Hello, A Satanist has joined you

[happymommy]

I thought I explained it in this thread already. But yes. I think we have only part of the picture in the bible. I think we have things to learn from other mystical writings like for example the Gospel of Judas (not that this relates to Satan specifically, but this is the general idea)

I don’t think you can specify all the situations where it would be okay and all the ones it wouldn’t. You have to go case by case for the most part. Some things though would be clearly not okay (like I already mentioned). Other things IMO are clearly okay (having sex the night before the wedding, especially if the couple are known to be infertile).

I don’t claim to know everything about what’s right or wrong. Not even the Vatican claims that. The Vatican has yet to rule on embryo implantation for example (some theologians say it’s okay to implant frozen embryos to rescue them from death; others say it’s intrinsically evil and cite the magisterium in various ways, but there’s no specific, clear ruling yet either way)

I’ve probably said I’m not an orthodox Catholic like ten times since joining, especially when giving advice to someone or giving an opinion on something on relevant to that. You are probably an orthodox Catholic. First Lady of California chooses to be a cafeteria Catholic. I choose to be in between like I explained, rejecting both extremes. The catechism and candidate for sainthood, Newman, says that our conscience is the aboriginal vicar of Christ. Even if the church is vicar of Christ, it is nevertheless mediated through this aboriginal vicar of Christ – IMO, for both moral truth and any other kind of truth. You are ultimately responsible for your self, for your own soul. I can’t – IMO – hand that over to the church. I do choose to listen to the church but I reserve the right to disagree if after careful thought it doesn’t make sense to me. I can’t think of too many things I disagree with on the church with 100% certainty though. One thing is that I don’t believe anyone will be forever trapped in hell in torment forever without end. There’s a nice First Things article on that issue that goes through the history of unorthodox Catholic theories and unorthodox/orthodox theories of today … but this is all a little off topic.

Okay, if you are Catholic, why does your profile say N/A for religion. I believe I asked yesterday if it meant, not available or not appilcable, and your chose not to address it? Please do not tell other Catholics how to live their faith, if you are not following the teachings of the Church.

 

[jfhh]

Okay, if you are Catholic, why does your profile say N/A for religion. I believe I asked yesterday if it meant, not available or not appilcable, and your chose not to address it? Please do not tell other Catholics how to live their faith, if you are not following the teachings of the Church.

Probably since people like you wouldn’t consider me Catholic since I am too cafeteria for you. I thought you were talking about someone else anyway. Just because you say something doesn’t mean you are somehow entitled for people to able to read your mind. Lots of people leave that blank including other people in this thread.

P.S. Do you follow perfectly the teachings of the chuch in your life? If not, then please don’t judge me.

 

[Two_Tigers]

Yo Satanist, Sup?

I am not here to convert you. However, I am interersted in your claim. May I ask you some questions?

Two Tigers

 

[happymommy]

Probably since people like you wouldn’t consider me Catholic since I am too cafeteria for you. I thought you were talking about someone else anyway. Just because you say something doesn’t mean you are somehow entitled for people to able to read your mind. Lots of people leave that blank including other people in this thread.

P.S. Do you follow perfectly the teachings of the chuch in your life? If not, then please don’t judge me.

I never said I was perfect and I’m not judging you, just asking you not to pass false info. onto others. Homosexuality is wrong, not because I say it is, but because God did. And sex before marriage is a sin, not because I think it is, but because God said it is. I’m not perfect and claiming to be would also be a sin. I do follow the teachings of the church, it’s not that hard if you truly believe them.

 

[jfhh]

This is direct from the Catechism. There is no options here.

You’re just wrong about this. Here’s EWTN Eastern Catholic expert answer on the topic:

ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=409024&Forums=25&Experts=0&Days=2008&Author=&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=3
EWTN Eastern Catholic expert:

The Council of Trent, in its thirteenth session, says that it is “suitable and proper” to refer to the change as “transubstantiation.” However, it does not mandate that all Catholics, including Eastern Catholics, HAVE to always use the word “transubstantion” as the only possible explanation for the change. It is a suitable and proper explanation that can always be validly used, to be sure, but it may not necessarily be the very best possible explanation.

