U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Login ] [ Active ]

Religion and stuff

Log-in to remove advertisement.
Post 24 Jun 2016, 17:20
Comrade Gulper wrote:
Err, so Boniface VIII, John XXIII, Alexander VI, and Leo X were Popes, but Francis is not?

Suits me, I suppose. The first four are my favorites because they are the indisputably most corrupt, pretentious, and frankly hilarious Catholic potentates to read about. Machiavelli dearly loved Alexander VI for giving him so much to wax philosophical on. The same for Dante and Boniface VIII.

Francis I kinda like for his surprisingly progressive stances, although I'm still not ready to eat the wafer and call him my Infallible Middle Man.

Yes, all those Popes were valid, except for John XXIII, because he was the one who opened the council. Being a true Pope has nothing to do with being a nice guy or lacking personal sin, or being progressive. The papacy in the RCC requires one thing above all: that you teach what the church has always taught on faith and morals. On gray areas the Pope can say what he wants but on the dogmas and doctrines of the church he must hold to the statements of prior infallible councils, otherwise the church is not infallible. Many people do not understand what the church is all about. Francis is a rank heretic. He supports religious liberty(absolute heresy) and ecumenism(absolute heresy). The RCC has always taught that it alone is the only true religion. It is the only christian church, outside of which there is neither christianity nor salvation. Extra ecclesiam nulla salus. That is not old fashioned teaching because it is the constant and infallible teaching of the church. If ecumenism is true now, then prior condemnations of it were false. If that is even possible, then the church cannot be infallible. Infallibility is a dogma of the church, meaning part of its foundation.
The press just doesn't understand roman catholicism. If salvation is just as easy outside of the church as within it, why bother to become or stay a catholic? Why bother to go to mass? You could go to mass one week and go to a baptist church the next? That's basically what Francis is saying. He called proselytization "solemn nonsense". If it's nonsense, then being a catholic isn't necessary. Just stay a baptist or a methodist, a jew, maybe even a muslim. All religions lead to heaven? That is not what christ taught, it is not what the church he founded has taught for almost 2000 years.
Post 24 Jun 2016, 19:52
"That you teach what the church has always taught."

Stop right there. Church tradition has changed with changing circumstances numerous times in history. Married priests, for one, only banned in 1139.

Also sedevacantism is usually regarded even by Latin Mass Catholics as heresy, because it denies the continued existence of a living church with valid apostolic succession from Peter. "John-Francis are not real Popes" is sedevacantism. Most Latin Mass types take a "70% necessary, 30% turd in the punchbowl" stance towards Vatican II. They do not deny its legitimacy as a church council, because the pivot towards the third world was clearly required to keep the Church alive, but would like some of its more liberalizing elements done away with.
Post 24 Jun 2016, 20:46
is a celibate clergy church doctrine?
Post 25 Jun 2016, 03:55
piusv wrote:
is a celibate clergy church doctrine?

It could be reliably enforced, perhaps by taking a cue from the religion of Magna Mater and having all priests castrated (in a safe and hygienic manner, of course). After all, it's only one step beyond Jewish ritual circumcision.

Or, you could finally just let go of this bizarre and un-Biblical tradition. The Jews and the Orthodox clergy have no such ridiculous notions, and (oddly enough) no long tradition of covering up for kid fiddling priests.

