with us. Far before we reciprocate, He is already waiting. No human needs to try to stop that. You will not find anything to support that, but please try, it will do you some good.

---

The purpose is to bring her back to communion with God, not to stand in the way of it.

---

According to the Catechism, it could be whether they consider it a Venial or Mortal Sin. If Mortal, no communion. If Venial, communion heals. Up for a academic exercise that will piss off many...

For example. Abortion is a mortal sin, period. No discussion.
But, with Pelosi we are not talking her have committed an Abortion. We are talking policy and creating law allowing it.
Free Choice still exists and anyone that uses that law and commits an Abortion commits a Mortal Sin.
So, the question is allowing or creating the law, is that a Mortal Sin, Venial Sin or no sin?

Arch Bishop - Mortal, hence the ban on Communion
Pope - Venial, hence is comments.

Since she is in SF, the ArchBishop would have jurisdiction. Pope did not step in.

All of this is man-made administrative stuff, but nobody really knows until much later.

Every aspect of this should piss off someone... Even though it is a rational execise.

---

What were the pope's comments?

---

"On September 15, 2021, Francis was asked about the issue of bishops denying pro-abortion politicians the right to participate in Communion and said he had never refused the Eucharist to anyone. "What should a shepherd do? Be a shepherd and not going around condemning or not condemning," the pope said.

"They must be a shepherd with God's style. And God's style is closeness, compassion and tenderness.
"If we look at the history of the church, we will see that every time the bishops have not managed a problem as pastors, they have taken a political stance on a political problem."

While Pope Francis reiterated the Catholic Church's position that "abortion is homicide" he went on to say: "No, I have never denied the Eucharist to anyone, to anyone. "I don't know if someone came to me under these conditions, but I have never refused them the Eucharist, since the time I was a priest."

The pontiff also said at the time that "Communion is not a prize for the perfect" but was "a gift, the presence of Jesus in his church and in the community. That is the theology."

That is his position. He also has not weighed in on the Arch Bishop and Pelosi, either supporting or undoing. The Arch Bishop is her local Pastor. I think the theology is that both are correct, it is up to the Priest issuing communion. Keep in mind, Francis is probably the most liberal Pontiff since, ever...

---

Thanks. I was curious whether he'd actually said it was venial. As I read it, I don't take it to mean that.

---

He did not give a ruling on this case. This was a quote on the subject that has been used to imply the Archbishop is wrong. But, the Pope has not intervened, which speaks volumes

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

BearN said:

---

Pro-Life is about being for saving the lives of innocent children.

It is also about believing there are some crimes so heinous, and some murderers that have no regard for earthly laws, courts, and human decency, that the convicted deserves to be remanded to a higher court than what exists on this earth. There is only one way to do that. Send them on to meet their maker.

There is zero inconsistency in believing that abortion is murder while also believing that the most heinous murderers should pay the ultimate price.

Why do you hold life in such low regard that you think otherwise?

---

You guys are all saddling up to play high horses, but please. Read the Bible if you think God ever thought there were just some people so bad, they should be denied the opportunity to meet with God.

Before you giddy-up next time, use that good ole Baylor education addled brain of yours.

---

I thought being a Catholic was voluntary. If she does not believe what is being taught, go where you do belief. Why does the Church have to change to accommodate hers and your view? The whole Protestant movement is based on that. The Episcopal Church is much more open to that line of thinking and is Sacramental. Have at it.

Personally, I agree with Pope Francis that Communion is to bring us closer to God and is a healing act. But, that is not the position of the Church. Even the Pope cannot change basic Catholic dogma, her position on Abortion is not possible and staying in good standing.

---

Weren't you on another thread, saying the resurrection of Jesus seems more of a parable or hyperbole than actual historic fact? How does that jibe with Catholic church dogma, and hence, with your standing with regard to communion?

---

No, what I said was that IF it turned out that it was a parable it would not change my belief or how I live my life. I don't need miracles to "cement" my belief system. That is different than saying I don't believe it happened.

This came out of a conversation with a Moslem friend of mine that I used to share an office. We used to discuss religion. This was in the 90's, I was less than 5 years back from Desert Storm, so I had some conversations over there as well.

He said he liked how logical Islam was and that it did not rely on supernatural leaps of faith. He also put to me the question if the requirement of "miracles" is a sign of strong or weak faith? He believed weak faith, if you need some type of supernatural occurrence to convince you it is God. I said the point was moot, it would not impact my believe, where I worship or how I live my life.

