I can't keep up with what is symbolic and what is sincere in the RCC. How would you classify this?
Posted on 03/16/2006 7:42:26 AM PST by Gamecock
There is no evidence John Calvin was gay, except in your fevered dreams of world conquest.
Repent.
Why, we just recognized Calvin's depravity and now everyone is upset.
Yes, I agree that there is some connection there between Luther's and Calvin's character and their doctrines. But, we have a difficult challenge, to love Calvin even as we hate Calvinism. As you know, I discuss Calvinism from time to time, and I would not foray into Calvin's character for frivolous reasons.
how do you know Calvin wasn't a victim? There isn't any evidence one way or another.
This question is better addressed to Vladimir. I think, though, that most courts would not accuse a victim of sodomy, of sodomy.
I don't care one way or the other, but Vladimir just presented some evidence.
This coming from a man whose church has excommunicated saints, but not Adolph Hitler.
Oh, the irony.
There was no "evidence" presented.
Just a new and nasty avenue of lies and deceit from the now-acknowledged, continuing counter-Reformation.
I hope you guys don't teach the way you've presented your argument here.
No wonder there's so many young doofuses running with scissors.
Thank you. I never knew that. I kind of assumed there had to be something weird about that dude. :-)
Excommunication is typically applied to practicing Catholics. Hitler was not, so there was no need to excommunicate him-- he excommunicated himself. It was considered as a political gesture, but not done, and rightly so:
[...] there is abundant evidence to suggest that the excommunication of Hitler would have been a purely symbolic gesture, and would not have accomplished what its proponents hoped for. Hitler, Himmler and other Nazi leaders were, to be sure, baptized Catholics who were never excommunicated. Had Pius XII excommunicated them, his critics claim, such an act might have prevented the Holocaust, or significantly diminished it. On the contrary. There is much evidence to suggest that a formal order of excommunication might very well just have achieved the opposite.When Don Luigi Sturzo, the founder of the Christian Democratic movement in wartime Italy, was asked by Leon Kubovny, an official of the World Jewish Congress during the Holocaust era, why the Vatican did not excommunicate Hitler, he recalled the cases of Napoleon and Queen Elizabeth I of England, "the last time a nominal excommunication was pronounced against a head of state." Pointing out that neither of them had "changed their policy after excommunication," he feared, Sturzo wrote Kubovny, "that in response to a threat of excommunication," Hitler would have even killed more Jews than he had. Writers and scholars familiar with Hitler's psychology share Sturzo's fear, believing that any provocation by the Pope, such as an order for excommunication, "would have resulted in violent retaliation, the loss of many more Jewish lives, especially those then under the protection of the Church, and an intensification of the persecution of Catholics." This is, I believe, a compelling argument that cannot be ignored. It is one, moreover, that is supported by the testimony of Jewish Holocaust survivors, such as Marcus Melchior, the former Chief Rabbi of Denmark, who attests that "if the Pope had spoken out, Hitler would probably have massacred more than six million Jews and perhaps ten times ten million Catholics, if he had the power to do so."
I can't keep up with what is symbolic and what is sincere in the RCC. How would you classify this?
As stupidity. Even though it is possible that the gesture saved Christian lives in Iraq, as the Pope was expressing his gratitude for the measure of religious tolerance that existed in Iraq.
And his evidence was a passage from an obscure author and websites hostile to Calvin. It would never hold up in a court of law.
But excommunicating Hitler would not have accomplished anything. Got it.
Hey, here is another question, go get your Catechism of the Catholic Church and read paragraph 841. Between the picture and your own catechism is seems like ya'll are quite enamored with Islam.
No, of course not. Most of historical evidence that is centuries old would not either.
Upon reading the Quran, Allah is clearly NOT the G-d of Abraham, Isaac and Israel. Allah is NOT the King of the Universe; he is NOT YHvH nor Adonai. Many believe that Allah is the Prince of the World. How incredibly lost!
John 14:30 I will not speak with you much longer, for the prince of this world is coming. He has no hold on me,
b'shem Y'shua
839 "Those who have not yet received the Gospel are related to the People of God in various ways."325What is your question?The relationship of the Church with the Jewish People. When she delves into her own mystery, the Church, the People of God in the New Covenant, discovers her link with the Jewish People,326 "the first to hear the Word of God."327 The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God's revelation in the Old Covenant. To the Jews "belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ",328 "for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable."329
[...]
841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."
[...]
843 The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as "a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life."332
[...]
845 To reunite all his children, scattered and led astray by sin, the Father willed to call the whole of humanity together into his Son's Church. The Church is the place where humanity must rediscover its unity and salvation. The Church is "the world reconciled." She is that bark which "in the full sail of the Lord's cross, by the breath of the Holy Spirit, navigates safely in this world." According to another image dear to the Church Fathers, she is prefigured by Noah's ark, which alone saves from the flood.334
[...]
"Outside the Church there is no salvation"
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336
847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337
848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338
(CCC 841)
The RC church gives special dispensation to the Mohammadans, but Protestants are anathema.
It's almost funny, isn't it? 357 posted on 03/21/2006 2:13:27 PM MST by Gamecock
they are lost without the Holy Word of G-d (Y'shua) as a rudder to guide them.
It isn't funny;
b'shem Y'shua
Mark 7:13 Thus you nullify the Word of G-d by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that."
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.