Catholics don’t believe that the soul of the deceased returns on the 7th day after death. That’s a Chinese Buddhist/ Taoist belief.
Something of natural means, like a small earthquake or animal of some kind. God could have done it through some means.
Again I am no theologian but just because it happened on the 7th day does not mean it goes against Catholic teaching. It is interesting that it happened on the 7th day. Maybe it would have happened if the powder was on the floor on the 6th or 8th day.
I don’t believe in these kinds of “miracles”. I’ve seen even cooler shit by Taoist mediums done right in front of me. All fake.
I believe it should but there are plenty of religious people, many of whom are moral and pleasant, who either ignore and run away some harsh truths or deny them because they harsh.
And yes, many modernized people, that is the ones who embrace modernism and often say what year it is (eg: “it’s 2020, bla bla bla”), either hate, or poke fun at religious people, often by delivering zingers referring to t the more punitive or peculiar verses of the Bible. Hence you’ll hear cheap shots like, “Oh, so you condone slavery,” and the popular cheap shot of mentioning homosexuality in a way to sniff out a person’s views on homosexuality.
3 Likes
If you do believe in an infinite God who can do anything, then it is certainly possible that it was Him. I don’t KNOW that it was Him but it interesting to consider.
I myself have never witnessed any “miracles” and I am skeptical of the stories I hear of them without proof. I know that they exist but my faith does not require them for me to believe.
It is funny to me when people use those cheap shots like they are dropping some sort of truth bomb on us. Meanwhile, we are taught to love our enemies and treat the homeless like they are our brothers. Apparently though, we want slavery.
1 Like
You miss the point. When someone tries to influence public policy and uses the Bible as their moral reference, it is simply pointing out that they are picking out what is convenient for their position while ignoring the things that most would find universally abhorrent.
Can one agree with the Bible on homosexuality and disagree when it comes to the treatment of women? If so, then what’s the point of the Bible?
1 Like
I agree with that, using singular verses from the Bible for public policy is not useful. One could probably find a verse to seemingly justify almost anything.
The Bible should be read as entire work rather than a list of rules to follow. It should be read with proper context so that it won’t be misinterpreted. For instance, people think that the Catholic Church treats women as second class but that is a misinterpretation of the truth.
As a Catholic I believe that the Church has the only recipe for true liberty so any influence it has on public policy I think would be a good thing. However, forcing religion on people is not a good thing nor is it possible.
Historically, it has.
Many people in the West in this day and age think one is a misogynist if he dares to say or think something just slightly critical about modern women as a group or that is patriarchal. So I ignore most of their judgment on the topic.
Misandry seems to be acceptable though.
History has treated women as second class or worse. The Church has been the spearhead for the emancipation of women from it’s inception. Human passions have stood in the way of this but the Church has always been for respect of women.
I think the Church teaches that a father should be the ultimate decision maker in the family but that is only when there is an absolute gridlock. He would also be responsible if it ended up being a wrong decision. He also can’t make a decision that is sinful or that would take away the family’s dignity and things like that.
Misandry is encouraged even lol
You’re joking. Have you ever read anything from the early church fathers?
If we’re talking about the Catholic Church, it has been misogynistic in its view of women. It would probably admit as much.
Can you show me some evidence to the contrary?
Around the world, yes. However no one has ever convinced me this was ever the case in America.
Inb4 “But bro, they couldn’t vote”.
1 Like
You can read the writings of people like John Chrystosom, Tertullian, Thomas Aquinas, etc.
Or open a bank account… until the 1960s.
You get used to it. It’s not a big deal.
This is my usual comeback: “No but apparently your wife does. What time’s your curfew again?”
2 Likes
This is from Tertullian’s letter to his wife:
How beautiful, then, the marriage of two Christians, two who are one in hope, one in desire, one in the way of life they follow, one in the religion they practice. They are as brother and sister, both servants of the same Master. Nothing divides them, either in flesh or in spirit. They are, in very truth, two in one flesh; and where there is but one flesh there is also but one spirit. They pray together, they worship together, they fast together; instructing one another, encouraging one another, strengthening one another. Side by side they visit God’s church and partake of God’s Banquet; side by side they face difficulties and persecution, share their consolations. They have no secrets from one another; they never shun each other’s company; they never bring sorrow to each other’s hearts. Unembarrassed they visit the sick and assist the needy. They give alms without anxiety; they attend the Sacrifice without difficulty; they perform their daily exercises of piety without hindrance. They need not be furtive about making the Sign of the Cross, nor timorous in greeting the brethren, nor silent in asking a blessing of God. Psalms and hymns they sing to one another, striving to see which one of them will chant more beautifully the praises of their Lord. Hearing and seeing this, Christ rejoices. To such as these He gives His peace. Where there [p36] are two together, there also He is present; and where He is, there evil is not.
I am sure Tertullian has written some things about women that sound harsh but he has been similarly harsh on men. The same could be said of St Thomas Aquinas and John Chrystosom. Much like the Bible, their entire work should be considered rather than picking individual sentences.
More than a sentence:
If there dwelt upon earth a faith as great as is the reward of faith which is expected in the heavens, no one of you at all, best beloved sisters, from the time that she had first “known the Lord,” and learned (the truth) concerning her own (that is, woman’s) condition, would have desired too gladsome (not to say too ostentatious) a style of dress; so as not rather to go about in humble garb, and rather to affect meanness of appearance, walking about as Eve mourning and repentant, in order that by every garb of penitence she might the more fully expiate that which she derives from Eve,—the ignominy, I mean, of the first sin, and the odium (attaching to her as the cause) of human perdition. “In pains and in anxieties dost thou bear (children), woman; and toward thine husband (is) thy inclination, and he lords it over thee.” And do you not know that you are (each) an Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age: the guilt must of necessity live too. You are the devil’s gateway: you are the unsealer of that (forbidden) tree: you are the first deserter of the divine law: you are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God’s image, man. On account of your desert—that is, death—even the Son of God had to die. And do you think about adorning yourself over and above your tunics of skins? Come, now; if from the beginning of the world the Milesians sheared sheep, and the Serians spun trees, and the Tyrians dyed, and the Phrygians embroidered with the needle, and the Babylonians with the loom, and pearls gleamed, and onyx-stones flashed; if gold itself also had already issued, with the cupidity (which accompanies it), from the ground; if the mirror, too, already had licence to lie so largely, Eve, expelled from paradise, (Eve) already dead, would also have coveted these things, I imagine! No more, then, ought she now to crave, or be acquainted with (if she desires to live again), what, when she was living, she had neither had nor known. Accordingly these things are all the baggage of woman in her condemned and dead state, instituted as if to swell the pomp of her funeral.