“Transubstantiation” is an explanation as to how the Real Presence comes about. It relies on very specific aristotelian terminology, that has been further modified. As a general rule Eastern Orthodox Christians are not comfortable with the term, because they do not want to apply the philosophical language of Aristotle to such a profound mystery of the faith. Also, transubstantiation only makes sense if you understand what Aristotle means by “substance” and “accident.” If your philosophical framework has a different understanding of these terms, then “transubstantiation” can become quite confusing or even meaningless.

Among Eastern Catholics, although we do not disagree with transubstantiation, we generally do not use the term. We prefer to stick with Eastern theological expressions. Ultimately what matters is not what philosophical language is used to describe the change, but that one believes in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist.

Also, we should keep in mind that the Eastern Churches have never had to deal with a widespread heresy denying the Real Presence, as the Western Church did. Thus, we have never been put into a situation in which we had to explain how the change comes about.

So I see value in transubstantiation as an imperfect explanation of the great mystery but as for me I personally prefer transfinalization theory of Fr Karl Rahner, S.J. You may not like Fr Rahner and prefer Fr Hardon, but it was Fr. Rahner, not Fr. Hardon, that Cardinal George, president of the USCCB cited and quoted recently in a positive way.

ncrcafe.org/node/2198

Also, Pope Benedict had Fr Rahner as a mentor and was an admirer of Fr Rahner. That doesn’t mean he agrees with everything anymore than Cardinal George does of course.

Paul VI said literally but a handful of words there and I don’t think he mentioned “transfinalization.” He only mentioned “transignification”. It is as you would acknowledge as far from an ex cathedra statement as could possibly be within an encyclical; it is probably one of the least authoritative things in it. And it doesn’t even mention “transfinalization.” It probably had in mind “transignification” as taught by Edward Schillebeeckx which is a distinct theory from the transfinalization taught by Fr. Rahner.

Rahner’s motto was, “Our Lord must conform to the world, not it to Him.”

Please tell me where he says that and give the context.

The Jesuits after his death prevented a book from being published with letters to a girlfriend of 22 years. I would pick a better scholar to base my beliefs on…

Was he unchaste with that friend after his religious vows? This sounds like a smear.

 

[jfhh]

I never said I was perfect and I’m not judging you, just asking you not to pass false info. onto others. Homosexuality is wrong, not because I say it is, but because God did. And sex before marriage is a sin, not because I think it is, but because God said it is. I’m not perfect and claiming to be would also be a sin. I do follow the teachings of the church, it’s not that hard if you truly believe them.

I AGREE with you that homosexuality (except for intersex and other people in special circumstances) is wrong. However, it is NOT because God said it was wrong. It’s wrong because it is not true to ourselves, to human nature. That’s the church teaching btw. I’m sure others can tell you that too. There’s a thread in another forum right now started by someone else emphasizing this too.

 

[happymommy]

I AGREE with you that homosexuality (except for intersex and other people in special circumstances) is wrong. However, it is NOT because God said it was wrong. It’s wrong because it is not true to ourselves, to human nature. That’s the church teaching btw. I’m sure others can tell you that too. There’s a thread in another forum right now started by someone else emphasizing this too.

I’d like to know these special circumstances?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states;

2357

“Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, (140) tradition has always declared that homosexual act are intrinsically disordered. (141) They are contrarty to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affection and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.”

Now lets see what the Bible says:

Leviticus 18:22
“Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman: that is detestable.”

See, God thinks it is wrong too.

 

[happymommy]

Incase you reply to my last post, I don’t want you to think I am ignoring you, I’m going to bed, it’s 1:37 am and I have to be up at 6:30. Time just flies when you are having fun

 

[jfhh]

I’d like to know these special circumstances?