That set some people off, that I was not a Christian. But, based on past conversations ranging from the QB choice at BU to Ukraine to Religion, I could say the sky is blue and they would say I was an idiot...

---

Well, no, you said exactly that: "Some facts are documrntable[sic], there was a Census. Pilate existed. Etc... But some also seem to be parables or hyperbole, such as walking on water, calming the storm, fisher of man, even resurrection". Was this in error?

Also, it would be correct to say that if your beliefs don't require the resurrection of Jesus to actually have happened, then your beliefs are definitely not Christian.

---

Believe what you will. I don't give a ***** Whether you think I am Christian or not is irrelevant. Direct enough?

---

It has nothing to do with what I believe. If it is true that your beliefs do not require the resurrection of Jesus to actually have happened, then it is definitional/logically correct to say your beliefs aren't Christian. Cursing doesn't change that fact.

I'm not asking you to give a **** about what I believe. You should give a **** about what is truth, though.

---

You took one line of an 8 page discussion on the Bible and a question a Moslem asked me 25 years ago and turned it into a faith statement. If you would read the other 10 or so posts you would see the context of the discussion was does the Bible HAVE to be literal. Obviously, you believe so. I do not, as it does not impact the way I live my life. I am done with this.

---

Okay, let's be clear. Do you believe that our salvation is only possible through the actual, literal death and resurrection of Jesus?

---

The resurrection offers that sinful humans can be reconciled to God and thereby are offered salvation. Catholics, including me, believe in the resurrection of Jesus. None of that was what the conversation was about. The conversation was a "what if" and how it impacts you. But, you seem stuck on three words out of 8 pages. What it matters to you, I have no idea. We are not going to agree if this conversation is going where I expect.

---

So, if you believe a literal resurrection was necessary for salvation, then IF the resurrection isn't true, how would that NOT change your belief about salvation?

If it would change your belief, then your belief system actually does require a literal miracle. The miracle isn't "cementing" the belief as you suggested, it is foundational to it. It can't exist without it. That's my point.

---

And if you learned it didn't, it was a parable. Remember, this is a philosophical discussion, not an attack Could you still believe that God sent his son with the same message and had the same impact on the world? Would it change how and what you worshiped?

The basis of the question was that the Koran is very logical, you can find and follow quite easily. My Moslem friend used this to show that it was superior to the Bible. Why? Because the Bible required believe in supernatural events. Events that could not be proved and a lot that went against what we know from science. After much thought, my answer was NO. It would not change what I believe, the message Christ has and the structure of the Church for worship and the impact his message had on the world would be enough to stay where I am.

Does that make sense? It is not an argument over what I believe, it is a "what if" from a Moslem with a logical Koran under his arm. Would you abandon Christ's message if the miracles did not take place?

---

You didn't answer my question.

---

Yes, I did.
"After much thought, my answer was NO. It would not change what I believe, that God sent his son, the message Christ has and the structure of the Church for worship and the impact his message had on the world would be enough to stay where I am."

If I found out it was not true, it would not change a thing I do. I would not go running to the Koran. I would not abandon the believe in God. I would not go looking for a new moral code.

The question was asked by a Moslem to make his religion more attractive, get it? You keep coming back to fundamental arguments of the Christian Faith.

By your response to all this, I have to believe you would walk away and look for something else.

---

That wasn't my question - would your belief about the state of OUR SALVATION change if the resurrection wasn't true?

You did say you believe salvation is possible only through the resurrected Jesus, right? So if he really didn't resurrect, how does that not change your belief about the state of our salvation?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

BearN said:

---

Pro-Life is about being for saving the lives of innocent children.

It is also about believing there are some crimes so heinous, and some murderers that have no regard for earthly laws, courts, and human decency, that the convicted deserves to be remanded to a higher court than what exists on this earth. There is only one way to do that. Send them on to meet their maker.

There is zero inconsistency in believing that abortion is murder while also believing that the most heinous murderers should pay the ultimate price.

Why do you hold life in such low regard that you think otherwise?

---

You guys are all saddling up to play high horses, but please. Read the Bible if you think God ever thought there were just some people so bad, they should be denied the opportunity to meet with God.

Before you giddy-up next time, use that good ole Baylor education addled brain of yours.

