The Neverending Story (The New Christian Chronicles)

Southern Baptists ending talks with Catholic Church ^ | 3/24/01 | AP

[newberger]

I'd also like to see us refrain from taking the Lord's name in vain as we joke with each other.

I'm not sure what exactly you're referring to

Earlier today, the following was posted:

Looks like Dave has finally shunned me as promised.
That makes me soooo sad---NOT!

YIPPEEEEEE!!! Thanks be to God---He does still work miracles.:-)

I'm sorry, this bothers me.

Paul

[newberger]

Could you restate that? I'm not sure what you are saying.

Sorry, I missed your reply.

Wordsmith got my meaning exactly.

Paul

[OLD REGGIE]

(Reggie as quoted by B-Chan) Catholics] aren't taught that [any practice of homosexuality outside of man-woman marriageis intrinsically evil and sinful] via the catechism. Where is the "official" teaching?

(The actual post from which this "quote" was copied.)

Any practice of homosexuality, pedophilia, or other non-chaste sexuality -- whether by priests, Protestant ministers, rabbis, imams, Buddhists, Hindus, Shinto, animists, Trekkies, or any other human beings -- is intrinsically evil and sinful.

(The actual words.)But you aren't taught that via the catechism. Where is the "official" teaching?

(B-Chan) Wrong. The Catechism clearly teaches that all unchaste sexual activity -- sexual activity other than that conducted out of love between husband and wife under the sacrament of marriage -- is "intrinsically disordered", i.e. sinful.

You won't be making a place for yourself on this forum if you continue to manufacture quotes and then attacking your manufactured "straw man". In the future, it would be better if you make a real attempt to play straight.

We have been playing a word game with you and SoothingDave.

Intrinsically evil is not remotely the same as Intrinsically disordered. Don't insult one's intelligence by insisting "disordered" is synonomous with "evil".
------------------------------------------------------------

Your assertion that the Catechism does not condemn any sexuality outside of man-woman marriage is thus refuted.

I made no such assertion. If words mean anything to you use them well and honestly.

[IMRight]

Take it from me. You have about a 0% chance of catching angelo & Dave, Mack & Becky etc. by double posting :)

The problem isn't that we don't recognize it as a commandment. It's getting someone to realize that they are doing it without it being taken as a partisan stab at "the other side". And if you call "one of your own" on something, you may be accused of going easy on him/her etc.

Maybe you will meet with greater success. I think that the Orthodox on this thread have a little more credibility here since you "have no dog in this race" (like angelo). You will agree or disagree with either "side" as fits your theology. The dialogs I have seen with and regarding Orthodox belief has seemed very respectful (even when the Orthodox belief is identical to that which is held by the other "side" and would otherwise be derided).

By all means go to it! If the result is this thread becoming a better witness for other freepers who may stumble in... I'm all for it!

[OLD REGGIE]

(Posted by, I believe, SD) Does homosexuality render procreation impossible? Then it is intrinsically evil.

(Reggie) Does abstinence render procreation impossible? Are you implying that the entire Priesthood is intrinsically evil?

(SD) There you go again. Again to the Catechism paragraph you cited.

"...In contrast, "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil

(SD>) Abstinance is not an action. It is the avoidance of an action. Therefore, your argument, as such, falls flat. Really, Reggie. Try reading it as other than a source of loopholes and "gotchas."

In the Catechism quotation I took the liberty of highlighting the words conjugal act in addition to underlining a few "or's" which make it clear the only context must be in the conjugal act.

Now, Mr. Dave, please explain to this simple one the connection you implied when you said: "Does homosexuality render procreation impossible? Then it is intrinsically evil." How does homosexuality relate to a "conjugal act"?

Oh master of language, explain one more time, where I erred in my claim that the writers of the Catholic Catechism has seen fit to label only two actions "intrinsically evil".

1. Rape.
2. Artificial Birth Control.

Ps. If you didn't make the statement I attributed to you, just pretend it never happened.

[OLD REGGIE]

If you want to get silly, every act that is not marital relations is a sin then. When I pray, give alms, wipe my baby's butt, the act "renders procreation impossible." I better get to confession. Uh oh, the confession is also an act which renders procreation impossible. So is typing this. And responding to your nonsense.

Conjugal Act for artificial birth control oh silly one.

[The_Reader_David]

I discussed the schism for two purposes: first to make clear the view of the Orthodox that the "Roman Church" (or Latin Church, as I prefer to call it, following the example of our Fathers who had dealings with the Roman Papacy after the schism) did not begin with Constantine as you seemed to be arguing, but with the schism of the Patriarchate of Rome from the Church.

