If you are against gay marriage, you are a bad Christian.

[Aino Ailill]

Rainbowfied Mouse

Secretly, I want to see my stupid posts... I hate that I repressed my sexuality and was all homophobic.

KittyKat62 argued in opposition to the thread, the title, on this page in Aug. '07.

I believe you're mistaken about the month you posted. No one else resembling the names you provided posted in opposition in that month. Sorry! <3

[Rainbowfied Mouse]

Aino

KittyKat62 argued in opposition to the thread, the title, on this page in Aug. '07.

I believe you're mistaken about the month you posted. No one else resembling the names you provided posted in opposition in that month. Sorry! <3

Unfortunately KittyKat62 was never an account, and the name would have changed to be either
The Hallowed Mouse
Rainbowfied Mouse

I joined back in January 2005, I came back December-January 2006 <- my homophob era started around there. Now, as for my arguing with The Hallowed Mouse, I'm unsure. DX
Back in 2007, and part of 2008 I still was homophobic.

I assume now, because the logic I just realized, it had to have been during that time (Dec-Jan 2006) <- goes to look


EDIT:
s**t, I forgot my username was Chaddermouse for awhile. Found me!!! here <-- I'm a dumbass. Beware!!!

EDIT EDIT:
My post must have been deleted, but you can see the quote. But I need to find where I start posting more... because apparently I only posted once at that time period.

EDIT EDIT EDIT:
s**t, I went up to April 2008 (which was long after my homophob era,) and didn't find it DX
I'll just start from the beginning tomorrow or something.

[linaloki]

Doubting Didymus

Catholics like me shouldn't even doubt that sodomy is a sin. smile

But Catholics should also not doubt that homosexuality isn't a sin.

[Thou]

linaloki

But Catholics should also not doubt that homosexuality isn't a sin.

What?

[Camera Stellata]

Thou

What?

There is a belief that the NT only forbids certain sexual acts rather than homosexuality per se, and after debating it from both angles on this forum i've concluded that its true.

[Thou]

dio777

There is a belief that the NT only forbids certain sexual acts rather than homosexuality per se, and after debating it from both angles on this forum i've concluded that its true.

This is fine if you are an adherent to Sola Scriptura. However, Catholics are not. We do not thresh our teachings from Sacred Scripture; they were handed on to us by the Church, with Sacred Scripture taking its form from those teachings. (Our Scriptures are founded on the Church, not our Church on the Scriptures.)

One might be able to say that the New Testament does not explicitly forbid homosexual behavior, but one cannot say that the Catholic Church does not explicitly forbid homosexual behavior.

[Camera Stellata]

Thou

This is fine if you are an adherent to Sola Scriptura. However, Catholics are not. We do not thresh our teachings from Sacred Scripture; they were handed on to us by the Church, with Sacred Scripture taking its form from those teachings. (Our Scriptures are founded on the Church, not our Church on the Scriptures.)

One might be able to say that the New Testament does not explicitly forbid homosexual behavior, but one cannot say that the Catholic Church does not explicitly forbid homosexual behavior.

True, Loki's statement rather caught me out with that one xp

I've never heard this term Sola Scriptura before tho, would this be a important distinction between Catholic and Protestant teaching ?

Sorry about the quotes, my BBcodings gone a bit wappy

[xLady Tsukiyox]

dio777

True, Loki's statement rather caught me out with that one xp

I've never heard this term Sola Scriptura before tho, would this be a important distinction between Catholic and Protestant teaching ?

Sorry about the quotes, my BBcodings gone a bit wappy

Sola Scriptura is a Protestant teaching that refers to the Bible as being infallible.

[Thou]

dio777

True, Loki's statement rather caught me out with that one xp

I've never heard this term Sola Scriptura before tho, would this be a important distinction between Catholic and Protestant teaching ?

It is an important distinction. One of the Pillars of the Protestant Reformation is that the Holy Bible is the sole authority that Christians ought to look to.

Catholics cannot accept this. It is out of what we consider authoritative Apostolic Tradition that we know the Sacred Scriptures are inspired. This is not to say that Catholics do not hold Sacred Scriptures in high regard, but that they share their authoritative role with Sacred Tradition.

[Thou]

-Tsukiyo-Moon Maiden

Sola Scriptura is a Protestant teaching that refers to the Bible as being infallible.

This is somewhat correct. Catholics also consider Sacred Scripture to be inerrant; however, Protestants claim that Scripture is the only infallible source for a Christian.

Catechism of the Catholic Church

107 The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."

108 Still, the Christian faith is not a "religion of the book." Christianity is the religion of the "Word" of God, a word which is "not a written and mute word, but the Word is incarnate and living". If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, "open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures."

