Compromise is not an option in the Catholic faith

Trevor Lorenzo Mizzi

Oct 16th 2009, 16:01

@ Teresa Pace,


Charles Mizzi ???

You have realize Ms.Pace ,that not all of your maltese neighbours belong to the roman catholic belief system, and ironically, thanks to your church and its hold on government policy, and with its pan european plan of multiculturalism,(divide and conquer),there is going to be far less people living on these islands who are roman catholic and or of the european culture.

Charles Grixti

Oct 15th 2009, 21:12

@ Teresa Pace

The problem with your statement "believe what you will' is not exactly right, since even though we believe what we wil, thank you so very much, the fact is, and you know it as much as the Church does, that despite our freedom to believe what we will, like you do, we have no other option put to live under the thumb and rule of YOUR belief.

And ultimately, that is what we are talking about here, the freedom to chose and to have all legal options available to all citizenry without the interferene and imposition of Catholic belief in the legal system of the land. As it stand, Malta is a Theocracy run by the Church and not a Democracy.

Teresa Pace

Oct 15th 2009, 19:34

@Trevor Lorenzo Mizzi @ Charles Mizzi Believe what you will

Trevor Lorenzo Mizzi

Oct 15th 2009, 18:03

@ Teresa Pace, It does not absolve that organization's long history of evil and control. Having a large pool of gullible non paid workers to do good works for you as a cover for your real business; money making, total control and revenge. The main purpose of that organization at the top stays the same no matter how they try to hide it with charity and propaganda.

Charles Grixti

Oct 15th 2009, 13:30

@Teresa Pace

And what would you say If you or I were allowed to collect donations and other money, tax-free, claiming it is for charitable works but in fact only spend 10% of it on such works (the actual physical work being done by lowly officers of our organisation and devout and gullible volunteers ) and the remaining 90% we spirit away on investments, real estate and art treasures and other business ventures? I would say that soon we would be very rich indeed.

Now imagine that we have been doing this for nearly 1,600 years! That is just one aspect of the Church. This of course does not include the political powers that the Church wields and the effect this has had, and still does on people's lives.

To me it is obvious what this Church is about. You have this one guy living in the Vatican with his hierarchy and closest entourage, living in ostentatious wealth, in the grandest most expensive palaces, containing the greatest art treasures in the world, yet claims to represent God here on earth, is infallible and declares himself to be the highest moral authority on earth.

What more proof do you need?

Teresa Pace

Oct 14th 2009, 21:37

and what would you say if the greatest majority of my family from my great great grandfather right to my son opened and run orphanages for the poor, feed the homeless, pick people from the gutter and give them a decent life, and so many other things...arent these important. People tend to comment on negativity and tend to forget the positivity. People who do wrong should be punished whether pope, bishop, priests, nuns or us laypeople.

Trevor Lorenzo Mizzi

Oct 14th 2009, 16:08

@ Teresa Pace,
"If in my family a family member kills someone does it make the rest of my family evil?"

If you have a long history of murderers in your family, from your great grand father right down to your son, I would say you would have a very evil family that should have been dealt with long ago.

I certainly would not get anywhere near your family , let alone give it money for its personal survival.

Teresa Pace

Oct 14th 2009, 09:27

My letter was to bring to attention my hurt brought about by reasoning of certain clergy - bloggers have been firing accusations at the Church, which wasnt the intention of my letter. Accusations deserve a defence and explanation and that is why I replied to a couple - there were more accusations but I just replied to a couple.

Like I wrote the letter to defend what in my opinion is the truth, I also have the right to answer to accusations made by bloggers which in my opinion, the basis of such accusations, should be explained or defended

Teresa Pace

Oct 14th 2009, 09:14

@ Trevor Lorenzo Mizzi

What constitutes the Church primarily is Jesus as the head then there is the Church. There are various definitions of the Church -there are the teachings,there are people who run the church and there are us.Obviously there is the building as well which is church with a small c.

If in my family a family member kills someone does it make the rest of my family evil?No. One person did the evil act and only he has to be punished. As such with the Church -the people who do the evil acts have to be punished. and not all the Church

The teachings stand on their own - they are Christ's teachings and teachings of Councils as well basing their teachings on Christ's teachings. In a multi membered council it is highly unlikely that one or two persons who try to influence negatively the teachings to be acknowleged before passing a law of the Church - thus it can be safely said that the teachings have the blessings of higher power.

Thus no, the atrocities made by some people does not make the Church evil it only makes people who made the atrocities as such

Trevor Lorenzo Mizzi

Oct 14th 2009, 05:15

@ Teresa Pace,

"The Catholic Church passed through very dark times...called dark ages even. Nowadays some members (clergy, nuns) of the Church still do atrocities unforunately. Does that make the Church bad or evil even? "

To answer your question , I would say Yes, and very much so, the roman church was responsible for the creation of the dark ages and that is not mentioning their later inquisitions and counter reformation wars and massacres or their complicity in the two great wars of the 20th century.
http://continuingcounterreformation.blogspot.com/search/label/World%20War%202%20History

Teresa Pace

Oct 13th 2009, 11:28

My previous comment was a reply to an earlier blogger.

