Jump to content


Photo

Because The Roman Catholic Church


  • Please log in to reply
528 replies to this topic

#501 DougRichards

DougRichards

    Doug Richards

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,263 posts

Posted 03 November 2019 - 1638 PM

 

 

“For our Catholic faith, there is no ‘us and them,’ but one family of God,” the message continued. “Borders, in the spirit of the Eucharist, exist not to separate and divide, but to identify and complement one another.”

 

 

Good luck taking 7 billion people into the Vatican, otherwise you're a bunch of hypocrites in funny clothes.

 

So let everyone into heaven? 

 

 

God would love to be able to let everyone into heaven, but not everyone chooses the narrow road that you need to follow to get there.


  • 0

#502 Jeff

Jeff

    Godfather of Tanknet Birthday Greetings

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,480 posts

Posted 03 November 2019 - 1647 PM

 

 

“For our Catholic faith, there is no ‘us and them,’ but one family of God,” the message continued. “Borders, in the spirit of the Eucharist, exist not to separate and divide, but to identify and complement one another.”

 

 

Good luck taking 7 billion people into the Vatican, otherwise you're a bunch of hypocrites in funny clothes.

 

So let everyone into heaven? 

 

 

If they are applying their words to membership in the Church as well as illegal immigration, then yes, that is what they are saying. If that's stupid and unrealistic then that's on them and their logic and wording and just as ridiculous as what they are saying about borders.


  • 0

#503 Mobius

Mobius

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,902 posts

Posted 04 November 2019 - 0931 AM

 

 

 

“For our Catholic faith, there is no ‘us and them,’ but one family of God,” the message continued. “Borders, in the spirit of the Eucharist, exist not to separate and divide, but to identify and complement one another.”

 

 

Good luck taking 7 billion people into the Vatican, otherwise you're a bunch of hypocrites in funny clothes.

 

So let everyone into heaven? 

 

 

God would love to be able to let everyone into heaven, but not everyone chooses the narrow road that you need to follow to get there.

 

I was pointing out that not everyone that shows up at the Pearly Gates of Heaven is let in.   They must have done something in order to be let in.   The Bishops are saying God is a xenophobe and a white supremacist who perpetuates “institutionalized racism,”.


  • 0

#504 sunday

sunday

    Bronze-age right-wing delusional retard

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12,035 posts

Posted 08 November 2019 - 0357 AM

As today is the feast day of Duns Scotus, let me remember his position on the matter of the Immaculate Conception.
 

Perhaps the most influential point of Duns Scotus's theology was his defense of the Immaculate Conception of Mary (i.e., that Mary herself was conceived without sin). At the time, there was a great deal of argument about the subject. The general opinion was that it was appropriately deferential to the Mother of God, but it could not be seen how to resolve the problem that only with Christ's death would the stain of original sin be removed. The great philosophers and theologians of the West were divided on the subject (indeed, even Thomas Aquinas sided with those who denied the doctrine). The feast day had existed in the East (though in the East, the feast is just of the Conception of Mary) since the seventh century and had been introduced in several dioceses in the West as well, even though the philosophical basis was lacking. Citing Anselm of Canterbury's principle, "potuit, decuit, ergo fecit" (He [i.e., God] could do it, it was appropriate, therefore He did it), Duns Scotus devised the following argument: Mary was in need of redemption like all other human beings, but through the merits of Jesus' crucifixion, given in advance, she was conceived without the stain of original sin. God could have brought it about (1) that she was never in original sin, (2) she was in sin only for an instant, (3) she was in sin for a period of time, being purged at the last instant. Whichever of these options was most excellent should probably be attributed to Mary.[40] This apparently careful statement provoked a storm of opposition at Paris, and suggested the line 'fired France for Mary without spot' in the famous poem "Duns Scotus's Oxford," by Gerard Manley Hopkins.

Scotus's argument appears in Pope Pius IX's 1854 declaration of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, "at the first moment of Her conception, Mary was preserved free from the stain of original sin, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ."[41] Scotus's position was hailed as "a correct expression of the faith of the Apostles."[41]

Another of Scotus's positions also gained official approval of the Roman Catholic Church: his doctrine on the universal primacy of Christ became the underlying rationale for the feast of Christ the King instituted in 1925.[41]

During his pontificate, Pope John XXIII recommended the reading of Duns Scotus's theology to modern theology students.


