Is there salvation outside the Catholic Church?

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

aspen

“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
Apr 25, 2012
14,111
4,778
113
52
West Coast
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
LOL
Agreed! About the doctrine part.
This conversation has nothing to do with this Pope.

And yet it does! If you are claiming that he is changing doctrine.

BreadOfLife insisted that it is not possible for the church to make a change in doctrine.
THIS IS A CHANGE IN DOCTRINE. (emphasis...I never yell).

Well, like I said in my last post - some Catholics like to mince words and doctrine and how the rules are applied. I often do not care. I think receiving the Eucharist is a personal decision - ultimately it is your soul - I doubt God is going to listen to anyone blaming their church for the condition of their heart. Therefore, my concern is with the current condition of my relationship with Christ and how I am living it. If I am living sinfully, whether mortal or venal, I want to recognize it and make changes.

Now he says it's a change in discipline.
Is giving the body and blood to a person in CONTINUOUS MORTAL SIN a discipline!!
I think not.

Ok. Cause it sounds like you want to win this discussion you are having with BOL. It’s up to you if you want to keep dragging this out - I’ve never seen BOL change his mind when he has committed to his opinion. He appears to be the ‘doubling down’ sort.

If Pope Francis is going to allow remarrieds to receive communion while they live together as husband and wife....this is an important change in catholic doctrine...which states that a person in mortal sin cannot receive communion.

There’s that Pope guy we aren’t talking about, again. That being said, it sounds like you maybe a bit confused about the Pope - I am just guessing here, so don’t jump on me. The Pope doesn’t ‘let’ Catholics do things or not do things, just like he doesn’t decide who is a saint and who is not a saint, but instead, simply recognizes them. Anyone - including the homosexuals dressed as clowns can receive the Eucharist from some priest if they want to, but I wouldn’t recommend it.

The Pope is recognizing that people are in need of the Eucharist, which is a part of salvation in the Catholic Church (like it or not) and to withhold part of salvation from people who are in committed relationships may be a worse practice. In a way, I agree with BOL on this as I write, (a development of my post) it is a sort of a discipline because it is a determination about who can benefit from the Eucharist and who cannot. In the end it is up to the person receiving it.

So is eating meat on Fridays a change in doctrine or disciple?

A discipline would be
How many times a day communion can be received
How long before receiving can one eat/or take medicine with water
The age for first communion...
and other such matters of SMALL IMPORTANCE.

I think you are misdefining discipline - your definition of a discipline is really defining a practice - you are describing logistics, not a discipline. A discipline is much more personal and depends on individual involvement. A discipline is an agreement to commit to a doctrine.
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Giving the body and blood to someone IN MORTAL SIN is a discipline?
Deciding WHO gets to receive the Eucharist and WHO doesn't is a matter of discipline and NOT doctrine.
How many times do you need to hear this before it sinks in??

I've had 2nd grade students who learned this faster . . .
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Oops...I am guilty of jumping into a conversation that I did not read completely before commenting - sorry about that.

Yes, you are making the same argument as many people who are conservative and do not like the current Pope. It is a legitimate POV. Personally, I love the current Pope and I know that doctrine develops over time. Some Catholics like to point out that doctrine develops when it suits their argument and then deny it when it doesn’t,
This is nonsense.
The Church has ALWAYS taught that doctrine develops.

What it doesn't do is change - and the current Pope hasn't changed a single doctrine.
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
LOL
Agreed! About the doctrine part.
This conversation has nothing to do with this Pope.

@BreadOfLife insisted that it is not possible for the church to make a change in doctrine.
THIS IS A CHANGE IN DOCTRINE. (emphasis...I never yell).

Now he says it's a change in discipline.
Is giving the body and blood to a person in CONTINUOUS MORTAL SIN a discipline!!
I think not.

If Pope Francis is going to allow remarrieds to receive communion while they live together as husband and wife....this is an important change in catholic doctrine...which states that a person in mortal sin cannot receive communion.

A discipline would be
How many times a day communion can be received
How long before receiving can one eat/or take medicine with water
The age for first communion...
and other such matters of SMALL IMPORTANCE.
And again, you are exhibiting an abject ignorance of Catholic teaching.

Another example of the discipline of allowing or disallowing somebody to receive the Eucharist is with Protestants.
Generally, Protestants are NOT allowed to receive the Eucharist because they are not in full communion with the Church. However - there ARE instances where this IS allowed. This is ALSO not a matter of doctrine - but discipline.

You are barking up the wrong tree with this fruitless and impotent argument.
You are dead wrong because you don't understand Catholic teaching and are making up your own rules . . ..
 

