Posts by Seraphicaviary

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Praying of the Rosary Is NOT Bible-Based Teaching

    03/25/2015 12:33:31 PM PDT · 567 of 900
    Seraphicaviary to rwa265

    How did we get to arguing the Council of Chalcedon all over again?

  • Praying of the Rosary Is NOT Bible-Based Teaching

    03/25/2015 12:28:00 PM PDT · 559 of 900
    Seraphicaviary to daniel1212

    “Because the normal and natural connotation of mother denotes ontological oneness, making Mary as a goddess begetting a God after her nature.”

    But Jesus has both human and Divine natures. Mary gave birth to a being that is ontologically fully human. God the Father provide the nature that is ontologically fully Divine. Jesus is both/and, not either/or. Mary gave birth to a person who has has both natures, but she did not provide any of the Divine nature, so it is not required that she be a goddess in order to still be Mother of God. Remember, this is a singular event in history, so the normal connotations go out the window.

    Aquinas probably has the definitive answer on this, but I won’t have time to search the Summa Theologica for a while.

  • Praying of the Rosary Is NOT Bible-Based Teaching

    03/25/2015 7:27:07 AM PDT · 466 of 900
    Seraphicaviary to Elsie

    It is part of the Nicene Creed. “begotten by the Father”. It is an article of faith for us. It has been that way for over 1500 years. Odd that you question it now...

  • Praying of the Rosary Is NOT Bible-Based Teaching

    03/25/2015 6:23:24 AM PDT · 446 of 900
    Seraphicaviary to Elsie

    Actually, our statements are simultaneously true. God the Father begat Jesus in eternity - a no-space, no-time condition (space and time are created things). So it is correct to both say he got his Divine qualities from God the Father, and to say that Jesus always existed.

  • Praying of the Rosary Is NOT Bible-Based Teaching

    03/24/2015 4:25:27 PM PDT · 293 of 900
    Seraphicaviary to Colofornian

    I believe the word you are looking for to describe such persons is “saints”. Even among them, some are more laudable than others in how closely they follow Christ. I would say Mary, knowing him more intimately than any other, would rank near the top.

  • Praying of the Rosary Is NOT Bible-Based Teaching

    03/24/2015 4:22:32 PM PDT · 290 of 900
    Seraphicaviary to Resettozero

    Not to mention my 2 1/2 years toward a Masters of Divinity. Not a moment of it wasted.

  • Praying of the Rosary Is NOT Bible-Based Teaching

    03/24/2015 4:20:36 PM PDT · 288 of 900
    Seraphicaviary to CynicalBear

    “So she is the mother of Jesus not the mother of God. Finishing with invectives is not a strong scriptural basis.”

    In Catholic eyes, your statement is a logical contradiction.

  • Praying of the Rosary Is NOT Bible-Based Teaching

    03/24/2015 4:18:52 PM PDT · 285 of 900
    Seraphicaviary to metmom

    Agreed. This is not about “need”.

  • Praying of the Rosary Is NOT Bible-Based Teaching

    03/24/2015 2:57:06 PM PDT · 225 of 900
    Seraphicaviary to Resettozero

    That happens when you get a Master of Arts in Catholic Philosophical Studies.

  • Praying of the Rosary Is NOT Bible-Based Teaching

    03/24/2015 2:49:39 PM PDT · 218 of 900
    Seraphicaviary to CynicalBear

    He got his human qualities (Catholics say “nature”) from Mary and his Divine qualities from God the Father. Catholics call it a hypostatic union... oh, but that is not in the Bible, so you will not believe it.

  • Praying of the Rosary Is NOT Bible-Based Teaching

    03/24/2015 2:45:59 PM PDT · 215 of 900
    Seraphicaviary to CynicalBear

    It is contained in that very prayer...

    “whereas thou can do everything THAT IS THE WILL OF THY SON”

    This alone is enough to know that the one who prays this is not treating Mary as a Divine Person. She does nothing on her own, but only in accord with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. You have no argument.

    If only more people were to pray this every day, the world would be a better place.

  • Praying of the Rosary Is NOT Bible-Based Teaching

    03/24/2015 2:09:52 PM PDT · 197 of 900
    Seraphicaviary to CynicalBear

    That means the same thing... unless you do not think Jesus is God.