Intersex people are people with sexual ambiguity. It’s the way they are born. So sometimes they end up deciding for themselves based on how they feel whether to live as a “male” and be with women or live as “female” and be with men. In these cases, whatever biological theory says, I believe it is fine for them to do that. The other cases I referred to where other “sexual ambiguities” that may arise in less obvious ways.

For people who are born clearly male, psychically and physically, I don’t believe homosexuality is right for them. Ditto for those born clearly female.

There’s someone who posted in one of the threads in the Politics forum who is intersex, I believe. I don’t know what their religion is though.

 

[dzheremi]

I thought I explained it in this thread already. But yes. I think we have only part of the picture in the bible. I think we have things to learn from other mystical writings like for example the Gospel of Judas (not that this relates to Satan specifically, but this is the general idea)

I did not ask about the Bible. I asked about the Church. They’re not the same thing.

I don’t think you can specify all the situations where it would be okay and all the ones it wouldn’t.

That’s fine. I was just curious what situations would be okay or not okay, and how you determine which is which.

I don’t claim to know everything about what’s right or wrong.

Okay. That’s fine. That would be a pretty high burden of proof, after all.

The Vatican has yet to rule on embryo implantation for example (some theologians say it’s okay to implant frozen embryos to rescue them from death; others say it’s intrinsically evil and cite the magisterium in various ways, but there’s no specific, clear ruling yet either way)

Okay, but I thought we were talking about things that the Church HAS ruled on, like sex outside of marriage (don’t do it), homosexuality (don’t do it), worshipping anyone other than God (don’t do it), etc. These are all things that Church is clear about, so why disagree iwth them if you are trying to be a Catholic? Would you also join Greenpeace to go out and shoot polar bears?

I’ve probably said I’m not an orthodox Catholic like ten times

I do not understand this distinction you are making between “orthodox” and “unorthodox” Catholics. If you are Catholic, you are Catholic, that’s it. Your level of personal adherence is up to you, but “unorthodox” Catholic to the point of openly disagreeing with teachings that are known to you and clear is not a good state to be in, to put it in a nice way. I guess I’m just confused because when I was baptized in the Church, I had to reject certain things and confirm other things. So now that I am accepted into the Catholic fold, I don’t feel like I can go back and “un-reject” or “un-confirm” those things. In the same way, how am I living a Catholic life if it does not involve conforming my conscience to a certain set of beliefs that are held by Catholics as a matter of adherence to the faith? While I did not join the Church out of a lack of Papal love and guidance in my life, I also did not join it in order to continue on in the same life that I had before joining it. Is there one baptism for the remission of sins? One Holy and Apostolic Catholic Church? One Father, One Christ, and One Holy Spirit, forming One Holy Trinity? Or can I just do whatever and call myself whatever I want?

You are probably an orthodox Catholic.

As I said above…“orthodox” as opposed to what?

First Lady of California chooses to be a cafeteria Catholic. I choose to be in between like I explained, rejecting both extremes.

Is what the Catholic Church asks of you “too extreme”?

The catechism and candidate for sainthood, Newman, says that our conscience is the aboriginal vicar of Christ. Even if the church is vicar of Christ, it is nevertheless mediated through this aboriginal vicar of Christ – IMO, for both moral truth and any other kind of truth. You are ultimately responsible for your self, for your own soul. I can’t – IMO – hand that over to the church.

I did not hand over my brain to the Church, either. I don’t know any Catholic who has. The Church I joined welcomed any question I had, and continues to today. What Church are you a member of?

Do you believe that the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ, and that the gates of hell shall never prevail against it? If so, why on Earth would you not trust your conscience to be properly formed under its guidance? Why would you need to retain your own sense of control when the Church does not rob you of it, but helps you to use the free will that God Himself has blessed you with in the best way possible?

If I can offer you one kind, gentle piece of advice from someone who likewise struggles to conform his conscience in accordance with Church teachings, I would advise you to pray about these questions a lot to determine what it is you really do believe. You cannot serve both God and your own heart or ego, and the Catholic Church is either what it claims to be or it is not.

