Ask a Catholic

[Fiosh]

Pax

In the center of St. Peter Square there is a column or tower or whatever...what is that?

Who made it and where did it come from?

I have no idea.

I had to Google this one. Do you mean the towers that remain from the wall built by Pope Leo IV to protect the basilica after it was pillaged by the Saracens in 847???

Why is there an oblisk in the center of St. Peter Square?

You say the catholic church is the one true church of God and that the body of Christ is that church.

If this is true...why would He share His church with another god?

Also...that oblisk sits in the center of a symbol of Baal...so there are actually two gods.

Why would Christ allow these two abominations to become a part of His body?

I had to look this one up as I'm not familiar with the obelisk. What I've learned is that the obelisk was allowed to remain as a reminder of the Christians who were martyred for Christ at the hands of the Emperor Nero.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

"The present Church of St. Peter stands upon the site where at the beginning of the first century the gardens of Agrippina lay. Her son, Caius Caligula, built a circus there, in the spina of which he erected the celebrated obelisk without hieroglyphics which was brought from Heliopolis and now stands in the Piazza di S. Pietro. The Emperor Nero was especially fond of this circus and arranged many spectacles in it, among which the martyrdoms of the Christians (Tacitus, "Annal.", XV, 44) obtained a dreadful notoriety. "

You may check other secular references. I'm really pressed for time.

Did you know that the place where Jesus said, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church"---Caesarea Philippi---was the exact location of an altar to pagan gods? I learned that from a respected Protestant video series.

Jesus is not intimidated by monuments built of rock to non-existent gods. Neither is the Catholic Church.

God bless you, man.

Peace,

Fiosh

[ayin jade]

In is interesting to me though to watch the vigorous denial of the possibility of annulment from folks who approve divorce. We've had several threads discussing the pros and cons of divorce. Puzzling.

I do not approve of divorce. Nor do I think annulment is proper. The person who first described it (KansasDad) said this:

The most common reasons to grant an annulment are insufficiency or inadequacy of judgment (also known as lack of due discretion, due to some factor such as young age, pressure to marry in haste, etc.), psychological incapacity, and absence of a proper intention to have children, be faithful, or remain together until death.

These grounds can manifest themselves in various ways. For example, a couple, discovering her pregnancy, decide to marry; only much later do they recognize the lack of wisdom in that decision. Or one spouse carries an addictive problem with alcohol or drugs into the marriage. Perhaps a person, unfaithful during courtship, continues the infidelity after marrying.

In cases like these, the Church judges may decide that something contrary to the nature of marriage or to a full, free human decision prevents this contract from being sound or binding.

Sorry, but the bible does not give us the right to divorce, much less have the marriage annuled, because we made a stupid decision when we got married. This isnt like your example of a woman with a gun to her head. (I mean really, how often will you see the gun type scenario.) If 2 consenting adults marry because they couldnt keep their hands off of each other, she got pregnant and they chose to be married, there is no exception clause in the bible for that marriage to be dissolved by divorce or by annulment.

Show me please where the bible says that God accepts that as a valid reason for divorce/ marriage annulment. Please show me scripture to back up the marriage annulment thing to begin with.

[Fiosh]

I apologize for not getting to all the questions. I went thru the thread tonite and made a list of the ones I missed. Unfortunately, I don't have the time I would like to fellowship here at WB. And, this weekend we are putting a new roof on our house, including the plywood. Yep, I'm not just another pretty face; I'm quite the roofer, too!

I'd like to thank Pax and Kansas Dad (who seems to have outed himself as a RC ) for carrying the ball. Great job, guys!!!!

And, thank you, to all my brothers and sisters who have participated here for their kind understanding of our motivation to show you that, even though you may not agree with our beliefs, we are certainly your brothers and sisters in Christ.

Praised be Jesus Christ! Now and forever!!!

Peace,

Fiosh

[ayin jade]

What about a man that is having an affair while engaged, and continues that affair even after being married. If the "bride" is not aware of this, she cannot give free consent because she doesn't know the truth.

In order for the "two to become one flesh", the consent must be an act of free will of each of the parties.

Free will as I understand means the ability to say yes or no. The bride has the option to refuse to marry him or to marry him. I do not see how a secret affair negates her proper consent. Please show me how this negates her free will using scripture.

[Pax]

What about a man that is having an affair while engaged, and continues that affair even after being married. If the "bride" is not aware of this, she cannot give free consent because she doesn't know the truth.

In order for the "two to become one flesh", the consent must be an act of free will of each of the parties.

Free will as I understand means the ability to say yes or no. The bride has the option to refuse to marry him or to marry him. I do not see how a secret affair negates her proper consent. Please show me how this negates her free will using scripture.

AJ,

What Fiosh is trying to point out is that the Bride didn't know of the affair. If she knew her husband to be was having an affair, it is very unlikely that she would go on with the wedding. Both people need full knowledge of each others action leading up to marriage. This is one reason why the Church has marriage prep classes.

