Zone1 For the Love of God...

[Meriweather]

But the modern Catholic church can be much more honest with you if any of the fantasy topics are raised.

What do you consider fantasy topics?

 

[nomadic5]

Do you know how much of my day is spent focused on Pope Francis? The same as for any other Pope. Zilch. The Pope's duty is to run the Church by being a servant to the servants of Christ. My focus--and the focus of most other Catholics--is on Christ and on their local parish.

The ramifications of the heretical Council have nothing to do with the papacy per se and/or how ordinary Catholics see it or how often they think about it. Those who promote the Council as valid are heretics (some out of ignorance). Vatican II taught something far far different than what the CC taught for all the years that went before that Council. So was what the CC taught for 1950 - some years true Catholicism? Or was Vatican II? Vatican II taught heresy and I say that people are going to Hell in droves because of it.

 

[Meriweather]

Of course neither of us take every word literally

Do you understand the truth that is being presented symbolically or via allegory?

 

[ding]

If you want a conversation, be patient and wait for my reply. Butting in to the conversation is not going to save your ears from hearing or your eyes from seeing.

Ding was incapable of that patience and he betrayed to me and some others that he was weak on his confidence in what he believed.

Actually you were dishonest then and you are dishonest now. You have a preference for an outcome and an overly inflated opinion of your abilities. You are a militant atheist through and through. You are on a mission to subordinate Christianity.

 

[Meriweather]

As you have carelessly suggested, we have that in common.

I paid attention in English and creative writing classes. I learned there are many ways to present a theme, thesis, lesson. Never occurred to me to be concerned if some read my symbolism, metaphors, allegories, etc. literally. I was confident the theme of the piece made it through.

 

[ding]

The ramifications of the heretical Council have nothing to do with the papacy per se and/or how ordinary Catholics see it or how often they think about it. Those who promote the Council as valid are heretics (some out of ignorance). Vatican II taught something far far different than what the CC taught for all the years that went before that Council. So was what the CC taught for 1950 - some years true Catholicism? Or was Vatican II? Vatican II taught heresy and I say that people are going to Hell in droves because of it.

1. Any statement not protected by the charism of infallibility carries the possibility of error.
2. "The ordinary and usual form of papal teaching activity is not infallible. Further, the decisions of the Roman Congregations (Holy Office, Bible Commission) are not infallible.
3. There are various levels of assent owed by Catholics to the body of statements put forth by the Magisterium.
4. Vatican II did not define any Catholic doctrine.
5. None of the documents of Vatican II proclaim any new doctrine binding upon Catholics.
6. So... Vatican II does not demand any assent to its teaching.
7. Therefore, Novusordowatch insistence that assent is required is false and the Sedevacantist's belief that anything the Pope says must be accepted by the members is false.
8. Sedevacantists believe that any churchman (or at least any pontiff) who has made a materially heretical statement as evidence that he has lost his office.
9. It is clear, defined Catholic teaching that it is possible for a true pope to make statements which contain error as long as those statements are not presented as infallible teaching.
10. In summary... A pope making a fallible statement doesn't make him a false pope it just makes him wrong.

A Response to Novus Ordo Watch - A Catholic Thinker

This blog provides a venue to post and discuss different approaches to help the Church to emerge from this crisis. Traditional Catholic SSPX

tradicat.blogspot.com

 

[Donald H]

What do you consider fantasy topics?

For lack of a better word and partly to keep up with your posting.

My sister-in-law believes literally, the big fish, the Ark, the angels with wings, the 6000 year old earth, etc., etc.

I think that all Catholics believe too at some level. For instance, you too believe all the stories, with certain qualifications. Choose any of the above to illustrate how you believe.

 

[Donald H]

I paid attention in English and creative writing classes. I learned there are many ways to present a theme, thesis, lesson. Never occurred to me to be concerned if some read my symbolism, metaphors, allegories, etc. literally. I was confident the theme of the piece made it through.

Yes of course we both understand the validity of poetic license. I've asked you for an example of that on what I termed as the fantasies, for lack of a better word.

 

[Meriweather]

If you want a conversation, be patient and wait for my reply. Butting in to the conversation is not going to save your ears from hearing or your eyes from seeing.

First, we are not having a spoken conversation. As it is written, and each can view and respond at his/her own pace, I am not "butting" in, but responding as each message crosses my screen. When it is all in writing, it is not difficult to keep up. I respond as my time allows. Sometimes that means immediately, and sometimes it means hours.

That is not going to change.

 

[nomadic5]

For lack of a better word and partly to keep up with your posting.

My sister-in-law believes literally, the big fish, the Ark, the angels with wings, the 6000 year old earth, etc., etc.

I think that all Catholics believe too at some level. For instance, you too believe all the stories, with certain qualifications. Choose any of the above to illustrate how you believe.

Christian bashers think Christians are stupid to believe Biblical stories such as you mention.

And yet the same people claim that Biden actually won the WH fair and square!

 

[Meriweather]

Ding was incapable of that patience and he betrayed to me and some others that he was weak on his confidence in what he believed.