 

[Phillieagle]

Your correct this is a very positive statement about Karl Rahner

“Oh, there are so many things. I think he was part of the Second Vatican Council, and he wanted above all to see that the council’s effects were part of the ordinary life of the church. Primarily, I think, for him that meant we should understand how the church is global. It’s always been universal, but it’s now also global – a “world church,” as Karl Rahner called it at the time of the council.”

You’re just wrong about this. Here’s EWTN Eastern Catholic expert answer on the topic:

How dare I compare the Catechism of the Catholic church with EWTN. The Pope goes to them for their view before he states anything. Based on this statement EWTN has taken over for the Pope. Being that I live in AL I guess I am closer to the Holy See than I Thought.

From Mysterium Fidei
CHRIST PRESENT IN THE EUCHARIST THROUGH TRANSUBSTANTIATION

1. To avoid any misunderstanding of this type of presence, which goes beyond the laws of nature and constitutes the greatest miracle of its kind, (50) we have to listen with docility to the voice of the teaching and praying Church. Her voice, which constantly echoes the voice of Christ, assures us that the way in which Christ becomes present in this Sacrament is through the conversion of the whole substance of the bread into His body and of the whole substance of the wine into His blood, a unique and truly wonderful conversion that the Catholic Church fittingly and properly calls transubstantiation. (51) As a result of transubstantiation, the species of bread and wine undoubtedly take on a new signification and a new finality, for they are no longer ordinary bread and wine but instead a sign of something sacred and a sign of spiritual food; but they take on this new signification, this new finality, precisely because they contain a new “reality” which we can rightly call ontological. For what now lies beneath the aforementioned species is not what was there before, but something completely different; and not just in the estimation of Church belief but in reality, since once the substance or nature of the bread and wine has been changed into the body and blood of Christ, nothing remains of the bread and the wine except for the species—beneath which Christ is present whole and entire in His physical “reality,” corporeally present, although not in the manner in which bodies are in a place.

Just A thought if you read the Encyclicals. You may find out that the Popes have their acts together. They have been answering your questions for 2000 years.

Admit what you are you are here to stir issues up because:
A. You are the ultimate Cafeteria Catholic that only wants to pick easy things.
B. You are not Catholic at all and just want to stir things up with very limited knowledge.
C. You are searching and believe Catholicism is right but want to pick the rules you are going to live by and want affirmation that it will be okay.

 

[jfhh]

Is there no way to put someone on Ignore on this forum? If there is a way could someone explain how? I can’t figure it out.

 

[Phillieagle]

:tsktsk: Go to Quick Links
Edit Options
Ignore/Buddy List

Hurts when one fails to make the point they want!!!:crying:

 

[jfhh]

Thank you. I hope it works now. I hope you feel better.

 

[jfhh]

I did not ask about the Bible. I asked about the Church. They’re not the same thing.

Thanks for your advice.

I’m not sure what the difference is in the context. Generally speaking though, I don’t think the church has a monopoly on the truth. I think it has part of the truth. Obviously the gap between what God knows or is and what the church knows is infinite. Other communities may have insights that we don’t have and vice versa. IMO, we can all learn from each other. Catholics can learn about God from Hindus and Hindus from Catholics etc. Due to my prejudice as I mentioned I have difficulty learning from some religions that I think I would have nothing to learn from, but I believe God wants me to be humble and be willing to listen to everyone and be open to truth wherever it may be.

 

[joseph_virgen]

a satanist? in a parody of famous quotes: " i know satanist. i worked with satanist and you are no satanitst.

but really, you remind me of those people who at your age said they were catholic, when in fact they hardly knew the beauty of our religion, our church and the God of all.

get back to me in about twenty years. then your words will carry the weigh you intend them. as it is, you are simply young and searching.

good luck with that.

 

[Nepenthe]

To RubyT-

If you meant me no ill-will, why change my quotes that you posted without noting such, including my warmly-worded farewell and attempt to slander me? In fact you not only misrepresented, but lied.