---

I thought being a Catholic was voluntary. If she does not believe what is being taught, go where you do belief. Why does the Church have to change to accommodate hers and your view? The whole Protestant movement is based on that. The Episcopal Church is much more open to that line of thinking and is Sacramental. Have at it.

Personally, I agree with Pope Francis that Communion is to bring us closer to God and is a healing act. But, that is not the position of the Church. Even the Pope cannot change basic Catholic dogma, her position on Abortion is not possible and staying in good standing.

---

Weren't you on another thread, saying the resurrection of Jesus seems more of a parable or hyperbole than actual historic fact? How does that jibe with Catholic church dogma, and hence, with your standing with regard to communion?

---

No, what I said was that IF it turned out that it was a parable it would not change my belief or how I live my life. I don't need miracles to "cement" my belief system. That is different than saying I don't believe it happened.

This came out of a conversation with a Moslem friend of mine that I used to share an office. We used to discuss religion. This was in the 90's, I was less than 5 years back from Desert Storm, so I had some conversations over there as well.

He said he liked how logical Islam was and that it did not rely on supernatural leaps of faith. He also put to me the question if the requirement of "miracles" is a sign of strong or weak faith? He believed weak faith, if you need some type of supernatural occurrence to convince you it is God. I said the point was moot, it would not impact my believe, where I worship or how I live my life.

That set some people off, that I was not a Christian. But, based on past conversations ranging from the QB choice at BU to Ukraine to Religion, I could say the sky is blue and they would say I was an idiot...

---

Well, no, you said exactly that: "Some facts are documrntable[sic], there was a Census. Pilate existed. Etc... But some also seem to be parables or hyperbole, such as walking on water, calming the storm, fisher of man, even resurrection". Was this in error?

Also, it would be correct to say that if your beliefs don't require the resurrection of Jesus to actually have happened, then your beliefs are definitely not Christian.

---

Believe what you will. I don't give a ***** Whether you think I am Christian or not is irrelevant. Direct enough?

---

It has nothing to do with what I believe. If it is true that your beliefs do not require the resurrection of Jesus to actually have happened, then it is definitional/logically correct to say your beliefs aren't Christian. Cursing doesn't change that fact.

I'm not asking you to give a **** about what I believe. You should give a **** about what is truth, though.

---

You took one line of an 8 page discussion on the Bible and a question a Moslem asked me 25 years ago and turned it into a faith statement. If you would read the other 10 or so posts you would see the context of the discussion was does the Bible HAVE to be literal. Obviously, you believe so. I do not, as it does not impact the way I live my life. I am done with this.

---

Okay, let's be clear. Do you believe that our salvation is only possible through the actual, literal death and resurrection of Jesus?

---

The resurrection offers that sinful humans can be reconciled to God and thereby are offered salvation. Catholics, including me, believe in the resurrection of Jesus. None of that was what the conversation was about. The conversation was a "what if" and how it impacts you. But, you seem stuck on three words out of 8 pages. What it matters to you, I have no idea. We are not going to agree if this conversation is going where I expect.

---

So, if you believe a literal resurrection was necessary for salvation, then IF the resurrection isn't true, how would that NOT change your belief about salvation?

If it would change your belief, then your belief system actually does require a literal miracle. The miracle isn't "cementing" the belief as you suggested, it is foundational to it. It can't exist without it. That's my point.

---

And if you learned it didn't, it was a parable. Remember, this is a philosophical discussion, not an attack Could you still believe that God sent his son with the same message and had the same impact on the world? Would it change how and what you worshiped?

The basis of the question was that the Koran is very logical, you can find and follow quite easily. My Moslem friend used this to show that it was superior to the Bible. Why? Because the Bible required believe in supernatural events. Events that could not be proved and a lot that went against what we know from science. After much thought, my answer was NO. It would not change what I believe, the message Christ has and the structure of the Church for worship and the impact his message had on the world would be enough to stay where I am.

Does that make sense? It is not an argument over what I believe, it is a "what if" from a Moslem with a logical Koran under his arm. Would you abandon Christ's message if the miracles did not take place?

---

You didn't answer my question.

---

Yes, I did.
"After much thought, my answer was NO. It would not change what I believe, that God sent his son, the message Christ has and the structure of the Church for worship and the impact his message had on the world would be enough to stay where I am."

If I found out it was not true, it would not change a thing I do. I would not go running to the Koran. I would not abandon the believe in God. I would not go looking for a new moral code.

The question was asked by a Moslem to make his religion more attractive, get it? You keep coming back to fundamental arguments of the Christian Faith.

