Are non-Christian religions acceptable?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Eddie18
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
If someone has a mere attraction and doesn’t act on it (or fantasize about it with pleasure), no harm done. It would be no different than someone who has an urge to rob a bank - as long as he doesn’t, he’s fine.
 
Or excessively slobbering dogs.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Don’t mistake taking the time to make a distinction for coyness. That’s just impatience.
 
Is it so hard to submit your will to the Church’s tradition that now you see your brothers as enemies?

We proclaim blessed Pius IX and St. Pius X as antidotes to this age of tomfoolery.

Why don’t you? It’s not that you don’t agree with us. It’s that we side with the all the popes of all time, not just the last 50 years, as well as the saints and the Theologians.

And the best you can do is the globbedygook they’re spilling from their liberal seminaries?

That’s the only crying shame here: that none take the tradition seriously enough to allow it to shape and mold them.
 
Serious question here, not looking for an argument. I understand this is the Catholic position regarding homosexuality, and it is also the (Orthodox) Jewish position. However, didn’t Jesus say something to the effect of adultery in the heart is similar to the deed itself? If so, wouldn’t this apply as well to homosexual attraction?
 
I think I know which verse you are referring to the good that. Is it this one?
“But I say to you, that whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart.” Matthew 5:28

It’s one thing to find a woman attractive and another to lust after her. With lust a person takes their thoughts too far. Thy shall not covet thy neighbor’s wife or goods. If someone has a homosexual attraction they should block it from their minds and stay away from all occasions that have anything to do with it. Then pray hard!
 
Last edited:
Please point out the Jansenism. You’re using three-dollar words without any clear sense of MEANING.

The Jansenist chief error was the denial of the Holy Sees ability to rule on dogmatic facts and their quickness to judge adherents of Limbo as Pelagians. In addition they weren’t fond of the sacred heart and didn’t like Marian devotions. Also they emphasized the irresistibiliry of the grace of God to the point of denying a humans hypothetical capacity to not cooperate with grace.

Where do you see THAT? Or do you hold adherence to tradition as Jansenism?
 
Well to be fair by the time deMontfort made his comment the thread had been rolling for seven days and was on post 548. He had a point.
 
Pup7 said:
Well to be fair by the time deMontfort made his comment the thread had been rolling for seven days and was on post 548. He had a point.
Click to expand...
I also would have appreciated some openness and honesty as I would not have wasted my time trying to reason with a Sede.
 
Last edited:
StAugustine said:
It’s that we side with the all the popes of all time, not just the last 50 years,
Click to expand...
Yes, but IMHO, the Church has changed its teachings on a number of issues in the last 50 years and that is why some people see a problem. There are those who want to support what popes and theologians have said before VaticanII, and there are others who believe that the current Popes have the authority to loose what was taught in the past, and therefore Catholics must follow the newer teachings. In some cases I don’t see a seamless continuity, but instead it looks to me like a radical break with some of the past teachings.
 
It’s so interesting to see people griping about being presented the truth about traditional Catholicism! Amazing. None of you have answers to why the Church today is teaching the exact opposite of what it used to, and it almost appears some people don’t want to know - they probably want to stay in their cozy little parish and pretend nothing is wrong. You are following new rules and doctrines that have always been condemned - basically a whole new religion.

I presented facts and backed up everything I said. I never mentioned sedevacantism once, and it is a few of you that came to that conclusion on your own after reading the facts. So now that you think the facts are pointing in that direction, you bail out of the discussion? Is that how you defend your faith?
 
Good observations. Yes, we have had over 250 popes and they have always taught in unison. If they didn’t, the Church would fall into error. We know from the dogma of infallibility of the Church, that the Church cannot fall into error. So if we see error, the only conclusion is that it cannot possibly be from the Church. The same thing happened during the Arian heresy and St. Athanasius called it like it was. So this should not be so shocking to people - it’s happened before.
 