  • Praying of the Rosary Is NOT Bible-Based Teaching

    03/24/2015 2:06:27 PM PDT · 195 of 900
    Seraphicaviary to HossB86

    Mediatrix is not to place her on the same level as Christ. If you pray for me, then you are a mediator for me to Christ. Mary just does it on a wide scale. Her intercession is a great thing, but its absence is not an obstacle to salvation.

    If you are going to use arguments from Catholic thought, then you need to use them as Catholics understand the words.

  • Praying of the Rosary Is NOT Bible-Based Teaching

    03/24/2015 11:58:55 AM PDT · 132 of 900
    Seraphicaviary to ealgeone

    The Rosary is a good practice, and Pope Leo XIII recognizes this, but nothing from a encyclical makes one’s salvation dependent on it.

    You seem to think we act as Kantians under a Categorical Imperative, i.e. that a good practice, something that you would will everyone to do, becomes a moral imperative. That is not the case for Catholics. We don’t think that way.

    We would do well to do what the Pope says, but we will not go to hell if we don’t. So no... not binding.

  • Praying of the Rosary Is NOT Bible-Based Teaching

    03/24/2015 11:35:20 AM PDT · 123 of 900
    Seraphicaviary to Trapped Behind Enemy Lines

    I know some bishops that would have that priest removed from any active ministry...

    And I also know many priests that are in open dissent against the Church. Priests are only supposed to teach what, where, and how the local bishop says, since the bishop is the primary teacher in the diocese.

  • Praying of the Rosary Is NOT Bible-Based Teaching

    03/24/2015 10:56:28 AM PDT · 104 of 900
    Seraphicaviary to Elsie

    Yes.. she is the Theotokos. There were big fights about this between the Greeks and Latins long ago, but it was resolved long before the Protestant churches came about.

    If Jesus is God, then Mary is the Mother of God. It is not rocket science.

  • Praying of the Rosary Is NOT Bible-Based Teaching

    03/24/2015 10:49:14 AM PDT · 101 of 900
    Seraphicaviary to ealgeone

    Yes I stand on it, as one who went to a RC seminary and was one semester short of being ordained to the priesthood.

    The report of Bernadine is not binding. Many Catholics don’t know our own doctrine. The hierarchy has not said this was definitive teaching that is required by all believers. Try again.

  • Praying of the Rosary Is NOT Bible-Based Teaching

    03/24/2015 9:26:57 AM PDT · 56 of 900
    Seraphicaviary to RnMomof7

    Last I heard, heretical refers to those things which are a rejection of an essential truth of the faith. Nobody in the RCC claims the Rosary is essential... it is an extra (sacramental) that may or may not be done. Nobody thinks their personal salvation depends on it. Since it is not claimed to be essential, it cannot be heretical.

    Any argument of whether or not it is in the Bible is irrelevant. It is a method of prayer, nothing more.

    Nor is it idolatrous, since we are not depending on Mary to save us. It asks Mary to “pray for us”, which you should ask of everyone you know. Do you tell everyone you know “Don’t pray for me.. I will take care of it myself!”?

    Much ado about nothing...

  • The problem of Evil, from Augustine to contemporary Genetics

    03/07/2015 4:43:05 AM PST · 16 of 19
    Seraphicaviary to Gamecock

    We study theology in the seminary, which uses the same processes as philosophy, but the data comes from Scripture.

    Not many pay attention to it anymore, but ancient Greek philosophy was all about determining meaning and one’s purpose in a greater pattern. This is why the Church Fathers were quick to pick it up, since Scripture also does that. It teaches people how they fit in God’s plan of salvation, which is a story that continues today.

    Modern and Contemporary philosophy discard the search for purpose in life to focus on the process of ethics. Three hundred years after the start of the Enlightenment, we have nothing but factions in ethics that are based on the opinion of the movement founders, as if they were gods pronouncing what is right and wrong. Many in the academia who do Modern and Contemporary philosophy bristle when you use the word Truth with the capital T. They deny there is such a thing.

    God’s laws are answer to the question of “How should I live as a person in God’s creation.” Philosophy should be an inquiry of why He formulated them that way, or it does nobody any good.

  • The problem of Evil, from Augustine to contemporary Genetics

    03/06/2015 2:42:50 PM PST · 8 of 19
    Seraphicaviary to Gamecock

    There is plenty of Christianity that is philosophical. This is why RC priests usually have a philosophy degree prior to studying theology. The same thought processes apply.