By your response to all this, I have to believe you would walk away and look for something else.

---

That wasn't my question - would your belief about the state of OUR SALVATION change if the resurrection wasn't true?

You did say you believe salvation is possible only through the resurrected Jesus, right? So if he really didn't resurrect, how does that not change your belief about the state of our salvation?

---

That is an interesting way to put it. I would have to defer to the message. What he said, the scriptures/prophecies and the second part of the equation, for Catholics anyway, is how I live my life.

The one fact that is inescapable is that he, his message and his followers changed the world. OldBear brought up an interesting point that people died not for his word, but for the believe he rose again. Which plays into my point of changing the world.

I do not think I would defer to Islam which is where my buddy was trying to lead me. If I was forced to look at another religion, I think I would go back to Judaism since that was the original. Interesting thought process, when thought about in terms of salvation... Maybe tequila! : )

RMF5630 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

The Eucharist is a means to grace which in United Methodist Church all are invited to the table. It is our hope that table that people will experience the living and become disciples or strengthen their discipleship because of their encounter with God at the table.

---

That is similar to the effects of the Euncharist on venial sins.

"1416 Communion with the Body and Blood of Christ increases the communicant's union with the Lord, forgives his venial sins, and preserves him from grave sins. Since receiving this sacrament strengthens the bonds of charity between the communicant and Christ, it also reinforces the unity of the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ."

---

Which I totally agree with but we, Protestants, are barred from the sacrament which is why the Methodists call for an open table.

---

My wife in Amarillo, was Wisconsin Synod Lutheran. Nearest church was Dallas. Catholic Priest at the Abby allowed her to take communion because of believe in real presence. Rather than her go without. I found the missions and the churches on the outskirts operated closer to what I picture Christ would d

---

It was true at the Pecos Monastery and the church in Presidio and the knew that I was Methodist

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Please do not tell me what Methodists believe. You may represent your faith but not mine.

---

My apologies.

Waco1947 said:

---

Grape juice/wine are neither one scriptural.

---

I'm pretty sure wine was present at the last supper.

Waco1947 said:

---

Regardless of the juice we, Methodists, take it for the nourishment of souls and participation of the suffering and dying of Christ.

---

Fair enough, but is the substance of the juice/wine and wafer changed into anything while the accidents remain the same? If so, what and by what authority?

---

As an ordained elder in my church and we believe in Apostolic succession too.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

BearN said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

BearN said:

---

Pro-Life is about being for saving the lives of innocent children.

It is also about believing there are some crimes so heinous, and some murderers that have no regard for earthly laws, courts, and human decency, that the convicted deserves to be remanded to a higher court than what exists on this earth. There is only one way to do that. Send them on to meet their maker.

There is zero inconsistency in believing that abortion is murder while also believing that the most heinous murderers should pay the ultimate price.

Why do you hold life in such low regard that you think otherwise?

---

You guys are all saddling up to play high horses, but please. Read the Bible if you think God ever thought there were just some people so bad, they should be denied the opportunity to meet with God.

Before you giddy-up next time, use that good ole Baylor education addled brain of yours.

---

It's not my high horse, it's what is in the Bible. My response is 100% biblically based. Capital punishment is in the Old Testament and the New. Romans 13. You are the one that ignores scripture.

And you have leapt to an illogical conclusion. Nobody is keeping these people from God except themselves. You can't come to God on your own terms. You come on His terms. Repent and be saved. Repent. Confess. Believe. Be Saved. Don't repent? Don't believe in Christ as Savior? Then you can't be saved.

You are also making a common mistake mixing forgiveness from sin in a spiritual sense for the eternal salvation, and forgiveness from sins on this earth. The murderer can repent and be saved and be forgiven their sins and become a child of God as much as any of us, but the earthly authorities appointed by God owe a duty to God to punish murderers on this earth.

---

You're still skirting the issue in an attempt to be right. You also made a ton of assumptions about my post. Please just read what it says, not what you want it to say.

This is a Catholic denying a person communion with God. You or I can disagree on whether you need a priest to commune with God or not, but that's irrelevant.

If you will do as I suggest and open up that dusty Bible you may or may not have, you will find that regardless of the sin, God seeks communion with us. Far before we reciprocate, He is already waiting. No human needs to try to stop that. You will not find anything to support that, but please try, it will do you some good.