Let's not mistake care in conveying the complexity and mysteries surrounding truth and beliefs in a way that others with different perspectives and beliefs might understand as "weak" Is it the sender that is weak, or the receiver? Always a good question to keep in mind. (Often it is both.)

 

[Donald H]

Do you understand the truth that is being presented symbolically or via allegory?

That calls for something specific for my answer.

In general, that which the bibles presented back in the 18th. century was meant to be taken literally, and it was!

In the 21st. century, that which the bibles present to the believers in large part on what we are discussing, can't possibly be taken literally.

For example, few could present a case against the 6000 year old earth in the 18th. century and have it accepted. Ken Ham and his flock are still stuck back there!

That's why I ask for something specific.

 

[Donald H]

Let's not mistake care in conveying the complexity and mysteries surrounding truth and beliefs in a way that others with different perspectives and beliefs might understand as "weak" Is it the sender that is weak, or the receiver? Always a good question to keep in mind. (Often it is both.)

Yes true. You may want to say that I'm overly critical of Ding. But then when I challenged his rhetoric he became rude, profane, hateful, and entirely unpleasant.
And so I've left him to stew in his own juices with my expectation that he can make a comeback to perform on our level of civility.

 

[ding]

That calls for something specific for my answer.

In general, that which the bibles presented back in the 18th. century was meant to be taken literally, and it was!

In the 21st. century, that which the bibles present to the believers in large part on what we are discussing, can't possibly be taken literally.

For example, few could present a case against the 6000 year old earth in the 18th. century and have it accepted. Ken Ham and his flock are still stuck back there!

That's why I ask for something specific.

That's odd because Aquinas and Maimonides didn't take it literally and they lived well before the 18th century.

And let's not forget that EVERY argument you make is based upon YOU reading the Bible literally.

 

[ding]

Yes true. You may want to say that I'm overly critical of Ding. But then when I challenged his rhetoric he became rude, profane, hateful, and entirely unpleasant.
And so I've left him to stew in his own juices with my expectation that he can make a comeback to perform on our level of civility.

Who was it again that said they found Christian beliefs abhorrent and believed Christians were guilty of child abuse for teaching their children Christianity? That was YOU, right?

Yes, when my faith is being attacked by militant atheists, I'm going to fight back. Isn't that what you came here for?

 

[ding]

And so I've left him to stew in his own juices with my expectation that he can make a comeback to perform on our level of civility.

I couldn't be happier with your choice.

 

[Donald H]

Christian bashers think Christians are stupid to believe Biblical stories such as you mention.

I haven't called anybody stupid. I think you're assuming 'stupidity' in that most Christians in the 18th. century believed in the 6000 year old earth.

As with mental illness, what the majority believes can be said to be normal, and so those who didn't believe in the 6000 years, would have been judged to be abnormal back then.

And yet the same people claim that Biden actually won the WH fair and square!

I'm a Canadian and so what I believe is of no importance here. I think Americans are divided on the question about 60/40. Which is which isn't important to me, other than what is important is preventing Biden from escalating to a nuclear WW3.

 

[Meriweather]

I think that all Catholics believe too at some level. For instance, you too believe all the stories, with certain qualifications. Choose any of the above to illustrate how you believe.

Any will do, but as you offered me first choice, I'll select the Ark, and then you can select the next.

The Biblical story of the Great Flood was one of many that used the story as the setting for their own tale. Think of the many fictional stories that used a true setting--i.e., the Civil War, for example. Each story has a different theme. Also keep in mind the Biblical story was written well after the flood. The story of Noah's Ark certainly was not the first. So what made it different?

Setting: The Great Flood using the backdrop of human misbehavior.
Characters: Noah and his sons
Theme: Warning that immediately after the flood, why human misbehavior was starting up again.
Question to be addressed: If human behavior caused the flood, what behavior was that?

Take a close look at how Noah was described. He was described as a righteous man, but he spoke not a word--not even to warn his community. The story continues without Noah ever speaking.

Remember how the story ends? Noah curses one of his sons. In ancient times, people understood the power of words. They could wound and divide and that led to quarrels and war. That is exactly what Noah's words did.

The theme, then is : Watch your language, take care when you speak.

Other stories of the flood, as we might expect, carry different themes.

 

[Donald H]

Who was it again that said they found Christian beliefs abhorrent

Quoting me dishonestly will never succeed for your attempts to be noticed again by me.

and believed Christians were guilty of child abuse for teaching their children Christianity? That was YOU, right?

And I still believe that for young children, with qualifications as were stated.

 

[ding]

Quoting me dishonestly will never succeed for your attempts to be noticed again by me.

And I still believe that for young children, with qualifications as were stated.

Do you need a link to it?

Yes, your perspective is abhorrent to me as an atheist, in many ways. As an example, I believe that teaching the faith to little children is child abuse.

abhorrent: inspiring disgust and loathing; repugnant.
"racial discrimination was abhorrent to us all"

militant atheist: anyone who condemns respect for people of faith.