Grailhunter

Well-Known Member
Jun 19, 2019
11,082
5,276
113
66
FARMINGTON
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
And again, you are exhibiting an abject ignorance of Catholic teaching.

Another example of the discipline of allowing or disallowing somebody to receive the Eucharist is with Protestants.
Generally, Protestants are NOT allowed to receive the Eucharist because they are not in full communion with the Church. However - there ARE instances where this IS allowed. This is ALSO not a matter of doctrine - but discipline.

You are barking up the wrong tree with this fruitless and impotent argument.
You are dead wrong because you don't understand Catholic teaching and are making up your own rules . . ..

Ok, or as they say "Alrighty then" I cannot say that I totally agree with you or GodsGrace, other than a denomination has the right to define what they believe. But still I think you are kinda spiting hairs on terms. The Church has made an official statement on this, so why not just go with that. For me, I do not agree with any of it. The conversation in the scriptures is too short to make a definitive detailed doctrine. As it is this belief has enslaved women, trapped them and their children in abusive relationships, and worse. No, I do not believe that any of that is of Christ's intent.

Then again, BOL, show me the scripture that indicates that rudeness is of God. I am kind of a scraper, I would like to have that in my back pocket. And I would jump for joy if you could show me the scripture that we should be rude to women, cause I just live for that. Surely Christ gave us an example in the scriptures were He was rude to women. Put Noooooo! So as it is neither Christ or your parents could teach you manners. So you have been awarded another lesson in manners....

Capture.JPG

…the greatest man would justly be reckoned a brute if he were not civil to the meanest woman.” Martine’s Handbook (1866)

The crisis today in the relationships of men and women is multi-faceted. The general lack of manners in their interaction is both an indication and a cause of the crisis.

Women are to be reverenced, always and just because they are women. This truth, as other basic truths, is universally knowable, even though not universally known and practiced.

The nature and dignity of woman may remain something of a mystery to most men. But nevertheless, actions that show reverence to women can and should be expected of them. It was once so, as part of a code of manners. If universally expected, these actions will be generally practiced; and among some, perhaps even many, the corresponding interior dispositions will grow.

On the very first page of Emily Post’s Etiquette we find the following instructions about introductions:

First, a younger person is presented to an older person. Second, a gentleman is always presented to a lady, even though she is no older than eighteen. Third, no woman is ever presented to a man, unless he is: the President of the United States, the recognized head of another country; a member of a royal family; a cardinal or other church dignitary.

Such instructions probably strike us, especially the young, as odd. But then again, they seem to speak to something deep within us. In every introduction involving a woman, she is to be given a certain priority and reverence. Such customary manners were an expression of a communal understanding, even if only implicit, about the dignity of woman. But more than just an expression, they were a central means of cultivating and promoting that understanding and a corresponding reverence.

There will always be men, even among those who do practice good manners, who will view and treat women inappropriately. The condition of our human nature, including our freedom, pretty much assures this. But rather than lessening the importance of manners, it gives special reason to value them. We all, especially parents, have every reason to redouble our efforts to instill good manners and customary practices between men and women.

Such practices are of course the responsibility of both sexes. But the responsibility falls first upon men, and it is there that I focus my attention. It is worth simply calling to mind some traditional practices.

As a rule, a man holds the door for a woman; he offers his seat to a woman; he offers to carry something heavy; he walks on the side closer to traffic; he offers his umbrella; he gives more attention to his clothes and grooming in her presence; he is especially vigilant about his language; he does not pry into her private life. And in all these things he is careful not to seem patronizing or pushy. Indeed, now that such practices can be seen as offensive by some women, it is all the more incumbent upon a man to act with prudence and in no way to seem to be ‘making a point’ of his manners.

The interaction between men and women in contexts either potentially or actually romantic calls for special attention. Traditional practices here, which in fact go beyond what would normally be called manners, were rooted in a two main convictions: first, romance is ordered toward marriage, and second, the human condition demands that steps be taken to protect the integrity of romance, and especially to protect the honor of women. Rather than stemming from a prudish recoiling from the romantic or from a dark distrust of people, the observance of such rules of interaction is the fruit of an insight into the very nature of man and woman and of an understanding that their healthy interaction needs fostering.

Emily Post wrote:

If a young girl’s family is not at home, she should not, on returning from a party, invite or allow her date to ‘come in for a while.’ If he persists, she should tell him firmly, ‘Sorry, another time,’ and bid him ‘good night.’ However, if her parents are home and have been notified, it is perfectly all right to invite him in for a snack. He should not stay overly long, and if he shows no inclination to leave, the girl should tell him that her parents have set a definite ‘curfew’ hour.