You will also note that I have criticized some behavior of the Patriarchate of Rome prior to the schism (with regard to services in the vernacular).

I honestly believe that you overestimate the changes brought on by the temporally and secularly more favorable circumstances for the Church after the Peace of Constantine. I already enumerated features commonly ascribed to the Church's good relations with the Empire (and condemned) by protestants who regard a hypothesized "pure" early Church as their model for reform, features which in fact predated the Peace of Constantine.

The only two changes of any ecclesiological or soteriological import resulting from the Peace of Constantine were first the fact that the Emperors, desiring peace in the Church, from time to time called councils to settle disputes. The councils in which imperial meddling carried the day (e.g. the "Robber Council" in which the heresiarch Dioscorus had detachments of troops a his disposal, and the iconoclastic synods) were invariable rejected by the Church.

And second, the rise of monasticism, by which Christians sought another means of radically rejecting the world to follow Christ, martyrdom no longer being generally available. I should observe that in Orthodox practice, monasticism does not generally involve erecting a wall against the world, but seeking to remove oneself from its distractions for the purpose of prayer. We thus have the fact, curious to Westerners, that large portions of Siberia and Alaska were converted by monks (in Alaska the Aleuts attribute their conversion to St. Herman, who lived as a hermit on an island).

[Isaiah_66_2]

I don't see how anything Dave said deserved "spoiled little child" and the stupid comparison to a horribly sinful pope.

Apparently you see through different colored glasses----if you didn't find "Dave's" spamming with his posts like 30932 as acting like a spoiled child having a temper tantrum, then either you have not had much contact with spoiled children throwing temper tantrums or you wear rose colored glasses.

BTW, my response concerning warts and all was to RobbyS who said, We love the church, warts and all. You hate her and see only the warts.

I would say that you do some selective reading as well. Exposing the evils within any church is not hate, as RobbyS so emotionally charged, falsely accused me of, unless you want to neglect a whole lot of Scripture that commands those evils be exposed.

and the stupid comparison to a horribly sinful pope.
That was not a "snide sexual" comment comparing "dave" to that "horribly sinful pope", it was a play on words, saying that "soothingdave" is about as "soothing", as that "horribly sinful" pope was "innocent".

As far as the "love the evil warts" goes---there will not be any retraction nor apology---the false gospel of the papist church is evil(I know that word, "evil", hurts many liberals ears to hear, but it's the truth) and the papists love the false gospel of the papist church, among other evils.

It is interesting that "save" and the other RCs, except for B_Chan, who was honest, can't call the actions of the papists church in harboring pedophiles, and moving them to new areas for new victims, exactly what it is---intrinsically evil!

A few days ago, you asked me if Christ would want me talking like that----the answer is---YES!
I hope you understand that God hates evil, right?

Gotta go---more tomorrow,

[IMRight]

No, but I went to your "Gay" site and found that incest was just fine.

It surprises you that a group steeped in sexual sin not only thinks that their own depravity is really ok, but that some other sexual sin is ok as well?

The purpose of the citation was to show that the homosexual "community" thinks that the RCC is their biggest enemy and completely "intollerant" (yay for the good guys!). It also shows that they say that the RCC has a "dogma that homosexual acts are intrinsically evil".

[B-Chan]

I did quote you honestly.

I said: "Any practice of homosexuality, pedophilia, or other non-chaste sexuality -- whether by priests, Protestant ministers, rabbis, imams, Buddhists, Hindus, Shinto, animists, Trekkies, or any other human beings -- is intrinsically evil and sinful."

You responded: "But you aren't taught that [referring to the above quote] via the catechism. Where is the "official" teaching?

1. You asked me to show you where the Catechism teaches "that".

2. "That" = "Any practice of homosexuality, pedophilia, or other non-chaste sexuality -- whether by priests, Protestant ministers, rabbis, imams, Buddhists, Hindus, Shinto, animists, Trekkies, or any other human beings -- is intrinsically evil and sinful."

3. "Homosexuality, pedophilia, or other non-chaste sexual acts" = "acts outside of man-woman marriage".

4. Therefore, my quotation of your words (with my interpolation "any practice of homosexuality outside of man-woman marriage is intrinsically evil and sinful" properly signified by brackets) was neither manufactured nor a straw man. I merely restated your question. I did not change its basic form or substance.

You were in fact asking me to show where the Catechism teaches that "any practice of homosexuality outside of man-woman marriage is intrinsically evil and sinful". I did so.

You won't be making a place for yourself on this forum if you continue to manufacture quotes and then attacking your manufactured "straw man". In the future, it would be better if you make a real attempt to play straight.

