J
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
C
catharina
Guest
catharina;2936737:
You said he had an unrepented sin. When enough people confronted you, you arrempted to undo the damage. You said what you said.I already clarified what I meant by “unrepented public sin.” He didn’t address the issue and make an apology for the scandal. The canonization isn’t just to say a certain person is in heaven but to give us an example to follow. Approving false worship isn’t an example to follow, and since it wasn’t publicly retracted but continued, yes, you have everything to prove. You’re obviously skirting the issue, which doesn’t surprise me. Did I ever say he was evil? Bad? I said that he made some mistakes. That is not a sin, except in your fantasy-dream of the papacy. You ought to re-read the document regarding papal infallibility.
C
catharina
Guest
catharina;2936713:
Really, sorry but you have no credibility for me.I didn’t realize that popes override God. They have the authority to change His laws and show approval for sin? Where do you get that?
I wonder why you continue to invent distortions.
Well, it’s not my problem.
J
joanofarc3
Guest
joanofarc3;2936743:
Are you going to continue accusing without backing it up? I’m not sorry, you have no credibility with me, and with anybody who attempts to use their brain. Back up your accusations.Really, sorry but you have no credibility for me.
I wonder why you continue to invent distortions.
Well, it’s not my problem.
J
joanofarc3
Guest
joanofarc3;2936761:
Get off it already. I spoke in anger; I assumed others knew what I meant. I realized I wasn’t totally clear. I clarified. Get on with it.You said he had an unrepented sin. When enough people confronted you, you arrempted to undo the damage. You said what you said.
C
catharina
Guest
catharina;2936829:
Accusations? Same old pathetic stuff from you.Are you going to continue accusing without backing it up? I’m not sorry, you have no credibility with me, and with anybody who attempts to use their brain. Back up your accusations.
J
joanofarc3
Guest
joanofarc3;2936912:
Back it up.Accusations? Same old pathetic stuff from you.
C
catharina
Guest
catharina;2936812:
As I said you seem to have a certain problem with anger. Yes?Get off it already. I spoke in anger; I assumed others knew what I meant. I realized I wasn’t totally clear. I clarified. Get on with it.
Tonight you called me a"hater of" apologists.
That kind of makes you sound judgmental, you know?
The Holy Father: an unrepentant public sinner .
Me, a stranger: a hater of RC apologists.
Do you think that MAYBE you’re a bit of an extremist?
On the vicious side of extremism?
J
joanofarc3
Guest
joanofarc3;2936914:
that the Pope is infallible when defining a matter of faith or morals. They also emphasize that he’s not perfect, that he can sin and make bad judgements. That was my point, and because I pointed it out you condemned me, multiple times. In the beginning, or the middle I should say, I tried to maintain some charity with you. You continually ragged on me. You accuse and then refuse to answer my questions. You have an obligation, like it or not, as I was asking out of sincerity but you refused to see it this way. You say he can sin, but deny that he ever did when it’s brought up. I said I believe he was well intentioned (therefore not a mortal sin, in my view) but he did give the impression that false creeds were okay and did not publicly refute that view. He may have confessed it, he may not have. I don’t know, and don’t claim to know. I asked why you felt there was nothing wrong with it, and you refused to answer. Then condemned me. Who wouldn’t get upset? The fact that you’re still doing it shows you’re not too happy with my responses to you either. This whole thing can end, as I explained on the other thread, very easily.Tonight you called me a"hater of" apologists.
Me, a stranger: a hater of RC apologists.
QUOTE]
This statement was an assumption, since RC apologists *emphasize *
I won’t address the other things again until you back it up.
One other thing, on the other thread (or maybe it was this one) other Catholics claimed that the Assisi incident wasn’t right, but they disagreed with:
Both very good points, though they agree that the incident was… questionable, we’ll say. I didn’t see you condemning them for saying the same thing I did (though they said it differently). True, in the beginning I didn’t express myself very charitably; I apologized for it and tried a better approach. You wouldn’t allow it. I’m not going to make excuses for my lack of charity in some posts; but you need to realize that in this situation you’re not entirely guilt-free either.
- constantly bringing it up, and
- the manner in which it was said.
C
catharina
Guest
catharina;2936938:
that the Pope is infallible when defining a matter of faith or morals. They also emphasize that he’s not perfect, that he can sin and make bad judgements. That was my point, and because I pointed it out you condemned me, multiple times. In the beginning, or the middle I should say, I tried to maintain some charity with you. You continually ragged on me. You accuse and then refuse to answer my questions. You have an obligation, like it or not, as I was asking out of sincerity but you refused to see it this way. You say he can sin, but deny that he ever did when it’s brought up. I said I believe he was well intentioned (therefore not a mortal sin, in my view) but he did give the impression that false creeds were okay and did not publicly refute that view. He may have confessed it, he may not have. I don’t know, and don’t claim to know. I asked why you felt there was nothing wrong with it, and you refused to answer. Then condemned me. Who wouldn’t get upset? The fact that you’re still doing it shows you’re not too happy with my responses to you either. This whole thing can end, as I explained on the other thread, very easily.joanofarc3;2936914:
Tonight you called me a"hater of" apologists.
