T
trustmc
Guest
I kind of think that it’s more like trying to define brown to someone who is completely color blind.:banghead:
Mike
- Status
Mike
E
Eliza10
Guest
son of pio:
It looks to me like you are not clear usign the wrod adultery so you are called on that here. To me its obvious what you mean. The sin of adultery in your heart. Eve saw the "fruit"and she wanted it. Her sin was what she wanted in her heart, and took of it and ate of it. I do not think The Poem says she had an act, but, Jesus makes it clear that you can commit adultery in your heart. The fruit of the tree of good *and evil. *Evil fruits look tempting sometimes. One tempting evil fruit would be lust.
I think you are not using accurate words and you have to be careful, Son of Pio, how you are communicating particularly with people who are hostile to what you ahve to say.
It looks to me like you are not clear usign the wrod adultery so you are called on that here. To me its obvious what you mean. The sin of adultery in your heart. Eve saw the "fruit"and she wanted it. Her sin was what she wanted in her heart, and took of it and ate of it. I do not think The Poem says she had an act, but, Jesus makes it clear that you can commit adultery in your heart. The fruit of the tree of good *and evil. *Evil fruits look tempting sometimes. One tempting evil fruit would be lust.
L
Lux_et_veritas
Guest
I second that. And, here I thought at the base of this entire argument there was a question as to whether these writings of Valtorta were simply personal literary interpretations or of supernatural origin.
Of course, all of those arguments posted by Eliza and Pio are based on what? That these writings are of divine supernatural origin. If you topple the house by taking out the foundation, you win the argument of the day.
What is happening here is that, unfortunately, Eliza and Pio can’t see the foundation from the house, which is why they are talking about everything BUT the foundation itself.
Since the foundation - any thought to this being supernatural in origin - has been decided by Rome, when Cardinal Ratzinger stated that anyone publishing needed to acknowledge this fact in the book itself, do they really think that Pope Benedict will somehow stand up and proclaim these writings are of divine supernatural origin? Oh, hey - wait a minute - that’s the same guy, isn’t it?
If people’s faith weren’t at stake here, this whole thing could be funny.
They can talk all they want about what this web site or that website says, and they can try to spin that letter of Cardinal Ratzinger’s any way they want. Then again, they can stand there and proclaim that 1+1=3 all day long until they believe it, it does not change the fact that 1+1=2.
L
Lux_et_veritas
Guest
This may be true for you and me and everyone else since the fall of man. However, it is not true prior to the fall.
Once again, this shows ignorance of the meaning and role of the sanctifying grace that Adam and Eve had prior to the fall. If they were capable of lust, why then did they not know they were naked? They did not recognize this until they fell and lost sanctifying grace.
You are speaking about one subject, without understanding a foundational subject. You cannot speak about the fall without understanding what life was like for t hem prior to the fall. You cannot speak of the fall unless you truly understand the role of sanctifying grace prior to their disobedience. Yet, both of you feel you are expert enough to know what is good and not good in the Poem of the Man-God.
After that point (the fall), the forbidden fruit is often associated with lust and lustful sex. However, prior to that, Catholic teaching (and simple reasoning in light of sanctifying grace) tells us it was simply fruit. The CCC as I posted above clearly says that the first sin created was that of disobedience to God. Disobedience does not = sex. Sex is good if procreative and unitive and respectful of the other person.
Neither of you seems to want to answer the question of how God intended for them to procreate without sex if sex was forbidden.
Neither wants to answer how one can be lustful even in the mind only, if Sanctifying Grace made them rise above lust and anger. It is only after their fall that you will read accounts of anger and lust and other sins.
Pride was the first sin and it came in the form of disobedience to God. That is what the CCC teaches. I’d like to see your Catholic source that states or even suggests sex was the forbidden fruit that Adam and Eve took advantage of. Something tells me I won’t see anything from either of you because it doesn’t exist. The teaching is in the CCC - read carefully and study up on sanctifying grace.
E
Eliza10
Guest
Its true that catechesis has been horrible, but it seems as if you think yours wasn’t and when you come across things you don’t theologically agree with, you communicate that you know all about what is right and there isn’t room for deepening of understanding. And if someone disagrees with you they are in disobedient to the Church. Because all theological quesitons should be crystal clear leaving little room for interpretation or deeper understanding. That’s what it seems to me you are communicating.
