S
Socrates92
Guest
A necessary start is not condoning, or worse, participating in, their evil practices. You don’t help a drug addict recover by taking a shot of heroine to show solidarity.
- Status
S
Socrates92
Guest
As required.
S
Sarcelle
Guest
I am inclined to think of this as an act of theft.
S
Sarcelle
Guest
Who said anything about taking drugs along with the person you are trying to help?
Read my post again. You are attributing to me things I never said.
I suggested directing the person to rehab. A lot more effective than flushing their drugs down the toilet.
Read my post again. You are attributing to me things I never said.
I suggested directing the person to rehab. A lot more effective than flushing their drugs down the toilet.
Last edited:
R
Rubee
Guest
All of it? I disagree. I think most of it just misguided, not necessarily demonic. Even among indigenous groups there are communal recognitions of what we might call ‘black magic’ and are feared and treated differently from practices that I think are just some form of vivid exercise of the imagination.
S
Socrates92
Guest
Participating in idolatry, by continuing to house an idol in the Church building, is akin to taking a shot of heroine. It does absolutely nothing to help idolaters come closer to the true faith. Ideally, you’d like to take the Idolater to rehab (conversion), but at the very least, you do not partake.
It is not an act of theft, as this is NOT a legitimate object of property for a church to own. They should not have been offered it, and the Church should not have accepted it. There is no destruction of value. Destruction of these idols, in fact, accomplished the exact opposite - a restoration of value that these idols detracted from.
Last edited:
S
Sarcelle
Guest
We will have to agree to disagree.
M
MagdalenaRita
Guest
True and apparently for quite a long time but from what I understand, at the Synod press conference it was mentioned that 80% of the indigenous people who are Catholic and living in the Amazon have left the Church,… for protestantism.
R
rom
Guest
Thinking does not make it so. Read my post above (Post #850). Did you miss it?
R
Rubee
Guest
80% of the indigenous people who are Catholic and living in the Amazon have left the Church,… for protestantism.
Goodness! We are hemorrhaging. And I’m sure protestants are much less accommodating than we are of the indigenous culture so this strategy might not be working.(I mean overaccommodating like what happened at the synod).
Last edited:
J
Jen7
Guest
I have read that cultures with embedded pagan elements are often happy to be evangelized away from these elements. This mass exodus toward Protestantism seems to support this view, doesn’t it? Perhaps if these folks wish to keep their indigenous idols they would remain in their indigenous faith… and those ready to put them aside (the 80%?) are becoming Protestant. Just a guess. A guess that makes me feel the Catholic “accommodating” pathway may not actually increase numbers…
Last edited:
M
MagdalenaRita
Guest
My thoughts exactly.
C
commenter
Guest
EWTN has been in unity with their bishop since its start. It can legitimately use the term “Catholic” to describe their ministry. This is unlike many “Catholic” labelled media organizations, on the Left or the Right. For instance, National Catholic Reporter and Lepanto are “independent”.
Last edited:
C
commenter
Guest
Actually we can’t generalize about “Protestants”.
The kind of Protestants that have been growing, in Latin America and elsewhere, are Evangelicals. They are vehemently opposed to any accommodation with Paganism.
But mainline Protestants, who have been shrinking rapidly, are very, very accommodating.
What a choice of role models!
Last edited:
A
Aquinas11
Guest
Makes sense though. If you’re in Amazon and Pagan, why would you leave Paganism to join Protestant/Pagan hybrid? You’d just stay Pagan. But if a true distinct option was availed, that offered distinct differences with Paganism, you might be swayed.
R
rom
Guest
Yes, we must be obedient to the Pope. But obedience does not mean blind obedience. Remember, there were also other popes before the present Holy Father whom we have to listen to and obey. What if the present Holy Father starts teaching something different from what the previous popes and Ecumenical Councils have taught, should we still obey him?
