RE: Pope Stands Corrected (?)

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: Pope Stands Corrected (?)

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Pope Stands Corrected (?)

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Pope Stands Corrected (?) - 5/29/2013 7:29:06 PM

dcnovice

Posts: 37282
Joined: 8/2/2006
Status: offline

quote:

What? You doubt the Vatican website??

But....there's a link on there for "The Pope App!" You need further proof that it's legit?

:)

At this point, I doubt almost anything connected with the Vatican.

Is there really a Pope app? I'll have to check that out. Mom just got a smart phone.

_____________________________

No matter how cynical you become,
it's never enough to keep up.

JANE WAGNER, THE SEARCH FOR SIGNS OF
INTELLIGENT LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE

(in reply to Kaliko)

Profile

Post #: 41

RE: Pope Stands Corrected (?) - 5/29/2013 7:31:20 PM

Kaliko

Posts: 3381
Joined: 9/25/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

meant God might take mercy in the way that Fr. Anderson was referencing (presumably) - after death, not before.

I know. But how does that differ--in terms of the gaming-the-system scenario you outlined--from someone's being forgiven via a deathbed confession?

It may not be different. But that's not the topic I was addressing. I wasn't comparing pre-death versus post-death. I was comparing one version of turning away from Christ (not proclaiming faith) versus another (stealing) and whether each might find mercy after death.

(in reply to dcnovice)

Profile

Post #: 42

RE: Pope Stands Corrected (?) - 5/29/2013 7:33:46 PM

dcnovice

Posts: 37282
Joined: 8/2/2006
Status: offline

quote:

It may not be different. But that's not the topic I was addressing. I wasn't comparing pre-death versus post-death. I was comparing one version of turning away from Christ (not proclaiming faith) versus another (stealing) and whether each might find mercy after death.

I'm sorry. You lost me on that one.

_____________________________

No matter how cynical you become,
it's never enough to keep up.

JANE WAGNER, THE SEARCH FOR SIGNS OF
INTELLIGENT LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE

(in reply to Kaliko)

Profile

Post #: 43

RE: Pope Stands Corrected (?) - 5/29/2013 7:35:41 PM

Kaliko

Posts: 3381
Joined: 9/25/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

It may not be different. But that's not the topic I was addressing. I wasn't comparing pre-death versus post-death. I was comparing one version of turning away from Christ (not proclaiming faith) versus another (stealing) and whether each might find mercy after death.

I'm sorry. You lost me on that one.

Yeah, that's okay. I'm a little lost, too.

I had to think about that post something like ten times before I finally hit "OK." LOL

< Message edited by Kaliko -- 5/29/2013 7:40:04 PM >

(in reply to dcnovice)

Profile

Post #: 44

RE: Pope Stands Corrected (?) - 5/29/2013 7:41:34 PM

dcnovice

Posts: 37282
Joined: 8/2/2006
Status: offline

quote:

I had to think about that post something like ten times before I finally hit "OK." LOL

I have ones like that! And then I still find typos after I've posted.

_____________________________

No matter how cynical you become,
it's never enough to keep up.

JANE WAGNER, THE SEARCH FOR SIGNS OF
INTELLIGENT LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE

(in reply to Kaliko)

Profile

Post #: 45

RE: Pope Stands Corrected (?) - 5/29/2013 7:53:40 PM

fucktoyprincess

Posts: 2337
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

Is that the doctrine's assumption or yours?

The doctrine's.

(btw, when you first raised Fr. Anderson you stated, "Fr. Anderson, who held a doctorate in theology and chaired the department at my prep. seminary, stressed that we have no idea what goes on in the throes of death or how how many people God/Christ reaches out to then. " No where did you say he was claiming his statement to be Catholic doctrine. Are you saying that he told you this was Catholic doctrine??)

Regardless....

Do Catholics believe in posthumous baptism?

Do Catholics believe in Catholic burial and funeral rites for an adult non-believer based on a third party's request?

I'm not saying anything very complicated here. And the Vatican agrees with my interpretation. You are entitled to not accept the Vatican's doctrine. If your interpretation is correct, then the current Vatican stance makes no sense. Because the Vatican would have to say it does not know (at all) who might be accepted into heaven or hell because it cannot know what happens after death (someone could just as easily renounce their belief in Christ as accept it).

Even taking your interpretation, it STILL means that Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, atheists who spend their entire life doing good deeds, while redeemed, cannot go to heaven unless they denounce their beliefs and profess faith in the Christian god before or after death. In other words, faith in Christ is STILL necessary. Good deeds alone are not enough.

But based on everything I've quoted, my discussions with priests, and my reading of the current news articles about the Pope's statements on atheism, and the clarification, I stand by by statement.

And if you are right, then I challenge you to find a Catholic priest to bury my atheist body in a Catholic cemetery with full Catholic rites.....trust me, it's not happening....even though we don't know what will happen after I die.....