These guidelines might strike us as too much, or as too specific. What is worth noticing, it seems to me, is the common sense approach to addressing a real issue. Whatever their exact formulation, when rules such as the above are commonly practiced they incarnate and convey a sense of propriety and limit. Young men and women are thus given to understand that their interaction is part of something bigger than themselves, something that will demand much of them. These are points that young men, in particular, need to learn. Acting well by the women in their life will always be an arduous task. To have to work hard to ‘win’ their way into relationships is a fitting preparation.

How to formulate and promulgate reasonable practices in this area will challenge even the most vibrant families and communities today. Perhaps the most challenging aspect is to make the practices an expression not of fear but of hope. Healthy communities have always realized that the proper relating of men and women is a flower that needs careful, communal cultivation. It does not bloom and flourish of itself.

Some today might ask what basis there is for giving women special care and attention. This is of course in itself a profound question. Yet at times the spirit in which the question is posed can indicate that certain fundamental insights have simply been lost. More and more we tend to see ‘nature’ as something to re-mold according to our wishes, and we do not hear what she is saying to us about who we are.

Women are deserving of special reverence not because of weakness, but because of strength. In women, a man can intuit the presence of something that transcends his comprehension. It is in reality something of the divine, something that is somehow his to cherish, to serve, and to protect. Just what it is, and how best to respond to it, he will need to spend a lifetime trying to discover.

Good manners in the interaction of men and women is a great tool in this effort. And we can work together in our communities to reclaim and reform these expressions of an ancient wisdom.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Philip James

bbyrd009

Groper
Nov 30, 2016
33,943
12,081
113
Ute City, COLO
www.facebook.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States Minor Outlying Islands
What I'm saying is that we do not have the exact words of Jesus.
ok well i'm pretty sure that is irrelevant anyway, strange as that maybe sounds, i mean we are even told we dont have all of Jesus' Words, yes, but you seem to be implying that something has been lost in the message? And we are told your holy one will not see decay yes?
This was true for the O.T.
This was not true for the N.T.
ah well i guess that is true, but the NT still blows away any other 2000 year old book i guess, and many 200 year old ones? What do you think we have lost here GG?
 
Last edited:

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Ok, or as they say "Alrighty then" I cannot say that I totally agree with you or GodsGrace, other than a denomination has the right to define what they believe. But still I think you are kinda spiting hairs on terms. The Church has made an official statement on this, so why not just go with that. For me, I do not agree with any of it. The conversation in the scriptures is too short to make a definitive detailed doctrine. As it is this belief has enslaved women, trapped them and their children in abusive relationships, and worse. No, I do not believe that any of that is of Christ's intent.

Then again, BOL, show me the scripture that indicates that rudeness is of God. I am kind of a scraper, I would like to have that in my back pocket. And I would jump for joy if you could show me the scripture that we should be rude to women, cause I just live for that. Surely Christ gave us an example in the scriptures were He was rude to women. Put Noooooo! So as it is neither Christ or your parents could teach you manners. So you have been awarded another lesson in manners....

View attachment 6983

…the greatest man would justly be reckoned a brute if he were not civil to the meanest woman.” Martine’s Handbook (1866)

The crisis today in the relationships of men and women is multi-faceted. The general lack of manners in their interaction is both an indication and a cause of the crisis.

Women are to be reverenced, always and just because they are women. This truth, as other basic truths, is universally knowable, even though not universally known and practiced.

The nature and dignity of woman may remain something of a mystery to most men. But nevertheless, actions that show reverence to women can and should be expected of them. It was once so, as part of a code of manners. If universally expected, these actions will be generally practiced; and among some, perhaps even many, the corresponding interior dispositions will grow.

On the very first page of Emily Post’s Etiquette we find the following instructions about introductions:

First, a younger person is presented to an older person. Second, a gentleman is always presented to a lady, even though she is no older than eighteen. Third, no woman is ever presented to a man, unless he is: the President of the United States, the recognized head of another country; a member of a royal family; a cardinal or other church dignitary.

Such instructions probably strike us, especially the young, as odd. But then again, they seem to speak to something deep within us. In every introduction involving a woman, she is to be given a certain priority and reverence. Such customary manners were an expression of a communal understanding, even if only implicit, about the dignity of woman. But more than just an expression, they were a central means of cultivating and promoting that understanding and a corresponding reverence.

There will always be men, even among those who do practice good manners, who will view and treat women inappropriately. The condition of our human nature, including our freedom, pretty much assures this. But rather than lessening the importance of manners, it gives special reason to value them. We all, especially parents, have every reason to redouble our efforts to instill good manners and customary practices between men and women.