  • 0

#505 DougRichards

DougRichards

    Doug Richards

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,263 posts

Posted 08 November 2019 - 0430 AM

 

As today is the feast day of Duns Scotus, let me remember his position on the matter of the Immaculate Conception.
 

Perhaps the most influential point of Duns Scotus's theology was his defense of the Immaculate Conception of Mary (i.e., that Mary herself was conceived without sin). At the time, there was a great deal of argument about the subject. The general opinion was that it was appropriately deferential to the Mother of God, but it could not be seen how to resolve the problem that only with Christ's death would the stain of original sin be removed. The great philosophers and theologians of the West were divided on the subject (indeed, even Thomas Aquinas sided with those who denied the doctrine). The feast day had existed in the East (though in the East, the feast is just of the Conception of Mary) since the seventh century and had been introduced in several dioceses in the West as well, even though the philosophical basis was lacking. Citing Anselm of Canterbury's principle, "potuit, decuit, ergo fecit" (He [i.e., God] could do it, it was appropriate, therefore He did it), Duns Scotus devised the following argument: Mary was in need of redemption like all other human beings, but through the merits of Jesus' crucifixion, given in advance, she was conceived without the stain of original sin. God could have brought it about (1) that she was never in original sin, (2) she was in sin only for an instant, (3) she was in sin for a period of time, being purged at the last instant. Whichever of these options was most excellent should probably be attributed to Mary.[40] This apparently careful statement provoked a storm of opposition at Paris, and suggested the line 'fired France for Mary without spot' in the famous poem "Duns Scotus's Oxford," by Gerard Manley Hopkins.

Scotus's argument appears in Pope Pius IX's 1854 declaration of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, "at the first moment of Her conception, Mary was preserved free from the stain of original sin, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ."[41] Scotus's position was hailed as "a correct expression of the faith of the Apostles."[41]

Another of Scotus's positions also gained official approval of the Roman Catholic Church: his doctrine on the universal primacy of Christ became the underlying rationale for the feast of Christ the King instituted in 1925.[41]

During his pontificate, Pope John XXIII recommended the reading of Duns Scotus's theology to modern theology students.

 

 

I prefer Paul:
 

Romans 3

23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

 

24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.


  • 0

#506 sunday

sunday

    Bronze-age right-wing delusional retard

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12,035 posts

Posted 08 November 2019 - 0612 AM

"When one enters church he takes off his hat, not his head."


  • 0

#507 DougRichards

DougRichards

    Doug Richards

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,263 posts

Posted 09 November 2019 - 1540 PM

I Cor 23

 

but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,


  • 0

#508 Mobius

Mobius

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,902 posts

Posted 09 November 2019 - 1647 PM

 

As today is the feast day of Duns Scotus, let me remember his position on the matter of the Immaculate Conception.
 

Perhaps the most influential point of Duns Scotus's theology was his defense of the Immaculate Conception of Mary (i.e., that Mary herself was conceived without sin). At the time, there was a great deal of argument about the subject. The general opinion was that it was appropriately deferential to the Mother of God, but it could not be seen how to resolve the problem that only with Christ's death would the stain of original sin be removed. The great philosophers and theologians of the West were divided on the subject (indeed, even Thomas Aquinas sided with those who denied the doctrine). The feast day had existed in the East (though in the East, the feast is just of the Conception of Mary) since the seventh century and had been introduced in several dioceses in the West as well, even though the philosophical basis was lacking. Citing Anselm of Canterbury's principle, "potuit, decuit, ergo fecit" (He [i.e., God] could do it, it was appropriate, therefore He did it), Duns Scotus devised the following argument: Mary was in need of redemption like all other human beings, but through the merits of Jesus' crucifixion, given in advance, she was conceived without the stain of original sin. God could have brought it about (1) that she was never in original sin, (2) she was in sin only for an instant, (3) she was in sin for a period of time, being purged at the last instant. Whichever of these options was most excellent should probably be attributed to Mary.[40] This apparently careful statement provoked a storm of opposition at Paris, and suggested the line 'fired France for Mary without spot' in the famous poem "Duns Scotus's Oxford," by Gerard Manley Hopkins.

Scotus's argument appears in Pope Pius IX's 1854 declaration of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, "at the first moment of Her conception, Mary was preserved free from the stain of original sin, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ."[41] Scotus's position was hailed as "a correct expression of the faith of the Apostles."[41]

Another of Scotus's positions also gained official approval of the Roman Catholic Church: his doctrine on the universal primacy of Christ became the underlying rationale for the feast of Christ the King instituted in 1925.[41]

During his pontificate, Pope John XXIII recommended the reading of Duns Scotus's theology to modern theology students.