_____________________________

~ ftp

(in reply to dcnovice)

Profile

Post #: 46

RE: Pope Stands Corrected (?) - 5/29/2013 8:49:04 PM

UllrsIshtar

Posts: 3693
Joined: 7/28/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess

I guess I was too quick to think the church was actually trying to focus on good deeds.

The entrenched hierarchy, yes. The Pope I'll take at his word. And since he is by definition the Vicar of Christ, acting for and in the place of Christ, he is the supreme ecclesiastical authority in the Catholic Church. So this has the potential to get interesting. Let's not throw in the towel just yet.

K.

This.

I don't care that the Vatican is trying to save their wallets. The Pope said what he said. He speaks ex cathedra and therefore the "interpretation" the Vatican may seek to offer for his words isn't valid. According to Christian dogma, the Pope can't be wrong, and considering that he's the direct successor of Peter, he is the only one that can clarify his own words in a manner that would give them another interpretation that what was literally said.

And what he said was:

"And this Blood makes us children of God of the first class! We are created children in the likeness of God and the Blood of Christ has redeemed us all! And we all have a duty to do good. And this commandment for everyone to do good, I think, is a beautiful path towards peace. If we, each doing our own part, if we do good to others, if we meet there, doing good, and we go slowly, gently, little by little, we will make that culture of encounter: we need that so much. We must meet one another doing good. ‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’ But do good: we will meet one another there.”

Considering that the homily in question was directly inspired by the following passage:

"Gospel of Mark (9:38-40) in which the disciples tell Jesus that they tried to stop someone from driving out demons because he was not one of their party. Jesus rebukes them saying: “There is no one who performs a mighty deed in my name who can at the same time speak ill of me. For whoever is not against us is for us.”

And the Vatican in their "rebuttal" acknowledged that the manner in which people will be judged is as such:

(Ephesians 4:13) "Christ will judge with the power he has gained as the Redeemer of the world who came to bring salvation to all. The secrets of hearts will be brought to light as well as the conduct of each one toward God and toward his neighbor. Everyone, according to how he has lived, will either be filled with life or damned for eternity. In this way, “the fullness of Christ”"

I'd say the Vatican's twist is a completely hubris interpretation of what the Pope said.

The Bible passage clearly states that one will be judged on their conduct, and according to how he has lived... not on their believe in Christ.
Their backpedaling stating that the Pope meant something other than what he said is nonsense.

If the Pope wants to come out and clarify that what he said is being taken in the wrong way, and clarify that he actually meant something else, I'll listen with a heavy heart.

But I find it very very telling that the Pope hasn't come out and done any such thing, and it's instead people who have no statue to speak for him who are dismissing certain interpretations of his statements.

< Message edited by UllrsIshtar -- 5/29/2013 8:53:13 PM >

_____________________________

I can be your whore
I am the dirt you created
I am your sinner
And your whore
But let me tell you something baby
You love me for everything you hate me for

(in reply to Kirata)

Profile

Post #: 47

RE: Pope Stands Corrected (?) - 5/30/2013 1:56:33 AM

tweakabelle

Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

I had to think about that post something like ten times before I finally hit "OK." LOL

I have ones like that! And then I still find typos after I've posted.

Me too! Does this mean we all have a devil in common? Or merely a gremlin?

_____________________________

(in reply to dcnovice)

Profile

Post #: 48

RE: Pope Stands Corrected (?) - 5/30/2013 4:56:56 AM

Aswad

Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess

This change happens either by reason of a perfect act of charity elicited by a well disposed sinner or by virtue of the Sacrament either of Baptism or of Penance according to the condition of the respective subject laden with sin.

To my reading, this implies they admit that a «perfect act of charity» may effect 'salvation', in an already good person.

quote:

Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

Again, to my reading, this implies that this applies to those that knowingly and willingly reject the Catholic church.

In short, they seem to be focusing on the unity of the church, not the actual believers, which was a major concern to the founders and the early church, as there was precious little unity at that time. Of course, I usually try for the best possible reading, as people usually manage to hang themselves just fine with the shortest rope I can find, and the early Catholic church has a very thin neck to start with.

Politics and fundamentalism are blights on any doctrine, secular or otherwise (just ask the Zen folks whether their period of fundamentalism was an obstacle to enlightenment or not), and the Pope gets to bypass politics these days (not so much back when they had an unfortunate tendency to stumble down stairs and break their necks when they contradicted the politicians, but I digress), the wisdom of which the politicians will no doubt see in the long run, as this makes the church more palatable to people. It's hardly unusual for people around the world to reject the church once they ask themselves what the unpleasant implications of the old view are for good indigenous peoples that haven't even heard of the church or its teachings.

As Ishtar said, the Pope spoke ex cathedra, in line with Scripture, and the politicians around him pretty much can't touch that.

There's plenty to criticize the Pope and the Catholic church for, but this appears to no longer be one of those things.

Like Kirata, I am carefully optimistic. Good on them (so many puns).

IWYW,
— Aswad.

_____________________________

"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do." -- Rorschack, Watchmen.

(in reply to fucktoyprincess)

Profile

Post #: 49