Also, we look to the Pope for guidance. We, faithful Catholics, become uneasy (which does not mean angry) with the Holy Father when he does not answer questions or when he gives vague responses. Saying “I will not say a word” did not help us, but sparked more controversy. Similarly, his deafening silence about one journalist’s report that he, Pope Francis, did not actually believe that Christ, while He was on earth until His death on the cross, was not really divine, made us very uneasy. I’m sure Pope Francis believes in the divinity of our Lord, but on the occasion of a report as serious as that, we expected that he would at least affirm his faith openly and end all discussions. Instead he was completely silent. I will not debate this issue in this thread any further here because it is out of topic. I just want to explain that we love our Pope and respect him, but the Holy Father’s silence, his ambiguity, his lack of clarity, his evasive answers, etc. do make us very uneasy. That uneasy feeling does not betray lack of trust. That is not lack of obedience. Rather, it is a symptom of our moral weakness resulting from the absence of clear direction from him.
The ritual that happened at the opening ceremony of the Synod is another case in point. If there had been an explanation from the Vatican or from the Pope that the figures used represented the Amazonian understanding of the Virgin Mary, and that the ritual was their way of giving her reverence to her, then we would understand, despite the fact that the pregnant woman was depicted as naked. But he and the Vatican were silent about the identity of the figures, and the report that came afterwards from the Vatican, that they were not the Virgin Mary, made it even worse. I wish that they had said that the figures were not the Pachamama. Instead, they said that it was not the Virgin Mary, and that they represented life, fertility, and mother earth. Then why all the prostrations and chanting? Life, fertility and mother earth are creatures. The worship of them is idolatry, and the figures were, therefore, idols. They deserve to be thrown into the Tiber. Someone in another website suggested that some of the organizers of the event may need to be thrown into the Tiber, too.
C
commenter
Guest
I’m very sensitive to this concern.We have to distinguish between papal teaching and papal Prudence. But most people won’t make that distinction. When they see a bishop or pope doing careless things, standing next to controversial persons and causes, they incorrectly, illogically assume lack of Prudence means the magisterium is now, and perhaps always has been, faulty.
It used to be said that when a man becomes pope, “he puts on lead shoes”. That means modern popes are (were) cautious about supporting or opposing the Cause of the Moment, they seldom say or write things that can be taken out of context and misused.
The lack of Prudence, the lack of proofreading or filtering since 2013 will be used as ammunition against V2, against teaching of St JP2, and even against teaching of Pope Francis. Some now in places like SSPX, or evangelicalism who are currently on the fence about coming “in”, will postpone it even cancel that move.
Last edited:
L
Lysander
Guest
Is it respectful to create an image of the Blessed Vrgin Mary as naked? Common logic says no, any new church that does it is wrong. Here is the question we should ask would we want our eartly mother to be depicted as naked? So why would we do it to our adoptive mother and Mother of our Lord?
M
MagdalenaRita
Guest
I absolutely agree it is terribly wrong to even think of painting an image of Our Blessed Mother as naked.
In all charity to @Emeraldlady I am truly convinced that the image she posted is not the Blessed Mother. I hope no one is telling her that it is but I believe it is an image of man coming up out of the waters of baptism, representing new life in Christ.
The wording she stated that is the title of the image are almost identical to the words Pope Sixtus III inscribed into the baptistry at St. John’s Lateran Basilica in Rome as his catechesis on baptism.
Here is born a people of noble race, destined for Heaven,
whom the Spirit brings forth in the waters he has made fruitful.
Mother Church conceives her offspring by the breath of God,
and bears them virginally in this water.…
A New Creation In Christ: The Lateran Baptistery - Missionaries of Divine Revelation
The Lateran Baptistery which stands adjacent to St John Lateran’s Basilica in Rome and is also known as ‘San Giovanni in Fonte’ was the first Baptistery to be constructed after freedom of worship was granted to Christians by the Emperor Constantine with promulgation of the Edict of Milan in 313...
www.mdrevelation.org
.
Last edited:
Emeraldlady
New member
And yet the greatest irony in Scripture was that the orthodox Jewish pharisees in all their wisdom and haughtiness stated that Jesus was of Satan.
Matt 12 22 Then they brought to him a demoniac who was blind and mute; and he cured him, so that the one who had been mute could speak and see. 23 All the crowds were amazed and said, “Can this be the Son of David?” 24 But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, “It is only by Beelzebul, the ruler of the demons, that this fellow casts out the demons.”
- Status