---

The purpose is to bring her back to communion with God, not to stand in the way of it.

---

Denying someone communion to bring them back to communion is exactly the kind of logic I come back to this forum for.

---

No communion is happening anyway if you're not in a state of grace. Withholding the bread and wine is only a reminder of that fact.

---

That's interesting that you know who God communes with.

Waco1947 said:

---

As an ordained elder in my church and we believe in Apostolic succession too.

---

According to several Methodist websites, they don't consider it a direct Bishop-to-Bishop succession as Catholics and Orthodox do, but rather a line of continuity.

Irrespective of that issue, do Methodists claim that the substance of the bread/juice(wine) is changed during their church service?

BearN said:

---

Pro-Life is about being for saving the lives of innocent children.

It is also about believing there are some crimes so heinous, and some murderers that have no regard for earthly laws, courts, and human decency, that the convicted deserves to be remanded to a higher court than what exists on this earth. There is only one way to do that. Send them on to meet their maker.

There is zero inconsistency in believing that abortion is murder while also believing that the most heinous murderers should pay the ultimate price.

Why do you hold life in such low regard that you think otherwise?

---

The Catholic Church disagrees.

It's against both.

In theory, you're correct. However, there are huge racial and social discrepancies in how capital punishment is administered in this country.

Porteroso said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

BearN said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

BearN said:

---

Pro-Life is about being for saving the lives of innocent children.

It is also about believing there are some crimes so heinous, and some murderers that have no regard for earthly laws, courts, and human decency, that the convicted deserves to be remanded to a higher court than what exists on this earth. There is only one way to do that. Send them on to meet their maker.

There is zero inconsistency in believing that abortion is murder while also believing that the most heinous murderers should pay the ultimate price.

Why do you hold life in such low regard that you think otherwise?

---

You guys are all saddling up to play high horses, but please. Read the Bible if you think God ever thought there were just some people so bad, they should be denied the opportunity to meet with God.

Before you giddy-up next time, use that good ole Baylor education addled brain of yours.

---

It's not my high horse, it's what is in the Bible. My response is 100% biblically based. Capital punishment is in the Old Testament and the New. Romans 13. You are the one that ignores scripture.

And you have leapt to an illogical conclusion. Nobody is keeping these people from God except themselves. You can't come to God on your own terms. You come on His terms. Repent and be saved. Repent. Confess. Believe. Be Saved. Don't repent? Don't believe in Christ as Savior? Then you can't be saved.

You are also making a common mistake mixing forgiveness from sin in a spiritual sense for the eternal salvation, and forgiveness from sins on this earth. The murderer can repent and be saved and be forgiven their sins and become a child of God as much as any of us, but the earthly authorities appointed by God owe a duty to God to punish murderers on this earth.

---

You're still skirting the issue in an attempt to be right. You also made a ton of assumptions about my post. Please just read what it says, not what you want it to say.

This is a Catholic denying a person communion with God. You or I can disagree on whether you need a priest to commune with God or not, but that's irrelevant.

If you will do as I suggest and open up that dusty Bible you may or may not have, you will find that regardless of the sin, God seeks communion with us. Far before we reciprocate, He is already waiting. No human needs to try to stop that. You will not find anything to support that, but please try, it will do you some good.

---

The purpose is to bring her back to communion with God, not to stand in the way of it.

---

Denying someone communion to bring them back to communion is exactly the kind of logic I come back to this forum for.

---

No communion is happening anyway if you're not in a state of grace. Withholding the bread and wine is only a reminder of that fact.

---

That's interesting that you know who God communes with.

---

All I know is what the Church teaches about the Eucharist. You don't have to agree with it, but it is what it is.

C. Jordan said:

---

BearN said:

---

Pro-Life is about being for saving the lives of innocent children.

It is also about believing there are some crimes so heinous, and some murderers that have no regard for earthly laws, courts, and human decency, that the convicted deserves to be remanded to a higher court than what exists on this earth. There is only one way to do that. Send them on to meet their maker.

There is zero inconsistency in believing that abortion is murder while also believing that the most heinous murderers should pay the ultimate price.

Why do you hold life in such low regard that you think otherwise?

---

The Catholic Church disagrees.

It's against both.

In theory, you're correct. However, there are huge racial and social discrepancies in how capital punishment is administered in this country.

---

Or more accurately, the pope disagrees. The rest is debatable.

C. Jordan said:

---

BearN said:

---

Pro-Life is about being for saving the lives of innocent children.