Me, a stranger: a hater of RC apologists.
QUOTE]
**This statement was an assumption, since RC apologists *emphasize ***
I won’t address the other things again until you back it up.
One other thing, on the other thread (or maybe it was this one) other Catholics claimed that the Assisi incident wasn’t right, but they disagreed with:
Both very good points, though they agree that the incident was… questionable, we’ll say. I didn’t see you condemning them for saying the same thing I did (though they said it differently). True, in the beginning I didn’t express myself very charitably; I apologized for it and tried a better approach. You wouldn’t allow it. I’m not going to make excuses for my lack of charity in some posts; but you need to realize that in this situation you’re not entirely guilt-free either.
- constantly bringing it up, and
- the manner in which it was said.
One response since you seem to be more sincere than enraged at the moment.
Returning to myentire post (because you left out the most significant part):
"As I said you seem to have a certain problem with anger. Yes?
Tonight you called me a"hater of" apologists.
**That kind of makes you sound judgmental, you know?
The Holy Father: an unrepentant public sinner.
Me, a stranger: a hater of RC apologists.**
Do you think that MAYBE you’re a bit of an extremist?
On the vicious side of extremism?"
Now you say: "This statement was an assumption, since RC apologists *emphasize *that the Pope is infallible when defining a matter of faith or morals. They also emphasize that he’s not perfect, *that he can sin and make bad judgements.
So you “ASSUME” that I deny RC Apologetics. You assume that. You assume I hate and you accuse me of the SIN of hating. While that puts me in very good company in your mind, I guess, since you also accused the Holy Father of a specific sin (I know you chose to be unspecific re “mortal or venial” -?!!!-) - simply saying he’s guilty of a certain sin and unrepentant about it. Are you insane? Or deeply confused? Do you have issues with logic? As Roman Catholics, we are NOT ALLOWED to accuse anyone of being guilty of any specific sin at any given time. Most other Christians are taught the very same thing. It has ALWAYS been that way*. Quite likely, it will always be that way. It has ALWAYS been that way. We are the laity. ALWAYS. What don’t you understand about that? Is it remotely possible you were never taught that? If so, check it out because I am mentioning it now. I have stopped dead in the water, dead in time and space, astonished that any RC adult could possibly believe she’s free to accuse anyone of a specific sin - for any reason. You are offering YOUR OPINION and it’s clear to me it might based in another of your assumptions.
Forget Assisi.
It’s not for you or for anyone on these forums to decide if the Holy Father sinned, much less when, where, how and with whom. How can you possibly miss that point??? To goad me into answering on the other thread, you insist so many Protestants must think my statements are ridiculous. Do you imagine that I care of that is true or not? If you’re ringleading them and you think that then of course they would think that - and I don’t care if they do. You suggest I should pretend that I’m required to give a response to “pretend Protestant.” Well, I pretend lots of things daily with very small, very young, sick children. I will not be pretending anything with you and can’t imagine that you’d request it!
W
Walking_Home
Guest
catharina;2940415e:
Can you post the section from the CCC–that verifies your statement.
As Roman Catholics, we are NOT ALLOWED to accuse anyone of being guilty of any specific sin at any given time. Most other Christians are taught the very same thing. It has ALWAYS been that way. Quite likely, it will always be that way. It has ALWAYS been that way. We are the laity. ALWAYS. !
Can you post the section from the CCC–that verifies your statement.
C
catharina
Guest
PART THREE
Can you post the section from the CCC–that verifies your statement.
