S
- Status
L
LilyM
Guest
No word ‘world’ in the Index of your bible? You’d find it easily enough if you actually read the darn thing - for example John 16:33 (NAB translation):Really? I’m looking at my Catholic Encyclopedia which is located at the back of my Holy Bible and there isn’t the word world found within it.
As far as my world goes there isn’t any sinfulness, materialism, or error
“In the world you will have trouble, but take courage, I have conquered the world.”
Why did Christ need to conquer the world, and why are His followers promised trouble in it, unless its values are forever in opposition to His? You don’t need to conquer someone/something that is willingly cooperating and happy to hear from you!
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
If you do not accept that theologians who were banned are no longer, that some forms of biblical exegesis were disallowed then allowed, then I guess yuou see the same exact church as it was from the beginning. There is no need of a history of the church because its never changed.
I never said anything heretical is no longer so. I said the church has changed its mind about things over time as they became convinced it was right to do so. I am confident at no time has the Church changed anything that would substantively change anything necessary to faith or salvation.
I feel people are going out of their way to make this complicated and bogged down in big T little t, dogma, heresy etc. when that was never stated by me, nor implied.
To suggest nothing changed after Vatican II is disingenuous it seems to me. What all the crying and knashing of teeth then? Why did so many leave the Church because they felt it was no longer Catholic? There were massive changes in convents.
Again, the only point I was trying to reach was a place of mutual respect. I thought (albeit now mistakenly) that by attempting to show that we were necessary parts of the whole, we might find common ground. None of that has been addressed at all. Its been ignored in pursuit of what appears to be more fun, arguing about what change is, and what kind of change might affect the church.
I guess what I see is lines drawn, and so nobody is willing to consider what the other side says, only look for places to pick at to argue. That’s too bad. I came here, so excited having found fellow Catholics to converse with on bible exegesis and theology. Thats not what I found…which is fine I guess. What I had hoped for was a bad :idea:
I never said anything heretical is no longer so. I said the church has changed its mind about things over time as they became convinced it was right to do so. I am confident at no time has the Church changed anything that would substantively change anything necessary to faith or salvation.
I feel people are going out of their way to make this complicated and bogged down in big T little t, dogma, heresy etc. when that was never stated by me, nor implied.
To suggest nothing changed after Vatican II is disingenuous it seems to me. What all the crying and knashing of teeth then? Why did so many leave the Church because they felt it was no longer Catholic? There were massive changes in convents.
Again, the only point I was trying to reach was a place of mutual respect. I thought (albeit now mistakenly) that by attempting to show that we were necessary parts of the whole, we might find common ground. None of that has been addressed at all. Its been ignored in pursuit of what appears to be more fun, arguing about what change is, and what kind of change might affect the church.
I guess what I see is lines drawn, and so nobody is willing to consider what the other side says, only look for places to pick at to argue. That’s too bad. I came here, so excited having found fellow Catholics to converse with on bible exegesis and theology. Thats not what I found…which is fine I guess. What I had hoped for was a bad :idea:
M
montanaman
Guest
And that’s what you found–complete with differing opinions. You found the best and the worst, the ignorant and the wise, the noble and the petty.
I’m sorry the conversation didn’t go the way you wanted. The Internetz is funny that way–it’s like herding cats.
J
jmcrae
Guest
SpiritMeadow;
I think what people are objecting to is the idea that the Church has ever “changed its mind” on anything.
The Church has come to understand things that it did not previously understand, but this is not a process of change - rather, it is a process of growth.
The Church has grown in its understanding of things, but it has never changed its mind on anything.
I think what people are objecting to is the idea that the Church has ever “changed its mind” on anything.
The Church has come to understand things that it did not previously understand, but this is not a process of change - rather, it is a process of growth.
The Church has grown in its understanding of things, but it has never changed its mind on anything.
A
adrift
Guest
I find these two statements opposed to each other
I saw no one putting this idea forward. What was said is that
was not true.
I believe now that you did not mean this statement. right?
Sadly I believe your the one with chalk drawing that line. Someone disagrees with you and you come back with the above quote. You don’t seem to enter into discussion.