It is also about believing there are some crimes so heinous, and some murderers that have no regard for earthly laws, courts, and human decency, that the convicted deserves to be remanded to a higher court than what exists on this earth. There is only one way to do that. Send them on to meet their maker.

There is zero inconsistency in believing that abortion is murder while also believing that the most heinous murderers should pay the ultimate price.

Why do you hold life in such low regard that you think otherwise?

---

The Catholic Church disagrees.

It's against both.

In theory, you're correct. However, there are huge racial and social discrepancies in how capital punishment is administered in this country.

---

Well, I was talking about the Biblical view. What does the Catholic Church have to do with Biblical authority? The popes run the show there, not Scripture. I'll bet you for every pope that was is against capital punishment, there were 50 for it. So much for papal infallibility.

BearN said:

---

C. Jordan said:

---

BearN said:

---

Pro-Life is about being for saving the lives of innocent children.

It is also about believing there are some crimes so heinous, and some murderers that have no regard for earthly laws, courts, and human decency, that the convicted deserves to be remanded to a higher court than what exists on this earth. There is only one way to do that. Send them on to meet their maker.

There is zero inconsistency in believing that abortion is murder while also believing that the most heinous murderers should pay the ultimate price.

Why do you hold life in such low regard that you think otherwise?

---

The Catholic Church disagrees.

It's against both.

In theory, you're correct. However, there are huge racial and social discrepancies in how capital punishment is administered in this country.

---

Well, I was talking about the Biblical view. What does the Catholic Church have to do with Biblical authority? The popes run the show there, not Scripture. I'll bet you for every pope that was is against capital punishment, there were 50 for it. So much for papal infallibility.

---

The Pope is only infallible on dogma or doctrine when speaking "ex cathedra", that is when exercising the office of pastor and "he defines... a doctrine concerning faith and morals to be held by the whole Church, through the divine assistance promised to him by St Peter". It does not mean everything he says is correct, that he never sins or is perfect. The concept that Rome is the final arbiter is as old as the Church, Saint Augustine said "Rome has spoken; the case is concluded" (Sermons 131, 10).

I do not expect this to be accepted here, but that is how it works.

RMF5630 said:

---

BearN said:

---

C. Jordan said:

---

BearN said:

---

Pro-Life is about being for saving the lives of innocent children.

It is also about believing there are some crimes so heinous, and some murderers that have no regard for earthly laws, courts, and human decency, that the convicted deserves to be remanded to a higher court than what exists on this earth. There is only one way to do that. Send them on to meet their maker.

There is zero inconsistency in believing that abortion is murder while also believing that the most heinous murderers should pay the ultimate price.

Why do you hold life in such low regard that you think otherwise?

---

The Catholic Church disagrees.

It's against both.

In theory, you're correct. However, there are huge racial and social discrepancies in how capital punishment is administered in this country.

---

Well, I was talking about the Biblical view. What does the Catholic Church have to do with Biblical authority? The popes run the show there, not Scripture. I'll bet you for every pope that was is against capital punishment, there were 50 for it. So much for papal infallibility.

---

The Pope is only infallible on dogma or doctrine when speaking "ex cathedra", that is when exercising the office of pastor and "he defines... a doctrine concerning faith and morals to be held by the whole Church, through the divine assistance promised to him by St Peter". It does not mean everything he says is correct, that he never sins or is perfect. The concept that Rome is the final arbiter is as old as the Church, Saint Augustine said "Rome has spoken; the case is concluded" (Sermons 131, 10).

I do not expect this to be accepted here, but that is how it works.

---

I'm not Catholic but I thought this was generally known at least among the more educated - religious.

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Weren't you on another thread, saying the resurrection of Jesus seems more of a parable or hyperbole than actual historic fact? How does that jibe with Catholic church dogma, and hence, with your standing with regard to communion?

---

No, what I said was that IF it turned out that it was a parable it would not change my belief or how I live my life. I don't need miracles to "cement" my belief system. That is different than saying I don't believe it happened.

This came out of a conversation with a Moslem friend of mine that I used to share an office. We used to discuss religion. This was in the 90's, I was less than 5 years back from Desert Storm, so I had some conversations over there as well.

He said he liked how logical Islam was and that it did not rely on supernatural leaps of faith. He also put to me the question if the requirement of "miracles" is a sign of strong or weak faith? He believed weak faith, if you need some type of supernatural occurrence to convince you it is God. I said the point was moot, it would not impact my believe, where I worship or how I live my life.