Enforced clerical celibacy is no more unnatural than homosexuality, by the way.
Post 25 Jun 2016, 05:46
it was a rhetorical question. Clerical celibacy is not church doctrine. It is church discipline, which can be changed at any time, unlike church doctrine, which can never be changed. The argument that because the church changed its discipline on clerical celibacy means that it can change its position on doctrine or dogma, which was the argument advanced by Miss S., is quite frankly ignorant. She was trying to justify the change in doctrine in vatican II by appealing to a change from the 14th century on church discipline. Discipline can change, doctrine never. In fact, the proponents of vatican 2 argue that they did not contradict doctrine in their documents. In no case would even the biggest novus ordo heretic in the world say that doctrine can be changed. In Miss Strangelove's post she really got it wrong.
There are basically two groups of traditional catholics today: Sedevacantists and the Refuse and Resist group. Sede's deny that there is valid Pope. The chair is empty. This actually happens in between the election of popes btw, and there was once a 3 year interval in the church when there was no pope. The refuse and resist crowd accepts that there is a pope but regards him as a heretic, and a "bad" pope, so bad that he must be resisted. In fact they have nothing to do with him or the church in any way. So the controversy within traditionalism is between these two groups.
As to the latin mass, that is used even within the novus ordo by "indult" mass centers. They use the 1962 roman missal issued by the fake pope john XXIII. Although in latin, it was changed substantially by the fake pope to the point where it is of questionable validity, i.e. does it effect a transubstantiation. Trads use roman missals from before 1958, when the last true pope Pius XII died, although some trads do use the 1962 missal.
As to her bizarre statement on apostolic succession I can only say there there is no traditional catholic priest who does not believe that apostolic succession is necessary. In fact they went to great lengths to get their bishops consecrated by valid bishops, as only a bishop can consecrate a bishop and only a bishop can ordain a priest. So I have no idea what she's talking about there.
The reason that I am a sede is because I believe that a pertinacious heretic cannot be the pope. Christ promised that Peter and his successors would have the authority of God. They surely cannot have that authority if they teach heresy in a pertinacious and public manner.
thank you for listening to my statement on this issue.
Post 25 Jun 2016, 17:36
Oh, well, I guess we have our share fundies with other religions. But denying all Popes since Vatican II is batshit crazy.
The infallibility of the Pope was only introduced into Dogma in 1870 (after Vatican I) and some declarations that go back to the middle ages. Even the starting point of the catholic dogma is the Council of Nicaea in 325, that is 300 years after the church was established.
The Church is alive and changes through time, adapting itself to the needs of its grey. Francis I has done more to pick up a dying church than any other previous Pope since the Reform.
Post 25 Jun 2016, 18:15
Are you a catholic?
Post 25 Jun 2016, 19:07
Yes, catholic and argentinian.
Post 25 Jun 2016, 19:47
well there have already been defections from even mainstream catholics on Francis. Ann Barnhardt, a mainstream novus ordo catholic has just stated that she believes that Francis is an antipope. Have you read Amoris Laetitia? Get a dose of that. No insult intended here as to your beliefs, but if you think Francis is teaching catholicism then you might want to consider becoming an episcopalian or a lutheran, because what he says and what those false churches say are much closer to each other than Francis and catholic doctrine. Most catholics today are material heretics according to the definition in canon law. The material heretic is not excommunicated from the church because he doesn't know any better. However, once he is apprised of his errors and continues to hold these heretical opinions, then he becomes a pertinacious heretic, and he is outside the church. These are not my opinions, they are ecclesiastical law. You can't just believe anything you want and be a catholic! I mean, since when?? Sure Francis is a nice guy and the liberals love him, but is he the vicar of christ? Examine your conscience.
Post 25 Jun 2016, 19:55
What is ecclesiastical law??
The Vatican II was written by bishops and the Pope. If he was infallible, so is the result. You can't apply some laws to some Popes and not to others.
Francis has been chosen by the other bishops, as any other Pope. He is the result of what the Church has become. And what he preaches is much more common to our original faith, to the core of Christianity, than it is to pray in Latin giving your back to the people.
You're actually confronting with the true Church and its laws by denying Vatican II. I think you've got it wrong regarding who is the heretic here...
Post 25 Jun 2016, 21:36
ok so since the time when the catholics climbed out of the catacombs the church has been in error? It has believed the wrong things and worshipped in the wrong way for 17 centuries?
Post 25 Jun 2016, 22:13
piusv wrote:
ok so since the time when the catholics climbed out of the catacombs the church has been in error? It has believed the wrong things and worshipped in the wrong way for 17 centuries?

Lucian of Samasota wrote:
“The poor fools have persuaded themselves above all that they are immortal and will live forever, from which it follows that they despise death and many of them willingly undergo imprisonment. Moreover, their first lawgiver taught them that they are all brothers of one another, when once they have sinned by denying the Greek gods, and by worshiping that crucified sophist himself and living according to his laws. So, they despise all things equally and regard them as common property, accepting such teaching without any sort of clear proof. Accordingly, if any quack or trickster, who can press his advantage, comes among them he can acquire great wealth in a very short time by imposing on simple-minded people.”