[Camera Stellata]

Thou

This is somewhat correct. Catholics also consider Sacred Scripture to be inerrant; however, Protestants claim that Scripture is the only infallible source for a Christian.

So Catholics say both are infallible ?

Im just asking because if so, surely no 'decree' (I dont know what the exact term is) drafted into Catholic tradition can contradict what is already in the New Testament. I know theyre both infallible, but the New Testament was there first and infallible, so surely anything suggested by the church would have to be in line with whatever is evident from the bible.

[Thou]

dio777

Im just asking because if so, surely no 'decree' (I dont know the exact term is) drafted into Catholic tradition can contradict what is already in the New Testament. I know theyre both infallible, but the New Testament was there first and infallible, so surely anything suggested by the church would have to be in line with whatever is evident from the bible.

This is a bit of a misunderstanding. How can we say that the New Testament was before Sacred Tradition? It is out of the Sacred Apostolic Tradition that the New Testament was written. The teachings of the Apostles had already been firmly rooted in place (e.g. the Virgin Birth, the Descent into the Limbo of the Fathers, the Resurrection, the Ascension into Heaven).

Now you are right in saying that they cannot contradict, but not necessarily for that reason. We would say that they cannot contradict for they come from the same source.

Secondly, we do not believe that doctrines can be added to the instruction that was given to us by the Apostles. Rather, the Church has always professed a faith in the Apostolic Faith, but that that Faith requires careful definition as need arises (i.e. heresy).

This is done by ex cathedra encyclical and conciliar documents.

New ways of explaining our faith might come about, such as the change from the word "Godhead" to the word "Trinity", but the faith remains unchanged.

[Rainbowfied Mouse]

dio777

So Catholics say both are infallible ?

Ex-Catholic here. The bible is a source of knowledge, but the Catechism is the true doctrine. In a way the Catechism is a tradition passed down from generations of popes and laity.

The pope can say something "contradicting" the bible because the pope is what is infallible (not as a human, but with the spirit.) When the pope says something spiritual, it is to be taken as truth, and it is put into the CCC (Catechism of the Catholic Church.) However, if the Cardinals decide that it's out of line with Scripture, or if the Laity believes so as well, they have procedures for handling this. The bible is not what changes, as it is, in it's own way infallible, rather it's the interpretation.

Now, onto another issue, one that allows Catholics to disagree with the pope, I cannot remember the term, but if the Laity, Theologians, and Ministers disagree on a topic, they have a doctrine that allows each member of a congregation to decide with their hearts. However, when homosexuality is brought up by a Theologian or Minister being pro-gay, usually the member is ex-communicated from his position. The Catholic Church is very very specific on what they believe when it comes to sexuality, that is only straight vaginal sex is allowed by their decree. I doubt this will change, which is why I left the church. Their current position however is that it's genetic. However, they will not allow homosexuals into a minister position (other than a deacon... if they had sex at some point they must require three years of celebacy,) they go to the extent of actually monitoring priests to find out if they're gay, if they get suspicious, then you cannot become one. I was going to head into the priesthood, but changed my mind because of such.

[Thou]

Rainbowfied Mouse

The pope can say something "contradicting" the bible because the pope is what is infallible (not as a human, but with the spirit.) When the pope says something spiritual, it is to be taken as truth, and it is put into the CCC (Catechism of the Catholic Church.) However, if the Cardinals decide that it's out of line with Scripture, or if the Laity believes so as well, they have procedures for handling this. The bible is not what changes, as it is, in it's own way infallible, rather it's the interpretation.

Now, onto another issue, one that allows Catholics to disagree with the pope, I cannot remember the term, but if the Laity, Theologians, and Ministers disagree on a topic, they have a doctrine that allows each member of a congregation to decide with their hearts. However, when homosexuality is brought up by a Theologian or Minister being pro-gay, usually the member is ex-communicated from his position.

Can you give citation on any of this?

[linaloki]

Thou

dio777

There is a belief that the NT only forbids certain sexual acts rather than homosexuality per se, and after debating it from both angles on this forum i've concluded that its true.

This is fine if you are an adherent to Sola Scriptura. However, Catholics are not. We do not thresh our teachings from Sacred Scripture; they were handed on to us by the Church, with Sacred Scripture taking its form from those teachings. (Our Scriptures are founded on the Church, not our Church on the Scriptures.)

One might be able to say that the New Testament does not explicitly forbid homosexual behavior, but one cannot say that the Catholic Church does not explicitly forbid homosexual behavior.

Ahem. Note that I never said homosexual behavior. I said homosexuality. The Catechism specifically makes note that, while homosexuality is not great, it in and of itself is no sin. Homosexual sex? Definitely. Homosexuality? Nope. The Roman Catholic Church believes/officially notes in the Catechism that homosexuals are simply called to chastity by God.