Posted on 08/27/2010 11:45:13 AM PDT by Hank Kerchief
And where you find deficient Mariology, you almost always find deficient Christology.
shall we examine the text? word by word? I have the time
You guys are too much.
You see, thi may surprise those who make up their interpretation of scripture and the teaching of their churches as they go along, but the Pope does not need to say everything all the time. He is part of a body, not some backwoods heresiarch making up his own denomination.
For you to suggest that he does not think that Islam is, at best, a heresy, is to suggest that, like the average Protestant cleric, the Pope just feels free to invent new teaching. It is not so. We know what the Church teaches on Islam. We also know that since the 8th century Islam has been a dangerous neighbor to Christian Europe.
Unlike the Protestants who swagger in their declarations that they are not as other men are, that they are pure in their behavior as well as their teaching, the Pope has sympathy for those with whom he disagrees, for unbelievers.
Of course, hatred has no eyes for charity and sympathy, and naturally will belittle and demean the first tentative outreach to non-Christians, while it also mocks the Church for insufficient evangelical effort -- thus displaying once again that the concern is not truth but condemnation whether true or untrue.
So, I am tired of spending energy trying to point out how stupid and malicious it is to think the Pope doesn't condemn Islam. If it makes people good to feel superior to John Paul the Great, let them.
You can just show me in the beatitudes where it says there’s double predestination and no free will. For bonus points, show where it says “God kills innocent children.”
Matthew 13
Believers Are Salt and Light
Believers are "the little children" being referred to
13 “You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt loses its flavor, how shall it be seasoned? It is then good for nothing but to be thrown out and trampled underfoot by men. 14 “You are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden. 15 Nor do they light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house. 16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven.
I thought there was no official Mariology. I see it comes before Christology?
we heresiarchs cling bitterly to our guns and religion, none of us have been photoged kissing the koran, and never will be
False.
But that is not the whole truth. so I will not explain it.
Besides, if it is so dreadful for me to say that someone who thinks NO married priests are allowed is poorly catechized, then let that well catechized person do her own research.,
I only have to adduce that there is ONE married priest to have accomplished the job of showing that her authority as a former Catholic can carry no weight (while other authority might carry some weight -- I only argued against what was said).
For completeness, other rites as I have posted before, allow married men to become priests. None, as far as I know, allow men who are priests to marry. But those other rites are Catholic and in communion with the Holy See. Therefore it CANNOT be doctrine that priests MUST be celibate. Q.E.D.
the angel of the Lord massacred the first born of the Egyptians, and everyone else who did not have the blood of the lamb on the doorpost. That's the front runner to the final one
You know I’m fine with you describing your belief of god as the killer of innocent children.
If this is what your Calvinist beliefs lead you to as a Christian, if this is what you think Jesus Christ teaches us about His Father, then I want you to continue to proclaim it proudly for all to see.
My point is that not only do you hersiarchs select which aspects of the faith suit you, but you misrepresent the teachings and the behaviors of those whom you despise. You despise something you have made up, and attach that fantasy to the catholic Church.
Nobody who actually read the relevant encyclicals and parts of the catechism would suggest that we teach that Mary was pre-existent. and yet that's what your side suggests. we must be permitted to giggle a little bit when the falsehoods about us are so grotesque. It is dubious whether you heresiarchs will ever have the obligation of trying to establish relations with Muslim leaders. You will not ever face the challenge of threading the needle of encouraging some faint embers of Abrahamic faith in them. It may be that once we condemned too readily. There is little question that your side now takes more pleasure in the death of a sinner than in nurturing the possibility that he might turn from his wickedness and love.
So, after the manner of the Muslims your side professes to despise, continue to allege falsehoods against us and to keep your purity unsullied by the effort to reach out to the benighted. We will continue to believe what we actually believe and to reach out to the refuse of your world.
BTW: If you are in this group, consider yourself Calvinist but do not believe in double predestination, I’d appreciate you explaining why.
I only have to adduce that there is ONE married priest to have accomplished the job of showing that her authority as a former Catholic can carry no weight (while other authority might carry some weight — I only argued against what was said).
I STILL think that’s far tooooo much of a
S T R E T C H
TO SOUND soooooooooo smug about it.
I suspect that you are well aware of the popular understanding abroad in the world by most RC’s as well as other non-RC’s that marriage is BASICALLY NOT a normal option for RC priests.
Making such a fuss over such a miniscule relative exception is . . . not overly . . . kosher, to me.
Where is the “misquote?” Where were you “quoted” incorrectly?
Oh yeah. And where there's smoke there's fire. People wouldn't be accusing us of this kind of thing if it weren't true.
And that wasn't the Holy Ghost in that picture but a takeout order of Kentucky Fried Chicken. uh-HUH.
This is too miuch, First when someone gives evidence of disgracefully awful catechesis WHILE claming the authority of experience it is beneath me to address the argument and to point out that I who have received ZERO catechesis (auto-didact here) know more than she does.
And now you don't like my tone of voice when I type? YOU don't like the tone of MY voice?
If someone essentially says, You have to agree with me, I know what I'm talking about and then says a series of things that are grotesquely untrue, I don't see where my obligation extends beyond pointing out the errors. If she wants classes, let her ask for them.
BUT I DID point out the uniate churches. However, no one on your side remembers that. I don't know why it was forgotten, but remembering it would interfere with the current doctrine of my haughtiness.
I suspect that you are well aware of the popular understanding abroad in the world by most RC’s as well as other non-RC’s that marriage is BASICALLY NOT a normal option for RC priests.
Of course. But normal Catholics and non-Catholics do not tell other Catholics that they have to agree with them because they possess knowledge not only superior but unassailable.
RMo7:What former Catholic made these statements?
You know, I'd like an answer to that question as well. Somehow I think that my name got associated with stating that the Catholic church does not allow married priests. I don't recall saying that and I don't recall even addressing the issue. I went through my posting history looking for that comment and can't find it.
If someone thinks I said it, if they could recall where and when, it would be a big help if they could post a link to it. Otherwise, I'm going to disavow that comment.
MD:If somebody who thinks-....... that the chalice is never offered;
Still beating that dead horse? That's not a matter of being poorly catechized when that was what was happening in actuality when I left the Catholic church. If (and since) it changed AFTER I left the Catholic church, you simply cannot use that as evidence of being poorly catechized. If I made that statement while being in the Catholic church after the change had occurred, then I would be poorly catechized, but how can you accuse someone who is not part of the church for being poorly catechized when they aren't in the church any more?
DUH!
I responded:
False.
Now you respond:
Where is the “misquote?” Where were you “quoted” incorrectly?
!
The statement which I characterized as "false" was "No one is misquoting anything."
Maybe some on your side have argued to win for so long that they no longer see their own maneuvers.
I would say tighten up the question, and if it's a question clearly related to what went before and if I have time tomorrow I'll answer it. I'm not going to help my opponents draw me into a rope-a-dope. They have to do some of the work.
“I do not buy that God creates evil and I have never been able to wrap my mind around Calvinistic predestination that makes us all puppets on a string who have no choice and that God made men for the express purpose of sending them to hell.”
God created the law of cause and effect that governs actions. Included in it is evil that carries in itself the seeds of its own destruction. That’s why Paul can say unreservedly “the wages of sin is death”.
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.