It means "This guy -- he's not my kind of guy."
Posted on 06/23/2018 11:34:02 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
After ranting about the Catholic Church, the President of the Philippines now has a beef with the concept of 'original sin' in the Genesis creation story
MANILA, Philippines – After recent tirades against priests and the Church's "hypocrisy," Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte cursed God and called God "stupid" for the concept of "original sin" in the Bible's creation story.
Duterte, on Friday, June 22, began with retelling the story of Adam and Eve and how they ate the fruit from the forbidden tree and thus brought original sin upon humankind.
"Kinain ni Adam (Adam ate it) then malice was born. Who is this stupid God? Istupido talaga itong putangina kung ganoon (That son of a bitch is stupid if that's the case)," said Duterte during a summit in Davao City.
"You created something perfect and then you think of an event that would tempt and destroy the quality of your work," he continued.
The President, a Catholic, said he finds it preposterous that babies should be born with original sin.
"Tsuk tsak lang 'yun ng nanay pati tatay mo wala ka pang kasali tapos ngayon may original sin ka. Tanginang klase – anong klaseng relihiyon 'yan? 'Yan ang hindi ko matanggap. What a stupid proposition," said an incensed Duterte.
(That was your mother and father's deed, you weren't born yet, but now you have original sin. What kind of religion is that? I can't accept it.)
Yet after this tirade, Duterte insists he still believes in a greater being. It's religion and institutions he does not trust.
"I believe there is a universal mind. But [to] what extent is the influence of the – I cannot picture him as a human being…But I really believe, i have this faith and abiding thing about – but don't believe in religion," he said.
Before his rant against God, Duterte had outraged Catholics when, during the launch of his presidential campaign over two years ago, he cursed Pope Francis for causing traffic in Manila.
Duterte also made similar remarks in his meeting with the Filipino community in South Korea on June 3. Also citing the story of Adam and Eve, Duterte said in South Korea, “Kung ’yan ang Diyos ng Katoliko, torpe ‘yan. Maghanap ka ng Diyos na tama.”
A week after Duterte made these comments in South Korea, Lingayen-Dagupan Archbishop Socrates Villegas wrote a stinging reflection about people cursing God. (READ: He is insane. He is possessed.)
“The list of cuss words against God is endless. God is still God and those who have cursed Him are now dust,” Villegas said in a reflection on June 10.
“When you spit upwards, your spit will return to your face. The more you spit at God, the more spit you bring to your face. It is the law of gravity. It is also the law of divine justice,” he added.
Villegas, former president of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines, also urged Catholics to pray for people who teach them error.
“Dear children, as for those who dare to teach you error, pray for them and forgive them. They might be insane or possessed. They need God. They need your prayers and love and compassion,” said Villegas.
After fierce criticism for his threats against priests amidst recent killings of clergymen, Duterte insisted in a speech that he "respects" the Church.
RE: According to Canon Law: “An apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.”
That is of course the ideal case. But the Catholic Church is composed of HUMAN BEINGS. You cannot know the hearts of every single individual who has been baptized as an infant and who is now an adult.
What I’m saying is this — IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DETERMINE HOW MANY ROMAN CATHOLICS ARE NOW NOT BELIEVERS.
So here’s a very interesting question — knowing the stance of President Duterte, is he considered an apostate? If so, Do you have to officially excommunicate him? Or does he simply excommunicate himself?
If he goes to church, will the Priest allow him to take communion?
I could say exactly the same to you, but I cannot know whether (1) you are deliberately engaging in misleading sophistry yourself, or (2) you really can't see certain errors to which you revert even after being corrected, or perhaps (3) our dialogue over the years has suffered from our mutual misunderstanding.
I'd place most of my wager on #3, with some spare change going on #2. I have chosen to make the assumption of good will on your part. If you will do me the same courtesy, this discussion can continue. If you won't, then it can't. It would be a waste of time and a vexation of the spirit for both of us.
What do you say?
So the affirmation of Islam worshiping the same god as Catholics means Catholics must be able ot judge what valid church teaching is and what it means. How telling, but you have it backwards according to so much RC teaching, for if you are judging "what she teaches and protesting it publicly" based upon the premise of "following God's law" then you are indeed essentially Protestant," and thus RCs censor us for doing just what you propose. You have historical teaching that conflicts with modern teaching, and which results in sections and schism, with some rejecting aspects of V2 or engaging in variant interpretations of it, unless the most recent teaching is held to be the valid one.
