Church is in the dark about gays

[Libero]

trustmc:

When a man can raise himself from the dead, I’ll believe anything he has to say. When he says that he will continue teaching us through his church, then I want to be part of that church.

When you raise yourself from the dead and establish a church, I’ll join your church and do what you teach.

Mike

But you see believing in everything he says is hard - as aspects of christianity are self contradictory, further, people don’t, they believe in the teachings, but refuse to act them out. Such people are brilliant Catholics, defending all of the Church’s stances on matters like abortion, homosexuality, contraception etc. but they defend these teachings with such vigor, that they neglect the simple messages of kindness and love - they overlook these and ignore them, as these are the issues which no body seems to care about, except for lunatics like me who are blatantly trying to start their own religion…

My message may seem strange to people here, you can convince yourselves that I am hell bent on trying to completely destroy the Catholic church, but quite frankly this simply is not true, I shall admit that sometimes it may appear so - but I shall also accept that at times I have trouble expressing myself.

Now if people like me do not want to simply destroy the church, what do we want? That is simple, I want us to get in touch with the simple messages of love, those which are neglected. I do not want a silly excuse that in scaring people and condemning them you are saving them and somehow loving them - RUBBISH!

Live the words, live the love directly, why is there a need to convince yourself that telling people what to do is loving them, when this love can be achieved so much more simply, by actually acting it out…

I will still look like a slight wacko, and some will claim (with some justification perhaps) that I am ignoring the church. Maybe I am slightly, but I do this only in trying to pay more attention to the part of our church which I feel is so desperately dying.

 

[setter]

Libero:

…but I do this only in trying to pay more attention to the part of our church which I feel is so desperately dying.

Dying for lack of nourishment by the truth being proclaimed? Falling away and dying because the one sided “God is love” message of the gospel minus His mercy and justice has failed to ground folks in the fullness of the gospel?

 

[Libero]

bones_IV:

Jesus perfermed obvious miracles in front of His own people and they didn’t believe him. Why? They stubbornly chose remain in their sins and were obstinant. Because of their stubborn pride and arragance Jesus delivered these stinging words in Jn 9:41"Jesus said to them, ‘If you were blind, you would have no guilt; but now that you say ‘We see,’ your guilt remains.’" In other words our Lord was saying to them that “you can see alright but you see what you want to see: therefore you are unworthy”. Plain, pure, flat and simple.

Continue quoting these passages to those who you do not deem “worthy” to be with you in God, those who disgust and repel you because they sin - I will not. I want them to find God in themselves, these people need God, labelling them “unworthy” is to remove them from our presence, to ensure that our beautiful perfect church is not flawed.

Further more, being somewhat cynical to a persons actions is not “stubborn” nor is it “arrogant” people here are cynical towards me all the time in fact Bones, I do recall that you said about me:

“Your hatred for the Catholic Church is obvious”

This is cynicsm, it is also untrue, but. I do not believe you say this because you are arrogant or because you are stubborn, but rather because you are acting out the human attribute of cynicism, which in the circumstances may have been a little appropriate.

 

[Libero]

setter:

Dying for lack of nourishment by the truth being proclaimed? Falling away and dying because the one sided “God is love” message of the gospel minus His mercy and justice has failed to ground folks in the fullness of the gospel?

Dying because of the excessive and rather unemotional and uncaring manner in which our gospel is proclaimed. I cannot recall the last time I actually considered the gospel being “proclaimed” in church, because my priest is so unenthusiastic - don’t get me wrong, he is a great guy, but the Gospel does not seem to be very exciting when he speaks it.

The manner in which our Vatican releases documents on controversial topics does not seem to be in love, nor does it seem to be “ecstatic” as Paul was when he wrote his accounts. These documents from the Vatican always seem to lack care or compassion or understanding, but that may just be my youth, wanting to see more action, rather than mere words…

 

[setter]

Libero:

Dying because of the excessive and rather unemotional and uncaring manner in which our gospel is proclaimed. I cannot recall the last time I actually considered the gospel being “proclaimed” in church, because my priest is so unenthusiastic - don’t get me wrong, he is a great guy, but the Gospel does not seem to be very exciting when he speaks it.

