Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Here's the breakdown of what is paid to protestant ministers. Housing. Insurance (we did not have out of control insurance like this until recently). $40k salary. And pension. All the rest I think is the priest. So it really irks me when I hear people talking about wiing out the housing part. They get paid about like a schoolteacher and are expected to live and work alonside their parish. If you like them as a priest, let's not make them broke.
No. The reason they want this is because it creates a loyalty issue. They want their priests to live and breathe the church, and say yes every time the pope nods his head. The Catholic church wouldn't pay dependents. And that's the point, priests would catch on that while they encourage traditional values (read: two people living on $40k because the wife can't work), and housing is included, the church wants your loyalty to the pope, not your family. Catholic church is wealthy beyond other churches because they pennypinch. They could pay it, and be making about as much as other churches.
I am so glad we're Episcopal. We have a creed. After that, people believe what they want.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
Many protestant pastors get paid a lot less than that. I would be thrilled to make $40k and have a pension.
Be careful when you assume the RCC is some evil empire that has riches beyond imagination. I know a lot of the local parishes are really not well-off financially.
When I was a regular churchgoer in the past (Protestant Conservative Evangelical Christian in the Reformed tradition), I was told by a church friend who knew one of the bookkeepers on the church staff that the Senior Minister made $100,000/year or perhaps it was even more than this (and this was back in perhaps 2000 or 2001). I at least remember it definitely being a six-figure salary. It wouldn't be unreasonable to think that it is even more now after approximately 15 years since then. Perhaps $110,000? $120,000? Who knows? And, of course, he has a host of other benefits (including a pension).
I don't know that this is representative of clergy salaries in city churches at-large (as differs from small town or rural churches or even some suburban churches). It was a very popular church located in the heart of a big city (though not an outright megachurch in size but still very well-attended and active).
we live in an age where their exist a great many differing "Christian faiths". Catholicism being the oldest and largest seems to still be the "favorite target" and attracts the most criticism.
So let's discuss our differences.
What do you find to be a "strange": or "unusual" practice of the Catholic Church?
God Bless you,
Patrick
I did a text search for "papal infallibility" through every single posting prior to this very posting of mine and am rather surprised that no one at all thus far (up to this very posting of mine here) has mentioned it.
It is a nonsensical (false) concept to put forth ANY mortal human being as being "infallible" in terms of what will ever come forth from their mouths or out of their writings or other forms of communication on their part. Nor will any humans always be infallible in their behavior and deeds. We humans are ALL prone to being fallible . . . because . . . we are human! Why, even recently, it has been said that a good many Catholics of the more conservative- or right-leaning schools of thought are rather displeased with the present Pope Francis . . . saying that too many of his proclamations and teachings are of a left-leaning socialist orientation and that he is too populist and easy-going, et al. Some have even called him a Marxist (!). Whatever the merits or demerits of making such claims about him, the point is that, if there is "papal infallibility", then how can any Catholic AT ALL feel justified in having any basis for criticizing whoever is serving as the Pope at the time and saying he is wrong in what he represents and puts forth? After all, he is said to be "guided by the Holy Spirit" and is put forth as "the one and only God's human spokesperson in this world" . . . and hence is "infallible" (as though all his thoughts come from the mind of God Himself). So how can those who hold to the concept of "papal infallibility" then be hypocrites by finding the appointed Pope to be "fallible"? It is confusing to me.
I could mention a host of other issues, but those issues are not necessarily unique to Roman Catholicism but apply to Christianity in general and perhaps even to religion in general. I'll just leave you with this one issue for this posting.
I did a text search for "papal infallibility" through every single posting prior to this very posting of mine and am rather surprised that no one at all thus far (up to this very posting of mine here) has mentioned it.
It is a nonsensical (false) concept to put forth ANY mortal human being as being "infallible" in terms of what will ever come forth from their mouths or out of their writings or other forms of communication on their part. Nor will any humans always be infallible in their behavior and deeds. We humans are ALL prone to being fallible . . . because . . . we are human! Why, even recently, it has been said that a good many Catholics of the more conservative- or right-leaning schools of thought are rather displeased with the present Pope Francis . . . saying that too many of his proclamations and teachings are of a left-leaning socialist orientation and that he is too populist and easy-going, et al. Some have even called him a Marxist (!). Whatever the merits or demerits of making such claims about him, the point is that, if there is "papal infallibility", then how can any Catholic AT ALL feel justified in having any basis for criticizing whoever is serving as the Pope at the time and saying he is wrong in what he represents and puts forth? After all, he is said to be "guided by the Holy Spirit" and is put forth as "the one and only God's human spokesperson in this world" . . . and hence is "infallible" (as though all his thoughts come from the mind of God Himself). So how can those who hold to the concept of "papal infallibility" then be hypocrites by finding the appointed Pope to be "fallible"? It is confusing to me.