[Pax]

Man,

I'm not sure what more you would like Fiosh to answer. She has answered many of your questions more than once, and she made it clear that she doesn't want to argue. If you don't agree that's fine. You have made your point that you believe that Catholics are guilty of Idolatry. Fiosh has shown her side of it, now do you have any other questions besides this?

[Pax]

Man,

#337 was answered in #378 by Fiosh.

[Smalcald]

This question is in regards to the Eucharist. I have been to many a Catholic Mass, and I have observed that many people take the wafer, but they do not take the cup.

When I inquired about this, my Catholic friends told me that some choose not to drink the wine, since a common cup is used, because of health reasons -- getting a germ from someone else.

My question is: If Catholics really believe that the bread and wine become the actual body and blood of Jesus, then wouldn't that be the most purest, safest thing to drink?

Thank you.

Sure, but someones mouth filled with germs is still going to be placed on the cup. Then the next person is going to put their mouth on the cup and on for 300 people. It isn't the contents one is worried about, but rather the germs from ones mouth that will be on the edge of the cup. I personally would drink the precious blood of Christ, but if I had a cold I wouldn't out of respect for others. I wouldn't want them to get sick. A Catholic isn't obligated to drink the precious blood of Christ and essentially one is receiving the body, blood, soul and divinity in the Eucharist. The parish I belong to only offers the precious blood to all the lay people during two masses a year. Easter, and Christmas. However the Eucharist is offered at each mass. Some parishes will offer both at each mass.

I find that totally bizarre. To me that means you really are only offered the Eucharist twice a year. On one hand Catholics hold this Sacrament as the center the most important thing, and then on the other the instructions of Christ are ignored. Sorry to come of strong on this Pax, but Christ said take drink, take eat, it was not choose which you like the best and do what you want. I just don't get not taking both elements? How can you be so literal on one side, this IS my Blood, then on the other saying ,well don

[Guest man]

Pax

In the center of St. Peter Square there is a column or tower or whatever...what is that?

Who made it and where did it come from?

I have no idea.

I had to Google this one. Do you mean the towers that remain from the wall built by Pope Leo IV to protect the basilica after it was pillaged by the Saracens in 847???

Why is there an oblisk in the center of St. Peter Square?

You say the catholic church is the one true church of God and that the body of Christ is that church.

If this is true...why would He share His church with another god?

Also...that oblisk sits in the center of a symbol of Baal...so there are actually two gods.

Why would Christ allow these two abominations to become a part of His body?

I had to look this one up as I'm not familiar with the obelisk. What I've learned is that the obelisk was allowed to remain as a reminder of the Christians who were martyred for Christ at the hands of the Emperor Nero.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

"The present Church of St. Peter stands upon the site where at the beginning of the first century the gardens of Agrippina lay. Her son, Caius Caligula, built a circus there, in the spina of which he erected the celebrated obelisk without hieroglyphics which was brought from Heliopolis and now stands in the Piazza di S. Pietro. The Emperor Nero was especially fond of this circus and arranged many spectacles in it, among which the martyrdoms of the Christians (Tacitus, "Annal.", XV, 44) obtained a dreadful notoriety. "

You may check other secular references. I'm really pressed for time.

Did you know that the place where Jesus said, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church"---Caesarea Philippi---was the exact location of an altar to pagan gods? I learned that from a respected Protestant video series.

Jesus is not intimidated by monuments built of rock to non-existent gods. Neither is the Catholic Church.

God bless you, man.

Peace,

Fiosh

But that doesn't explain why Christ would allow 2 pagan gods to become a part of His church...to physically become a part of Him...since you claim that the catholic church is the body of Christ.

All through scripture, God either warns us about idols or He destroys them. Not once does He accept one. Not once does He say He's ok with having these things.

Isaiah 19:1...Jeremiah 43:12 and 46:25 speak of Egyption idols.

I just don't understand how the catholic church can be so accepting of these false gods when God isn't.

The location where Christ spoke to Peter does not mean He accepts them.

[Guest man]

Man,

I'm not sure what more you would like Fiosh to answer. She has answered many of your questions more than once, and she made it clear that she doesn't want to argue. If you don't agree that's fine. You have made your point that you believe that Catholics are guilty of Idolatry. Fiosh has shown her side of it, now do you have any other questions besides this?

I want you to show me through scripture that these images or icons are acceptable to God.

I can show you where they are not...can you show me where they are?

If you choose to speak in her place...I'm fine with that.

I'm trying to be as civil as I possibly can. I'm not attacking you, her, or anyone else of the catholic faith. All I want is for you to answer my questions. It's that simple.

I am not of the catholic faith and therefore get all my teaching's from the bible. The only book I read pertaining to God is the bible. Any other book is an interpretation of that book and subject error. It is stated in the bible that there is only one teacher and that teacher is Christ. I trust no other but Him to give me the truth.

So...now that you know where I'm coming from...why not do the same for me.