The manner in which our Vatican releases documents on controversial topics does not seem to be in love, nor does it seem to be “ecstatic” as Paul was when he wrote his accounts. These documents from the Vatican always seem to lack care or compassion or understanding, but that may just be my youth, wanting to see more action, rather than mere words…

Yes, preachers and laity alike need the power and dynamism of the Holy Spirit to effectively preach and spread the gospel of truth. After all, conversion is ultimately the work of the Holy Spirit, and how can you give others what you do not yourself have?

 

[bones_IV]

Libero:

Continue quoting these passages to those who you do not deem “worthy” to be with you in God, those who disgust and repel you because they sin - I will not. I want them to find God in themselves, these people need God, labelling them “unworthy” is to remove them from our presence, to ensure that our beautiful perfect church is not flawed.

Further more, being somewhat cynical to a persons actions is not “stubborn” nor is it “arrogant” people here are cynical towards me all the time in fact Bones, I do recall that you said about me:

“Your hatred for the Catholic Church is obvious”

This is cynicsm, it is also untrue, but. I do not believe you say this because you are arrogant or because you are stubborn, but rather because you are acting out the human attribute of cynicism, which in the circumstances may have been a little appropriate.

It was fair criticism. If I’m so cynical then why St. Augustine say “If you realized you were blind, if you admitted you were blind and ran to the physician, you would have no sin, for I have come to take away sin; but because you say that you can see, you remain in your blindness” (St. Augustine, In Ioann. Evang., 45, 17). Labeling them unworthy? It’s by remaining in our blindness that we make ourselves unworthy. You said “I want people to find God in themselves, these people need God, labelling them ‘unworhty’ is to remove them from our presence, to ensure that our beautiful Church is not flawed”. This is contradictory, because Paul says in his letter to Titus, that if a man remains a heretic after the first and second admonishment to avoid them! You don’t associate with people who will lead others into sin and cause scandal with their sinful lifestyle. By your qoute, you are saying that “I don’t like the Church telling me what to do”. Benedict XVI said, “No more cafeteria Catholicism”. That’s God’s way of putting his foot down and saying “enough is enough”. What I said in the previous post was infallible dogma. Whether you want to admit it or not. Why would Jesus found a Church that teaches fallible doctrines? Your arguments hold no ground.

 

[bones_IV]

Libero, it seems to me, that whenever there is thread condemning homosexuality you automatically accuse the Church and Benedict XVI of ‘gay bashing’. Grow a spine.

 

[Libero]

bones_IV:

Libero, it seems to me, that whenever there is thread condemning homosexuality you automatically accuse the Church and Benedict XVI of ‘gay bashing’. Grow a spine.

Well, Bones, you are simply wrong, I have never made such an accusation in my entire time here, I shall “grow a spine” (which I stupid anyway as I already have one I like) if you open your eyes

 

[Libero]

setter:

Yes, preachers and laity alike need the power and dynamism of the Holy Spirit to effectively preach and spread the gospel of truth. After all, conversion is ultimately the work of the Holy Spirit, and how can you give others what you do not yourself have?

You give them what you have - nobody has it all

 

[Libero]

bones_IV:

It was fair criticism. If I’m so cynical then why St. Augustine say “If you realized you were blind, if you admitted you were blind and ran to the physician, you would have no sin, for I have come to take away sin; but because you say that you can see, you remain in your blindness” (St. Augustine, In Ioann. Evang., 45, 17). Labeling them unworthy? It’s by remaining in our blindness that we make ourselves unworthy. You said “I want people to find God in themselves, these people need God, labelling them ‘unworhty’ is to remove them from our presence, to ensure that our beautiful Church is not flawed”. This is contradictory, because Paul says in his letter to Titus, that if a man remains a heretic after the first and second admonishment to avoid them! You don’t associate with people who will lead others into sin and cause scandal with their sinful lifestyle. By your qoute, you are saying that “I don’t like the Church telling me what to do”. Benedict XVI said, “No more cafeteria Catholicism”. That’s God’s way of putting his foot down and saying “enough is enough”. What I said in the previous post was infallible dogma. Whether you want to admit it or not. Why would Jesus found a Church that teaches fallible doctrines? Your arguments hold no ground.

You exclude people if you want, it doesn’t concern me, I shalln’t be, I also ask that if you want to avoid those who you deem “heretics”, that I am first on your list - I hate getting dragged into these arguments.