Mind you, this was in the 2nd century. And look where things stand now.
Post 28 Jun 2016, 15:01
Now, this is my kind of Church.
The Church of a loving, understanding God. I'm not interested in self-flagellation in order to fit in a thousand old social order.

Church should apologize to gays & women for ill treatment – Pope Francis

Pope Francis has publicly declared the Church should ask gay people and women for forgiveness for hundreds of years of ill treatment at its hands.

The comments were made as the Pope flew back from a visit to Armenia. Francis did not restrict them to just the LGBT community and women, adding that the Church was “turning a blind eye” to child labor and should apologize for “blessing” weapons, according to Reuters.

Francis was answering a question about a similar remark by a German cardinal regarding an apology to gay people. He reminded journalists that, according to Christian teachings, gays “should not be discriminated against. They should be respected [and] accompanied pastorally.”

He went on to say: "I think that the Church not only should apologize ... to a gay person whom it offended, but it must also apologize to the poor as well, to the women who have been exploited, to children who have been exploited by [being forced to] work. It must apologize for having blessed so many weapons."

Pope Francis is the most progressive pontiff to date and is known for being an outspoken critic of a number of traditional attitudes, with his persona polarizing the religious world. Many Catholics take issue with his views, arguing them to be too ambiguous on sexual morality. His attitude on the LGBT question dates back to 2013, when he first famously said “who am I to judge?”

"The questions is: if a person who has that condition, who has good will, and who looks for God, who are we to judge?” he reiterated. A Vatican spokesman clarified the Italian word for “condition” also meant “situation.”

According to the religious leader, “We Christians have to apologize for so many things, not just for this [treatment of gays], but we must ask for forgiveness, not just apologize! Forgiveness! Lord, it is a word we forget so often!”

Despite his admittance there are still cultures in existence which take some demonstrations of homosexuality to be “offensive,” Francis believes there is no continuing bases for marginalization in the modern world.

The Catholic view on homosexuality considers it sinful, and even priests can get in trouble for so much as admitting to being gay. In October last year, Polish priest Krzysztof Charamsa openly accused the Church of making the lives of gay Catholics worldwide “a hell”. The letter was addressed to Pope Francis, following Charamsa’s expulsion from priesthood. This was after he admitted to being in a gay relationship.

France’s ambassador to the Holy See, Laurent Stefanini, is also openly gay, something that led to the Vatican’s refusal to recognize him.

And in January tens of thousands flooded the streets of Rome to demand the Italian government give up on a law that would provide legal recognition to gay couples, as well as limited adoption rights. The crowd included priests.

The country remains split on the issue, with many ministers, including interior minister Angelino Alfano, openly against the coalition government of Matteo Renzi greenlighting any laws that would favor the LGBT community.

The Pope likewise did not shy away from remarks on the EU, but expressed optimism the complicated union would find another form of existence after Britain leaving.

Also, perhaps surprisingly, he said the previous Pope, Benedict, defended his views against Church officials who had gone to him to complain the new Francis was being too liberal. According to Francis, Benedict “sent them packing.”

The Pope has just returned from a trip to Armenia, where he could not avoid drawing criticism from Ankara after making repeated references to the 1915 ‘genocide’ of the Armenians by Ottoman Turks. Ankara has accused him and the papacy as a whole of having a “crusader mentality.”
Post 28 Jun 2016, 18:14
"to fit into" and "self-flagellation". You think you cannot fit into the church without self-flagellation? So? this is true of everyone. The church accepts all sinners unless they are unrepentant. Maybe that's what you mean by self-flagellation, that you must stop sinning. How unreasonable of the church.
Post 29 Jun 2016, 00:39
The obvious solution to sexual deviancy and the overcoming of carnal impulses in general is castration.

There's no law in the NEW Testament that says "Be fruitful and multiply." Quite the opposite. Paul expressly recommends that if thy eye offend thee, pluck it out.

Spoiler: He isn't talking about your eyes.