LIFE IN CHRIST
SECTION TWO
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
CHAPTER TWO
“YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF”
ARTICLE 8
THE EIGHTH COMMANDMENT
I. LIVING IN THE TRUTH
…
II. TO BEAR WITNESS TO THE TRUTH
…
2471 Before Pilate, Christ proclaims that he "has come into the world, to bear witness to the truth."266 The Christian is not to "be ashamed then of testifying to our Lord."267 In situations that require witness to the faith, the Christian must profess it without equivocation, after the example of St. Paul before his judges. We must keep "a clear conscience toward God and toward men."268
2472 The duty of Christians to take part in the life of the Church impels them to act as witnesses of the Gospel and of the obligations that flow from it. This witness is a transmission of the faith in words and deeds. Witness is an act of justice that establishes the truth or makes it known.269
All Christians by the example of their lives and the witness of their word, wherever they live, have an obligation to manifest the new man which they have put on in Baptism and to reveal the power of the Holy Spirit by whom they were strengthened at Confirmation. 270
2473 Martyrdom is the supreme witness given to the truth of the faith: it means bearing witness even unto death. The martyr bears witness to Christ who died and rose, to whom he is united by charity. He bears witness to the truth of the faith and of Christian doctrine. He endures death through an act of fortitude. "Let me become the food of the beasts, through whom it will be given me to reach God."271
2474 The Church has painstakingly collected the records of those who persevered to the end in witnessing to their faith. These are the acts of the Martyrs. They form the archives of truth written in letters of blood:
Neither the pleasures of the world nor the kingdoms of this age will be of any use to me. It is better for me to die [in order to unite myself] to Christ Jesus than to reign over the ends of the earth. I seek him who died for us; I desire him who rose for us. My birth is approaching. . .272
I bless you for having judged me worthy from this day and this hour to be counted among your martyrs. . . . You have kept your promise, God of faithfulness and truth. For this reason and for everything, I praise you, I bless you, I glorify you through the eternal and heavenly High Priest, Jesus Christ, your beloved Son. Through him, who is with you and the Holy Spirit, may glory be given to you, now and in the ages to come. Amen.273
III. OFFENSES AGAINST TRUTH **
2475 Christ’s disciples have "put on the new man, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness."274 By “putting away falsehood,” they are to "put away all malice and all guile and insincerity and envy and all slander."275
2476 False witness and perjury. When it is made publicly, a statement contrary to the truth takes on a particular gravity. In court it becomes false witness.276 When it is under oath, it is perjury. Acts such as these contribute to condemnation of the innocent, exoneration of the guilty, or the increased punishment of the accused.277 They gravely compromise the exercise of justice and the fairness of judicial decisions.
**
2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury.278 He becomes guilty:
- of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;
- of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another’s faults and failings to persons who did not know them;279
- of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.
Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another’s statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.280
2479 Detraction and calumny destroy the reputation and honor of one’s neighbor. Honor is the social witness given to human dignity, and everyone enjoys a natural right to the honor of his name and reputation and to respect. Thus, detraction and calumny offend against the virtues of justice and charity. **
W
Walking_Home
Guest
PART THREE
LIFE IN CHRIST
SECTION TWO
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
CHAPTER TWO
“YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF”
ARTICLE 8
THE EIGHTH COMMANDMENT
I. LIVING IN THE TRUTH
…
II. TO BEAR WITNESS TO THE TRUTH
…
Quote:
Originally Posted by catharina;2940415e
As Roman Catholics, we are NOT ALLOWED to accuse anyone of being guilty of any specific sin at any given time. Most other Christians are taught the very same thing. It has ALWAYS been that way. Quite likely, it will always be that way. It has ALWAYS been that way. We are the laity. ALWAYS. !
No–I am asking for the specific section that verifies the statements you made above----Not what you are trying to pull out from other data. A specific section that says what you say. You say it is and has been a teaching—so if it is —post the section from the CCC. And please --no beating about the bush.
J
joanofarc3
Guest
She continually refuses to answer my one question, I don’t think she’ll answer yours. In some minds the modernist people-pleasing view is the word of God. We can’t change that.
No–I am asking for the specific section that verifies the statements you made above----Not what you are trying to pull out from other data. A specific section that says what you say. You say it is and has been a teaching—so if it is —post the section from the CCC. And please --no beating about the bush.
C
catharina
Guest
No–I am asking for the specific section that verifies the statements you made above----Not what you are trying to pull out from other data. A specific section that says what you say. You say it is and has been a teaching—so if it is —post the section from the CCC. And please --no beating about the bush.
]Originally Posted by catharina;2940415e
As Roman Catholics, we are NOT ALLOWED to accuse anyone of being guilty of any specific sin at any given time. Most other Christians are taught the very same thing. It has ALWAYS been that way. Quite likely, it will always be that way. It has ALWAYS been that way. We are the laity. ALWAYS. !
This is as simple as I can make it for you. Here’s the BALTIMORE Catechism. You asked for the CCC but maybe the Baltimore will make more sense to you. I memorized this entire catechism (as did all RC schoolchilden in Chicago) in the 1950s.
If this source isn’t enough for you, if you deny the crystal-clear train of thought, repeated in both, in different words, then you’re out of luck. I cannot make it any simpler for you.
- What is the eighth commandment of God?
**The eighth commandment of God is: Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. **
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. (Exodus 20:16) - What are we commanded by the eighth commandment?
**By the eighth commandment **we are commanded to speak the truth in all things, but especially in what concerns the good name and honor of others. Wherefore, put away lying and speak truth each one with his neighbor, because we are members of one another. (Ephesians 4:25) - What does the eighth commandment forbid? **
The eighth commandment forbids lies, rash judgment, detraction, calumny, and the telling of secrets we are bound to keep.**
Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord. (Proverbs 12:22) - When does a person commit the sin of rash judgment?