Such practices are of course the responsibility of both sexes. But the responsibility falls first upon men, and it is there that I focus my attention. It is worth simply calling to mind some traditional practices.

As a rule, a man holds the door for a woman; he offers his seat to a woman; he offers to carry something heavy; he walks on the side closer to traffic; he offers his umbrella; he gives more attention to his clothes and grooming in her presence; he is especially vigilant about his language; he does not pry into her private life. And in all these things he is careful not to seem patronizing or pushy. Indeed, now that such practices can be seen as offensive by some women, it is all the more incumbent upon a man to act with prudence and in no way to seem to be ‘making a point’ of his manners.

The interaction between men and women in contexts either potentially or actually romantic calls for special attention. Traditional practices here, which in fact go beyond what would normally be called manners, were rooted in a two main convictions: first, romance is ordered toward marriage, and second, the human condition demands that steps be taken to protect the integrity of romance, and especially to protect the honor of women. Rather than stemming from a prudish recoiling from the romantic or from a dark distrust of people, the observance of such rules of interaction is the fruit of an insight into the very nature of man and woman and of an understanding that their healthy interaction needs fostering.

Emily Post wrote:

If a young girl’s family is not at home, she should not, on returning from a party, invite or allow her date to ‘come in for a while.’ If he persists, she should tell him firmly, ‘Sorry, another time,’ and bid him ‘good night.’ However, if her parents are home and have been notified, it is perfectly all right to invite him in for a snack. He should not stay overly long, and if he shows no inclination to leave, the girl should tell him that her parents have set a definite ‘curfew’ hour.

These guidelines might strike us as too much, or as too specific. What is worth noticing, it seems to me, is the common sense approach to addressing a real issue. Whatever their exact formulation, when rules such as the above are commonly practiced they incarnate and convey a sense of propriety and limit. Young men and women are thus given to understand that their interaction is part of something bigger than themselves, something that will demand much of them. These are points that young men, in particular, need to learn. Acting well by the women in their life will always be an arduous task. To have to work hard to ‘win’ their way into relationships is a fitting preparation.

How to formulate and promulgate reasonable practices in this area will challenge even the most vibrant families and communities today. Perhaps the most challenging aspect is to make the practices an expression not of fear but of hope. Healthy communities have always realized that the proper relating of men and women is a flower that needs careful, communal cultivation. It does not bloom and flourish of itself.

Some today might ask what basis there is for giving women special care and attention. This is of course in itself a profound question. Yet at times the spirit in which the question is posed can indicate that certain fundamental insights have simply been lost. More and more we tend to see ‘nature’ as something to re-mold according to our wishes, and we do not hear what she is saying to us about who we are.

Women are deserving of special reverence not because of weakness, but because of strength. In women, a man can intuit the presence of something that transcends his comprehension. It is in reality something of the divine, something that is somehow his to cherish, to serve, and to protect. Just what it is, and how best to respond to it, he will need to spend a lifetime trying to discover.

Good manners in the interaction of men and women is a great tool in this effort. And we can work together in our communities to reclaim and reform these expressions of an ancient wisdom.
Rubbish.

A person who lies blatantly and with impunity needs to be publicly rebuked and corrected(1 Tim. 5:20).

Scripture is CLEAR about this and it doesn’t differentiate between men and women. In fact, Scripture states that in Christ, “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female” (Gal. 3:28) – so you’re barking up the WRONG tree.

Teach your female friend instead NOT to lie and to obey God’s Commandment against it . . .
 

Grailhunter

Well-Known Member
Jun 19, 2019
11,082
5,276
113
66
FARMINGTON
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Rubbish.

A person who lies blatantly and with impunity needs to be publicly rebuked and corrected(1 Tim. 5:20).

Scripture is CLEAR about this and it doesn’t differentiate between men and women. In fact, Scripture states that in Christ, “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female” (Gal. 3:28) – so you’re barking up the WRONG tree.

Teach your female friend instead NOT to lie and to obey God’s Commandment against it . . .

I am barking at a person who does know the most basic spirit of Christianity. You are a horrible example of the Church. I have another lesson for you here, let me see where is that at?
 

Grailhunter

Well-Known Member
Jun 19, 2019
11,082
5,276
113
66
FARMINGTON
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Rubbish.

A person who lies blatantly and with impunity needs to be publicly rebuked and corrected(1 Tim. 5:20).

Scripture is CLEAR about this and it doesn’t differentiate between men and women. In fact, Scripture states that in Christ, “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female” (Gal. 3:28) – so you’re barking up the WRONG tree.

Teach your female friend instead NOT to lie and to obey God’s Commandment against it . . .