That set some people off, that I was not a Christian. But, based on past conversations ranging from the QB choice at BU to Ukraine to Religion, I could say the sky is blue and they would say I was an idiot...

---

Well, no, you said exactly that: "Some facts are documrntable[sic], there was a Census. Pilate existed. Etc... But some also seem to be parables or hyperbole, such as walking on water, calming the storm, fisher of man, even resurrection". Was this in error?

Also, it would be correct to say that if your beliefs don't require the resurrection of Jesus to actually have happened, then your beliefs are definitely not Christian.

---

Believe what you will. I don't give a ***** Whether you think I am Christian or not is irrelevant. Direct enough?

---

It has nothing to do with what I believe. If it is true that your beliefs do not require the resurrection of Jesus to actually have happened, then it is definitional/logically correct to say your beliefs aren't Christian. Cursing doesn't change that fact.

I'm not asking you to give a **** about what I believe. You should give a **** about what is truth, though.

---

You took one line of an 8 page discussion on the Bible and a question a Moslem asked me 25 years ago and turned it into a faith statement. If you would read the other 10 or so posts you would see the context of the discussion was does the Bible HAVE to be literal. Obviously, you believe so. I do not, as it does not impact the way I live my life. I am done with this.

---

Okay, let's be clear. Do you believe that our salvation is only possible through the actual, literal death and resurrection of Jesus?

---

The resurrection offers that sinful humans can be reconciled to God and thereby are offered salvation. Catholics, including me, believe in the resurrection of Jesus. None of that was what the conversation was about. The conversation was a "what if" and how it impacts you. But, you seem stuck on three words out of 8 pages. What it matters to you, I have no idea. We are not going to agree if this conversation is going where I expect.

---

So, if you believe a literal resurrection was necessary for salvation, then IF the resurrection isn't true, how would that NOT change your belief about salvation?

If it would change your belief, then your belief system actually does require a literal miracle. The miracle isn't "cementing" the belief as you suggested, it is foundational to it. It can't exist without it. That's my point.

---

And if you learned it didn't, it was a parable. Remember, this is a philosophical discussion, not an attack Could you still believe that God sent his son with the same message and had the same impact on the world? Would it change how and what you worshiped?

The basis of the question was that the Koran is very logical, you can find and follow quite easily. My Moslem friend used this to show that it was superior to the Bible. Why? Because the Bible required believe in supernatural events. Events that could not be proved and a lot that went against what we know from science. After much thought, my answer was NO. It would not change what I believe, the message Christ has and the structure of the Church for worship and the impact his message had on the world would be enough to stay where I am.

Does that make sense? It is not an argument over what I believe, it is a "what if" from a Moslem with a logical Koran under his arm. Would you abandon Christ's message if the miracles did not take place?

---

You didn't answer my question.

---

Yes, I did.
"After much thought, my answer was NO. It would not change what I believe, that God sent his son, the message Christ has and the structure of the Church for worship and the impact his message had on the world would be enough to stay where I am."

If I found out it was not true, it would not change a thing I do. I would not go running to the Koran. I would not abandon the believe in God. I would not go looking for a new moral code.

The question was asked by a Moslem to make his religion more attractive, get it? You keep coming back to fundamental arguments of the Christian Faith.

By your response to all this, I have to believe you would walk away and look for something else.

---

That wasn't my question - would your belief about the state of OUR SALVATION change if the resurrection wasn't true?

You did say you believe salvation is possible only through the resurrected Jesus, right? So if he really didn't resurrect, how does that not change your belief about the state of our salvation?

---

That is an interesting way to put it. I would have to defer to the message. What he said, the scriptures/prophecies and the second part of the equation, for Catholics anyway, is how I live my life.

The one fact that is inescapable is that he, his message and his followers changed the world. OldBear brought up an interesting point that people died not for his word, but for the believe he rose again. Which plays into my point of changing the world.

I do not think I would defer to Islam which is where my buddy was trying to lead me. If I was forced to look at another religion, I think I would go back to Judaism since that was the original. Interesting thought process, when thought about in terms of salvation... Maybe tequila! : )

---

Yeah, you know, salvation - the whole point of Jesus? Of Christianity? What I've been talking about this whole time??

Yikes. It's alarming that you didn't understand the implication of there being no miracles on your Christian beliefs right away.