Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
 24 Jun 2016, 17:20
Comrade Gulper wrote: 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. 
Soviet cogitations: 1078
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Sep 2013, 03:08 Ideology: Trotskyism Party Member 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. 24 Jun 2016, 20:46
is a celibate clergy church doctrine?
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44 Ideology: None Philosophized 25 Jun 2016, 03:55
piusv wrote: 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. Miss Strangelove: "You feed giants laxatives so goblins can mine their poop before the gnomes get to it."
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. 
Soviet cogitations: 3874
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 12 Jun 2006, 02:14 Ideology: Marxism-Leninism Politburo 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. 25 Jun 2016, 18:15
Are you a catholic?
Soviet cogitations: 3874
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 12 Jun 2006, 02:14 Ideology: Marxism-Leninism Politburo 25 Jun 2016, 19:07
Yes, catholic and argentinian.
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.
Soviet cogitations: 3874
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 12 Jun 2006, 02:14 Ideology: Marxism-Leninism Politburo 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... 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?
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44 Ideology: None Philosophized 25 Jun 2016, 22:13
piusv wrote: Lucian of Samasota wrote: Mind you, this was in the 2nd century. And look where things stand now. Miss Strangelove: "You feed giants laxatives so goblins can mine their poop before the gnomes get to it."
Soviet cogitations: 3874
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 12 Jun 2006, 02:14 Ideology: Marxism-Leninism Politburo 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. Quote: 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.
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44 Ideology: None Philosophized 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. Miss Strangelove: "You feed giants laxatives so goblins can mine their poop before the gnomes get to it."
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.
21 Apr 2017, 17:18
Jehovah’s Witnesses banned as ‘extremist’ in Russia, property to be seized – court decision
Quote: 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?  The great art of life is sensation, to feel that you exist, even in pain. 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. "The thing about capitalism is that it sounds awful on paper and is horrendous in practice. Communism sounds wonderful on paper and when it was put into practice it was done pretty well for what they had to work with." -MiG
10 May 2017, 21:26
Yeqon wrote: From what I gather , they were primarily deemed to be extremist due to them denigrating other religious sects https://themoscowtimes.com/news/russian-court-denounces-jehovahs-witnesses-as-extremist-44480 . But this has been controversial , even among Eastern Orthodox Russians http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2017/0501/Jehovah-s-Witnesses-as-extremists-Court-sharpens-edges-of-Russia-s-religious-space . 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 https://iwpr.net/global-voices/cuban-schools-slap-down-jehovahs-witnesses . |
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
|
||||||