**A person commits the sin of rash judgment when, without sufficient reason, he believes something harmful to another’s character. **
Before thou inquire, blame no man. (Ecclesiasticus 11:7) - When does a person commit the sin of detraction?
A person commits the sin of detraction when, without a good reason, he makes known the hidden faults of another.
A good name is better than great riches, and good favor is above silver and gold. (Proverbs 22:1) - When does a person commit the sin of calumny or slander? **
A person commits the sin of calumny or slander when by lying he injures the good name of another. **
Devise not a lie against thy brother, neither do the like against thy friend. (Ecclesiasticus 7:13) - When are we obliged to keep a secret?
We are obliged to keep a secret when we have promised to do so, when our office requires it, or when the good of another demands it. - What must a person do who has sinned by detraction or calumny, or has told a secret he is bound to keep?
A person who has sinned by detraction or calumny, or who has told a secret he is bound to keep, must repair the harm he has done to his neighbor, as far as he is able.
1853 Sins can be distinguished according to their objects, as can every human act; or according to the virtues they oppose, by excess or defect; or according to the commandments they violate. They can also be classed according to whether they concern God, neighbor, or oneself; they can be divided into spiritual and carnal sins, or again as sins in thought, word, deed, or omission. The root of sin is in the heart of man, in his free will, according to the teaching of the Lord: "For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a man."128 But in the heart also resides charity, the source of the good and pure works, which sin wounds.
These are Church documents, written in formal “Church language.” I don’t speak that way. Do you? (No.) To imagine another to be in a state of sin and to announce that, is that a fine and holy, good and proper thing to do? Ah, NO.
If you can’t understand such concepts when I state them in plain English, then perhaps you should do a bit more studying, reflecting, praying. Maybe buy a Catholic dictionary. Look up the word “slander.”
Please, this isn’t GREEK. Are you PRETENDING ignorance???
I’m tired of receiving nonsensical questions.
C
catharina
Guest
Pathetic viewpoint. Truly pitiful.She continually refuses to answer my one question, I don’t think she’ll answer yours. In some minds the modernist people-pleasing view is the word of God. We can’t change that.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
Originally Posted by catharina;2940415e
As Roman Catholics, we are NOT ALLOWED to accuse anyone of being guilty of any specific sin at any given time. Most other Christians are taught the very same thing. It has ALWAYS been that way. Quite likely, it will always be that way. It has ALWAYS been that way. We are the laity. ALWAYS. !
C
catharina
Guest
When did I say it’s in the CCC? You said it must be. Under all of the sins against one’s neighbor, defined in both catechisms, there are a number of sins that qualify as ‘do not (attempt to) declare the state of another’s sinfulness.’ Get a clue. Rome speaks to that - as in the case of Lefebvre and gang.
catharina—internalize your own words. I asked for the section for the statement you made. You are providing non-answers (everything you can come up with but the answer). Provide the section or admit that what you state above is not in the CCC. Continuing with your non-answers will only be admitting that you cannot provide the section and that you are not correct.
Should more sins be listed and should they line up with YOUR choice of vocabulary? Do you understand the word “examen” and the fact that we are called to examine our consciences including offenses against the Ten Commandments. Go find an apologist.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
When did I say it’s in the CCC? You said it must be. Under all of the sins against one’s neighbor, defined in both catechisms, there are a number of sins that qualify as ‘do not (attempt to) declare the state of another’s sinfulness.’ Get a clue. Rome speaks to that - as in the case of Lefebvre and gang.
Should more sins be listed and should they line up with YOUR choice of vocabulary? Do you understand the word “examen” and the fact that we are called to examine our consciences including offenses against the Ten Commandments. Go find an apologist.
Originally Posted by catharina;2940415e
As Roman Catholics, we are NOT ALLOWED to accuse anyone of being guilty of any specific sin at any given time. Most other Christians are taught the very same thing. It has ALWAYS been that way. Quite likely, it will always be that way. It has ALWAYS been that way. We are the laity. ALWAYS. !
You said it was a teaching that has always been —so if it has always been a teaching of the Church—then provide the specific section with that language from the CCC. Your non–answers are only admitting for you— that you are not correct.
C
catharina
Guest
Are you joking? Do you imagine that the CCC and Code of Canon Law are IT, the total package, that those two books define all Church Teaching, both Scripture and Tradition? Read the theologians. Take a course in Ethics, from a Roman Catholic philosopher, study more, pray more. Do what you have to do, but don’t bother me again. Really. I’m not here “to instruct you” while dealing with your chronic insults.
You said it was a teaching that has always been —so if it has always been a teaching of the Church—then provide the specific section with that language from the CCC. Your non–answers are only admitting for you— that you are not correct.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.