W
wildleafblower
Guest
I wish to remind you, SemperFdelis, that this a forum for open discussion. SemperFidelis, it isn’t nice to accuse me of being a nag when I am diligently attempting to express my viewpoint in an honest way. Pope John Paul II’s book **A Light For The World **is about his human life experiences on planet Earth as you can read:
*“The book is divided into three sections, exploring the pope’s roles as pastor (including his leadership in family life issues and his stand against sexual abuse in the priesthood); a pilgrim (highlighting the more than 700,000 miles the pope has traveled in his tenure); and prophet (discussing his ethical stance on issues such as human rights, racism, labor and the death penalty). Throughout, various cardinals, monsignori and archbishops share brief anecdotes about their personal encounters with the man who was born Karol Wojtyla. While some of these are so fawning as to remove any trace of humanity from the man, other remembrances are candid and humorous. The book’s photographs, which span the course of his 25-year papacy, show him interacting with people all over the world, and also depict some private moments. The book closes with a brief chronology of John Paul II’s life, as well as synopses of his encyclicals and other key writings.” *
amazon.com/John-Paul-II-Essays-Reflections/dp/1580511422
http://www.amazon.com/John-Paul-II-Essays-Reflections/dp/1580511422
And, jmcrea, I hope you read the above and it answers your [jmcrea], msg. # 70 when you stated , “If you are a Catholic who loves Christ, then guess what - you are not of the world, any more. To be of Christ is to reject the world.”
Not according to Pope John Paul II.
S
SemperFidelis
Guest
Sorry to offend, that wasn’t my purpose. As to the book I referred you to think about the title, not the actual content of the book itself. It seemed nagging to me because you kept asking about the definition of a word, when it is pretty clear to me, and many others what the definition of that word actually is, in the context that I used it.
W
wildleafblower
Guest
Thank you for the apology SemperFidelis. Honestly, I didn’t keep asking you about the defintion of the word world. I only asked you once (msg.73), “Hi SemperFidelis, perhaps you need to define what the word world means to you. This would be helpful.”Peace
W
wildleafblower
Guest
Hi Petrus,
I read on another topic that you are writing a book. What’s it about? You’re a Catholic Theologian so I’m curious in knowing if you plan on using what people write on Catholic.com.
C
Corki
Guest
Banning or supressing a theologian may or may not have to do with his/her teaching heresy. Theologians have been supressed for that but also for teaching dissent or just being outright disobedient.
Yes you did and even went further.
Sure things changed after Vatican II. We wouldn’t all be here in this forum if they didn’t. The majority of the gnashing of teeth was distress over the loss of the comfortable. traditions were changed and Churches that had been so important to people were gutted. People were leaving the Church before VII. Catholic Mass attendance had already begun its downward spiral. What changed with Vatican II was a recognition by the Church that what we had in common with other Christians was greater than what separated us, This was often mistranslated into an idea that “it doesn’t matter what Church you belong to, we are all God’s children”. Therefore, many left to find parishes that were more “fun” or more “fulfilling” or where there weren’t so many rules. The average Catholic in the pews didn’t have any concept of the theological teachings of VII. The changes in the convents were drastic and many left but that has less to do with development of theology than with the diminishment of respect for the consecrated life and the sexual revolution that was happening all around them.
The biggest issue was not that the teaching changed but that the teaching stopped. The Baltimore Catechism was considered “outdated” but we didn’t get the CCC until the 1980s. Unfortunately, what replaced it was either fluffy generic “love everybody” material or it was made up out of the imagination of the writer.
J
jmcrae
Guest
Wild leaf blower;And, jmcrea, I hope you read the above and it answers your [jmcrea], msg. # 70 when you stated , “If you are a Catholic who loves Christ, then guess what - you are not of the world, any more. To be of Christ is to reject the world.”
I think your name says it all - you are here to try to sow confusion.
I don’t think that Pope John Paul II was “worldly” in any way, shape, or form - in fact, I think he was a very holy man, and I think that he would agree that we must reject pomps and vanities (also known as “the world”) before we can even begin to be Christians.
W
wildleafblower
Guest
jmcrae, it isn’t nice to insult or poke fun of a user’s handle. I haven’t any reason to sow confusion. You plainly have neglected to comprehend what you wrote to me and my response to you. You never used the word “worldly”. You said, “If you[Wildleafblower] are a Catholic who loves Christ, then guess what- you are not of the world, any more. To be of Christ is to reject the world.” Jmcrae, I plainly corrected you in your grammatical error.Wild leaf blower;
I think your name says it all - you are here to try to sow confusion.