I don’t think there is such a thing as “infallible dogma” anyway - have you read Professor Kung’s book? It was good!

 

[setter]

Libero:

You give them what you have - nobody has it all

The Holy Spirit has it all. As promised He would give the words needed when the acting in obediance and submission to the Holy Spirit when preaching and giving witness to the gospel.

“Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves. Beware of men; for they will deliver you up to councils, and flog you in their synagogues, and you will be dragged before governors and kings for my sake, to bear testimony before them and the Gentiles. When they deliver you up, do not be anxious how you are to speak or what you are to say; for what you are to say will be given to you in that hour; for it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.” Matt. 10:16-20

 

[bones_IV]

Libero:

You exclude people if you want, it doesn’t concern me, I shalln’t be, I also ask that if you want to avoid those who you deem “heretics”, that I am first on your list - I hate getting dragged into these arguments.

I don’t think there is such a thing as “infallible dogma” anyway - have you read Professor Kung’s book? It was good!

No such thing as infallible dogma? Laughable. Vatican I: “We therefore teach and declare that, according to the testimony of the Gospel, the primacy of jurisdiction over the universal Church of God was immediately and directly promised and given to Blessed Peter the Apostle by Christ our Lord…] And it was on Simon Peter alone that Jesus after his resurrection bestowed the jurisdiction of chief pastor and ruler over all his fold in the words: ‘Feed my lambs; feed my sheep’” (Pastor Aeturnus, chapt 1).

Funny you mention Dr. Kung who loved Vatican II, but yet Vatican II totally contradicts what you said; “In order that the episcopate also might be one and undivided, and that …] the multitude of the faithful might be kept secure in the oneness of faith and communion, he set Blessed Peter over the rest of the Apostles, and fixed in him THE ABIDING PRINCIPLE OF THIS TWOFOLD UNITY, AND ITS VISIBLE FOUNDATION” (Pastor aeturnus, Dz-Sch 3051; cf. Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, 18) This Vatican II document is saying that the Pope as Christ’s vicar on earth, exercises vicariously Christ’s own authority. And we are to obey what he teaches about Christ even if we don’t agree with it. Dr. Kung is quite ignorant about this teaching and he falsely promotes Vatican II.

 

[Libero]

bones_IV:

No such thing as infallible dogma? Laughable. Vatican I: “We therefore teach and declare that, according to the testimony of the Gospel, the primacy of jurisdiction over the universal Church of God was immediately and directly promised and given to Blessed Peter the Apostle by Christ our Lord…] And it was on Simon Peter alone that Jesus after his resurrection bestowed the jurisdiction of chief pastor and ruler over all his fold in the words: ‘Feed my lambs; feed my sheep’” (Pastor Aeturnus, chapt 1).

Funny you mention Dr. Kung who loved Vatican II, but yet Vatican II totally contradicts what you said; “In order that the episcopate also might be one and undivided, and that …] the multitude of the faithful might be kept secure in the oneness of faith and communion, he set Blessed Peter over the rest of the Apostles, and fixed in him THE ABIDING PRINCIPLE OF THIS TWOFOLD UNITY, AND ITS VISIBLE FOUNDATION” (Pastor aeturnus, Dz-Sch 3051; cf. Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, 18) This Vatican II document is saying that the Pope as Christ’s vicar on earth, exercises vicariously Christ’s own authority. And we are to obey what he teaches about Christ even if we don’t agree with it. Dr. Kung is quite ignorant about this teaching and he falsely promotes Vatican II.

You are using the words of the church to defend dogma - a little one sided isn’t it?

I actually mention Professor Kung (he is a full professor with chair) - I know if I had a Professorship I wouldn’t want people calling me Doctor

In fact Professor Kung may have “loved” VCII, but in a television documentary with Channel 4, he expressed regrets that it did not go far enough. I also mentioned him in referring to his most famous book “Infallible?” hardly seems like one who “loves” infallible dogma…

Further, Professor Kung is definetely one of the most intelligent theological minds of this centruy, I would be careful in calling him “ingorant” - I may be naive, but I think he would probably be capable of beating you in a Theological standoff

Good to see I can still make you laugh though

 

[bones_IV]

Libero:

You are using the words of the church to defend dogma - a little one sided isn’t it?