I'm not seeking to "making a place for myself" on FR. My purpose in this thread is to refute falsehoods about the Church. I neither manufacture quotes nor set up straw men nor play word games. I don't need to. I have posted actual evidence from the Catechism to counter each falsehood about the teachings of the Church spread here; I'll leave the semantics and accusations for others.

Intrinsically evil is not remotely the same as Intrinsically disordered. Don't insult one's intelligence by insisting "disordered" is synonomous with "evil".

A person therefore sins mortally not only when his action comes from direct contempt for love of God and neighbor, but also when he consciously and freely, for whatever reason, chooses something which is seriously disordered. For in this choice, as has been said above, there is already included contempt for the Divine commandment: the person turns himself away from God and loses charity. Now according to Christian tradition and the Church's teaching, and as right reason also recognizes, the moral order of sexuality involves such high values of human life that every direct violation of this order is objectively serious.

"A person therefore sins mortally... when he consciously and freely... chooses something which is seriously disordered." Moral disorder = sin.

It is true that in sins of the sexual order, in view of their kind and their causes, it more easily happens that free consent is not fully given; this is a fact which calls for caution in all judgment as to the subject's responsibility. In this matter it is particularly opportune to recall the following words of Scripture: "Man looks at appearances but God looks at the heart." However, although prudence is recommended in judging the subjective seriousness of a particular sinful act, it in no way follows that one can hold the view that in the sexual field mortal sins are not committed. Persona Humana

"There is a disconcerting amount of confusion among some Catholics with regard to the Church's teaching about homosexuality. Crucial distinctions are often lost, such as that between orientation and activity. Many of those questioning the recent Notification seem to believe that the Church teaches that people with homosexual orientation are themselves intrinsically evil or disordered. The Church's rejection of homosexual activity is taken to be a rejection of them as persons. Lying, malicious gossip, murder, racism, fornication are intrinsically evil acts. To assert that an action is intrinsically evil is not to assert that those who commit these sins are themselves intrinsically evil. To call the homosexual inclination "intrinsically disordered" is not to pass judgment on any individual's mental or moral state. It means that this inclination does not correspond to God's plan for sexuality whose purpose is to unite a man and a woman in the loving union of marriage and to enable them to be co-creators of new life. " Source: NCCB

I said: "Your assertion that the Catechism does not condemn any sexuality outside of man-woman marriage is thus refuted."

You replied: "I made no such assertion."

You certainly did. See the beginning of this post.

[The_Reader_David]

The Orthodox generally do not discuss "validity" in the Western sense. The important question for the Orthodox is unity of faith. Thus, for example, in the 1890's an entire diocese of the (Nestorian) Church of the East entered the Orthodox Church by virtue of a confession of the Orthodox faith by its bishop.

At the time when St. Tikhon, Patriarch of Moscow, New Martyr of the Bolshevik Yoke was Archbishop of Alaska and All-North-America, there were extensive talks between him and the (Anglo-catholic) Bishop Grafton of Fond du Lac. There was sufficient agreement between the two bishops that St. Tikhon referred the question of the Orthodoxy of the Anglican liturgy as set forth in the BCP to the Holy Synod of Moscow. They proposed several changes, all of which were minor, except for the addition the eclepsis, the prayer invoking the Holy Spirit to cause the elements to be the Body and Blood of Christ.

Of course, Anglicanism itself does not have unity of faith. I think it conceivable that one of the Continuing Anglican bodies which has dropped the filoque might at some future time be able to join the Orthodox Church (the main problem in one case seems to be the uncanonical practice of allowing married bishops). I suspect, following the precedent of the ex-Nestorian diocese, there might well be no conditional baptism, ordinations or consecrations involved.

[OLD REGGIE]

Well, to be more complete it became the Orthodox Church and the Romans split off a while later. I know you know the difference, I just like to make the clarification. I am very ready to defend the Church of Constantine's era, but I don't like people to think that means I'm defending today's RCC in any way, shape, or form. God Bless.

I don't believe the Church is any one institution. The Church is not a building, it doesn't consist of any particular organization. There are RC's, Orthodox, and NC's who are members of this Church.

I will agree with you that the Orthodox Church has probably adhered more closely to the "early" Church principles than your "big brother". You will not; however, get me to agree it is the "one" Church.

[The_Reader_David]

I agree that the Latin church was corrupt by the time of Luther. I, of course, trace this corruption to its departure form the communion of the Church. I am also quite well aware that the Latins erroneously read their ecclesiology back into the concilar era and insist the papal assent is needed to validate a council. This is one reason why I often point out to them the assent given by Pope John VIII to the Council which restored St. Photius the Great to the Patriarchate of Constantinople, limited Papal jurisdiction to the Patriarchate of Rome, and anthematized a council they insist on considering the "Eighth Ecumenical Council".