With my previous comment bieng said, one tends to forget the tens of thousands clergy and nuns, who represent the absolute majority, who are ever faithful to their vows and who have given themselves for the true service of Christ through other people.

One tends to look at the negativity which is understandable as that is human nature.

Teresa Pace

Oct 12th 2009, 21:24

The Catholic Church passed through very dark times...called dark ages even. Nowadays some members (clergy, nuns) of the Church still do atrocities unforunately. Does that make the Church bad or evil even?

The Church is run by human beings...who are under the effect of sin like the rest of us. In my opinion, since these members have concegrated their lives to God and know God's law better than us lay people, they carry more responsability than us in the eyes of God. The Church's teachings stand on their own and thus do not reflect the behaviour of these people. What these members do have nothing to do with the teachings of the Church.

In my opinion such members (clergy, nuns and whatever) should be disciplined by the Church and if needs be relieved from their posts. They are a threat to people in their care, to us, to themselves and to the Church. They are reflecting bad light on the Church.

I tried to remain impartial and truthful in my comments.

Emma Xerri

Oct 12th 2009, 17:52

How Medieval and archaic. These sort of letters and discussions do not belong to a modern European state that Malta obvioulsy aspires to be. They would be more apt in countries like Iran or Saudi Arabia, where Church and State are one and the same. Do us all a favour and keep your faith private and to yourselves, like it should be. More importantly, the State has an obligation to the people to introduce Divorce legislation and then let people decide individually whether Divorce is good for them or not. Even if our politicians and legislators are hard-line Catholics in their private lives, this in no way excuses them from their duty to be fair and impartial to all the citizens of Malta who elected them. They should not let their own personal beliefs come in the way as they represent a secular State and should legislate accordingly. Otherwise, they are going contrary to their Oath of Office.

Charles Grixti

Oct 12th 2009, 14:18

Precisely. The operative words here are ‘In the Catholic Church”, so therefore only practicing Catholics should be bound by the no-divorce rule and not the whole country.

At present the whole country is being held at ransom to the dictates of the Catholic Church. This is not the sign of a good and healthy democracy. But then again, the Catholic Church was never much of a fan of democracy as in fact one Pope even wrote of the evils of such a political system.

In the light of Church history, as already pointed out by some bloggers here, does it look like the Church was actually the creation of this person called Jesus Christ? From my vantage point here, it looks to be a man-made creation whose sole purpose is the amassing of great wealth and riches and the consolidation of temporal power.

Raymond Cachia

Oct 12th 2009, 13:55

"The one teaching of Christ is that you are either with Him or against Him"
I though it was George W. Bush that said that.

People and the Church are attributing many things to Christ which he never said and certainly did not approve of. For example, Judaism explicitly prohibits the consumption of blood, yet the Church has the sacrament of the Eucharist, wherein we eat the body and drink the blood of Christ. This is would have been anathema to Christ as it is still to Jews to this day. This is not 'Kosher. In fact, I see nothing in the New Testament, even though it has been hand-picked and edited to suit the tone of the Church that actually supports the dogma and doctrine of the Catholic Church. For those that do not believe, like me, it is a matter of 'you say, he says'.

And this nonsense that marriage is indissoluble because Christ said so is clearly one of these interpretations by the Catholic Church. Other Christians certainly do not believe so.

Divorce is not a religious matter but a secular one, and the Church should opt out of this discussion.

m.micallef

Oct 11th 2009, 20:51

jesus said let he who is without sin cast the first stone
quite a compromise really, and compassionate above all

A. Muscat

Oct 11th 2009, 19:35

@ All that think logic.

I see that many peoples are sticking too much to the book when discussing the divorce issue. Why is that? The Bible’s teachings aren’t followed in endless issues.
Did Jesus permit his 99.9 follower females to have sex at younger age? Is sex outside marriage permitted in the Bible?
Jesus teaches were valuables, unfortunately, most, if not all Jesus teachings were distorted by the RCC. Probably the RCC heads new it better than Jesus? !!!!

Steve Pace

Oct 11th 2009, 19:01

@ Ms.Pace. "Compromise is not an option in the catholic faith" .

Maybe not in the catholic faith , but i strongly believe that the Catholic Church has made a number of compromises during the Inquisition, during WWII and during our time as well. The topic of compromise is not covered just by divorce i am afraid ! The Catholic Church has had to make compromises even with other religious denominations even though quote "The Catholic faith is based on the teachings of the church as it interprets Jesus’ teachings." unquote (Mr.Zammit) .

The present pope made a compromise to remove his shoes while entering a Muslim temple. A move which in my opinion was demeaning to him to say the least .

The reality is that throughout history the Catholic church has put its fingers in too many political pies to avoid compromise.

Was Jesus our Lord actually making a compromise when he entered the house of sinners ate with them and allowed a prostitute to wash his feet with Oil ? The Pharisees were offended by His behavior . Or was he compassionate ?

I strongly feel you are not correct in replacing "compassion" with "compromise"

victor pulis

Oct 11th 2009, 18:41

@Carmel Serracino-Inglott
Where in the new testament do you find written what you said in your comment regarding the Eucharist?