Also its not wise to asume you have “arrived” at a higher level of wisdom than others and can’t learn something from someone lowly seemingly ignorant person, or someone from another backgroud or culture or religion or age bracket who can show you how to see a thing in a new way, even without possessing your particular body of knowledge.
Diane, this is a very good refutation of the premise that there was any sexual sin or sexual/sensual thought at all involved in the fall. However i personally disagree with it, and I think there is room for theiologocal disagreemtn here. As long as both sides agree with the catechism, that the fall was brought about thru disobedience, room is stilll left that choosing the fruit of the tree of good and evil brought about a lot of knowledge of evil, lust included.
See, Diane, this is what I mean. This is an example of what I am talking about where people have a different theological opinion than you, and you put them down. They must be “unprepared people” who have been “led astray”!
Why get personal with the accusations and insults? Why not just discuss the issues. They are powerful enough to stand on their own, without the negativity.
E
Eliza10
Guest
I think we can agree with this. But it all went out the window - I think immediately - when the act of diobedience was made. That is where there is room for discussion.
L
Lux_et_veritas
Guest
You disregard sanctifying grace in your interpretation of the fall. This is like saying that red is not a component of brown. Then, when I attempt to point out what amounts to error, you feel that you are being talked down to.
On the other hand, how much time have you invested into looking into sanctifying grace as it pertains to Adam and Eve’s fall? Before and After the fall?
Both sides do not agree with the Catechism. I’m including sanctifying grace in the picture, you are not. The CCC speaks about sanctifying grace - maybe not to the level that you are grasping it, but please research the subejct more thoroughly, as it pertains to the fall. Another similar subject is concupiscence, of which there are two kinds. This is fully available in Fr. John A. Hardon’s piece to which I provided a link to under the name “sanctifying grace” in that on thread. Please study that and then tell me that this issue can be discounted. Because if the Church is wrong about sanctifying grace, then by all means, lustful thoughts and sex could have been involved.
L
Lux_et_veritas
Guest
You are admitting here that disobedience was the first sin. Disobedience is a form of pride (one of the capital sins). How then, could lust of any kind be the first sin? It could be a second sin sometime later, but the Bible never talks about Adam and Eve in any sexual sinfulness aside from them recognizing they are naked (indicating a loss of sanctifying grace).
When does the bible get into lustful sin? I can’t recall off the top of my head, but to the best of my knowledge, I don’t believe we can attribute through anything written in the bible that God intended to teach us anything about lust in the story of Adam and Eve. However, it is perfectly fine today to see “the forbidden fruit” as sex by those who should not be having it. The expression can apply to any act which “takes” something it is not suppose to. Forbidden fruit for a CEO may be the money he begets through fraudulent activity. It could represent merchandise someone wants but cannot pay for.
T
trustmc
Guest
OK, then. Here are the facts. Let’s begin with the quote you cite from pio’s previous thread:
To which you had this to say:
Thank you, Eliza 10, for providing us with yet another one of your examples of reading into a statement something else you would prefer it to say instead.
The quote, taken from a letter Bishop Roman Danylak, Titular Bishop of Nyssa, was refering neither to the CDF nor L’Osservatore Romano (the Vatican Newspaper, fyi), when he refered to “the offices of the Church.” He clearly meant, as he wrote in the very same quote: “This is a common failing of bishops and pastors and of many in authority.” In other words, it is individual bishops and pastors – those offices – who oftentimes do not retract their erroneous statements, not such agencies as the CDF or L’Osservatore Romano. The CDF and L’Osservatore Romano, a newspaper, are not “offices.” Bishops, priests and deacons are offices.
You clearly assumed his words, “the offices of the Church,” meant the CDF and L’Ossovatore Romano out of wishful thinking, and then went even further off the rails from there, claiming that you now know that when they make erroneous pronouncements, “the longstanding tradition is: they don’t retract them.”
I’m begining to notice how easily you jump to conclussions in order to justify your insolence. I’m also beginning to wonder if there is any point in continuing this debate with those so clearly mired in intellectual incoherence.
Mike
L
Lux_et_veritas
Guest
Furthermore, how did the serpent entice Eve? He led her to believe she could be like God. God is omnipotent - all powerful, not all sexful.
E
Eliza10
Guest
Lux_et_veritas said:Good heavens where did you ever come up with this? Do you even know what adultery is? …
…Pio, I would say you are a poster-child with these comments as to why “unprepared” Catholics should not be reading this book. And, I say this with all love and charity. …
Frankly I don’t see the love and I dont’ see the charity.