    Now I would go as far as say there is nothing in common between Modern or Contemporary philosophy and Christianity...

  • What Language Did Jesus Speak?

    01/17/2015 3:24:45 PM PST · 131 of 201
    Seraphicaviary to aMorePerfectUnion

    Everything you and I are putting out has been done for centuries. Neither of us is advancing any new arguments.

    Tell me again how “What Language Did Jesus Speak” devolve into a centuries only unresolved position about Mary’s sex life?

  • What Language Did Jesus Speak?

    01/17/2015 3:20:01 PM PST · 129 of 201
    Seraphicaviary to aMorePerfectUnion

    Fruitful and multiply does not always mean children. Otherwise, childless couples would be accused of failing to obey the law through no fault of their own.

    The command to be “fruitful and multiply” is not functionally equivalent to a command to have sex. That is only one way of meeting the command. The vast majority do, but it is not the only way. Marriage is is done for Gods purposes, not ours. Mary and Joseph were on a mission, and it did not require that they have sex. Anyone is free to think they did, but it does not make sense to me given the particulars of this situation.

    I submit that Mary and Joseph not having sex, and not being disobedient, are not mutually exclusive propositions. Abstinence in this case is not in opposition to God’s command. Jesus was the focus here, not the couple.

  • What Language Did Jesus Speak?

    01/17/2015 3:05:58 PM PST · 128 of 201
    Seraphicaviary to xone

    1) Christians or not, this was about family members taking a relative into their home. Whether they were Christian or Jew is irrelevant.

    2) What you consider shame we consider blessed. Remaining a virgin her whole life does not make her a “crappy Jewish wife” unless you reduce marriage to only sex. The shame attributed to Elizabeth was because she was considered barren. Once they both had sons, none would consider them in shame. Sex is for a purpose, and there is no need once the purpose has been fulfilled, which was done for both. Read Paul again. For those who can, virginity is the higher path, and it makes sense that the Joseph and Mary would focus more on Jesus than making other children.

  • What Language Did Jesus Speak?

    01/17/2015 2:05:32 PM PST · 122 of 201
    Seraphicaviary to xone

    Why would they need to be Christians? Nobody called themselves that until much later. Everyone involved would be Jews.

    Also, you are arguing about “natural and law-keeping” after a very not-so-natural act of having a child “Born of a Virgin”.

    But the argument of having sex after giving birth to Jesus is aimed at the Catholic dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. Again, this is Argument from Silence, and everyone who argues Mary and Joseph acting in a “natural and law keeping” way are projecting our own common desires on a couple that have the answer to all desires in their midst. We who believe Mary was virgin before, during, and after the birth of Jesus to the end of her life believe that because it makes no sense to be in the presence of God daily and still carry on an average life.

  • What Language Did Jesus Speak?

    01/17/2015 1:19:15 PM PST · 111 of 201
    Seraphicaviary to xone

    A better argument is that any grown children of Joseph would maintain some contact with their father’s wife, and there would not be a need to hand her over to John.

    From a human nature standpoint, I would think God would engineer no other children for Mary in order for her to focus on Jesus, the same way Elizabeth was barren until John the Baptist.

    How many comedians have joked about how bad it would be for a younger sibling to Jesus? “Why could you not be more like your older brother?”

    Also, since God is the fulfillment of all desires, all attention would be to Jesus, and not to be split with siblings. No proof, but it seems more rational than Joseph being told the child just born is the Son of God, who is God, and BTW now you go and sleep with His mother and have other children. I do not know many men who could do that.

  • America's Top Killing Machine

    01/17/2015 12:53:15 PM PST · 30 of 52
    Seraphicaviary to Libloather

    I think with a little effort, we could make bacon the top killer of Americans. I am doing my part!

  • What Language Did Jesus Speak?

    01/17/2015 12:45:21 PM PST · 100 of 201
    Seraphicaviary to xone

    Does not mitigate proposed children of Joseph prior to taking Mary into his home, which is how some explain it.

  • What Language Did Jesus Speak?

    01/17/2015 11:34:46 AM PST · 84 of 201
    Seraphicaviary to ravenwolf

    Indeed. There is a lot on this thread based on Argument from Silence. There is no mention of siblings at the Nativity, nor in the Temple at 12 years old. There is a reason for that...