I don’t think that Pope John Paul II was “worldly” in any way, shape, or form - in fact, I think he was a very holy man, and I think that he would agree that we must reject pomps and vanities (also known as “the world”) before we can even begin to be Christians.
wildleafblower;2852295:
is about his human life experiences on planet Earth as you can read:
*“The book is divided into three sections, exploring the pope’s roles as pastor (including his leadership in family life issues and his stand against sexual abuse in the priesthood); a pilgrim (highlighting the more than 700,000 miles the pope has traveled in his tenure); and prophet (discussing his ethical stance on issues such as human rights, racism, labor and the death penalty). Throughout, various cardinals, monsignori and archbishops share brief anecdotes about their personal encounters with the man who was born Karol Wojtyla. While some of these are so fawning as to remove any trace of humanity from the man, other remembrances are candid and humorous. The book’s photographs, which span the course of his 25-year papacy, show him interacting with people all over the world, and also depict some private moments. The book closes with a brief chronology of John Paul II’s life, as well as synopses of his encyclicals and other key writings.” *
amazon.com/John-Paul-II-Essays-Reflections/dp/1580511422
http://www.amazon.com/John-Paul-II-Essays-Reflections/dp/1580511422
And, jmcrea, I hope you read the above and it answers your [jmcrea], msg. # 70 when you stated , “If you are a Catholic who loves Christ, then guess what - you are not of the world, any more. To be of Christ is to reject the world.”
J
jmcrae
Guest
“The world” is Satan and his deceits. It has nothing to do with Jesus Christ. The “ruler of this world” is Satan.jmcrae, it isn’t nice to insult or poke fun of of a user’s handle. I haven’t any reason to sow confusion. You plainly have neglected to comprehend what you wrote to me and my response to you. You never used the word “worldly”. You said, “If you[Wildleafblower] are a Catholic who loves Christ, then guess what- you are not of the world, any more. To be of Christ is to reject the world.” Jmcrae, I plainly corrected you in your grammatical error.
There is nothing the matter with my grammar.
W
wildleafblower
Guest
jmcrae, you say, “The “ruler of this world” is Satan.” I would never ever say that to anyone! :nope:
J
jmcrae
Guest
Jesus said it, to us. Do you not believe Jesus?
po18guy
Well-known member
You misunderstood my point. I am speaking of alliances in Latin America that the RCC participated in that involved secular socialist and communist organizations. The goals and work that was accomplished appeared essentially identical to that of the church, but to completely different ends. Helping the poor is what we are commanded to do by Christ, but not if it allies them with godless communist organizations that seek to turn them away from Christ. Having been to Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, Costa Rica, and Panama over the past 21 years, I have seen the infiltration into the church by these forces that occurred through the application of pragmatism by church authorities. This is what I addressed-nothing more. The advance of false theologies could not have occurred in Latin America without the knowing or unknowing complicity of the church. It is better to be Christan and poor, than middle class and godless. That is what would have happened in Latin America had liberation theology taken firm root. It is flaring up yet again, due to financing by Hugo Chavez’ exporting revolution. This is my point.po18guy, you obviously need to read my bio "Love Jesus! Yes, I do. As I’ve also mentioned I’ve worked with the poor from South America. You state, “This world stands in direct opposition to Christ, no matter how similar its motives may appear.” I have to disagree with your comment on the grounds that I am a Catholic who is CHRISTIAN and there are millions of us.
L
LilyM
Guest
“the prince of this world cometh: and he hath nothing in Me” John 14:30Jesus said it, to us. Do you not believe Jesus?
“if the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you” John 15:18
It’s bleeding clear that the ‘prince of this world’ is in fact the Anti-Christ. Not just that the world doesn’t support Christ, but in fact HATES Him and actively works against Him. This is all straight from the mouth of Jesus Himself.
F
FCEGM
Guest
And you’d sign it, oh, “BubblingSpring”.
H
Hellisreal
Guest
Why would Satan offer the kingdoms of this world to Jesus if they were not his to give?
Just a thought.
Its hardly a temptation, if it were not true.
So, we can say- YES. Satan wanted Jesus to fall in this trap, the trap of thinking that something not of God could cause Jesus to FALL.
Sorry- I am not drinking that KOOL AID that says the world is not Satan’s. It sure as shineola is.
Just a thought.
Its hardly a temptation, if it were not true.
So, we can say- YES. Satan wanted Jesus to fall in this trap, the trap of thinking that something not of God could cause Jesus to FALL.
Sorry- I am not drinking that KOOL AID that says the world is not Satan’s. It sure as shineola is.
- Status