Here ya go. They have written a book for you. Lesson #3 God Bless and have a nice day! I already have lesson # 4 waiting.

Manners and Morals
Brad Miner WEDNESDAY, MAY 6, 2009


1aamanners and.jpg

A new edition of my book, The Compleat Gentleman: The Modern Man’s Guide to Chivalry, is being published today. I hadn’t intended to do a book about courtesy, manners, etiquette, or whatever we wish to call formal politeness, nor — but for a few paragraphs such as those that follow — did I write such a book. Yet I’ve found that the rules of behavior — and the role Catholicism played in the genesis of chivalry — are what most people want to discuss. After a while, I even stopped mentioning that the compleat gentleman, the chivalrous man, isn’t always polite, although he’s never rude.

The root of the word “rude” is interesting: it comes from the Latin,rudis, meaning unsophisticated, which remains its primary definition today. It wasn’t until the late Middle Ages that the word came to meanill-mannered, which is to say the opposite of polite.

And what about “polite”? We think of the word today as meaning, more or less, mannerly. A polite person has good manners. But in origin the word is closer to polish, with the implication, perhaps, that the polite person is a sort of gleaming silver teapot. From its Latin roots through its emergence in Middle English and well into the 1700s, the word meant a thing buffed up or cleansed or even organized, although other meanings also emerged. So it always is with important words.

Once upon a time it was a man’s sword that might be polite — if his squire kept it burnished; then, late in the 1400s, the knight himself might be polite if he was “polished” enough to speak sensibly about the liberal arts; and finally, sometime after 1750, a man might be thought polite or gentlemanly simply for doffing his cap to a lady.

I’m in favor of politeness, because manners are minor morals. “Manners are to morals.” Henry Hazlitt wrote, “as the final sand papering, rubbing, and polishing on a fine piece of furniture are to the selection of the wood, the sawing, chiseling, and fitting. They are the finishing touch.” Manners are good.

On the other hand, I believe in tit-for-tat, in what Robert Axlerod (in his 1984 book, The Evolution of Cooperation) has called the “robustness of reciprocity.” A gentleman is a warrior, not a doormat, and he will cooperate with others only insofar as they cooperate with him. Cooperation begets cooperation, kindness begets kindness, but neither cooperation nor kindness is quite the appropriate response to aggression or rudeness. Lots of well-intentioned Christians have misunderstood this to their sorrow and to the detriment of the Church.

Axlerod’s book details the reasons why the tit-for-tat strategy outperforms all others in a computer game called Prisoner’s Dilemma. The scheme’s success, he writes, is “due to being nice, provocable, forgiving, and clear.” A further amplification provides a good description of the compleat gentleman: “Its niceness means that it is never the first to defect [to fail to cooperate], and this property prevents it from getting into unnecessary trouble. Its retaliation discourages the other side from persisting whenever defection is tried. Its forgiveness helps to restore mutual cooperation. And its clarity makes its behavioral pattern easy to recognize, it is easy to perceive that the best way of dealing with tit for tat is to cooperate with it.”

Many a modern gent has had the sword taken from his hand. Exceptions include West Point’s Catholic cadets. At the Academy’s Most Holy Trinity Chapel, stained glass windows portray soldier-saints: St. Barbara, patroness of artillery; St. George, patron of armor; Knights of Malta and of the Holy Sepulcher — among many reminders that faith and the sword are compatible.

A short digression into politics: the best constitutional structure in the macrocosm is simply an extension of the well-ordered microcosm, which is to say the compleat gentleman. This gentleman is sweetness and light to his friends, acid and fire to his enemies. He may be slow to anger, but he will be awesome in action when he strikes. Having purged his righteous anger, he will then be quick to forgive. It is a miracle that among America’s closest allies today are those countries that were once our greatest enemies: Germany, Italy, and Japan, the earlier Axis of evil. Their friendship is directly proportional to Allied generosity.

Emily Post defined the American gentleman as well as anybody ever has:

Far more important than any mere dictum of etiquette is the fundamental code of honor, without strict observance of which no man, no matter how “polished,” can be considered a gentleman. The honor of a gentleman demands the inviolability of his word, and the incorruptibility of his principles; he is the descendant of the knight, the crusader; he is the defender of the defenseless, and the champion of justice — or he is not a gentleman.
No matter who tries to define chivalry, most commentators tend to agree on five attributes: fidelity, prowess, generosity, courtesy, and honor. If historically fidelity approached chauvinism, if prowess was menacingly close to brutality, if generosity degraded into profligacy, if courtesy became hypocrisy, and if honor slipped over into arrogance then we have reason to doubt the authenticity of traditional chivalry, and we should; so long, that is, as we are willing to acknowledge our own ethical failures.
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Here ya go. They have written a book for you. Lesson #3 God Bless and have a nice day! I already have lesson # 4 waiting.