I actually mention Professor Kung (he is a full professor with chair) - I know if I had a Professorship I wouldn’t want people calling me Doctor

In fact Professor Kung may have “loved” VCII, but in a television documentary with Channel 4, he expressed regrets that it did not go far enough. I also mentioned him in referring to his most famous book “Infallible?” hardly seems like one who “loves” infallible dogma…

Further, Professor Kung is definetely one of the most intelligent theological minds of this centruy, I would be careful in calling him “ingorant” - I may be naive, but I think he would probably be capable of beating you in a Theological standoff

Good to see I can still make you laugh though

Are you expressely aware of the fact that Pope John Paul II told him in 1979 he wasn’t allowed to teach. Kung’s book that you mentioned leads the sheep like yourself into the inferno! Kung may be intelligent but that doesn’t make him credible. You can think whatever you want, but infallibility is a reality. I provided legitimate documentation and gave you the official interpretation, which you clearly ingored. Your source is Dr. Kung? Hahahahahahahahahahahah! He holds no credibility whatsoever. He lost credibility in 1979 and still doesn’t. I think Papa Ratzinger is a better theologian that Kung is and has the intellectuality of 12 PROFESSORS! I don’t want to get in a theological standoff, and besides the difference between a doctrate in theology and a non doctrate is dissapearing from I sit.

 

[fix]

Libero:

Further, Professor Kung is definetely one of the most intelligent theological minds of this centruy, I would be careful in calling him “ingorant” - I may be naive, but I think he would probably be capable of beating you in a Theological standoff

Would you rather be a fool for Christ or one thought of as wise by the world?

 

[estesbob]

Libero:

You exclude people if you want, it doesn’t concern me, I shalln’t be, I also ask that if you want to avoid those who you deem “heretics”, that I am first on your list - I hate getting dragged into these arguments.

I don’t think there is such a thing as “infallible dogma” anyway - have you read Professor Kung’s book? It was good!

And dead wrong. The point is you disagree with the teachings of your Church. That pouts you in peril but that is a personal decision you made. What most of us have a problem with is your attitude that somehow by condoning the grave sin of homosexuality you are expressing “love” while the rest of us are dogmatic bigots.

I have yet to see you explain why I should jettison two thousand years of teachings and traditions based on your muddled explantaions of why you know better than the Church.

 

[bones_IV]

Libero, if you want to dance your merry immoral way to hell, your free to do so. But many of us Catholics are tired of being decieved and mislead by your pointless hoo haa dancing and theological dribble. One of my threads condemned homosexuality to which you responded, “another gay bashing post”.

 

[Libero]

bones_IV:

Are you expressely aware of the fact that Pope John Paul II told him in 1979 he wasn’t allowed to teach. Kung’s book that you mentioned leads the sheep like yourself into the inferno! Kung may be intelligent but that doesn’t make him credible. You can think whatever you want, but infallibility is a reality. I provided legitimate documentation and gave you the official interpretation, which you clearly ingored. Your source is Dr. Kung? Hahahahahahahahahahahah! He holds no credibility whatsoever. He lost credibility in 1979 and still doesn’t. I think Papa Ratzinger is a better theologian that Kung is and has the intellectuality of 12 PROFESSORS! I don’t want to get in a theological standoff, and besides the difference between a doctrate in theology and a non doctrate is dissapearing from I sit.

That’s all a lovely opinion, I am aware that the Vatican told him he could not teach Catholic Theology - which is stupid anyway as he is a Professor of Ecummenical Theology.

You consider your documentation legitimate? I am afraid to say you have been brainwashed, it is of course credible, but dont treat it as if it is interrant.

I believe Professor Kung is very credible, I shall’nt compare him to the Pope as the specialise in different areas. Besides that - I think he has a Doctorate of Philosophy PhD - but am not sure

 

[Libero]

bones_IV:

Libero, if you want to dance your merry immoral way to hell, your free to do so. But many of us Catholics are tired of being decieved and mislead by your pointless hoo haa dancing and theological dribble. One of my threads condemned homosexuality to which you responded, “another gay bashing post”.

Link it if you want, I am saddened that you have finally had to retreat to the last feeble defence of the “hell threat”.

 

[bones_IV]

Libero, your definition of threat is me telling someone they’re putting they soul at risk of eternal damnation? No it isn’t. That is not a threat.