 

What is weird is that the Quran has something like this as

 

Surah 3:42 that "And [mention] when the angels said, "O Mary, indeed Allah has chosen you and purified you and chosen you above the women of the worlds."

It could come from some apocryphal source.  The Quran butchers a lot of the Jesus story.


  • 0

#509 sunday

sunday

    Bronze-age right-wing delusional retard

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12,035 posts

Posted 09 November 2019 - 1719 PM

I Cor 23
 
but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,


Yeah, and the age of Earth is about 6000 years. Not all in the Bible should be taken literally. That was another of Martin Luther errors.
  • 0

#510 DougRichards

DougRichards

    Doug Richards

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,263 posts

Posted 09 November 2019 - 2201 PM

The early chapters of Genesis may be considered as allegory, of which it is safe to consider.  However there is a problem.  If you completely throw away the first few chapters of Genesis then you are also throwing away the concept of sin and of the fall.  Sin, according to Genesis, entered the world through Adam (also an allegory representing human kind), rejecting the commandment and love of God. 

 

So if you throw away these chapters with:

 

"Yeah, and the age of Earth is about 6000 years. Not all in the Bible should be taken literally."

 

You are throwing away the doctrine of sin and rebellion, and therefore of the need for forgiveness through sacrifice (the Old Testament concept) and the doctrine that Jesus Christ was the ultimate sacrifice and the atonement for sins.

 

Throw away the overall message of the first few chapters of Genesis, by not even accepting them as allegory, then Christ was not required and any doctrine of the immaculate conception fades into the darkness together with all other doctrines.

 

However, the writing of the New Testament are harder to throw away, but you still reject them, therefore proving:

 

I Cor 23

 

but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,


Edited by DougRichards, 09 November 2019 - 2202 PM.

  • 0

#511 sunday

sunday

    Bronze-age right-wing delusional retard

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12,035 posts

Posted 10 November 2019 - 1324 PM

Oh, really? In which way have it written something against that I Corinthians versicle? (jab on literality of Genesis excepted)
  • 0

#512 Mobius

Mobius

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,902 posts

Posted 10 November 2019 - 1415 PM

The early chapters of Genesis may be considered as allegory, of which it is safe to consider.  However there is a problem.  If you completely throw away the first few chapters of Genesis then you are also throwing away the concept of sin and of the fall.  Sin, according to Genesis, entered the world through Adam (also an allegory representing human kind), rejecting the commandment and love of God. 

 

So if you throw away these chapters with:

 

"Yeah, and the age of Earth is about 6000 years. Not all in the Bible should be taken literally."

Where in Genesis was hell created?  Or, has it been yet created.


  • 0

#513 Rick

Rick

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,255 posts

Posted 11 November 2019 - 0652 AM

 

The early chapters of Genesis may be considered as allegory, of which it is safe to consider.  However there is a problem.  If you completely throw away the first few chapters of Genesis then you are also throwing away the concept of sin and of the fall.  Sin, according to Genesis, entered the world through Adam (also an allegory representing human kind), rejecting the commandment and love of God. 

 

So if you throw away these chapters with:

 

"Yeah, and the age of Earth is about 6000 years. Not all in the Bible should be taken literally."

Where in Genesis was hell created?  Or, has it been yet created.

 

Some would say the appearance of the serpent is the origin of hell. 

Numbers 16:30, Isaiah 14: 12-15.
For me the most descriptive is Ezekiel 28:14-18.

Edited by Rick, 11 November 2019 - 0655 AM.

  • 0

#514 Mobius

Mobius

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,902 posts

Posted 11 November 2019 - 0844 AM

 

 

Some would say the appearance of the serpent is the origin of hell. 

Numbers 16:30, Isaiah 14: 12-15.
For me the most descriptive is Ezekiel 28:14-18.

 

It seems to be in a pit on earth but also on the ground on earth.  In sight of all who watch so the pit is not very deep.  Plus satan starts by being among fiery stones not ending in fiery stones.   Certainly not the elaborate Hell from the Quran or Zoroastrianism. 


