Archdiocese pulls Catholic label from Jesuit school for refusing to fire teacher in samesex marriage

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Archdiocese did the right thing. Those indulging in unnatural and perverted acts have no place in Catholic schools. Every archdiocese should do this.

SSPX poster

Oh boy.. I just soooo hope you do play chess because you are just about to loose a game..

Few posts ago you quoted St. Thomas Aquinus who seem to be your role model as far as Fathers of the Church are concerned..
You quoted him saying:


So Mr. SSPX.. if that is what you think a heretic deserves.. to be "eliminated".. then you just might be facing the greatest moral and theological conundrum of your life..
for if you truly believe that Catholic Church is a mother who you are to listen and obey.. and if you believe and you must .. that the Pope is infallible and if he says something, everybody else in the ranks of the church better comply with and embrace, right?
So if the Pope said that homosexuality is not a sin, yet the Archdiocese treats it as such, therefore they are acting in opposition to the Pope.. therefore church's teaching, therefore they are clearly committing a heresy by opposing the highest authority.

So if you were to take the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas literarily yet again then you got a pretty big problem to solve for you
might be dealing with a heresy here.

Check and Mate and a mike drop..

Sweety, you are such an idiot. The Pope is infallible in very limited circumstances. In order for the Pope to be infallible, he must make a statement and by h8s authority as Pope say it is binding on all the faithful. The Catechism of Pius X ( published under Pope Pius X) makes it clear
“57 Q. When is the Pope infallible?
A. The Pope is infallible when, as Pastor and Teacher of all Christians and in virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by all the Church.”

This hasn’t been done since the dogmatic definition of the Bodily Assumption in the 50s. Nothing that any of the recent Popes have said is infallible. A Pope’s o0inion is just that, his opinion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I side with the Church. If you can't represent your company with honesty, find another company. There are a million schools where a person can teach. No Chevy dealer is going to have any credibility if he drives a Lexus. The President of a country shouldn't be a citizen of a different country. Talk the talk? Then walk the walk.

But but but.. haven't Pope Francis only just (January 2019) said.. and I quote:

Pope Francis says homosexual tendencies are ‘not a sin’

https://cruxnow.com/vatican/2019/04/01/pope-francis-says-homosexual-tendencies-are-not-a-sin/

So enlighten me if you will. If homosexual tendencies are not a sin.. and you got a Pope speaking "ex cathedra"
then why in heaven (pan intended) the school was sanctioned.

Francis wasn’t speaking ex cathedra. He gave his opinion but used no authoritative language. Also, this teacher was ACTING on homosexual tendencies ( he didn’t just have them)
In Christ
SSPX poster

He made a statement. That is pretty damn ex cathedra as far as the rest of the world is concerned. He said it for a reason. If he did not mean it, he would not have said right?

You have no freaking clue what ex cathedra means. A Pope saying something doesn’t automatically make it ex cathedra. He must put his authority behind the statement and say it is binding on all the faithful for it to be ex cathedra. From the Catechism of Pius X( published under Pope Pius X)

“57 Q. When is the Pope infallible?
A. The Pope is infallible when, as Pastor and Teacher of all Christians and in virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by all the Church.”

The ignorance of basic theology from Catholics on DCUM would be funny if it wasn’t so sad.
In Christ
SSPX poster

[Anonymous]

Meh.. same difference. You can argue till cows come home if what the Pope said was official or not official. Matter of fact is he did not say what he said as Mr. Bergoglio, a private person but as a Pope. So even if it was done in more casual sense then you would like to believe, it still had been said by the Pope as the Pope. You can still argue that he has a right to an opinion as a private person but then he should make it clear to the rest of the world who is not as educated in Canon Law as yourself to what his statement really is. Did he do that?
He made a statement to the media. If he intended it to be private, then private it should be kept. I am pretty sure he could easily keep it private. So, if he made it public, then it became his public opinion for the public to know.

If however you still argue that his private opinion has no weight towards Church's stance on topics then there is a slight problem which also seems to be developing into a pattern?.. If I recall from the media reports, this is not the first time Pope offended in this way, he said some things in the past to the same effect, something that did not sit well with the most of the faithful. Let me see.. the hell.. the communion and divorced..
right?..

