Non-fallible teachings: any examples?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TheAdvocate
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
But your post was not. 😉
I have to thank God for being quick-witted, but i’ve no idea what you’re saying or why you’re winking. Let’s just agree that damnation is simply collateral damage in an otherwise genius, perfect plan.😛 i’ve been around Catholics enough to know all the little tricks in the book to make little of someone’s agony to make God appear glorious and awesome. Nothing has ever been thrown at me that I haven’t heard time and time again. Everything I said is factually true to a T, so I wonder why it isn’t ‘‘serious’’. This might just be rehearsal for the final rejection, though. See, God is good with everyone all the time. Joyce would say he’s no respecter of persons. She’d also say ‘‘Hallelujah!’’.
 
I have to thank God for being quick-witted, but i’ve no idea what you’re saying or why you’re winking. Let’s just agree that damnation is simply collateral damage in an otherwise genius, perfect plan.
What are the good things you experience?
Are they collateral damage also?

Since you are holding God accountable, consistency would require you to account for his role in providing you with life and breath, and whatever else that doesn’t fall in to your “damnation charge account”.

A healthy account should balance, or else all we see is woe and despair.

So how about all the rest? Who’s fault is it?
 
I have to thank God for being quick-witted, but i’ve no idea what you’re saying or why you’re winking. Let’s just agree that damnation is simply collateral damage in an otherwise genius, perfect plan.😛 i’ve been around Catholics enough to know all the little tricks in the book to make little of someone’s agony to make God appear glorious and awesome. Nothing has ever been thrown at me that I haven’t heard time and time again. Everything I said is factually true to a T, so I wonder why it isn’t ‘‘serious’’. This might just be rehearsal for the final rejection, though. See, God is good with everyone all the time. Joyce would say he’s no respecter of persons. She’d also say ‘‘Hallelujah!’’.
Are you referring to Joyce Meyer? If yes, then you’re obviously not being forthcoming. If I was sincerely a misotheist, and REALLY believed the things that you claim to believe, I would be out living a pleasure-obsessed life completely focused on myself. I wouldn’t be as well-versed in Catholic doctrine as you clearly are, and I CERTAINLY wouldn’t be familiar enough with Joyce Meyer to make that amusing of a reference. I hope you’re having a good time with these posts. You’ve entertained me to no end. Well done. 😃
 
Are you referring to Joyce Meyer? If yes, then you’re obviously not being forthcoming. If I was sincerely a misotheist, and REALLY believed the things that you claim to believe, I would be out living a pleasure-obsessed life completely focused on myself. I wouldn’t be as well-versed in Catholic doctrine as you clearly are, and I CERTAINLY wouldn’t be familiar enough with Joyce Meyer to make that amusing of a reference. I hope you’re having a good time with these posts. You’ve entertained me to no end. Well done. 😃
I credit her and Charles Stanley for lifting me at least partially from a hellish pit. Corapi also helped…before he dyed his hair and everything unraveled. And being a misotheist is hard work, I sometimes relapse. But joking aside i had stuff happen that crushed me, mental health is not all that great in the family gene pool either. I wish I could have raised from the ashes of my childhood and turn over a new leaf. I didn’t have the werewithal to wage the mental war, ward off depression and hopelessness and build my personality and my adult life. My dad is/was a religious fanatic, and not so great on a human level. I felt oppressed by my circumstances, I was scared stiff of my father (who was very volatile), to stay sane I had to constantly wish this or that away. I sorely miss the other version of myself if had been stronger psychologically, had had a better environment, had enjoyed good mental health, a little sharper. I feel condemned to a life of mediocrity, frustration, stagnation etc.