For church law ought to be supreme according to papal teaching, and as shown, rather than the validity of church and papal teaching being based upon your judgment of it, you are sppsd to be following the interpretation of your leadership. “All that we do [as must be patent enough now] is to submit our judgment and conform our beliefs to the authority Almighty God has set up on earth to teach us; this, and nothing else.” “Absolute, immediate, and unfaltering submission to the teaching of God's Church on matters of faith and morals-----this is what all must give..” —“Henry G. Graham, "What Faith Really Means", (Nihil Obstat:C. SCHUT, S. T.D., Censor Deputatus, Imprimatur: EDM. CANONICUS SURMONT, D.D.,Vicarius Generalis. WESTMONASTERII, Die 30 Septembris, 1914 );
For as shown, 'the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors," "to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff," "of submitting with docility to their judgment," with "no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed... not only in person, but with letters and other public documents ;" and 'not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority, " for "obedience must not limit itself to matters which touch the faith: its sphere is much more vast: it extends to all matters which the episcopal power embraces," and not set up "some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them," "Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent." (Sources http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3578348/posts?page=14#14)
And if you want to engage in ascertaining what magisterial level each statement falls under, and therefor what degree/manner of assent is required, then you end up with the manner of variant opinions that RCs set for the magisterium as the solution for.
As one poster sighs,
rrr1213: Boy. No disrespect intended…and I mean that honestly…but my head spins trying to comprehend the various classifications of Catholic teaching and the respective degrees of certainty attached thereto. I suspect that the average Catholic doesn’t trouble himself with such questions, but as to those who do (and us poor Protestants who are trying to get a grip on Catholic teaching) it sounds like an almost impossible task. - https://forums.catholic.com/t/catechism-infallible/55096/30
The response to which is just obey everything:
Well, the question pertained to theology. The Catholic faithful don’t need to know any of this stuff to be faithful Catholics, so you are confusing theology with praxis. Praxis is quite simple for faithful Catholics: give your religious assent of intellect and will to Catholic doctrine, whether it is infallible or not. That’s what our Dogmatic Constitution on the Church demands, that’s what the Code of Canon Laws demand, and that is what the Catechism itself demands. Heb 13:17 teaches us to “obey your leaders and submit to them.” This submission is not contingent upon inerrancy or infallibility. - https://forums.catholic.com/t/catechism-infallible/55096/31
Instead, what you see in Catholicism are substantial disagreements, with variant understandings of RC teachings exist, as well as what level they belong to and what assent is required and means, and which would be greater if Catholics were as doctrine-intensive as Bible Christians tend to be. Thus the strongest divisions in Catholicism is among the most doctrine-intensive.
And rather than the magisterium settling debate, with Catholics judging what valid church teaching is and means (and V2 being open to interpretation) then as one poster wryly commented,
The last time the church imposed its judgment in an authoritative manner on "areas of legitimate disagreement," the conservative Catholics became the Sedevacantists and the Society of St. Pius X, the moderate Catholics became the conservatives, the liberal Catholics became the moderates, and the folks who were excommunicated, silenced, refused Catholic burial, etc. became the liberals. The event that brought this shift was Vatican II; conservatives then couldn't handle having to actually obey the church on matters they were uncomfortable with, so they left. ” Nathan, http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/blog/2005/05/fr-michael-orsi-on-different-levels-of.html
And then you have the the lament of Traditionalists who find,
"there is not a heresiarch today, not a single apostate who does not now appeal to the Council in carrying out his action in broad daylight with full impunity as recognized pastor and master." "The definitive texts are for the most part compromise texts. On far too many occasions they juxtapose opposing viewpoints without establishing any genuine internal link between them. Thus every affirmation of the power of bishops is accompanied in a manner which is almost tedious by the insistence upon the authority of the Pope..." "It is then the ambiguity of the Conciliar statements which allows for any interpretation one wishes." — http://www.the-pope.com/wvat2tec.html
What we've got going on here is a nearly unprecedented situation: First, a pope who opposes the papal magisterium. Huh. Full stop. Take a deep breath.