That’s the point-

Look-

ST. CATHERINE OF SIENA (1347-1380)
DOCTOR OF THE CHURCH

"Most Holy Father,… because He [Christ] has given you authority and because you have accepted it, you ought to use your virtue and power. If you
do not wish to use it, it might be better for you to resign what you have accepted; it would give more honor to God and health to your soul… If you do not do this, you will be censured by God. If I were you, I would fear that Divine Judgment might descend on me. (Letter to Pope Gregory XI)

"Alas, Most Holy Father! At times obedience to you leads to eternal damnation. (Letter to Pope Gregory IX, 1376.)

TWENTIETH OECUMENICAL (DOGMATIC) COUNCIL, VATICAN I (1869-1870)

"Neque enim Petri successoribus Spiritus sanctus promissus est, ut eo revelante novam doctrinam patefacerent, sed ut eo assistente traditam per apostolos revelationem seu fidei depositum sancte custodirent et fideliter exponerent. (Constitutio Dogmatica Prima de Ecclesia Christi [Pastor Aeternus], cap. 4, “De Romani Pontificis Infallibili Magisterio”)

[For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by His revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by His assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or Deposit of Faith transmitted by the Apostles.]

The Pope does NOT have the power to loosen the faithfuls obligation to hold to past dogmas. His power is received in order to safeguard that which he receives, not create something new or change that which already exists.

To do so is to abuse authority and is to be resisted as evil. Because it is evil. No pope can do so.
 
Last edited:
The Teaching of the Popes, as can be seen in Pope Pius XII writing to Italian midwives, is exactly that the Church does not know of any other means of salvation for infants and that the theory of baptism of desire doesn’t work on them.

I quote-

Supernatural life

“If what We have said up to now concerns the protection and care of natural life, much more so must it concern the supernatural life, which the newly born receives with Baptism. In the present economy there is no other way to communicate that life to the child who has not attained the use of reason. Above all, the state of grace is absolutely necessary at the moment of death without it salvation and supernatural happiness—the beatific vision of God—are impossible. An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism; to the still unborn or newly born this way is not open.”

https://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P511029.HTM
 
Last edited:
And they know more than the tens of thousands that preceded them? The merely living are a drop in the bucket compared to the unanimous voice of the dead who have passed the tradition onto us to hold without violating it. Vatican II and the CCC aren’t a violation, using and abusing them as if they deviated from prior teaching is.

But that’s just modernism- keep the words but redefine them. Heresy.
 
StAugustine said:
The Pope does NOT have the power to loosen the faithfuls obligation to hold to past dogmas. His power is received in order to safeguard that which he receives, not create something new or change that which already exists.

To do so is to abuse authority and is to be resisted as evil. Because it is evil. No pope can do so.
Click to expand...
Right, the Pope is not capable of rupturing Tradition, so what are you going on about?
What are you going on about?

The Church’s Magisterium is living. Living.
We do not worship the stone tablets, we worship the God that gave them to us.
We do not worship the deposit of faith or the Tradition of the Church, we worship the God who gave it to us. These things live and breathe in a living community.

Listen please, because you are not speaking with the mind of the Church:
All scripture, Tradition and Magisterium of the Church express the Living God. They are not an end in themselves. We don’t find the fullness of Christian faith in documents from the past, we find the fullness of everything in Jesus Christ.
The fullness of Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium are found in the Catholic Church, because the Catholic Church is the Living Mystical Body of Christ.
 
Last edited:
StAugustine said:
And they know more than the tens of thousands that preceded them? The merely living are a drop in the bucket compared to the unanimous voice of the dead who have passed the tradition onto us to hold without violating it. Vatican II and the CCC aren’t a violation, using and abusing them as if they deviated from prior teaching is.

But that’s just modernism- keep the words but redefine them. Heresy.
Click to expand...
You are throwing serious accusatory terms around without knowing what you’re talking about. You shouldn’t be doing that.

1)The following is a basic error:
The merely living are a drop in the bucket compared to the unanimous voice of the dead who have passed the tradition onto us to hold without violating it.
Click to expand...
These who have died in the grace of God are not dead. See my post above. The Church is the Living Mystical Body of Christ. Those who came before us are fully alive.
Have you heard of the Communion of Saints? All of the saints are of one Body with us.
Christ is risen from the dead.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top