Posted on 10/15/2001 6:54:40 AM PDT by malakhi
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
Sorry, I missed your reply.
Wordsmith got my meaning exactly.
Paul
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!
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).
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,
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".
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 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 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 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 HumanaI said: "Your assertion that the Catechism does not condemn any sexuality outside of man-woman marriage is thus refuted.""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
You replied: "I made no such assertion."
You certainly did. See the beginning of this post.
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.
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,...
Hang in there, I'm sure God is gonna knock down your time in Purgatory. ;-)
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.
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. ;-)
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.
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.