Posted on 10/15/2001 6:54:40 AM PDT by malakhi
Adolescent word games are no substitute for reasoned argument. You still owe us that apology.
Wait, methinks someone is changing words here.
The Lawnmower Man??Tourist Guy?
Its hard for alot of people in here to tell the difference.On this, we agree: The hierarchy is not synonymous with the Church, nor coterminous with the people of God.
It is nice to hear that you regard papal government as a development. But a universal council was hardly an innovation: besides the local councils there is as precedent the Apostolic Council recorded in the Acts of the Apostles. It was not a local council of the Church of Jerusalem, although the local bishop, St. James, the Brother of the Lord, presided, but a council to decide matters for the entire Church.
That;s why it's important to scale the language barrier with papists and other religions or cults.
Such as, the papist say they "worship" Mary but don't "adore" Mary.
In papist terminology, they use "adore" where Scripture uses "worship", and their meaning of "worship" is not what Scripture means by "worship"---"escape hatch theology" at its finest, is what it is.
Then the papist will from one side of their mouth say they don't pray to Mary(which is an act of "adoration"), then out of the other side of their mouth will "pray" the Rosary 25 times for penance. Doublespeak at its finest.
Bill Klinton would have made an excellent papist.:-)
Appearently, he was more comfortable as a Baptist :)
And we have a rule here about using the "C" word. "Pagan" is ok "Clintonian" is a slur below the participants of the Thread.
How about let's look at what was said:
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, 141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." 142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved. 2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition. 2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
Now, short of dividing the above letters into columns and rows and playing word search where diagonal, bacward, horizontal and vertical scoring is possible - Would you mind pointing out where the phrase "intrinsically Evil" appears - anywhere in the above?
Secondly, chastity: 1. Virginity 2. Virtuousness 3. Celibacy. Right out of the dictionary. So, please honor us with the official Catholic version of the word for our Catholic dictionary of terms as it appears your redefinition of the language has bearing on what you think you're saying.
Oh yes, the church is EVIL! EVIL! EVIL! How does this man know? Why he consults the spirits!
Hmmmmm, now, you are truly being hysterical. Did I say the entire papist church is evil? Nope, sure didn't. Did I say there is a pattern of evil conduct by the heirarchy of the papist church throughout a large part of history since the 6th century---yep, sure did! Does that make the entire church, evil---of course not, only those who use emotionally charged, hysterical rhetoric reach that conclusion.
Do I say that the Romanist gospel is a different gospel than the Gospel preached and taught in the Scriptures? Yes, I do.
Do I say that another gospel, other than the Gospel preached and taught in the Scriptures is evil----I agree with St. Paul in Galatians 1:8-9, But even if we or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be anathema. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be ananthema.---I think St. Paul is quite clear that another gospel is evil.
Actual attempt to claim authority over the whole church seem to date to the rejection of one of the canons of the Holy Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon by St. Leo the Great in the fifth century. On the other hand, St. Gregory the Dialogist (called by the Latins St. Gregory the Great) later rejected the notion of universal papal authority in letters objecting to the titling of the Patriarch of Constantinople as Ecumenical Patriarch. (In Imperial usage "ecumenical" meant throughout the Empire, not "universal" as St. Gregory interpreted it). His letter is instructive since it reminds us that three sees have Petrine foundations: Antioch, Alexandria and Rome. Pope John VIII, likewise rejected the existence of universal papal authority by accepting the canons of the council regarded by the Orthodox as the Eighth Ecumenical Council, which limited papal jurisdiction to the Patriarchate of Rome, except under narrowly drawn appeal provisions of the canons of previous Ecumenical Councils. (Incidentally, the council I am citing anathematize the council the Latins call the "Eighth Ecumencial Council"--a pitfully attended synod which deposed St. Photius the Great from the see of Constantinople.)
I have already enumerated features of the Church before the Peace of Constantine which it shares with the presently existing Orthodox Church and the Roman Church as it exists. Your belief is beside the point if you do not think the ancient Church had these features. It did, and you have produced any historical evidence to support a contrary position.
if someone is offended by comparison of their doublespeak to that of the Klinstones and other various relativists, then maybe they should consider repenting.
Is that the word for "Havoc gets to act superior and throw mud at the Catholics cause he doesn't understand concepts like "chastity" or what "intrinsically evil" means?"Quod scripsi scripsi. (Steve: Cf. Jn19:22 : )
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.