What? According to your subject-to-interpretation the pope has erred on some doctrinal level (if not infallibly? ), but the pope is your supreme interpreter, and "obedience must not limit itself to matters which touch the faith: its sphere is much more vast: it extends to all matters which the episcopal power embraces," "except for the essential duties imposed on all Pontiffs by their apostolic office, each of them can adopt the attitude which he judges best according to times and circumstances. Of this he alone is the judge . It is true that for this he has not only special lights..."
And which includes also social encyclicals:
80. In the Church’s social doctrine the Magisterium is at work in all its various components and expressions. … Insofar as it is part of the Church’s moral teaching, the Church’s social doctrine has the same dignity and authority as her moral teaching. It is authentic Magisterium, which obligates the faithful to adhere to it . - http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html
And it is quite well evidenced that the popes laudato encyclical (http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html) is intended to teach what the Church's moral teaching demands as regards ecology and economy. (172 references in this encyclical cite church teaching and prelates for support).
Moreover, do you reject such a inner circle papal declaration as Dictatus papae or pick and choose from it? "That a sentence passed by him may be retracted by no one; and that he himself, alone of all, may retract it. That he himself may be judged by no one." - Dictatus papae [1075]; http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/g7-dictpap.asp
Which is to say, he upholds things that would not have been accepted by the prophets of Israel or the Fathers of the Church, let alone by any of his predecessors nor any canonized saint.
You mean his per V2 predecessors and canonized "saints" would accept the V2 interpretation of Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus (such as infallibly declared, “We declare, say, define, and pronounce [ex cathedra] that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff” "not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life but will depart into everlasting fire...unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock...remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church")???
Instead, if one is to be a faithful RC, 'the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors," with most recent clarifying what prior teaching meant. But if one wants to be NT Christian and be saved, then they will judge church teaching in the light of the the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels), and not find Catholic distinctives manifest, but the way of salvation.
I will let others judge, as I am not the one trying or having to to engage in sophistry in order to save the object of my trust from shame for having affirmed Muslims/Islam worships the same God as Catholics.
But have been rather busy and am at this time of month, and thus my late replies, and see no need to say much more, but i do appreciate you being courteous, the lack of which was not a charge against you, whom I want the best for. .
Question: do you think Christians worship the same God as the Jews/Judaism?
"Given the choice between a Biblical and a post-Biblical moral code/ceremonial, I choose the Biblical."
Me too.
Although I know we would differ on our assessment of the Biblical.
It seems I'm being misunderstood again.
When I said "post Biblical ritual and ceremonial" it was precisely the ancient churches I had in mind. They declared that Leviticus was "fulfilled" and then came up with a table of holidays, rituals, ceremonials, laws, and commandments to take its place.
All chrstian ceremonials are post-Biblical because there is no "Leviticus" in the "new testament." The entire thing evolved slowly over centuries, whereas the Laws of the Torah were literally spoken by G-d.
American Fundamentalist Protestantism doesn't have a ritual or ceremonial of any kind, because innate total depravity makes all human effort futile. I once had no trouble believing that the Torah had been "fulfilled" in in order to replace it with a loophole, but to replace one ritual system with another simply makes no sense. We already had one.
I did misunderstand you. Now I get what you’re saying. Sorry.
So having tried to make the Arabs of Acts to be akin to Muslims, you ask this? No, not as defined by most of Judaism, which is liberal, or the traditionalists overall that evolved from the hardened Scribes and Pharisees overall whose father was the devil, and many effectively blaspheme the God of the OT.
But the devout Jews of Acts 2 did worship the God of the OT, the God of the Christians who, as did Saul/Paul "in all good conscience," which was not a god with a radically different theology than what the Christians preached, but Saul lacked fuller complementary, but not contradictory revelation, in contrast to the God of Scripture.
The question also can be asked, does Islam worship the same God as that the of OT, or even Jews today, and the answer is no. For once again, we are dealing with a religion overall, and V2 has affirmed Islam as worshiping the Christian God, yet the god of Islam is theologically clearly different than that of the Scripture, providing a competing and contradictory revelation, even to flatly denying that Messiah of the OT, and corrupting stories from Scripture, which the devil employs in his quest to acquire authority for his deception.