I could mention a host of other issues, but those issues are not necessarily unique to Roman Catholicism but apply to Christianity in general and perhaps even to religion in general. I'll just leave you with this one issue for this posting.
The Lord Jesus of Nazareth Himself canned those worms for the Church later to open …
It's in The Bible, you see … (!!!) ...
"You are Peter, and on this rock I will build My Church; and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. I [The Lord Jesus of Nazareth] will give you [Peter; and your successors] the Keys of The Kingdom of Heaven, and whatever you [Peter; and your successors] bind on Earth will be bound in Heaven, and whatever you [Peter; and your successors] loose on Earth will be loosed in Heaven … " -- Matthew 17: 18-19
"Whoever listens to you [The Apostles; and their successors, the Bishops] listens to ME [The Lord Jesus of Nazareth], and whoever rejects you [The Apostles; and their successors, the Bishops] rejects Me, and whoever rejects Me rejects the One [The LORD God, Adonai Elohim] Who sent Me … " -- Luke 10: 16
I did a text search for "papal infallibility" through every single posting prior to this very posting of mine and am rather surprised that no one at all thus far (up to this very posting of mine here) has mentioned it.
It is a nonsensical (false) concept to put forth ANY mortal human being as being "infallible" in terms of what will ever come forth from their mouths or out of their writings or other forms of communication on their part. Nor will any humans always be infallible in their behavior and deeds. We humans are ALL prone to being fallible . . . because . . . we are human! Why, even recently, it has been said that a good many Catholics of the more conservative- or right-leaning schools of thought are rather displeased with the present Pope Francis . . . saying that too many of his proclamations and teachings are of a left-leaning socialist orientation and that he is too populist and easy-going, et al. Some have even called him a Marxist (!). Whatever the merits or demerits of making such claims about him, the point is that, if there is "papal infallibility", then how can any Catholic AT ALL feel justified in having any basis for criticizing whoever is serving as the Pope at the time and saying he is wrong in what he represents and puts forth? After all, he is said to be "guided by the Holy Spirit" and is put forth as "the one and only God's human spokesperson in this world" . . . and hence is "infallible" (as though all his thoughts come from the mind of God Himself). So how can those who hold to the concept of "papal infallibility" then be hypocrites by finding the appointed Pope to be "fallible"? It is confusing to me.
I could mention a host of other issues, but those issues are not necessarily unique to Roman Catholicism but apply to Christianity in general and perhaps even to religion in general. I'll just leave you with this one issue for this posting.
The pope is infallible on matters relating to faith and morals, and only when speaking ex cathedra ("from the chair"). This has happened only a few times in history.
"The prayer of a righteous person has great power in its effects … "
So, yes …
Why NOT ask "Blessed Mary ever virgin, all the angels and saints, and you my brothers and sisters, to pray for me to the LORD our God" … ???
I get the idea of praying FOR someone but praying to a saint with the bible clearly states that the only way to heaven is though Jesus. Not though someone else.
Once again, you are flat lying. Catholics do not ask saints to intercede for us in the way Christ intercedes. We ask that they pray for us (e.g. Notre Dame, our mother, pray for us. St. Francis of Assisi, pray for us). It's no different than when you ask a friend to pray for you -- a question you conveniently dodged, by the way. Look, I get you don't like Catholicism. You can have that opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.
I never said that I had a problem with Catholics this is however a debate forum.
I get the idea of praying FOR someone but praying to a saint with the bible clearly states that the only way to heaven is though Jesus. Not though someone else.
So you don't ask others to pray for you … ??? Why not … ???
I get the idea of praying FOR someone but praying to a saint with the bible clearly states that the only way to heaven is though Jesus. Not though someone else.
So, you do pray to mortals after all?
Geez, no one has suggested that you can get to heaven by asking a saint to pray for you. Are you really that obtuse??
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