Of course, as an Orthodox, I regard the Holy Ecumenical Councils as the Church's highest authority, and regard as valid the canons giving equal honor to Constantinople as to Rome, and those of the Sixth Ecumenical Council which the Latins ignore. (Incidentally--the Latins love to quote the Council of Chalcedon shouting "Peter has spoken through Leo". The same council in its canons raised Constantinople to equal status with Rome and attributed Rome's primacy of honor to its place as the Imperial Capital.)

I think a major reason that Rome got an overly exalted opinion of itself is that it was the only apostolic see in the West (soon styling itself "the Apostolic See"). In the East there are lots of apostolic sees: Antioch, Alexanrdia (both with Petrine foundations), Jerusalem, Ephesus, Corinth, Crete,...

[OLD REGGIE]

I discussed the schism for two purposes: first to make clear the view of the Orthodox that the "Roman Church" (or Latin Church, as I prefer to call it, following the example of our Fathers who had dealings with the Roman Papacy after the schism) did not begin with Constantine as you seemed to be arguing, but with the schism of the Patriarchate of Rome from the Church.

How can I make it any clearer? I believe the RCC began on the road to corruption with the power and wealth inherited (even invented) from the time of Constantine. That is not to say the RCC began with Constantine.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I honestly believe that you overestimate the changes brought on by the temporally and secularly more favorable circumstances for the Church after the Peace of Constantine. I already enumerated features commonly ascribed to the Church's good relations with the Empire (and condemned) by protestants who regard a hypothesized "pure" early Church as their model for reform, features which in fact predated the Peace of Constantine.

You are, I believe, making an overstatement. There is no Protestant position. Maybe you could use the word "some" when speaking of Protestant positions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The only two changes of any ecclesiological or soteriological import resulting from the Peace of Constantine were first the fact that the Emperors, desiring peace in the Church, from time to time called councils to settle disputes. The councils in which imperial meddling carried the day (e.g. the "Robber Council" in which the heresiarch Dioscorus had detachments of troops a his disposal, and the iconoclastic synods) were invariable rejected by the Church.

Not necessarily so. When do you suppose the various Emporers lost there position as the de facto ruler of the "Church"?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Proud2BAmerican]

Will somebody save me from the non sequitur crowd?

Hang in there, I'm sure God is gonna knock down your time in Purgatory. ;-)

[Proud2BAmerican]

Or introduce him to the Catholic idea of chastity?

That's like contemplating introducing a man to what it's like to be wet....after he's been sitting underneath a waterfall for 1/2 an hour.

[Proud2BAmerican]

angelo Steven said ass.

FYI angelo, I scrolled quickly past this, and on first skim, thought it said, "Steven is an ass," at which point, I began scrolling back up to double-check, and was prepared to speak up on Steven's behalf.

So nyah nyah nyah. ;-)

[OLD REGGIE]

"You were in fact asking me to show where the Catechism teaches that "any practice of homosexuality outside of man-woman marriage is intrinsically evil and sinful". I did so."

Is it necessary for me to remind you documents such as Persona Humana and Statement of Most Reverend Joseph A. Fiorenza are not the Catechism. In no way do they satisfy your "proof".

Do words have any meaning to you? I repeat; there are only two instances where anything is called "intrinsically evil" in the Catechism:

1. Rape

2. Artificial Birth Control.

If you wish to refute my statement it is necessary to find your proof in the Catechism.

Why don't you just drop the subject? You know not wherof you speak.

[OLD REGGIE]

Is it necessary for me to remind you documents such as Persona Humana and Statement of Most Reverend Joseph A. Fiorenza are not the Catechism. In no way do they satisfy your "proof".

"You were in fact asking me to show where the Catechism teaches that "any practice of homosexuality outside of man-woman marriage is intrinsically evil and sinful". I did so."

Do words have any meaning to you? I repeat; there are only two instances where anything is called "intrinsically evil" in the Catechism:

1. Rape

2. Artificial Birth Control.

If you wish to refute my statement it is necessary to find your proof in the Catechism.

Why don't you just drop the subject? You know not wherof you speak.

[Proud2BAmerican]

Just curious: YOu frequently use papist, which, I'm not sure if you know, originally was used as a derogatory term (I believe it originated during King Henry VIII's split from Rome). Although, for many Catholics it has lost its negative connotation (being just another way of calling a Catholic a Catholic), for many (including myself, and I'd wager, many on this thread) it still carries with it a hateful, scornful and very much derogatory connotation.

I'd like to ask you, in the future, to use the proper term for what people of the Catholic faith are, namely, Catholics. Thanks ahead of time. And aloha.