Manners and Morals
Brad Miner WEDNESDAY, MAY 6, 2009


View attachment 6985

A new edition of my book, The Compleat Gentleman: The Modern Man’s Guide to Chivalry, is being published today. I hadn’t intended to do a book about courtesy, manners, etiquette, or whatever we wish to call formal politeness, nor — but for a few paragraphs such as those that follow — did I write such a book. Yet I’ve found that the rules of behavior — and the role Catholicism played in the genesis of chivalry — are what most people want to discuss. After a while, I even stopped mentioning that the compleat gentleman, the chivalrous man, isn’t always polite, although he’s never rude.

The root of the word “rude” is interesting: it comes from the Latin,rudis, meaning unsophisticated, which remains its primary definition today. It wasn’t until the late Middle Ages that the word came to meanill-mannered, which is to say the opposite of polite.

And what about “polite”? We think of the word today as meaning, more or less, mannerly. A polite person has good manners. But in origin the word is closer to polish, with the implication, perhaps, that the polite person is a sort of gleaming silver teapot. From its Latin roots through its emergence in Middle English and well into the 1700s, the word meant a thing buffed up or cleansed or even organized, although other meanings also emerged. So it always is with important words.

Once upon a time it was a man’s sword that might be polite — if his squire kept it burnished; then, late in the 1400s, the knight himself might be polite if he was “polished” enough to speak sensibly about the liberal arts; and finally, sometime after 1750, a man might be thought polite or gentlemanly simply for doffing his cap to a lady.

I’m in favor of politeness, because manners are minor morals. “Manners are to morals.” Henry Hazlitt wrote, “as the final sand papering, rubbing, and polishing on a fine piece of furniture are to the selection of the wood, the sawing, chiseling, and fitting. They are the finishing touch.” Manners are good.

On the other hand, I believe in tit-for-tat, in what Robert Axlerod (in his 1984 book, The Evolution of Cooperation) has called the “robustness of reciprocity.” A gentleman is a warrior, not a doormat, and he will cooperate with others only insofar as they cooperate with him. Cooperation begets cooperation, kindness begets kindness, but neither cooperation nor kindness is quite the appropriate response to aggression or rudeness. Lots of well-intentioned Christians have misunderstood this to their sorrow and to the detriment of the Church.

Axlerod’s book details the reasons why the tit-for-tat strategy outperforms all others in a computer game called Prisoner’s Dilemma. The scheme’s success, he writes, is “due to being nice, provocable, forgiving, and clear.” A further amplification provides a good description of the compleat gentleman: “Its niceness means that it is never the first to defect [to fail to cooperate], and this property prevents it from getting into unnecessary trouble. Its retaliation discourages the other side from persisting whenever defection is tried. Its forgiveness helps to restore mutual cooperation. And its clarity makes its behavioral pattern easy to recognize, it is easy to perceive that the best way of dealing with tit for tat is to cooperate with it.”

Many a modern gent has had the sword taken from his hand. Exceptions include West Point’s Catholic cadets. At the Academy’s Most Holy Trinity Chapel, stained glass windows portray soldier-saints: St. Barbara, patroness of artillery; St. George, patron of armor; Knights of Malta and of the Holy Sepulcher — among many reminders that faith and the sword are compatible.

A short digression into politics: the best constitutional structure in the macrocosm is simply an extension of the well-ordered microcosm, which is to say the compleat gentleman. This gentleman is sweetness and light to his friends, acid and fire to his enemies. He may be slow to anger, but he will be awesome in action when he strikes. Having purged his righteous anger, he will then be quick to forgive. It is a miracle that among America’s closest allies today are those countries that were once our greatest enemies: Germany, Italy, and Japan, the earlier Axis of evil. Their friendship is directly proportional to Allied generosity.

Emily Post defined the American gentleman as well as anybody ever has:

Far more important than any mere dictum of etiquette is the fundamental code of honor, without strict observance of which no man, no matter how “polished,” can be considered a gentleman. The honor of a gentleman demands the inviolability of his word, and the incorruptibility of his principles; he is the descendant of the knight, the crusader; he is the defender of the defenseless, and the champion of justice — or he is not a gentleman.
No matter who tries to define chivalry, most commentators tend to agree on five attributes: fidelity, prowess, generosity, courtesy, and honor. If historically fidelity approached chauvinism, if prowess was menacingly close to brutality, if generosity degraded into profligacy, if courtesy became hypocrisy, and if honor slipped over into arrogance then we have reason to doubt the authenticity of traditional chivalry, and we should; so long, that is, as we are willing to acknowledge our own ethical failures.
And bearing false witness is a "good example" of Christianity??
Perhaps YOU need to read your Bible.

