Who Truly Threatens the Church?

A. are you sure you outnumber us? The numbers are close. B. I hold perhaps more animosity to Muslims than xtians. But there aren’t any anti women Muslims posting on the sight or knocking on my door.

 

just bizarre.

 

I’m sure those arguments sounded strong when you read them on Bill Donahue approved apologetics, but not so much.

 

Please note I understand skepticism.
I possess a great deal of it myself. That is actually how I know how genuine I am about my faith.

I require a lot of convincing about things.

Appreciate the conversation. Lets just keep an open mind and cordial approach.

 

So, in your mind, God didn’t intend for humans to engage in any sexual activity, beyond that for the purpose of procreation?

 

You are using the worlds version of the word "church". The church by biblical definition is the believers. We have watered down the term especially in the western church as being multiple groups.

I blame the church for that.

The westernized church structure is not required according to scripture. We agree there.

 

Ah well, reincarnation vs. we’re grown up germs. *does balancing motion with hands*

 

New Court Cases May Prevent Churches From Bullying By LGBT Activists

 

Jesus' disciples are the salt of the earth. I think it is salt that threatens some people because salt is a preservative. Preservatives are a hinderance to those who would fundamentally transform the moral order of society and its laws.

 

Correct, except for the "in your mind" part.

In the mind of the godless, sex is pretended to be a willy nilly recreational activity with no consequences.

...and somehow, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary... yall can't see that lie for what it is (and yall think God is wrong-- or that yall are God...or gods...).

 

That's debatable. Or perhaps not even...

Christ tapped 12 APOSTLES, singled out St. Peter and expressly delegated authority to him, established an office in him as well as the other apostles--who were notably distinguished and distinguishable from the greater body of disciples--IOW, a visible structure; provided for succession and expansion of the original occupants of those 'offices' (e.g.--Judas, St. Paul...), and HE categorically did NOT leave any writing whatsoever, let alone a new 'scripture' (that--the NT that is-- came to be through the structure He establidhed).

 

2 Timothy 4:3,4, "For there is going to come a time when people won't listen to the truth but will go around looking for teachers who will tell them just what they want to hear. They won't listen to what the Bible says, but will blithely follow their own misguided ideas."

 

15 pages in, I offer a one word answer: Satan.

 

Great recent example of the religious authoritarian mindset, at least from the Catholic side, which has a a LOT of philosophical influence in the US, disproportionate to their numbers.

I listen to this podcast most days. I find his reflections very helpful personally. Enough said on that. I have always presumed our politics are different, but politics are not paramount to him, unlike those addressed in Tim Alberta's book.

But he occasionally lets his worldview show in reflection, and it reflects the old Catholic authoritarian mindset that animated Franco and was part of Catholic theology before Vatican II, which the first time the RCC recognized individual freedom of conscience, i.e., that you could not be compelled to support/be ruled by the Church in Dignitatus Humanae

Dignitatis humanae - Wikipedia

Earlier Catholic view[edit]
Further information: Modernism in the Catholic Church and Error has no rights
Historically, the ideal of Catholic political organization was a tightly interwoven structure of the Catholic Church and secular rulers generally known as Christendom, with the Catholic Church having a favoured place in the political structure.[3] In 1520, Pope Leo X in the papal bull Exsurge Domine had censured the proposition "That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit" as one of a number of errors that were "either heretical, scandalous, false, offensive to pious ears, or seductive of simple minds and against Catholic truth"



In the context of the council's stated intention "to develop the doctrine of recent popes on the inviolable rights of the human person and the constitutional order of society", Dignitatis humanae spells out the church's support for the protection of religious liberty. It set the ground rules by which the church would relate to secular states.

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre cited this document as one of the fundamental reasons for his difficulties with the Second Vatican Council. It remains a focus for attacks from Traditionalists in the 21st century.

Back to yesterday's podcast. If you asked most American's what two philosophical forces we had fought in the last 150 years, they would easily respond fascism and communism. Not so for conservative Catholics. Consider:

In the last hundred and fifty years, the Church has had to fight two horribly destructive ideas of the human person.

One is socialism or communism. This sees humanity as nothing more than a hive, a herd, and it’s led to the violation of countless individual rights and dignities in the name of a faceless “society.”

The Church opposes socialism or communism with the principle of subsidiarity, which says, “No, individuals are important, precious, the source of all our innovation, creativity, and responsibility. You must not attack them. You must give them the tools and the space to let them flourish.”

The other deadly error is individualism, associated more with Western liberalism.

This error sees humanity as nothing but free individuals, and society exists just to let them compete, earn, spend, and do whatever else they want with no restrictions and no thought of anyone else.

 

Is it sinful for married people to have sex on specific days when the woman cannot conceive? Should married couples stop having sex once one of them can't procreate due to age or for medical reasons? Did Adam and Eve have sex before they sinned or was that sinful lust resulting from their sin? If Adam and Even had not been lustful, I suppose the human race would have died with them?

 

NCR points to the recent pronouncements of US Bishops and state Catholic conferences that flip the 1960 election on its head. The JFK had to promise that he would not be subject to any prelate on issues of US policy:

Along the way toward trying to become the first Roman Catholic elected president of the United States, John F. Kennedy attempted to calm the worries of Protestant voters when he said that

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute — where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote.

How quaint. What a different time, a different conception of faith and policy.

Now 64 years later, as a Roman Catholic seeks a second presidential term for the first time ever, Washington, D.C., Cardinal Wilton Gregory has worried publicly that Joe Biden "picks and chooses dimensions of the faith," "twist[ing] and turn[ing] some dimensions of the faith as a political advantage." Even when pressed by the Episcopal bishop of Washington about whether “It's possible … not to require everyone that you lead in your country to be guided by all the precepts of your faith," Cardinal Gregory seemed unsure.

Plenty of evidence assures us in 2024 that Catholic bishops in the United States expect Catholics in public life in fact to listen to "Catholic prelate[s who] would tell the President" or other Catholic elected officials "how to act." It seems very much as though the U.S. bishops reject the position that won the election for John Kennedy and credibility for Catholics in U.S. politics at a time when others worried Catholics could not be trusted with power.

 

It's not sinful for married ppl to have sex as long as they remain open to new life (/God's Will).

In fact, it's sacramental, in so much as an act of love within the bonds of marriage serves to honor and glorify God. It is in fact, a sacred form of prayer.

As for Adam and Eve-- they predated the sacrament of marriage, so that standard would appear to be inapplicable.

I would submit however, that God made Eve for Adam, so I would guess making love would have been honoring God, as He expressly "blesses them" and tells them to "be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it."

Not much there to conclude that knowledge from eating fruit of the tree of wisdom amounted to carnal knowledge of one another--seems pretty much the opposite frankly. Fwiw

 

Or they can stop pretending to be Catholic.

Freedom of religion does not entail the freedom to redefine other people's religion.

Pretending to be Catholic so Catholics will vote for you, doesnt mean that when the actual authority of the Catholic Church tells you what to do to remain Catholic, is them telling a pitician what to do.

It's the Church exercising her duty and right, to defend her faith--the faith she's duty bound to protect and defend.

Let Doh! Biden and Nancy Pelosi et al campaign as former Catholics....(who now champion the right to kill babies--whatever garners more votes...).
.