There is a critical difference btwn having some true light oe obeys, as Paul did, yet being ignorant of salvific revelation, versus believing in a false deity and gospel, which Islam teaches.
Thus while I am confident that there are some simple pious devout Muslims who sincerely seek the True God and will accept the revelation of Christ similarly, there are some simple pious contrite Catholics who lay hold of Christ for salvation amid the false teachings of Rome), yet their religion preaches "another Jesus," "another spirit," and "another gospel" yet V2 bears with him. (2 Corinthians 11:4)
And thus Islam does worship a false god, and just as so many of your traditionalists assert, V2 did affirm that Islam worshiped the same God as Catholics, and was wrong to do so.
It means "This guy -- he's not my kind of guy."
I've only seen or heard of this happening twice.Once was when there was a pressure group known as the "Rainbow Sash Movement" which involved gay guys coming up for cvommunion as a group, wearing rainbow sashes, to self-affirm their "lifestyle." I think this was in the Archdiocese of Minneapolis/St. Paul. The Abp (as I remember it) told them they could not receive Holy Communion while wearing those sashes, which he reasonably took to be an outward sign of non-repentance.
So there was a bit of an open confrontation, but as it worked out, they turned away. Got a spate of publicity at the time. This might have been 30 years ago.
Second time, much more recently. It was when a Catholic Church in Haithersburg. MD was having a funeral Mass for a lesbian's deceased mother. The daughter walked into the sacristy minutes before Mass was, and announced that she and her "wife"--- who also happened to be a Buddhist --- would be receiving Communion. He kindly said, "Sorry, but no one who is not a Catholic in good standing may receive Holy Communion. You may come for a blessing. I'll pray for you."
As is typical at Marriage and Funeral Masses, when there would very probably be non-Catholics present, the priest also publicly explained the conditions for receiving Communion to the whole congregation before the beginning of the Mass.
They showed up in the Communion line anyway, and he quietly turned them away: too quietly, because they then got in a different line and received Communion from one of the EM's.
And from there, of course, directly to the Washington Post.
The rest of the story is here.
Of course it's the priest who ended up in trouble with the . bishop.
The sections on Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism, tacked on late and rather hastily, were only a couple of sentences each. The whole thing was not seen as a full theological treatment, just a plea for mutual respect as leading to cooperation and peace amongst communities.
Some were saying that since it arguably broke with previous magisterial teachings, it could not be magisterial, for logical as well as theological reasons: A cannot equal non-A.
Others said it was not ever intended as a dogmatic statement but rather as a pastoral strategy: first establish and esteem the similarities and commonalities between Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. God is the Creator of all things visible and invisible, no matter who said it. Later focus on the differences/deficiencies of the non-Christian faiths. In other words: first connect; then correct.
It finally passed the bishops' vote on the rationale that it was not a change in doctrine, but a change in demeanor.
After it passed, it was swiftly trumpeted by its partisans as, yup, a wonderful overturning of nineteen centuries of doctrine.
A microcosm of the council, alas, and it remains controversial. And bait-and-switch may still be the modus operandi of Tio_Hagan_ Lio to this day.
That's why so many of us think he's a disaster.
I haven't really revisited this issue since I was a teenager. The most recent thing I read on it was http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/nostra-aetate-love-muslims-how-do-i-do-that
Haithersburg = Gaithersburg
RE: “Kung ’yan ang Diyos ng Katoliko, torpe ‘yan. Maghanap ka ng Diyos na tama.”
It means in English ( and I can speak the Filipino language having lived there for some time ):
“If that is the God of the Catholics, He’s stupid. Better find the right God.”
"Some" - those of the traditionalist sects - and likewise EENS and a host of other V2-class teachings.
Others said it was not ever intended as a dogmatic statement but rather as a pastoral strategy:
"Others" those who engage in the hapless damage control task of trying to reconcile conflicting aspects of modern teaching with historical teaching.
All of which illustrates that while Caths broadly attack Bible Christians for making Scripture subject to interpretation rather than submitting to their church, what their own church teaches - by word or deed - can be substantially subject to variant interpretations.
It finally passed the bishops' vote on the rationale that it was not a change in doctrine, but a change in demeanor.