So when a Pope says something he either means it or he does not. If he does then still, the head of the Church said it. If he does not mean it
then why would he say that?

Don't you find it a little bit confusing for the average faithful? Again, if Pope said something, people hard it, so now if what you say is so, he should go back and say, I did not say it as a Pope, I said it as a private person.

Then again, even if you argue the officiality of Pope's statement you still have a problem. If the Pope says something as a private person that does not adhere to the current doctrine then what do you suppose people should do with it? Take it seriously? Ignore it? Search for the meaning? Or be confused?

You are still forgetting that an average person does not have the in=depth theological education and frankly it is not needed. The pope is the father, and so it is. Jesus came to this earth to make it simple, remember what he thought about the overly complicated laws and those who maintained them? I am pretty sure Jesus would not subscribe to the convoluted logic of the cannon law. His message was simple. You are trying to complicate it again. Just as with the inquisition... do you really think even for the moment that Jesus was behind those who did those atrocious acts? I think not. Similarly when you say things that justify horrible acts, you either do it for fun or you are using Jesus name in vain.

Oy!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I side with the Church. If you can't represent your company with honesty, find another company. There are a million schools where a person can teach. No Chevy dealer is going to have any credibility if he drives a Lexus. The President of a country shouldn't be a citizen of a different country. Talk the talk? Then walk the walk.

But but but.. haven't Pope Francis only just (January 2019) said.. and I quote:

Pope Francis says homosexual tendencies are ‘not a sin’

https://cruxnow.com/vatican/2019/04/01/pope-francis-says-homosexual-tendencies-are-not-a-sin/

So enlighten me if you will. If homosexual tendencies are not a sin.. and you got a Pope speaking "ex cathedra"
then why in heaven (pan intended) the school was sanctioned.

Francis wasn’t speaking ex cathedra. He gave his opinion but used no authoritative language. Also, this teacher was ACTING on homosexual tendencies ( he didn’t just have them)
In Christ
SSPX poster

He made a statement. That is pretty damn ex cathedra as far as the rest of the world is concerned. He said it for a reason. If he did not mean it, he would not have said right?

You have no freaking clue what ex cathedra means. A Pope saying something doesn’t automatically make it ex cathedra. He must put his authority behind the statement and say it is binding on all the faithful for it to be ex cathedra. From the Catechism of Pius X( published under Pope Pius X)

“57 Q. When is the Pope infallible?
A. The Pope is infallible when, as Pastor and Teacher of all Christians and in virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by all the Church.”

The ignorance of basic theology from Catholics on DCUM would be funny if it wasn’t so sad.
In Christ
SSPX poster

Yet the same Christ you claim to be "In", fought the theology of his time with simple parables and his simple message
"love one another", and .. he won every single time. Because as you see.. at the end of the day, it is not about the books, it is not about the philosophy or theology.. it is about simple acts of love. You sign Christs name, but what did you do today or yesterday in his name to be in his image.. did you feed the hungry, clothed the needy, did you visit someone sick, did you post a caring answer on DCUM?
Or do you spray hate, justify horrible things done to people who did nothing wrong.

Peace with you. If anyone needs a prayer on this forum, you might be one who needs it the most.

[Anonymous]

Jesus came to make the complicated things simple again..

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I side with the Church. If you can't represent your company with honesty, find another company. There are a million schools where a person can teach. No Chevy dealer is going to have any credibility if he drives a Lexus. The President of a country shouldn't be a citizen of a different country. Talk the talk? Then walk the walk.

But but but.. haven't Pope Francis only just (January 2019) said.. and I quote:

Pope Francis says homosexual tendencies are ‘not a sin’

https://cruxnow.com/vatican/2019/04/01/pope-francis-says-homosexual-tendencies-are-not-a-sin/

So enlighten me if you will. If homosexual tendencies are not a sin.. and you got a Pope speaking "ex cathedra"
then why in heaven (pan intended) the school was sanctioned.

Francis wasn’t speaking ex cathedra. He gave his opinion but used no authoritative language. Also, this teacher was ACTING on homosexual tendencies ( he didn’t just have them)
In Christ
SSPX poster

He made a statement. That is pretty damn ex cathedra as far as the rest of the world is concerned. He said it for a reason. If he did not mean it, he would not have said right?

You have no freaking clue what ex cathedra means. A Pope saying something doesn’t automatically make it ex cathedra. He must put his authority behind the statement and say it is binding on all the faithful for it to be ex cathedra. From the Catechism of Pius X( published under Pope Pius X)

“57 Q. When is the Pope infallible?
A. The Pope is infallible when, as Pastor and Teacher of all Christians and in virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by all the Church.”

The ignorance of basic theology from Catholics on DCUM would be funny if it wasn’t so sad.
In Christ
SSPX poster

Yet the same Christ you claim to be "In", fought the theology of his time with simple parables and his simple message
"love one another", and .. he won every single time. Because as you see.. at the end of the day, it is not about the books, it is not about the philosophy or theology.. it is about simple acts of love. You sign Christs name, but what did you do today or yesterday in his name to be in his image.. did you feed the hungry, clothed the needy, did you visit someone sick, did you post a caring answer on DCUM?
Or do you spray hate, justify horrible things done to people who did nothing wrong.

Peace with you. If anyone needs a prayer on this forum, you might be one who needs it the most.

Hear Christ’s words in Luke 19:27

“27 But bring here those enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, and slay them before me.’ ”
In Christ
SSPX poster

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Meh.. same difference. You can argue till cows come home if what the Pope said was official or not official. Matter of fact is he did not say what he said as Mr. Bergoglio, a private person but as a Pope. So even if it was done in more casual sense then you would like to believe, it still had been said by the Pope as the Pope. You can still argue that he has a right to an opinion as a private person but then he should make it clear to the rest of the world who is not as educated in Canon Law as yourself to what his statement really is. Did he do that?
He made a statement to the media. If he intended it to be private, then private it should be kept. I am pretty sure he could easily keep it private. So, if he made it public, then it became his public opinion for the public to know.

If however you still argue that his private opinion has no weight towards Church's stance on topics then there is a slight problem which also seems to be developing into a pattern?.. If I recall from the media reports, this is not the first time Pope offended in this way, he said some things in the past to the same effect, something that did not sit well with the most of the faithful. Let me see.. the hell.. the communion and divorced..
right?..

So when a Pope says something he either means it or he does not. If he does then still, the head of the Church said it. If he does not mean it
then why would he say that?

Don't you find it a little bit confusing for the average faithful? Again, if Pope said something, people hard it, so now if what you say is so, he should go back and say, I did not say it as a Pope, I said it as a private person.

Then again, even if you argue the officiality of Pope's statement you still have a problem. If the Pope says something as a private person that does not adhere to the current doctrine then what do you suppose people should do with it? Take it seriously? Ignore it? Search for the meaning? Or be confused?

You are still forgetting that an average person does not have the in=depth theological education and frankly it is not needed. The pope is the father, and so it is. Jesus came to this earth to make it simple, remember what he thought about the overly complicated laws and those who maintained them? I am pretty sure Jesus would not subscribe to the convoluted logic of the cannon law. His message was simple. You are trying to complicate it again. Just as with the inquisition... do you really think even for the moment that Jesus was behind those who did those atrocious acts? I think not. Similarly when you say things that justify horrible acts, you either do it for fun or you are using Jesus name in vain.

Oy!

This is a bunch of drivel. Catholic theology is clear and objective. Catholicism isn’t based on sentimentalism or subjective feelings. Again, hear Christ’s own words
“But bring here those enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, and slay them before me.’ ”
In Christ
SSPX poster

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I side with the Church. If you can't represent your company with honesty, find another company. There are a million schools where a person can teach. No Chevy dealer is going to have any credibility if he drives a Lexus. The President of a country shouldn't be a citizen of a different country. Talk the talk? Then walk the walk.

But but but.. haven't Pope Francis only just (January 2019) said.. and I quote:

Pope Francis says homosexual tendencies are ‘not a sin’

https://cruxnow.com/vatican/2019/04/01/pope-francis-says-homosexual-tendencies-are-not-a-sin/

So enlighten me if you will. If homosexual tendencies are not a sin.. and you got a Pope speaking "ex cathedra"
then why in heaven (pan intended) the school was sanctioned.

Francis wasn’t speaking ex cathedra. He gave his opinion but used no authoritative language. Also, this teacher was ACTING on homosexual tendencies ( he didn’t just have them)
In Christ
SSPX poster

He made a statement. That is pretty damn ex cathedra as far as the rest of the world is concerned. He said it for a reason. If he did not mean it, he would not have said right?

You have no freaking clue what ex cathedra means. A Pope saying something doesn’t automatically make it ex cathedra. He must put his authority behind the statement and say it is binding on all the faithful for it to be ex cathedra. From the Catechism of Pius X( published under Pope Pius X)

“57 Q. When is the Pope infallible?
A. The Pope is infallible when, as Pastor and Teacher of all Christians and in virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by all the Church.”

The ignorance of basic theology from Catholics on DCUM would be funny if it wasn’t so sad.
In Christ
SSPX poster

Yet the same Christ you claim to be "In", fought the theology of his time with simple parables and his simple message
"love one another", and .. he won every single time. Because as you see.. at the end of the day, it is not about the books, it is not about the philosophy or theology.. it is about simple acts of love. You sign Christs name, but what did you do today or yesterday in his name to be in his image.. did you feed the hungry, clothed the needy, did you visit someone sick, did you post a caring answer on DCUM?
Or do you spray hate, justify horrible things done to people who did nothing wrong.

Peace with you. If anyone needs a prayer on this forum, you might be one who needs it the most.

Hear Christ’s words in Luke 19:27

“27 But bring here those enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, and slay them before me.’ ”
In Christ
SSPX poster

Ahahaa.. okay, you think you can pull a fast one? Well, you could if I did not know any better about when the Luke's Gospel has been written.
Do you even want to go there? Because for one, if something does not sounds like Christ could say it then he probably did not. Right?
Just read the Luke again and see if you hear Jesus in them.

Autographs (original copies) of Luke and the other Gospels have not been preserved, as is typical for ancient documents; the texts that survive are third-generation copies, with no two completely identical.[15] The earliest witnesses (the technical term for written manuscripts) for Luke's gospel fall into two "families" with considerable differences between them, the Western and the Alexandrian, and the dominant view is that the Western text represents a process of deliberate revision, as the variations seem to form specific patterns.[16] The fragment
4 is often cited as the oldest witness. It has been dated from the late 2nd century, although this dating is disputed. The oldest complete texts are the 4th century Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, both from the Alexandrian family; Codex Bezae, a 5th- or 6th-century Western text-type manuscript that contains Luke in Greek and Latin versions on facing pages, appears to have descended from an offshoot of the main manuscript tradition, departing from more familiar readings at many points. Codex Bezae shows comprehensively the differences between the versions which show no core theological significance.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Luke

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I side with the Church. If you can't represent your company with honesty, find another company. There are a million schools where a person can teach. No Chevy dealer is going to have any credibility if he drives a Lexus. The President of a country shouldn't be a citizen of a different country. Talk the talk? Then walk the walk.

But but but.. haven't Pope Francis only just (January 2019) said.. and I quote:

Pope Francis says homosexual tendencies are ‘not a sin’

https://cruxnow.com/vatican/2019/04/01/pope-francis-says-homosexual-tendencies-are-not-a-sin/

So enlighten me if you will. If homosexual tendencies are not a sin.. and you got a Pope speaking "ex cathedra"
then why in heaven (pan intended) the school was sanctioned.

Francis wasn’t speaking ex cathedra. He gave his opinion but used no authoritative language. Also, this teacher was ACTING on homosexual tendencies ( he didn’t just have them)
In Christ
SSPX poster

He made a statement. That is pretty damn ex cathedra as far as the rest of the world is concerned. He said it for a reason. If he did not mean it, he would not have said right?

You have no freaking clue what ex cathedra means. A Pope saying something doesn’t automatically make it ex cathedra. He must put his authority behind the statement and say it is binding on all the faithful for it to be ex cathedra. From the Catechism of Pius X( published under Pope Pius X)

“57 Q. When is the Pope infallible?
A. The Pope is infallible when, as Pastor and Teacher of all Christians and in virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by all the Church.”

The ignorance of basic theology from Catholics on DCUM would be funny if it wasn’t so sad.
In Christ
SSPX poster

Yet the same Christ you claim to be "In", fought the theology of his time with simple parables and his simple message
"love one another", and .. he won every single time. Because as you see.. at the end of the day, it is not about the books, it is not about the philosophy or theology.. it is about simple acts of love. You sign Christs name, but what did you do today or yesterday in his name to be in his image.. did you feed the hungry, clothed the needy, did you visit someone sick, did you post a caring answer on DCUM?
Or do you spray hate, justify horrible things done to people who did nothing wrong.

Peace with you. If anyone needs a prayer on this forum, you might be one who needs it the most.

Hear Christ’s words in Luke 19:27

“27 But bring here those enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, and slay them before me.’ ”
In Christ
SSPX poster

Ahahaa.. okay, you think you can pull a fast one? Well, you could if I did not know any better about when the Luke's Gospel has been written.
Do you even want to go there? Because for one, if something does not sounds like Christ could say it then he probably did not. Right?
Just read the Luke again and see if you hear Jesus in them.

Autographs (original copies) of Luke and the other Gospels have not been preserved, as is typical for ancient documents; the texts that survive are third-generation copies, with no two completely identical.[15] The earliest witnesses (the technical term for written manuscripts) for Luke's gospel fall into two "families" with considerable differences between them, the Western and the Alexandrian, and the dominant view is that the Western text represents a process of deliberate revision, as the variations seem to form specific patterns.[16] The fragment
4 is often cited as the oldest witness. It has been dated from the late 2nd century, although this dating is disputed. The oldest complete texts are the 4th century Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, both from the Alexandrian family; Codex Bezae, a 5th- or 6th-century Western text-type manuscript that contains Luke in Greek and Latin versions on facing pages, appears to have descended from an offshoot of the main manuscript tradition, departing from more familiar readings at many points. Codex Bezae shows comprehensively the differences between the versions which show no core theological significance.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Luke

Not shocked at all. I’ve heard this all before.You are a heretic who doesn’t even believe in the authenticity of the Gospels. Going further with you would be a waste of time. I’ll pray for your conversion.
In Christ
SSPX poster

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Meh.. same difference. You can argue till cows come home if what the Pope said was official or not official. Matter of fact is he did not say what he said as Mr. Bergoglio, a private person but as a Pope. So even if it was done in more casual sense then you would like to believe, it still had been said by the Pope as the Pope. You can still argue that he has a right to an opinion as a private person but then he should make it clear to the rest of the world who is not as educated in Canon Law as yourself to what his statement really is. Did he do that?
He made a statement to the media. If he intended it to be private, then private it should be kept. I am pretty sure he could easily keep it private. So, if he made it public, then it became his public opinion for the public to know.

If however you still argue that his private opinion has no weight towards Church's stance on topics then there is a slight problem which also seems to be developing into a pattern?.. If I recall from the media reports, this is not the first time Pope offended in this way, he said some things in the past to the same effect, something that did not sit well with the most of the faithful. Let me see.. the hell.. the communion and divorced..
right?..

So when a Pope says something he either means it or he does not. If he does then still, the head of the Church said it. If he does not mean it
then why would he say that?

Don't you find it a little bit confusing for the average faithful? Again, if Pope said something, people hard it, so now if what you say is so, he should go back and say, I did not say it as a Pope, I said it as a private person.

Then again, even if you argue the officiality of Pope's statement you still have a problem. If the Pope says something as a private person that does not adhere to the current doctrine then what do you suppose people should do with it? Take it seriously? Ignore it? Search for the meaning? Or be confused?

You are still forgetting that an average person does not have the in=depth theological education and frankly it is not needed. The pope is the father, and so it is. Jesus came to this earth to make it simple, remember what he thought about the overly complicated laws and those who maintained them? I am pretty sure Jesus would not subscribe to the convoluted logic of the cannon law. His message was simple. You are trying to complicate it again. Just as with the inquisition... do you really think even for the moment that Jesus was behind those who did those atrocious acts? I think not. Similarly when you say things that justify horrible acts, you either do it for fun or you are using Jesus name in vain.

Oy!

This is a bunch of drivel. Catholic theology is clear and objective. Catholicism isn’t based on sentimentalism or subjective feelings. Again, hear Christ’s own words
“But bring here those enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, and slay them before me.’ ”
In Christ
SSPX poster

Holly Conclave!!!!
You keep posting such ridiculous statements like the two above and below..
Catholic theology is clear and objective. + Catholicism isn’t based on sentimentalism or subjective feelings.

One can either appreciate the mastery of your fancy art of trying to inflict as much damage to the faithful under the guise of Christian , in as little words as possible, or one can try to put the logic where it belongs. However I feel that you are entirely capable of doing it yourself and it is pretty much waste of time. You are to intelligent not to know how unintelligent your posts are so that leaves one with the notions that you have some sort of agenda that I am pretty sure people do not want to be part of.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I side with the Church. If you can't represent your company with honesty, find another company. There are a million schools where a person can teach. No Chevy dealer is going to have any credibility if he drives a Lexus. The President of a country shouldn't be a citizen of a different country. Talk the talk? Then walk the walk.

But but but.. haven't Pope Francis only just (January 2019) said.. and I quote:

Pope Francis says homosexual tendencies are ‘not a sin’

https://cruxnow.com/vatican/2019/04/01/pope-francis-says-homosexual-tendencies-are-not-a-sin/

So enlighten me if you will. If homosexual tendencies are not a sin.. and you got a Pope speaking "ex cathedra"
then why in heaven (pan intended) the school was sanctioned.

Francis wasn’t speaking ex cathedra. He gave his opinion but used no authoritative language. Also, this teacher was ACTING on homosexual tendencies ( he didn’t just have them)
In Christ
SSPX poster

He made a statement. That is pretty damn ex cathedra as far as the rest of the world is concerned. He said it for a reason. If he did not mean it, he would not have said right?

You have no freaking clue what ex cathedra means. A Pope saying something doesn’t automatically make it ex cathedra. He must put his authority behind the statement and say it is binding on all the faithful for it to be ex cathedra. From the Catechism of Pius X( published under Pope Pius X)

“57 Q. When is the Pope infallible?
A. The Pope is infallible when, as Pastor and Teacher of all Christians and in virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by all the Church.”

The ignorance of basic theology from Catholics on DCUM would be funny if it wasn’t so sad.
In Christ
SSPX poster

Yet the same Christ you claim to be "In", fought the theology of his time with simple parables and his simple message
"love one another", and .. he won every single time. Because as you see.. at the end of the day, it is not about the books, it is not about the philosophy or theology.. it is about simple acts of love. You sign Christs name, but what did you do today or yesterday in his name to be in his image.. did you feed the hungry, clothed the needy, did you visit someone sick, did you post a caring answer on DCUM?
Or do you spray hate, justify horrible things done to people who did nothing wrong.

Peace with you. If anyone needs a prayer on this forum, you might be one who needs it the most.

Hear Christ’s words in Luke 19:27

“27 But bring here those enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, and slay them before me.’ ”
In Christ
SSPX poster

Ahahaa.. okay, you think you can pull a fast one? Well, you could if I did not know any better about when the Luke's Gospel has been written.
Do you even want to go there? Because for one, if something does not sounds like Christ could say it then he probably did not. Right?
Just read the Luke again and see if you hear Jesus in them.

Autographs (original copies) of Luke and the other Gospels have not been preserved, as is typical for ancient documents; the texts that survive are third-generation copies, with no two completely identical.[15] The earliest witnesses (the technical term for written manuscripts) for Luke's gospel fall into two "families" with considerable differences between them, the Western and the Alexandrian, and the dominant view is that the Western text represents a process of deliberate revision, as the variations seem to form specific patterns.[16] The fragment
4 is often cited as the oldest witness. It has been dated from the late 2nd century, although this dating is disputed. The oldest complete texts are the 4th century Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, both from the Alexandrian family; Codex Bezae, a 5th- or 6th-century Western text-type manuscript that contains Luke in Greek and Latin versions on facing pages, appears to have descended from an offshoot of the main manuscript tradition, departing from more familiar readings at many points. Codex Bezae shows comprehensively the differences between the versions which show no core theological significance.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Luke

Not shocked at all. I’ve heard this all before.You are a heretic who doesn’t even believe in the authenticity of the Gospels. Going further with you would be a waste of time. I’ll pray for your conversion.
In Christ
SSPX poster

Ouuh.. so we pretty much mutually arrived to the same conclusion, you have met a match and you gave up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Meh.. same difference. You can argue till cows come home if what the Pope said was official or not official. Matter of fact is he did not say what he said as Mr. Bergoglio, a private person but as a Pope. So even if it was done in more casual sense then you would like to believe, it still had been said by the Pope as the Pope. You can still argue that he has a right to an opinion as a private person but then he should make it clear to the rest of the world who is not as educated in Canon Law as yourself to what his statement really is. Did he do that?
He made a statement to the media. If he intended it to be private, then private it should be kept. I am pretty sure he could easily keep it private. So, if he made it public, then it became his public opinion for the public to know.

If however you still argue that his private opinion has no weight towards Church's stance on topics then there is a slight problem which also seems to be developing into a pattern?.. If I recall from the media reports, this is not the first time Pope offended in this way, he said some things in the past to the same effect, something that did not sit well with the most of the faithful. Let me see.. the hell.. the communion and divorced..
right?..

So when a Pope says something he either means it or he does not. If he does then still, the head of the Church said it. If he does not mean it
then why would he say that?

Don't you find it a little bit confusing for the average faithful? Again, if Pope said something, people hard it, so now if what you say is so, he should go back and say, I did not say it as a Pope, I said it as a private person.

Then again, even if you argue the officiality of Pope's statement you still have a problem. If the Pope says something as a private person that does not adhere to the current doctrine then what do you suppose people should do with it? Take it seriously? Ignore it? Search for the meaning? Or be confused?

You are still forgetting that an average person does not have the in=depth theological education and frankly it is not needed. The pope is the father, and so it is. Jesus came to this earth to make it simple, remember what he thought about the overly complicated laws and those who maintained them? I am pretty sure Jesus would not subscribe to the convoluted logic of the cannon law. His message was simple. You are trying to complicate it again. Just as with the inquisition... do you really think even for the moment that Jesus was behind those who did those atrocious acts? I think not. Similarly when you say things that justify horrible acts, you either do it for fun or you are using Jesus name in vain.

Oy!

This is a bunch of drivel. Catholic theology is clear and objective. Catholicism isn’t based on sentimentalism or subjective feelings. Again, hear Christ’s own words
“But bring here those enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, and slay them before me.’ ”
In Christ
SSPX poster

Holly Conclave!!!!
You keep posting such ridiculous statements like the two above and below..
Catholic theology is clear and objective. + Catholicism isn’t based on sentimentalism or subjective feelings.

One can either appreciate the mastery of your fancy art of trying to inflict as much damage to the faithful under the guise of Christian , in as little words as possible, or one can try to put the logic where it belongs. However I feel that you are entirely capable of doing it yourself and it is pretty much waste of time. You are to intelligent not to know how unintelligent your posts are so that leaves one with the notions that you have some sort of agenda that I am pretty sure people do not want to be part of.

I think DCUM is largely a waste of time as well but it helps to have a real Catholic among the liberal heretics. I’ll pray for your conversion
In Christ
SSPX poster

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I side with the Church. If you can't represent your company with honesty, find another company. There are a million schools where a person can teach. No Chevy dealer is going to have any credibility if he drives a Lexus. The President of a country shouldn't be a citizen of a different country. Talk the talk? Then walk the walk.

But but but.. haven't Pope Francis only just (January 2019) said.. and I quote:

Pope Francis says homosexual tendencies are ‘not a sin’

https://cruxnow.com/vatican/2019/04/01/pope-francis-says-homosexual-tendencies-are-not-a-sin/

So enlighten me if you will. If homosexual tendencies are not a sin.. and you got a Pope speaking "ex cathedra"
then why in heaven (pan intended) the school was sanctioned.

Francis wasn’t speaking ex cathedra. He gave his opinion but used no authoritative language. Also, this teacher was ACTING on homosexual tendencies ( he didn’t just have them)
In Christ
SSPX poster

He made a statement. That is pretty damn ex cathedra as far as the rest of the world is concerned. He said it for a reason. If he did not mean it, he would not have said right?

You have no freaking clue what ex cathedra means. A Pope saying something doesn’t automatically make it ex cathedra. He must put his authority behind the statement and say it is binding on all the faithful for it to be ex cathedra. From the Catechism of Pius X( published under Pope Pius X)

“57 Q. When is the Pope infallible?
A. The Pope is infallible when, as Pastor and Teacher of all Christians and in virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by all the Church.”

The ignorance of basic theology from Catholics on DCUM would be funny if it wasn’t so sad.
In Christ
SSPX poster

Yet the same Christ you claim to be "In", fought the theology of his time with simple parables and his simple message
"love one another", and .. he won every single time. Because as you see.. at the end of the day, it is not about the books, it is not about the philosophy or theology.. it is about simple acts of love. You sign Christs name, but what did you do today or yesterday in his name to be in his image.. did you feed the hungry, clothed the needy, did you visit someone sick, did you post a caring answer on DCUM?
Or do you spray hate, justify horrible things done to people who did nothing wrong.

Peace with you. If anyone needs a prayer on this forum, you might be one who needs it the most.

Hear Christ’s words in Luke 19:27

“27 But bring here those enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, and slay them before me.’ ”
In Christ
SSPX poster

Ahahaa.. okay, you think you can pull a fast one? Well, you could if I did not know any better about when the Luke's Gospel has been written.
Do you even want to go there? Because for one, if something does not sounds like Christ could say it then he probably did not. Right?
Just read the Luke again and see if you hear Jesus in them.

Autographs (original copies) of Luke and the other Gospels have not been preserved, as is typical for ancient documents; the texts that survive are third-generation copies, with no two completely identical.[15] The earliest witnesses (the technical term for written manuscripts) for Luke's gospel fall into two "families" with considerable differences between them, the Western and the Alexandrian, and the dominant view is that the Western text represents a process of deliberate revision, as the variations seem to form specific patterns.[16] The fragment
4 is often cited as the oldest witness. It has been dated from the late 2nd century, although this dating is disputed. The oldest complete texts are the 4th century Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, both from the Alexandrian family; Codex Bezae, a 5th- or 6th-century Western text-type manuscript that contains Luke in Greek and Latin versions on facing pages, appears to have descended from an offshoot of the main manuscript tradition, departing from more familiar readings at many points. Codex Bezae shows comprehensively the differences between the versions which show no core theological significance.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Luke

Not shocked at all. I’ve heard this all before. You are a heretic who doesn’t even believe in the authenticity of the Gospels. Going further with you would be a waste of time. I’ll pray for your conversion.
In Christ
SSPX poster

Oh before I go I just have to give it a try: the authenticity of the Gospels

Well, for one it is hart to be a heretic before one had been a believer. The word heretic is reserved for those who are believers and then they drift away this way or another... saying things that oppose the original religion they practice or practiced more less right? So.. just because I know this or that does not mean I am either believer or material for heretic or actual heretic. Then again, as someone one said, not all believers will go to heaven, and not all heretics will go to hell, we both might be just the pair.

So.. where were we.. aha.. : the authenticity of the Gospels

So first of all we would need to agree on the meaning of the term Gospel and then we would need to discuss what the authentic mean comes to an ancient texts. Then of course we need to go back and do a little chronology check and see who lived when and where.. and if we start with Jesus himself, and then we lip to those who did write Gospels there is a wee bit of time break anywhere you slice it. So.. what really is authentic? Is it what Jesus said, is it what Gospel writer wrote or is it what the Church tradition cared to pass to our times?

Hm.. I guess we can go on or stop here. As you see I can totally go on but I suppose but as you stated above you are done so let's stop here.

[Anonymous]

^Hard, hard to be heretic, no hart.