It seems that you make personal attacks, Diane. I think its best to stick with the issues. The poster-child comment is not a nice one, and it doesn’t fit. It seems as if you have your personal issues - one being bad catechisis - not a bad issue - and then you look about for poster children.
How about just listening to a person and finding a point of agreement? And where you don’t agree, state your case. And leave out the name calling and uncharitable conclusions about their personal shortcomings. Real or implied. Implied as in “What are your credentials??” And pasting - I can’t count how many times you have cut and pasted this here Diane, but it has been many, many, many, many, many times you have cut and pasted in this thread - I certianly hope you did not have to google search it each time - and that is your exhausted snippet from Cardinal Radzinger about the “unprepared faithful!”.
I just want to take a moment here to re-paste another comment of Cardinal Radzinger concerning The Poem of the Man-God, the one you are overlooking:
*The repetition of the notions of the earlier censors and maligners of Maria Valtorta reveals that whoever continues to invoke this index is not aware of the response of Cardinal Ratzinger to the bishop of Birmingham, Alabama in 1993; and of the statements of the Conference of Italian Bishops over the past several years. **These acknowledge that there is nothing against faith or morals in the Poem of the Man God and the other writings of Maria Valtorta. ***
L
Lux_et_veritas
Guest
Thanks Mike, for jumping in. I’m not sure I’m going to stick around any further either, however, I want to make sure that anyone researching this thread in the future has the Church’s position. If they choose to step on it, that’s unfortunate.
E
Eliza10
Guest
Yawn! This comment bores me!
Its yet another bor-ing insult to the writers of this thread who don’t agree with certain points you’ve made. We don’t agree with you on something, so we are the poorly catechized.
Yawn.
Lets get off these dull insults and get back to the issues.
L
Lux_et_veritas
Guest
This is simply side-stepping what we were discussing above about sanctifying grace.
I think the problem you sum up here is that you feel that people should compromise the Church’s position in order to be charitable. That is nothing more than compromises cloaked in charity. I’m telling you like it is. When people omit key principles taught by the Catholic Church in favor of their own opinion, I would be guilty of omission as to continue the conversation without pointing it out.
Furthermore, I stand by my claim that Pio, and quite frankly, yourself, would make good poster children for why this book should not be read by Catholics.
You are obtuse enough to argue that the fall of Adam and Eve was the sin of lust when the Church teaches otherwise. Of course, if you refuse to learn how sanctifying grace made them rise above lust prior to the disobedience, then it is understandable how this could happen.
T
trustmc
Guest
Thanks to you, Lux, none of Valtorta’s disciples here, like the Branch Davidians, can say they weren’t warned. Farewell, Diane.:bowdown2:
E
Eliza10
Guest
Thanks for explaining why you are labeling “Protestant!”
I think you are, as Prostestants do, taking a narrow view. I think its Catholic to take a broader view while not wavering from the solid teachings of the Chruch. I think truly Catholic for the Church to actually teach someothing, not just make decrees. There is a lack of any teaching on Valtorta for a reason. All there is are a few old unsubstantiated comments which have not been extrapilated on. Apparwently for good reason.
I trust Cardinal Radzingers opinion that The Poem is not in error in faith and morals.
Also, please stop accusing us that we are disregarding Church teachings. I think it is abundantly evident, if you are reading the posts here, that we are regarding them.
E
Eliza10
Guest
Its more name calling!
Are y’all done with issues now??
T
trustmc
Guest
As the pot, are you done with calling the kettle black?
L
Lux_et_veritas
Guest
I almost can’t believe the gumption here. I provide a paste of a full length letter from Cardinal Ratzinger which says one thing and get a partial paste back of someone’s opinion of what Ratzinger says, and I’m the one not following the Church?
Please show me a full length letter from Cardinal Ratzinger himself that says that the “Poem” is of divine supernatural origin? But you don’t want ot answer that. You are still bent on arguing that there are no errors in the thing. Once again, you are protecting the house while not defending your foundation. You are treating this material as if it were of divine supernatural origin, in all that you have written thus far, but yet you refuse to address this major issue. Instead, you keep trying to sidestep the issue.
If writings are not of supernatural origin, and it has been labeled a badly fictionalize novel of the life of Christ, then it would be prudent to set it aside.
T
Tominellay
Guest
Diane knows what she is talking about; her posts are factual and well-stated…Bravo Mike, too!
- Status