Tell me – does the book tell you how to deal with people who spew filthy lies with total impunity?
Yeah - I didn’t think so.

That's why we have Scripture . . .
 

GodsGrace

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2017
10,727
5,716
113
Tuscany
Faith
Christian
Country
Italy
A already HAVE - several times.
Where?
You posted ONE PAGE from some dumb book.

How about posting something from the Vatican as I have done?

You wanted to have an intelligent conversation.
So WHERE is this intelligent conversation YOU asked for ?

As I've stated...
Just because YOU say something, does not make it so.

Perhaps this could be of help to you:

He went on, in the same section, to say:

However, the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist. Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church's teaching about the indissolubility of marriage.

source: Pope Francis on the Divorced and Remarried: 10 Things to Know and Share


(Jimmy Aiken...wow, a TOP APOLOGIST of the Catholic Church)


DISCLAIMER:
I AM ARGUING THE POSITION OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
AND NOT MY OWN OPINION.
GG
 
  • Like
Reactions: Grailhunter

GodsGrace

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2017
10,727
5,716
113
Tuscany
Faith
Christian
Country
Italy
And again, you are exhibiting an abject ignorance of Catholic teaching.

Another example of the discipline of allowing or disallowing somebody to receive the Eucharist is with Protestants.
Generally, Protestants are NOT allowed to receive the Eucharist because they are not in full communion with the Church. However - there ARE instances where this IS allowed. This is ALSO not a matter of doctrine - but discipline.

You are barking up the wrong tree with this fruitless and impotent argument.
You are dead wrong because you don't understand Catholic teaching and are making up your own rules . . ..
We are NOT discussing Protestants here.

If this is such an impotent argument,,,why was the church in a frenzy over it 3 or 4 years ago?
AND STILL IS.

For those that might be interested that still don't understand the change of doctrine and how DOCTRINE HAS CHANGED:

It really starts at 3:00
Please don't say he's no one important...
neither are you,
and neither am I
which is why I post a lot of links...
which YOU have not done.


 
  • Like
Reactions: Grailhunter

GodsGrace

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2017
10,727
5,716
113
Tuscany
Faith
Christian
Country
Italy
Ok, or as they say "Alrighty then" I cannot say that I totally agree with you or GodsGrace, other than a denomination has the right to define what they believe. But still I think you are kinda spiting hairs on terms. The Church has made an official statement on this, so why not just go with that. For me, I do not agree with any of it. The conversation in the scriptures is too short to make a definitive detailed doctrine. As it is this belief has enslaved women, trapped them and their children in abusive relationships, and worse. No, I do not believe that any of that is of Christ's intent.
Hi GH,
The problem is that the CC is CHANGING what they have believed forever, from the beginning.
This is not splitting hairs....one of the main tenetts of the CC is that it CANNOT change doctrine.
Doctrine is a belief and teaching that comes from FAITH and biblical origin. If Jesus SAID IT...the CC cannot change what Jesus said.

The official statement of the Pope (Francis, 2015) is DIFFERENT from what the CC has always believed and what the MAGESTERIUM of the church has always taught it's priests.

Then again, BOL, show me the scripture that indicates that rudeness is of God. I am kind of a scraper, I would like to have that in my back pocket. And I would jump for joy if you could show me the scripture that we should be rude to women, cause I just live for that. Surely Christ gave us an example in the scriptures were He was rude to women. Put Noooooo! So as it is neither Christ or your parents could teach you manners. So you have been awarded another lesson in manners....
LOL
Good luck with that.

I'll say this...a person that respects HIMSELF will respect others too.
Apparently there is a problem of self-respect here.
BoL has little respect for others because this just hold true for himself.

I also have never seen the love of God shining through in him...
Many times I have posted John 13:35 but to no avail.

And the very fact that he can treat a woman the same as a man speaks volumes.
I will not expound on this....



The crisis today in the relationships of men and women is multi-faceted. The general lack of manners in their interaction is both an indication and a cause of the crisis.

Women are to be reverenced, always and just because they are women. This truth, as other basic truths, is universally knowable, even though not universally known and practiced.

The nature and dignity of woman may remain something of a mystery to most men. But nevertheless, actions that show reverence to women can and should be expected of them. It was once so, as part of a code of manners. If universally expected, these actions will be generally practiced; and among some, perhaps even many, the corresponding interior dispositions will grow.
I couldn't agree more and I believe modern women have done a great disservice to themselves by wanting to be equal with men. Women are NOT equal with men...we have different strengths and should respect each other with these strengths and weaknesses.