If you’re following, you recall the hockey incident. It had a profound effect on me, how I saw myself, the world etc. Didn’t cry, didn’t try to hit anyone, I remember thinking:this is going to be a long, painful and lonely life. If Catholics got it right then God’s permissive will is a female dog. Tried my darnest to escape the pains of my childhood. But you’re wrong, a reasonable hedonist lifestyle is what I’d want if I could get the kind of money needed to have it. I won’t ever be able to connect, let alone trust someone who let things go as low as they did when he had the power to step in at any moment. The plan all along was to have such a good life, and that includes affluence, not multi-million, Donald Trump affluence, but affluence nonetheless, to have it so good that the thought of the miseries of the past wouldn’t be able to make me depressed or sad, or even stop me from smiling. Misery, anxiety, depression, regrets are easy to ward off with affluence. God had my trust, at least partially, as much as I could muster given the bad stuff, then I realized he wasn’t gonna come through to help me in abig decisive way. I naively thought he was waiting for the right opportunity to knock me off my feet. I didn’t think a God who could create the world and women (don’t mean that in a dirty way) could not be prosaic and just offer to embrace my crosses as divine comfort. I mentioned God’s PR team, but I don’t understand all the mystifications, the hiding games etc. Genesis suggests Adam enjoyed almost daily conversations with God, these days God seems to be the deists’ god.

Meanwhile, i’ve got to find peace and rest for my worried mind. In closing, if I do make it to heaven I will have paid an unreasonably heavy price compared to others who will have breezed through life with good looks, friends, great personality, good mental health, fulfilling career, money to take trips all over the world, nice house, 2.1 children, a partner they love and admire and who reciprocates that etc. The level of pain I experienced, at some point it needed to stop. I experienced enough to be able to have a smooth ride for the rest of my life. That’s where God and I seem to disagree. I had a cr**py first half, I want the 2nd half to be so good to compensate for everything I lacked growing up. I’m ready to give up my ‘‘seat’’ for someone else. Resignation will never be an option. That much I know.
 
Not only have I alienated the good Lord, but I have alienated his sheep. Matthew 18:17

I finally know how Jesus of Nazareth felt after John 6:53. But isn’t it strange, though, that for someone who knows human nature so well that he didn’t think asking people to eat his body (not only that but that it was a sine qua non for salvation) was NOT going to go over well! He was like, ‘‘What’s the big fuss!?:confused:’’

But to get back on track of fallible teachings (and that ties in nicely with John 6:53) : extra Ecclesiam nulla salus does NOT mean extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. Which is distinctly odd knowing that Christ stated in no uncertain terms that if you don’t eat his body, you have no life in you. If you have no life in you when you die (funny phrasing but Catholics know what that really means) then it’s off to satanland forever. Nobody can worthily (in a way that does not bring condemnation on oneself) partake of the eucharist if he’s not a) properly Catholic b)in a state of grace. Therefore let’s solemnly declare that extra Ecclesiam nulla salus means exactly what it says/said before it was decided that it was out of season and needed to be abrogated. I think a Church that says what it means and that means what it says would gain a great deal of credibility in today’s world.
 
Not only have I alienated the good Lord, but I have alienated his sheep. Matthew 18:17

I finally know how Jesus of Nazareth felt after John 6:53. But isn’t it strange, though, that for someone who knows human nature so well that he didn’t think asking people to eat his body (not only that but that it was a sine qua non for salvation) was NOT going to go over well! He was like, ‘‘What’s the big fuss!?:confused:’’

But to get back on track of fallible teachings (and that ties in nicely with John 6:53) : extra Ecclesiam nulla salus does NOT mean extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. Which is distinctly odd knowing that Christ stated in no uncertain terms that if you don’t eat his body, you have no life in you. If you have no life in you when you die (funny phrasing but Catholics know what that really means) then it’s off to satanland forever. Nobody can worthily (in a way that does not bring condemnation on oneself) partake of the eucharist if he’s not a) properly Catholic b)in a state of grace. Therefore let’s solemnly declare that extra Ecclesiam nulla salus means exactly what it says/said before it was decided that it was out of season and needed to be abrogated. I think a Church that says what it means and that means what it says would gain a great deal of credibility in today’s world.
You’ve gone completely sideways, man. And to make it worse, you know it. You’re being completely disingenuous.
 
The level of confusion and cognitive dissonance in that blog is staggering. Just staggering. Thankfully our salvation depends on Jesus, and not Tim Staples.
The cognitive issue can be with personal understanding too. As I advised you earlier, spare us your personal assessments of individuals.
 
The cognitive issue can be with personal understanding too. As I advised you earlier, spare us your personal assessments of individuals.
My assessment was of the blog, but it seems now you are (again) personally assessing me. I’d appreciate it if you stop responding to me altogether and stay on topic.
 