As for ‘fighting back’ and ‘rebuttals’ you unfortunately lack the skills and the knowledge - and likely the civility, to perform them.

Imryl was quite fair to you, though understandably annoyed by your refusal to actually dialog, but she did not imprecate or insult you.

I shall say no more on the subject - you have said more than necessary already,
Nepenthe

 

[RubyT]

Nepenthe,
As for the change in your post I was just trying to show you where you sounded accusing and I apologize for lacking the computer savvy to say what I wanted without interjecting your quote. I don’t see where I lied.

You can’t say something so rude as:

QUOTE=Nepenthe;4443576]Maybe so, maybe so, RubyT, if your complacent Pride, self-satisfaction and lack of charitableness doesn’t mess all that up for you.

and then pretend you were not accussing.

Here is your warmly worded farewell:

And when you are done with all the filthy heathens, move right along to the heretical, the pious and devout of other religions, people who set their table funny… and if you get done with all that and are somehow deemed worthy when you get done, Heaven sure isn’t going to be much for finding interesting conversations, is all I can picture.

Look whos talking…you are… acting the same way you accuse me of being. I mean no ill will but clearly you do.

You give me a self appointed lecture but you refuse to actually look at post 320,323,333,334,351 and 355 which I was clearly trying to dialog with her. You actually believe you have been civil to me. Thats the pot calling the kettle black.

Clearly you lack the knowledge and the appropriate intentions to research the subject before bashing me.

How would you know my knowlege and intelligence, Your just trying to be hurtful. But you accuse me of lacking civility. I have met people like you. You act like judge and jury. Never admit wrong doing and are too stubborn to apologize. You know it all and lack the objectivity to truly look at yourself. But continue to bash others. Like I said before your self righteousness astounds me.

Imryl was rude to me and admitted it and I was rude to her and admitted it. Why can’t you see that. You are sticking to your guns even if they are not loaded.

Now Imryl has made ammends with me and I with her but you are still sounding childish. Get over yourself.

I won’t respond to anymore of your childish rhetoric as clearly you didn’t actually read all the post but continue with your opinion.

People often afford themselves the comfort of an opinion without the discomfort of thought, JFK

 

[Nepenthe]

Rubyt:

Maybe so, maybe so, RubyT, if your complacent Pride, self-satisfaction and lack of charitableness doesn’t mess all that up for you.

That was no accusation - but a warning, and merely that. All people can fall into such mires very easily, nor was it rude.

And my warm sign-off was “Best Wishes (and I DO have them!)” which you conveniently omitted, among much else.

You even accused me of having a ‘satanistic’ stance and point of view, when I had made it explicitly clear that I have no such thing.

And how would I know your intelligence and civility? Why, by simply reading your posts. If you are capable of better, why not do so?

I have indeed been civil with you, although that tone has become distinctly more frosty as you continue to carry on, and I do not feel I am either unjustified nor wrong in taking such a tone.

Oh, and that last bit about castigating all who do not believe, think, or live as you do was just a bit of gentle mockery - a tonic for all us humans from time to time. Don’t read THAT much into it, I beseech you!

With due respect,
Nepenthe

 

[RubyT]

Okay Nepenthe, I do admit that at one point I thought you were a satanist and to that I truly ask forgiveness (as you pointed it out after my post) and I never got back to you about it. spanking will commence.

Now you have to admit you are somewhat of a snob since it really is difficult to tell if that original statement was accusatory. Lets just say I’ll take your word for it. Which actually makes me feel somewhat better because I have read many of your post and never got the impression that you were judicious. Well maybe a little teeny tiny bit. …minimal snicker.

Since we have managed to get way off topic I hope Arnoagns won’t want to join in on the spanking.

I guess I just need to try to extrapolate ones personality in this forum without taking offense easily. Not always easy for me to do but I’ll try, I really will. Now lets end this with a forgiving attitude. As I am not the type to hold a grudge. Remember, anytime time you want banter I am here for you… more profound snicker.

Much respect and many blessings your way.

:coolinoff: