Cardinal Theodore McCarrick Resigns

[LightAngel]

 

 

Harrisburg bishop names clergy accused of child sex abuse.

 

 

 

[Noxasa]

3 hours ago, DieChecker said:

It almost sounds like you are throwing out your own brand of Catholic theology. Which... I'm totally fine with. It doesn't mean though that you were right when you attempted to speak for all Catholics though.

You aren't a Priest, or have a degree in Theology, do you? Just asking....  I certainly don't. 

No, there is no "your own brand of Catholic theology" in the core theological concepts of Catholicism within the Church, at least none that are truly sanctioned by the Church.  Some theological concepts on the edges of Catholic theology can vary because the Church has not determined their validity (if possible,) but the core aspects of Catholic theology surrounding the well established sacraments have been well established for well over a thousand years.  

However some people, even laymen Catholics, only understand the simplest forms of the theological basis' for the Sacraments or Catholic theology in general.  This often leads to misunderstandings of the underlying theological concepts that a more studied eye would understand.  It's not bad that someone may only be capable of simple understandings of underlying theology as long as their heart is in the right state of grace in wanting to establish a relationship with God at their individual capabilities.  Not everyone can be a Thomas Aquinas in practicing Catholicism.  People do the best they can based on their individual condition and situation (i.e. culture, education, emotional, intelligence, etc.)

What I see you describing in your posts about Catholic theology are errors based on basic misunderstandings of those simple representations of Catholic theology.  It's probably not your fault as you seem sincere in wanting to understand the concepts, but they are errors nonetheless.  

No, I am not a Priest, as if that matters since I've seen many Priests that do not have deep theological understandings of scripture or traditions.  Priests come in all forms, from the highly educated to the simplest shepherds.  Being a Priest does not guarantee deep understandings of Catholic theology, although they should be above average in their understandings.  But, in fact, some are not.  Still, plenty of laypeople have much deeper understandings of Catholic theology than many Priests.

I've spent decades studying all aspects of Christian theology, both Protestant and Catholic, from various theological schools in Protestantism (i.e. Calvinism, Lutheranism, Baptism and its sub-denominational schools of thought such as Dispensationalism and free-grace theology, etc.) to traditional Catholicism and have even explored the approach of some orders in the Catholic faith such as the Jesuits and others.  But for the purposes of understanding Catholicism's core theology, the precepts are very well established in the Church and you can openly find them if you look in the right places.

Quote

Can you show me where that is truly a Catholic belief? Got a website?

Well, the best places to start would be the Catholic Catechism.  The webpage http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P4A.HTM describes that the theological concept that penance occurs in the heart first, to which no physical act (even the sacrament of penance) is meaningful if the heart is not in a state of graceful repentance (or what they call perfect contrition) inspiring those free will acts of penance.

Also, the concept that one is forgiven of a mortal sin at the time of contrition (i.e. the changed heart of the repentant sinner) is described in CCC 1452 (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P4D.HTM) and such forgiveness does not require the act of penance for the state of forgiveness, by God, to exist.  Only the sincere desire to follow God's graceful influences unto acts of contrition (i.e. sacrament of penance) is necessary for the forgiveness of sin by God.  Like I said, the sacrament of penance is the completion of that which has already occurred in the heart of the truly repentant sinner.  After all, God would know your heart regardless of what your outward actions are, even if aligned with Catholic practices.  Without the interior state of grace in someone's heart any outward acts (even sacraments) mean nothing.

Quote

I did some reading and there is "perfect contrition", but as far as I could find online, it is supposed to be WAY rare and generally this is beyond what most people are capable of. And thus usually the Priest is required in Confession.

You may have noticed the term "perfect contrition" in the above links but I think you have an incorrect view of what that is.  Perfect contrition is only the desire to do what God wants you to do to return to a full relationship with him.  It doesn't mean that someone is perfectly walking with God at the time they become contrite for their sin.  It doesn't even mean they specifically know what to do to "fully" reestablish their relationship with God.  It only describes the sorrow for the sinful act and a desire to seek and return to God based on the graceful influences of the Holy Spirit which, guided by the Church's sacraments as taught by Christ, can return someone to the fullness of living in Christ/God.  In a way, perfect contrition is a state of perfected desire and penance is the process by which we perfect our repentance and fully re-establish our relationship with God (including the Church) using the physical tools that Jesus left his Church for this purpose.  Why do we need physical tools for this you may ask?  Because it's the nature of our being that we are not entirely spiritual, or intellectual, emotional or even physical.  We are all of those things combined and all of those things must be satisfied to perfect repentance because it is all of those things that become shattered when we commit serious acts against God. 

Anyhow, I could go on but I think if you read the entire section on penance in the catechism you may gain a better understanding of the sacrament.  But I warn you, some of the concepts described can be understood both simply and in a much deeper way.  Some concepts take some time to study and understand properly.  Even reading other theological writings by other modern day theologians can be helpful in understanding those concepts from a theological point-of-view.  

To those that do not believe in God this will all seem like a bunch of hokus-pokus nonsense which is understandable from a worldly point-of-view.  God calls people to these understandings and no one can force someone to believe in the hope that God brings through faith.  Such influences by God through the Holy Spirit, or lack thereof, is not for me to judge.

[+DieChecker]

I'm going to digest that and get back to you if I need to. 

[LightAngel]

 

I wish all churches could be shelters for people in need.

 

[+joc]

22 hours ago, Noxasa said:

No, there is no "your own brand of Catholic theology" in the core theological concepts of Catholicism within the Church, at least none that are truly sanctioned by the Church.  Some theological concepts on the edges of Catholic theology can vary because the Church has not determined their validity (if possible,) but the core aspects of Catholic theology surrounding the well established sacraments have been well established for well over a thousand years.  

However some people, even laymen Catholics, only understand the simplest forms of the theological basis' for the Sacraments or Catholic theology in general.  This often leads to misunderstandings of the underlying theological concepts that a more studied eye would understand.  It's not bad that someone may only be capable of simple understandings of underlying theology as long as their heart is in the right state of grace in wanting to establish a relationship with God at their individual capabilities.  Not everyone can be a Thomas Aquinas in practicing Catholicism.  People do the best they can based on their individual condition and situation (i.e. culture, education, emotional, intelligence, etc.)

What I see you describing in your posts about Catholic theology are errors based on basic misunderstandings of those simple representations of Catholic theology.  It's probably not your fault as you seem sincere in wanting to understand the concepts, but they are errors nonetheless.  

No, I am not a Priest, as if that matters since I've seen many Priests that do not have deep theological understandings of scripture or traditions.  Priests come in all forms, from the highly educated to the simplest shepherds.  Being a Priest does not guarantee deep understandings of Catholic theology, although they should be above average in their understandings.  But, in fact, some are not.  Still, plenty of laypeople have much deeper understandings of Catholic theology than many Priests.

I've spent decades studying all aspects of Christian theology, both Protestant and Catholic, from various theological schools in Protestantism (i.e. Calvinism, Lutheranism, Baptism and its sub-denominational schools of thought such as Dispensationalism and free-grace theology, etc.) to traditional Catholicism and have even explored the approach of some orders in the Catholic faith such as the Jesuits and others.  But for the purposes of understanding Catholicism's core theology, the precepts are very well established in the Church and you can openly find them if you look in the right places.

Well, the best places to start would be the Catholic Catechism.  The webpage http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P4A.HTM describes that the theological concept that penance occurs in the heart first, to which no physical act (even the sacrament of penance) is meaningful if the heart is not in a state of graceful repentance (or what they call perfect contrition) inspiring those free will acts of penance.

Also, the concept that one is forgiven of a mortal sin at the time of contrition (i.e. the changed heart of the repentant sinner) is described in CCC 1452 (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P4D.HTM) and such forgiveness does not require the act of penance for the state of forgiveness, by God, to exist.  Only the sincere desire to follow God's graceful influences unto acts of contrition (i.e. sacrament of penance) is necessary for the forgiveness of sin by God.  Like I said, the sacrament of penance is the completion of that which has already occurred in the heart of the truly repentant sinner.  After all, God would know your heart regardless of what your outward actions are, even if aligned with Catholic practices.  Without the interior state of grace in someone's heart any outward acts (even sacraments) mean nothing.

You may have noticed the term "perfect contrition" in the above links but I think you have an incorrect view of what that is.  Perfect contrition is only the desire to do what God wants you to do to return to a full relationship with him.  It doesn't mean that someone is perfectly walking with God at the time they become contrite for their sin.  It doesn't even mean they specifically know what to do to "fully" reestablish their relationship with God.  It only describes the sorrow for the sinful act and a desire to seek and return to God based on the graceful influences of the Holy Spirit which, guided by the Church's sacraments as taught by Christ, can return someone to the fullness of living in Christ/God.  In a way, perfect contrition is a state of perfected desire and penance is the process by which we perfect our repentance and fully re-establish our relationship with God (including the Church) using the physical tools that Jesus left his Church for this purpose.  Why do we need physical tools for this you may ask?  Because it's the nature of our being that we are not entirely spiritual, or intellectual, emotional or even physical.  We are all of those things combined and all of those things must be satisfied to perfect repentance because it is all of those things that become shattered when we commit serious acts against God. 

Anyhow, I could go on but I think if you read the entire section on penance in the catechism you may gain a better understanding of the sacrament.  But I warn you, some of the concepts described can be understood both simply and in a much deeper way.  Some concepts take some time to study and understand properly.  Even reading other theological writings by other modern day theologians can be helpful in understanding those concepts from a theological point-of-view.  

To those that do not believe in God this will all seem like a bunch of hokus-pokus nonsense which is understandable from a worldly point-of-view.  God calls people to these understandings and no one can force someone to believe in the hope that God brings through faith.  Such influences by God through the Holy Spirit, or lack thereof, is not for me to judge.

Let me boil Catholicism down to its bittersweet self.

Peter and company stole the body of Jesus from the tomb.  Somewhere within the walls of the Vatican, in a vault are the bones. The Pope is a fraud. Priests are frauds.

Thank you!

[Noxasa]

16 hours ago, joc said:

Let me boil Catholicism down to its bittersweet self.

Peter and company stole the body of Jesus from the tomb.  Somewhere within the walls of the Vatican, in a vault are the bones. The Pope is a fraud. Priests are frauds.

Thank you!

Yes, all so they could live in poverty for the rest of their lives while evangelizing what they knew was a lie and would ultimately result in their crucifixion.  That makes a lot of sense, bravo to you! 

Oh and let's not forget Apostle Paul: A Jew with Roman Citizenship who became a well known persecutor of Christians and then gave it all up to tell a lie and live a life of poverty as an Christian missionary which resulted in him being an outcast and outlaw in Roman society.  Oh and of course there was the great benefit of his death by crucifixion as well. 

Boy, those apostles sure pulled on over on mankind for their own benefit!  They were geniuses when it came to grifting society out of...well...something...

BTW: That's not only Catholicism, that's all of Christianity.

Thank You!

[+joc]

10 hours ago, Noxasa said:

Yes, all so they could live in poverty for the rest of their lives while evangelizing what they knew was a lie and would ultimately result in their crucifixion.  That makes a lot of sense, bravo to you! 

Oh and let's not forget Apostle Paul: A Jew with Roman Citizenship who became a well known persecutor of Christians and then gave it all up to tell a lie and live a life of poverty as an Christian missionary which resulted in him being an outcast and outlaw in Roman society.  Oh and of course there was the great benefit of his death by crucifixion as well. 

Boy, those apostles sure pulled on over on mankind for their own benefit!  They were geniuses when it came to grifting society out of...well...something...

BTW: That's not only Catholicism, that's all of Christianity.

Thank You!

Peter stole the Corpus Christi.

The Romans did not crucify him upside down because he claimed the resurrection. He was crucified upside down as an example. Do not make a mockery of Caesar. Paul believed it because he had an epiphany based on guilt. All of the apostles were marked men. Who among them would break the code of silence and admit to stealing Corpus Christi...tbe body of Christ.

[Noxasa]

23 hours ago, joc said:

Peter stole the Corpus Christi.

The Romans did not crucify him upside down because he claimed the resurrection. He was crucified upside down as an example. Do not make a mockery of Caesar. Paul believed it because he had an epiphany based on guilt. All of the apostles were marked men. Who among them would break the code of silence and admit to stealing Corpus Christi...tbe body of Christ.

LOL, Paul's method of crucifiction doesn't matter, it's a red herring argument as the point being made is that you are claiming he went to his death willingly for something he knew was a lie.  The fact is that it makes absolutely no sense that anyone would tell a tale that they knew was a lie in order to live in poverty and also knowing that they will likely die for telling the lie, especially when they had absolutely nothing to gain if they knew it was a lie.  

Look, you can make-up whatever baseless theories you want to explain their motivations but it won't make any sense.  The only rational explanation of their ministries and deaths is that they actually believed what they witnessed and what the preached.  Now you don't have to believe in what they believed but trying to claim they didn't believe what they taught doesn't hold water.

Edited August 12, 2018 by Noxasa

[+joc]

11 minutes ago, Noxasa said:

LOL, Paul's method of crucifiction doesn't matter, it's a red herring argument as the point being made is that you are claiming he went to his death willingly for something he knew was a lie.  The fact is that it makes absolutely no sense that anyone would tell a tale that they knew was a lie in order to live in poverty and also knowing that they will likely die for telling the lie, especially when they had absolutely nothing to gain if they knew it was a lie.  

Look, you can make-up whatever baseless theories you want to explain their motivations but it won't make any sense.  The only rational explanation of their ministries and deaths is that they actually believed what they witnessed and what the preached.  Now you don't have to believe in what they believed but trying to claim they didn't believe what they taught doesn't hold water.

I was speaking of Peter...and yes...the method does matter. Peter did not carry his cross nor go willingly...

[Noxasa]

2 minutes ago, joc said:

I was speaking of Peter...and yes...the method does matter. Peter did not carry his cross nor go willingly...

Oh, I see.  So what do you mean that Peter didn't carry his cross nor go willingly?  Are you suggesting Peter didn't preach the resurrection of Christ?

Edited August 12, 2018 by Noxasa

[+joc]

1 minute ago, Noxasa said:

Oh, I see.  So what do you mean that Peter didn't carry his cross nor go willingly?  Are you suggesting Peter didn't preach the resurrection of Christ?

Of course he preached Resurrection...all the time knowing it was a lie. We know he didn't go willingly because he denied Christ 3 times during that crucifixtion...to avoid his own.

[Noxasa]

Just now, joc said:

Of course he preached Resurrection...all the time knowing it was a lie. We know he didn't go willingly because he denied Christ 3 times during that crucifixtion...to avoid his own.

But that's what doesn't make sense, why would Peter preach the Resurrection if he knew it was a lie?  And also knowing, in the years that followed, that by preaching it he would be horribly killed.  It doesn't make any sense.  If he wanted to avoid a horrible painful death he'd just go back to fishing.  Why on Earth would he pursue a fantasy resurrection story that would eventually bring him torture and death?  It makes no sense.

Also, remember that Peter wasn't alone.  The representation of Christ's resurrection was shared by all the Apostles who claimed to see a Resurrected Jesus and all, but one, of whom would also meet their own martyrdom deaths.  So you're going to have to explain why all the Apostles lived in poverty and eventually went to their deaths for something you claim they all knew was a lie.  

[+joc]

1 minute ago, Noxasa said:

But that's what doesn't make sense, why would Peter preach the Resurrection if he knew it was a lie?  And also knowing, in the years that followed, that by preaching it he would be horribly killed.  It doesn't make any sense.  If he wanted to avoid a horrible painful death he'd just go back to fishing.  Why on Earth would he pursue a fantasy resurrection story that would eventually bring him torture and death?  It makes no sense.

Also, remember that Peter wasn't alone.  The representation of Christ's resurrection was shared by all the Apostles who claimed to see a Resurrected Jesus and all, but one, of whom would also meet their own martyrdom deaths.  So you're going to have to explain why all the Apostles lived in poverty and eventually went to their deaths for something you claim they all knew was a lie.  

They STOLE property that belonged to The Romans.  They assaulted Roman Soldiers in the process. They were wanted men.  And then, there are the masses of people who already believed Jesus was the Messiah...so they kept that lie going.  All that power Peter suddenly had...as the mastermind of the hoax...I think many of the apostles were kept in the dark...possibly Peter concocted the plan of taking Jesus and implemented it all by himself...doubtful but possible.

[Noxasa]

26 minutes ago, joc said:

They STOLE property that belonged to The Romans.  They assaulted Roman Soldiers in the process. They were wanted men.  And then, there are the masses of people who already believed Jesus was the Messiah...so they kept that lie going.  All that power Peter suddenly had...as the mastermind of the hoax...I think many of the apostles were kept in the dark...possibly Peter concocted the plan of taking Jesus and implemented it all by himself...doubtful but possible.

Ummm, okay.  Well, I don't know where you're getting this from but whatever.  It's impossible to argue with someone who's just making things up with no evidence to support those claims, and it would be a fools errand to try.

[+joc]

10 minutes ago, Noxasa said:

Ummm, okay.  Well, I don't know where you're getting this from but whatever.  It's impossible to argue with someone who's just making things up with no evidence to support those claims, and it would be a fools errand to try.

There is no evidence to support the original story either...my thinking is just that, my thinking, but is based on knowing the characters of the men of the story and extrapolating events of the story as to the most probable scenario.

[Noxasa]

15 hours ago, joc said:

There is no evidence to support the original story either...my thinking is just that, my thinking, but is based on knowing the characters of the men of the story and extrapolating events of the story as to the most probable scenario.

Well unfortunately for your argument, there's no historical writings by first century writers that represent what you describe.  There are historical writings that support what I describe, however.  So there's no equivalency of validity between our individual representations and opinions.  You may make-up your story to satisfy your distaste for Christian teachings and history, I study the evidence of historical documents and try to understand their representations. 

You claim Peter was a bone thief and a liar but there's no evidence of that and the proposition doesn't even make any sense in the cultural context of the time.  To Peter and the believing Jews of the Christ movement, Jesus was suppose to be the Jewish Messiah who was meant to lead a rebellion against Roman rule and usher in the Kingdom of God on Earth.  After Jesus' death the movement was decimated because people realized that Jesus obviously wasn't going to lead a rebellion against Rome and was not the Messiah they hoped he'd be. 

There simply was no "power" for Peter to appropriate by perpetuating a lie about Christ's resurrection.  The life of Peter and the Apostles after Jesus death, and even after his represented resurrection, was very hard.  There just wasn't enough believers to make a grift like that profitable.  Especially in the light of the persecution of any remaining Christians by both the Jewish and Roman leaders.  There simply weren't masses of Jews that believed in Jesus, there were only handfuls of Jews scattered around the country that still believed.  So your claims that there were all these benefits for Peter and the Apostles to lie simply doesn't hold water.  If anything, there were vastly more benefits to Peter and the Apostles to deny Christ in Jewish and Roman society.  But they didn't choose the easy road, they chose the road of pain and death.  And the only reason that makes sense is they believed what they were preaching.  That is the simplest rationale that explains what Peter and the Apostles did up until their deaths, that is the Occam's Razor of early Christian history.  Certainly not what you're making up out of thin air.  

Edited August 13, 2018 by Noxasa

[LightAngel]

 

 

[Truthseeker007]

On ‎8‎/‎1‎/‎2018 at 6:42 AM, LightAngel said:

 

Where are all you Christians now?!

 

 

 

Hiding there head in a hole.

[Golden Duck]

17 minutes ago, Truthseeker007 said:

Hiding there head in a hole.

What do you want from them? 

[Truthseeker007]

1 minute ago, Golden Duck said:

What do you want from them? 

To open their eyes and see. I know that is asking to much.lol!

[Golden Duck]

1 minute ago, Truthseeker007 said:

To open their eyes and see. I know that is asking to much.lol!

 Ok.  So they have. You got what you wanted. 

You have Christian friends I'm sure. 

[Truthseeker007]

Just now, Golden Duck said:

 Ok.  So they have. You got what you wanted. 

You have Christian friends I'm sure. 

Have they?lol!! I really don't hang out with Christians. My mom is a Bible thumper and I can handle her for a few hours.

[Golden Duck]

4 minutes ago, Truthseeker007 said:

Have they?lol!! I really don't hang out with Christians. My mom is a Bible thumper and I can handle her for a few hours.

Yeah they have. They laity addressed the Royal Commission. How  could you miss that?  It's in the public domain for everyone to see.

 

[Truthseeker007]

2 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

Yeah they have. They laity addressed the Royal Commission. How  could you miss that?  It's in the public domain for everyone to see.

 

Well show us that then. We all have questions about this. If you can enlighten us on this go right ahead. I mean to us it seems the church and it's servants is above the law. After all the guy that poisoned all these children is only just being moved. Where is the help for these children that he abused sexually? DO you think a public apology by the church is going to help after these children were molested by this monster? What is wrong with you buddy?

[danydandan]

10 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

Yeah they have. They laity addressed the Royal Commission. How  could you miss that?  It's in the public domain for everyone to see.

 

Let's be honest, all these child abusers should be excommunicated and sentenced to death. I can't see how anyone would try and commend the Church for how it has handled this situation, there should be a mass culling of these priests in my opinion. But I will say that Catholic priests aren't the only ones. For example Ghandi was a child abusers.