My assessment was of the blog, but it seems now you are (again) personally assessing me. I’d appreciate it if you stop responding to me altogether and stay on topic.
If you persist in ridiculing individuals or their contribution, as you’ve done here in respect of Tim Staples, or in post #124 (taking a swipe at “Catholic” contributors), I’ll continue to call it out. Other than that, I’m happy to agree to your request.
 
The level of confusion and cognitive dissonance in that blog is staggering. Just staggering. Thankfully our salvation depends on Jesus, and not Tim Staples.
Specifics are always good.

Can you respond with a well reasoned rebuttal?
Ad-hominem won’t convince anyone of anything.
 
If you persist in ridiculing individuals or their contribution, as you’ve done here in respect of Tim Staples, or in post #124 (taking a swipe at “Catholic” contributors), I’ll continue to call it out. Other than that, I’m happy to agree to your request.
I don’t think Tim Staples would consider my observation that salvation doesn’t depend on him as ridiculing. I assure you that he would agree with me. I’ve already advised you once to stop responding to me. If you continue to harass me, I will report you to a moderator.
 
Specifics are always good.

Can you respond with a well reasoned rebuttal?
Ad-hominem won’t convince anyone of anything.
Points 1 and 3 at the beginning of the blog are in direct opposition to each other. If I were to say: Number one, in order to avoid getting wet when it is raining, one must either take some sort of shelter or make use of an umbrella. And then number two, you will not get wet if you take a walk in the rain uncovered, this would be confusion and cognitive dissonance. To follow it up by stating “Now, some may see this as a contradiction, but it is not,” does not make it cease being cognitive dissonance. Neither does a mere high volume of words not make something true.
 
I don’t think Tim Staples would consider my observation that salvation doesn’t depend on him as ridiculing. I assure you that he would agree with me. I’ve already advised you once to stop responding to me. If you continue to harass me, I will report you to a moderator.
You’ve not been harassed. I note another poster has called out the ad hominem in your post.
 
…

But to get back on track of fallible teachings (and that ties in nicely with John 6:53) : extra Ecclesiam nulla salus does NOT mean extra Ecclesiam nulla salus…
It does. Anyone that is saved is a member of the Church of Christ, visible or invisible.

Accordingly it is a misunderstanding of “subsistit in” to make it the basis of an ecclesiological pluralism or relativism which implies that the one church of Christ Jesus subsists in many churches, and thus the Catholic Church is merely one among many other churches. Such theories of ecclesiological pluralism contradict the self-concept which the Catholic Church – like the Orthodox Churches, incidentally – has always had of itself and which the Second Vatican Council also wished to maintain. The Catholic Church continues to claim, as it always has, to be the true church of Christ Jesus, in which the entire fullness of the means of salvation are present (UR, 3; UUS, 14), but it now sees itself in a context of dialogue with the other churches and ecclesial communities.

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/card-kasper-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20041111_kasper-ecumenism_en.html
 
It does. Anyone that is saved is a member of the Church of Christ, visible or invisible.

Accordingly it is a misunderstanding of “subsistit in” to make it the basis of an ecclesiological pluralism or relativism which implies that the one church of Christ Jesus subsists in many churches, and thus the Catholic Church is merely one among many other churches. Such theories of ecclesiological pluralism contradict the self-concept which the Catholic Church – like the Orthodox Churches, incidentally – has always had of itself and which the Second Vatican Council also wished to maintain. The Catholic Church continues to claim, as it always has, to be the true church of Christ Jesus, in which the entire fullness of the means of salvation are present (UR, 3; UUS, 14), but it now sees itself in a context of dialogue with the other churches and ecclesial communities.

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/card-kasper-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20041111_kasper-ecumenism_en.html
‘‘Therefore Pius XII had condemned an exclusive interpretation of the axiom “Extra ecclesiam nulla salus” already in 1949.’’ First,I think it’s a major problem that the church is incomprehensible to, I would estimate, 90% or more of the laity. The church has grown to monstrous proportions and complexity. Second, to the best of your knowledge, what was the original intended meaning behind the phrase ‘‘extra ecclesiam nulla salus’’. What I suspect is that the original meaning was that unless you’re a baptised Catholic who frequents the sacraments and who dies in a stat of grace you will NOT be saved. The way, the truth and the light, the only way to the Father is thru Christ, thru his bride, the Catholic Church. Third:how many Catholics down the centuries suspect that the expression could have meant anything else but what it specifically stated? Fourth: was it mortal-sin binding for Catholics to say and believe that salvation was not a possibility outside the Catholic Church? Fifth: I suspect that what occurred in 1949 was an out-of-season phenomenon (2 Timothy 4:2): yielding to a spirit of oecumenism and of relativism (i.e. there can’t possibly be but one way of salvation). Back-pedaling has devastating consequences for the church’s credibility, inter alia.
 