  • 0

#515 Corinthian

Corinthian

    Stone Age Bitter Delusional Retard

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,357 posts

Posted 12 November 2019 - 0324 AM

I dunno if the following link was posted here already but anyhow:

 

https://www.churchmi...oseph-ratzinger


  • 0

#516 sunday

sunday

    Bronze-age right-wing delusional retard

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12,035 posts

Posted 12 November 2019 - 1323 PM

I dunno if the following link was posted here already but anyhow:
 
https://www.churchmi...oseph-ratzinger


Marco Tosatti is one of the good guys in the battle. He helped Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò to write his manifesto, for example.
  • 0

#517 lucklucky

lucklucky

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,729 posts

Posted 12 November 2019 - 1519 PM

The renunciation of Pope Benedict is quite fishy. For a start all the lack of curiosity by journalists, then the new Pope.


  • 0

#518 DougRichards

DougRichards

    Doug Richards

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,263 posts

Posted 12 November 2019 - 1632 PM

 

 

The early chapters of Genesis may be considered as allegory, of which it is safe to consider.  However there is a problem.  If you completely throw away the first few chapters of Genesis then you are also throwing away the concept of sin and of the fall.  Sin, according to Genesis, entered the world through Adam (also an allegory representing human kind), rejecting the commandment and love of God. 

 

So if you throw away these chapters with:

 

"Yeah, and the age of Earth is about 6000 years. Not all in the Bible should be taken literally."

Where in Genesis was hell created?  Or, has it been yet created.

 

Some would say the appearance of the serpent is the origin of hell. 

Numbers 16:30, Isaiah 14: 12-15.
For me the most descriptive is Ezekiel 28:14-18.

 

 

I think that your thoughts are too limited about when hell was created.  God created time for humanity, but God exists outside of the frame of human perceived time.  God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent.  That is is literally aware of everything that has happened and will happen shows that He exists in all time simultaneously.

 

So if Heaven is the state of being in communion with God, hell is the state of not being in communion with God, as symbolised in Jesus's teachings about hell in, for instance, Luke 16, and Satan's fall, that is Satan being cast out of heaven.

 

  Luke 10:17-18
Then the seventy returned with joy, saying, "Lord, even the demons are subject to us in Your name." And He said to them, "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.

 

Heaven, that is being with God, and hell, that is not being with God, have always existed.  In much the same way as we will all arrive on the Judgement day simultaneously, not depending on when we die.


  • 0

#519 Mikel2

Mikel2

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,566 posts

Posted 12 November 2019 - 1721 PM

The renunciation of Pope Benedict is quite fishy. For a start all the lack of curiosity by journalists, then the new Pope.

 

Back in the day it was argued that he renounced hoping to sway the election of his successor towards a younger more conservative person.  Didn't quite happen that way....


  • 0

#520 Mobius

Mobius

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,902 posts

Posted 12 November 2019 - 1729 PM

 

 

 

The early chapters of Genesis may be considered as allegory, of which it is safe to consider.  However there is a problem.  If you completely throw away the first few chapters of Genesis then you are also throwing away the concept of sin and of the fall.  Sin, according to Genesis, entered the world through Adam (also an allegory representing human kind), rejecting the commandment and love of God. 

 

So if you throw away these chapters with:

 

"Yeah, and the age of Earth is about 6000 years. Not all in the Bible should be taken literally."

Where in Genesis was hell created?  Or, has it been yet created.

 

Some would say the appearance of the serpent is the origin of hell. 

Numbers 16:30, Isaiah 14: 12-15.
For me the most descriptive is Ezekiel 28:14-18.

 

 

I think that your thoughts are too limited about when hell was created.  God created time for humanity, but God exists outside of the frame of human perceived time.  God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent.  That is is literally aware of everything that has happened and will happen shows that He exists in all time simultaneously.

 

So if Heaven is the state of being in communion with God, hell is the state of not being in communion with God, as symbolised in Jesus's teachings about hell in, for instance, Luke 16, and Satan's fall, that is Satan being cast out of heaven.

 

  Luke 10:17-18
Then the seventy returned with joy, saying, "Lord, even the demons are subject to us in Your name." And He said to them, "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.

 

Heaven, that is being with God, and hell, that is not being with God, have always existed.  In much the same way as we will all arrive on the Judgement day simultaneously, not depending on when we die.

 

I was thinking that Hell seems to be a New Testament concern.   In just 30 years of New Testament there are more mentions of Hell as in the Old.


  • 0