The same (if not fully sane) bishops who elected your chief interpreter which has only furthered the divisiveness.
And the American bishops really affirm Islam, as shown you.
After it passed, it was swiftly trumpeted by its partisans as, yup, a wonderful overturning of nineteen centuries of doctrine.
Which seems to be the majority, and which unholy amalgam you all would have us conservative evangelicals be brethren with, as you are, whether you assent to it or not. Rome manifestly does.
That's why so many of us think he's a disaster.
He's your pope, not ours.
I haven't really revisited this issue since I was a teenager. The most recent thing I read on it was http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/nostra-aetate-love-muslims-how-do-i-do-that
I take to myself the services which you have done to him. For no service which is vile can be done to me, and none which is not vile can be done to him. Therefore, if any man swear by Tash and keep his oath, it is by me that he has truly sworn, though he know it not; and it is I who reward him.
What desperate spin. To keep an oath in service to a demon is itself vile, and while this can include doing objectively good things in that service (being faithful to a wife, etc.), it is not being done to the glory of God, and in virtuous service to him.
But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table, and of the table of devils. (1 Corinthians 10:20-21)
Even when Israel serves false gods then they did some objectively good things, yet they were still worshiping false gods. (Acts 7:42) And which is the issue here. Just admit V2 erred by letting the liberals win and stop engaging in damage control.
Pope Francis actually said (but I can't find the actual quote: somebody help me out here) that he makes the dots and other people connect the dots. Nobody can indict him for formal error because nobody is morally certain what kind of picture he had in his crafty (?) fuzzy (?) mind to begin with.
This is not an honest way to talk or write about doctrine. That's what make it worse than heresy. An honest heretic make plain declarative sentences and puts the subject before the verb: you know what he's getting at. An operator like Pope Francis: eh? --- Gives you a bowl of alphabet soup and says "Parse this."
I sometimes think of the lengthy crisis the Church endured --- roughly the whole 14th century --- when the Avignon papacy was followed by the Western Schism. Who can we name that came through that really faithfully, except St. Catherine of Siena?
But I tell my RCIA students, the really important --- and really interesting --- people in Catholic history are not the priests, and not the popes, but the Saints.
The whole "deicide/greatest crime in history" trope doesn't exist for churches who believe in penal substitution.
That's your pope, bishops and council, a product of the magisterium RCs point us to as the solution to confusion, and the laity ascertaining the validity of teaching based upon their own judgment. Even as they do so themselves.
But I tell my RCIA students, the really important --- and really interesting --- people in Catholic history are not the priests, and not the popes, but the Saints.
All believers are called saints in the NT, that being interchangeable with brethren/believers, and the semi-formal division is another Catholic invention.
But why not tell them that the NT church began contrary to the Catholic model for ascertaining what is of God, not following the historical magisterium and stewards of Scripture, but with the common people ascertaining what leadership did not as they would not.
And following itinerant preachers and a Preacher whom the historical magisterium rejected, but whom the reproved by Scripture, which they treated as the supreme transcendent reliable authority, and established their Truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power?
Then came the officers to the chief priests and Pharisees; and they said unto them, Why have ye not brought him? The officers answered, Never man spake like this man. Then answered them the Pharisees, Are ye also deceived? Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him? But this people who knoweth not the law are cursed. (John 7:45-49)
And Jesus answered and said, while he taught in the temple, How say the scribes that Christ is the Son of David? For David himself said by the Holy Ghost, The Lord said to my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool. David therefore himself calleth him Lord; and whence is he then his son? And the common people heard him gladly. (Mark 12:35-37)
And they come again to Jerusalem: and as he was walking in the temple, there come to him the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders, And say unto him, By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority to do these things? And Jesus answered and said unto them, I will also ask of you one question, and answer me, and I will tell you by what authority I do these things. The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men? answer me. And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say, Why then did ye not believe him? But if we shall say, Of men; they feared the people: for all men counted John, that he was a prophet indeed. (Mark 11:27-32)
Then ask them to find where Catholic distinctives are manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels) is Scripture, which is primarily Acts thru Revelation?.
That would turn things on their heads, and as a formal teacher (despite what Scripture says about women being authority figures as teachers in the church ) your judgment with be more severe for teaching RC propaganda. (James 3:1)
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.