Castration is the one size fits all magic key to Paradise. Come on, guys, get on this.
Post 29 Jun 2016, 00:59
Jesus said that not Paul. He was talking about removing occasions to sin. Fornication is mortal sin. Only those who are married can have sex, and marriage is between and only between a man and a woman. Did he expressly condemn sodomy? No, but he did not expressly condemn sex with donkeys either. By making sex outside of matrimony a mortal sin, and defining marriage as between a man and woman, there is but one conclusion possible: sodomy is a mortal sin. Lesbianism is impermissible for the same reason.
Post 21 Apr 2017, 17:18
Jehovah’s Witnesses banned as ‘extremist’ in Russia, property to be seized – court decision
Russia’s Supreme Court has banned the Jehovah’s Witnesses, declaring it an “extremist organization” and ordering to hand over its property to the state. The Christian group says it is planning to appeal the decision.

Delivering the verdict on Thursday, Judge Yury Ivanenko ruled that all 395 branches of the religious group on Russian territory are subject to disbandment and the property is to be forfeited to the state.

In the run-up to the ruling on its liquidation, based on a lawsuit filed by the Russian Justice Ministry, the Jehovah’s Witnesses group has repeatedly found itself in trouble with Russia’s anti-extremism legislation. In October last year, a lower court notified the organization of a looming ban if it did not stop engaging in what it considered extremist activity. In January this year, the warning was upheld by the Moscow City Court.

Jehovah's Witnesses leaflets promoting information “posing a threat to health” were provided as evidence by the Ministry of Justice during the hearings, Svetlana Borisova, the ministry’s representative said, as cited by RIA Novosti. More than 90 printed booklets of the organization have been found to contain extremist materials.

One of Jehovah’s Witnesses strict beliefs – a complete ban on blood transfusions – can potentially endanger the life of a child, argued Borisova. She cited a case when devout followers of the group refused to give consent for the procedure needed by their child.

The present lawsuit was revolving around Jehovah’s Witnesses’ chief managing organization in Russia, based in St. Petersburg, which is in charge of all its outfits scattered on the Russian territory.

n March, Justice Ministry already suspended the center’s activity pending the final decision by the Supreme Court.

Next week, the Moscow City Court will examine the legality of the March suspension. The hearing is scheduled on April 24.

Jehovah’s Witnesses, however, deny all the extremism-related accusations, stating that the extremism in question was found in Biblical quotes and alleging that some of the illegal materials were fake evidence planted in their offices.

The group has announced it will contest the ruling in the appellate division of the Russian Supreme Court and is also prepared to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights, if necessary.

“We are greatly disappointed by this development and deeply concerned about how this will affect our religious activity,” Yaroslav Sivulsky, a spokesman for Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia, told Reuters.

On its website, the organization claimed that the nationwide ban on its activity could lead “to grim consequences to the adherents of different denominations as well as for Russia’s international image.”

If the Supreme Court’s decision is upheld by the three-judge appellate panel, Jehovah's Witnesses may face from two up to six years in jail if they defy the court ruling and continue operating in Russia.

I'm not one to jump to conclusions before investigating further, but at first glance I gotta admit, this sounds like some pretty harsh shit.

Thoughts comrades?

I always thought dem Jehovah's Witnesses to be a little bit annoying; but never ever really heard of them being referred to as extremists on par with Islamist Jihadists.

What's the deal ya'll?
Post 22 Apr 2017, 01:01
They were banned in the Soviet period as a sect and extremist organization. 'nough said.

Well almost enough said. In today's Russia, I wouldn't put it past some kind of shady back door dealings involving the Orthodox Church, or even the government greedily eyeing some real estate somewhere, that it can then sell off to its business buddies, etc.

In other words, I'm not really opposed to what happened in principle, but in practice our corruption-fueled reality takes any and all of the sheen off this decision.
Post 10 May 2017, 21:26
Yeqon wrote:
I'm not one to jump to conclusions before investigating further, but at first glance I gotta admit, this sounds like some pretty harsh shit.

Thoughts comrades?

I always thought dem Jehovah's Witnesses to be a little bit annoying; but never ever really heard of them being referred to as extremists on par with Islamist Jihadists.

What's the deal ya'll?

From what I gather , they were primarily deemed to be extremist due to them denigrating other religious sects . But this has been controversial , even among Eastern Orthodox Russians . But also , due to the Watchtower Society's opposition to participation in any sort of civic activities , they have allegedly faced reprisals , in such countries as Cuba as well .
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Privacy.
[ Top ]