What maniac decided it's OK for women to be in the armed forces?
Even if some women THINK it's OK for them...the men in this world should have been forceful and said NO!

edit....


Women are deserving of special reverence not because of weakness, but because of strength. In women, a man can intuit the presence of something that transcends his comprehension. It is in reality something of the divine, something that is somehow his to cherish, to serve, and to protect. Just what it is, and how best to respond to it, he will need to spend a lifetime trying to discover.

Good manners in the interaction of men and women is a great tool in this effort. And we can work together in our communities to reclaim and reform these expressions of an ancient wisdom.
Beautifully said.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Grailhunter

GodsGrace

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2017
10,727
5,716
113
Tuscany
Faith
Christian
Country
Italy
ok well i'm pretty sure that is irrelevant anyway, strange as that maybe sounds, i mean we are even told we dont have all of Jesus' Words, yes, but you seem to be implying that something has been lost in the message? And we are told your holy one will not see decay yes?

ah well i guess that is true, but the NT still blows away any other 2000 year old book i guess, and many 200 year old ones? What do you think we have lost here GG?
NO!
I am NOT implying something is lost in the message.
What I'm saying is the opposite.

We do not have the originals...we do not have copies of the originals....we have manuscripts from more than 100 years after the originals were written.
There are MANY differences between all the manuscripts we have...of which I'm sure of at least 51 and I think there are more by now. If anyone wishes to look this up they could google P51 and see what they get.

What I said is that we know that the mistakes do not affect what Jesus taught.

For instance....Jesus spoke the sermon on the mount.
Read it. How long did it take you to read it?
Do you think THAT'S ALL Jesus said to all those people gathered around on that hill?

And was it a hill?
Or was it on the plain?

Different writers put Jesus in a different place (Mathew and Luke I believe).
But, it does not matter WHERE Jesus spoke,
what matters is WHAT HE SAID...

As to the bible being the best preserved of all the old books...
CORRECT!
We CAN trust it.
 

GodsGrace

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2017
10,727
5,716
113
Tuscany
Faith
Christian
Country
Italy
And bearing false witness is a "good example" of Christianity??
Perhaps YOU need to read your Bible.

Tell me – does the book tell you how to deal with people who spew filthy lies with total impunity?
Yeah - I didn’t think so.

That's why we have Scripture . . .
We here all know that YOU are the only one that reads scripture...
the rest of us shouldn't even be here, we're so dumb and we're all liars.

All you know to do is INSULT persons...
How about replying to my posts instead of insulting me?
Maybe YOU can't have an intelligent conversation....
And to think that you thought you knew what a debate is.

So we have scripture.
Jesus told the woman....go and sin no more.
Jesus said there is no such thing as divorce.
Jesus said to confess if one is in sin.
Can you confess you are living in sin and then go home to live in sin?
CAN THAT SIN BE ABSOLVED?


DISCLAIMER:
I AM STATING WHAT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH TEACHES
AND WHICH IS NOT NECESSARILY MY OPINION.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Grailhunter

GodsGrace

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2017
10,727
5,716
113
Tuscany
Faith
Christian
Country
Italy
Deciding WHO gets to receive the Eucharist and WHO doesn't is a matter of discipline and NOT doctrine.
How many times do you need to hear this before it sinks in??

I've had 2nd grade students who learned this faster . . .
You've taught 2nd grade students that it's OK to be divorced, remarried,
and still receive Holy Communion?

And your priest and bishop were OK with this?

What kind of a super liberal parish to YOU belong to?
No wonder your ideas are a mess.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Grailhunter

aspen

“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
Apr 25, 2012
14,111
4,778
113
52
West Coast
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
NO!
I am NOT implying something is lost in the message.
What I'm saying is the opposite.

We do not have the originals...we do not have copies of the originals....we have manuscripts from more than 100 years after the originals were written.
There are MANY differences between all the manuscripts we have...of which I'm sure of at least 51 and I think there are more by now. If anyone wishes to look this up they could google P51 and see what they get.

What I said is that we know that the mistakes do not affect what Jesus taught.

For instance....Jesus spoke the sermon on the mount.
Read it. How long did it take you to read it?
Do you think THAT'S ALL Jesus said to all those people gathered around on that hill?

And was it a hill?
Or was it on the plain?

Different writers put Jesus in a different place (Mathew and Luke I believe).
But, it does not matter WHERE Jesus spoke,
what matters is WHAT HE SAID...

As to the bible being the best preserved of all the old books...
CORRECT!
We CAN trust it.

It passes the test for me
 
  • Like
Reactions: GodsGrace