Robert Callus

Oct 11th 2009, 16:54

@Teresa Pace
"The one teaching of Christ is that you are either with Him or against Him, and there is no compromise"

This sentence is not only discriminatory but divisive in an already divided society. I am agnostic and do not believe in the son of God thing. However, as a human being Christ is one of the most honest and admirable revolutionaries in my point of view. Very progressive for his time, even in this time. So in your view, on which side am I? You may say Im against him, but in reality Im not. Far from that.

Christ was a very progressive person, even to this day. Just one example 'He who has no sin throws the first stone'. Yet in this country, a Chatolic majority we are ready to stone anyone who is not exactly in line with what we beieve in.

I'm sure that like Marx said about himself, if Christ had to be seen what many are doing in his name, he himself would say 'I am not a Christian'

Carmel Serracino-Inglott

Oct 11th 2009, 16:50

@VP The consecrated host is Christ whole body blood bones ecc. So is the wine. So when one eats the host or/and wine one is reciving Christ whole. A tiny piece or a whole loaf , a drop or a whole bottle. Once consecrated a molecule or rather a single compound of either is GOD Himself. So please learn. This is the crux. Believe or not. Many of us believe in the New Testament as presented by the church, the majority of the Maltese believe too and in a democracy the majority rules. The majority should respect the minority BUT even much more that the minority should respect the majority, if you do not agree vote against them and write against them you are free to do so and respected to do so. I only wrote this note to tell you that you are mistaken in your reasoning re receiving half a communion-- far from it. Other Christian denominations and non christian ones are definitely not bad. Thank you

Ramon Casha

Oct 11th 2009, 14:35

If you claim to follow Jesus' teachings, you should be aware that in the gospel of Matthew, Jesus agreed with divorce for marital infidelity. Therefore, if you're one of those who disagrees with divorce under all circumstances, you've got a disagreement with him.

Pule' Carmel

Oct 11th 2009, 11:49

Teresa Pace,
May I pick you up on your last line.
May I say that as a Catholic I had many friends withholding other religions and denominations, and though , for example, I am not for Islam, Budhism or any other religion, I cannot say that I am against them. All my colleagues holding other religions, including the many many foreign students now at our University, they are not WITH our CHRIST but neither they are AGAINST Him. I believe there exists another state whereby if you are not WITH or AGAINST a belief, you can fall in this NEUTRAL STATE of non commitment to a particular statements or states.

Tim Ripard

Oct 11th 2009, 11:44

Ms. Pace, the Catholic faith is based on man's very selective interpretation of the teachings of Christ, as appropriated by various factions for their own aggrandisement at various times in the past 2000 years. Thus the Catholic faith gave the world the inquisition, torture, burned thousands of women alive, sold absolution, claimed the world was flat and conducted its business in Latin right up to 50 years ago, in order for its 'flock' to be 'overawed'. Not a very good record for God's institution.

William P Flynn

Oct 11th 2009, 11:32

Hundreds of millions of people are Christian, are followers of Christ, and are allowed to divorce by their religion.

People shouldn't generalize and make assumptions that others who don't share their religion will sacrifice their happiness, their future and their life for some other person's religious beliefs.

Divorce is a human right,

Charles Sammut

Oct 11th 2009, 11:17

"The one teaching of Christ is that you are either with Him or against Him, and there is no compromise."
Now doesn't that smack of a Holy Spanish Institution established in the 15th century?

People like Ms Teresa Pace are free to practice their religion but not to impose it on others. The more letters in this vein that are written, the more people get alienated from the RCC.

JOSEPH ZAMMIT

Oct 11th 2009, 11:16

The Catholic faith is based on the teachings of the church as it interprets Jesus’ teachings.
As you well said, “If these teachings are altered, the Church would have failed to obey His word”, and that is precisely why I do not believe in the Church. During baptism, the parents of the baby are made to promise that they will teach the child “ fit-taghlim ta sidna Gesu Kristu U ta Omna ‘l-knisja mqaddsa”—therefore, Christ’s teachings are not enough!
You also rightly said that “ There can be no compromise on His teachings”—however, that is exactly what the catholic church is—an alternative teaching.

I agree with you when you said, “And if the Church preaches His teachings then it has to abide by them”—the problem here is, I repeat, that they are a sideline of Jesus’ teachings. I can understand that you might be offended and angry by my comments, please don’t, I only want to help you understand. It would be very good to all of us if we do some Bible critical research. And, by the way, the Bible is NOT God's Word, but books put together by the church.

victor pulis

Oct 11th 2009, 10:58

@Teresa Pace.
When you receive Holy Communion are you given wine besides the host?
According to Christ, One must eat his body and drink his blood in rememberance. Are you receiving half a Communion? Is this done because it is not practical to distribute wine during mass? What about coeliac people who cannot partake of any food containing gluten, a protein found in wheat, rye, and barley? Have any comromises been made to allow these people to receive Holy Communion? These are just a few of the milloin questions one can ask regarding compromises in the Catholic faith.