‘‘Therefore Pius XII had condemned an exclusive interpretation of the axiom “Extra ecclesiam nulla salus” already in 1949.’’ First,I think it’s a major problem that the church is incomprehensible to, I would estimate, 90% or more of the laity. The church has grown to monstrous proportions and complexity. Second, to the best of your knowledge, what was the original intended meaning behind the phrase ‘‘extra ecclesiam nulla salus’’. What I suspect is that the original meaning was that unless you’re a baptised Catholic who frequents the sacraments and who dies in a stat of grace you will NOT be saved. The way, the truth and the light, the only way to the Father is thru Christ, thru his bride, the Catholic Church. Third:how many Catholics down the centuries suspect that the expression could have meant anything else but what it specifically stated? Fourth: was it mortal-sin binding for Catholics to say and believe that salvation was not a possibility outside the Catholic Church? Fifth: I suspect that what occurred in 1949 was an out-of-season phenomenon (2 Timothy 4:2): yielding to a spirit of oecumenism and of relativism (i.e. there can’t possibly be but one way of salvation). Back-pedaling has devastating consequences for the church’s credibility, inter alia.
None of this would matter a hill of beans to you if you didn’t have a deep desire for truth and justice in the Church. All of your efforts here are just nailing jello to the wall. Your talents are needed in the Church in the real world. “In love’s service, only wounded soldiers can serve.” Your wounds can be used to serve and help so many, but you’re raging against nothing instead.
 
You’ve gone completely sideways, man. And to make it worse, you know it. You’re being completely disingenuous.
I said earlier i kind of like you. I’m sure you’re not coming from a bad place, how specifically am I disingenuous? I commented on the thread being dead, the thought of Jesus announcing the sacrament of the eucharist came to mind, because it seemed my last post had had a similar effect. Then I thought of just what Jesus said, namely: ‘‘If you don’t eat of my flesh and drink of my blood, you have no life in you’’. Jesus never meant for things to be construed in a mundane way, so it follows that ‘‘no life in you’’ is more than the natural life, it is the supernatural life. If you have no supernatural life in you, you can’t have eternal life with God in heaven, period. If the only way to have supernatural life is by receiving the eucharist in a state of grace, then one has no choice but to conclude that the Catholic Church is not the way par excellence to salvation but actually the only way. Which is what Salus extra ecclesiam non est unequivocally states.

I’ve not lied about my past, some of the things that crushed me, my strained relationship with God, how i’ve always felt like he treated me like dirt, not like a loving father, much less like an omnipotent being who, I’m told, says he loves me with an eternal love. i’ve waged a mental war for decades, felt pretty sure God was on my side, then a realization came crashing down that the hoped-for breakthrough wasn’t coming, ever. For the sake of total openeness, I often pray for God to give me a terminal illness so I can be done with this burden of a life and die at peace and in a state of grace. I never in 40 some years of life ever thanked God once for giving me life, not once. A lost soul, shy, socially anxious, terrorized to be humiliated, when people kind of like me, I always think they wouldn’t if they knew me for real, burden of shame, inadequacy, always had a visceral dread of the future, certain periods of disarray and just wanting to not be, not even exist in heaven, just stop to exist. I don’t understand how God let every of those things slowly but surely destroy me. Some people call these things ‘‘strongholds’’, if you could get an xray of my heart, you wouldn’t believe how many of these strongholds are there or how deep they run. Life feels strange because it’s almost as I feel I shouldn’t have existed, I’m not supposed to be here, yet I am. My mom once confided in me that she was under such stress when she was pregnant with me that she wished she would miscarry. Some people (charismatic movement etc.) seemed to think that can be registered by the foetus or that it’s like a curse spoken on a new life.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top