    Such things are not relevant to anyone’s salvation or salvation history in general. It also takes attention off the Message by all those people (Dan Brown, et al) who are more concerned with the Bloodline, as if we worship specific genetic markers and not His divinity.

    Divinity is not in the DNA, which is of the body. It is philosophical / theological. Assuming you could get hold of the the actual blood spilled at the Crucifixion or if it is on the Shroud of Turin, there is nothing there you could clone or splice into someone else to make them divine.

    All these philological discussions about brothers versus cousins are nothing more than flights of fancy.

  • Is Keynes Misunderstood, Maligned By Critics?

    10/13/2014 12:46:29 PM PDT · 13 of 34
    Seraphicaviary to Kaslin

    Never trust anyone who nurtured at the knee of G.E. Moore, like Keynes. Moore was a philosopher that Wittgenstein said was proof of how far you could get in philosophy without knowing anything.

  • Islam,Violence,and the Nature of God

    09/11/2014 11:21:08 AM PDT · 6 of 6
    Seraphicaviary to Capt. Tom

    A finite being cannot know all of an infinite being, true, but the finite being can know something, in accordance with his capacity. You cannot love what you do not know, and we are meant to love God with all our hearts, so some knowledge of God is necessary. The tricky part in the past with regard to apparently conflicting theologies was some missing information that successfully explained both points of view simultaneously. Thus the great work of Aquinas, who reconciled Aristotle and Augustine, when many of St. Thomas’s contemporaries thought it impossible.

    So who today would dare reconcile Christianity and Islam?

  • A Word About Orthodox Apologetics

    07/25/2014 12:41:18 PM PDT · 20 of 30
    Seraphicaviary to don-o

    And I always heard it said that nobody ever believed in anything they did not first think was rational. I think it was John Cardinal Newman who said that.

    Maybe you cannot noodle out every detail, but nobody just submits to irrationality. Assurance of things not known is not the same as embracing the irrational. It just means you don’t have everything you need for a syllogistic proof. Even the simplest person who is not trained in ordering his thoughts still thinks, and he may not know all the why, but if he is to act upon his beliefs and spread it to others, it must be intelligible.

  • GOP Front-Runner Compares Gay Marriage to Polygamy

    06/27/2014 5:03:37 AM PDT · 15 of 19
    Seraphicaviary to Ann Archy

    I can’t remember where I read it, but there was a Supreme Court decision a long time ago against polygamy. The underlying reasoning was that a polygamous marriage would necessarily have two members of the same sex, which was not allowed. Now all that reasoning is out the window. Based on that legal reasoning, there is nothing preventing eventual legal polygamy should those few who want it are willing to pursue it back to the court.

  • ‘The door is always open’: Celibacy for priests not unchangeable dogma, Pope Francis says

    06/12/2014 11:28:26 AM PDT · 106 of 116
    Seraphicaviary to Elsie
    Tsk tsk... That's NO way to; ahem; turn the other cheek...

    Just my application of Aquinas' Just War Theory. Proportional response, meaning proportional to what is necessary to prevent further "assault".

  • ‘The door is always open’: Celibacy for priests not unchangeable dogma, Pope Francis says

    06/11/2014 1:42:15 PM PDT · 74 of 116
    Seraphicaviary to Gay State Conservative

    I had heard there were Lavender Mafia in the seminaries, so I was on guard when I went there. I did see some men that are more effeminate than the average guy, but if there was a Lavendar Mafia, they did not approach me. Maybe it was because I was 40 at the time and former Navy. Anyone who did approach me like that would lose teeth.

    I knew one seminarian who had difficulty fitting in with the population. After his second year he left. About 6 months later we all had to unfriend him on Facebook because every post was flaming pro-homosexual. He joined the Episcopalians, who are much more amenable to homosexuals. He just could not stomach staying with a religion that tells him there is something wrong with his tendencies. I figure any homosexual who makes it to high office in the RCC has to have more discipline than a Soviet deep-cover agent, because at every turn he would be face-to-face with teaching that is offensive to him.

    It should be noted that I started attending at the time that Pope Benedict XVI put out the word that a man with those tendencies should not be ordained. By my third year the seminary was full, and they had to turn prospective students away. I heard other seminaries were also at capacity.

  • ‘The door is always open’: Celibacy for priests not unchangeable dogma, Pope Francis says

    06/11/2014 1:24:48 PM PDT · 73 of 116
    Seraphicaviary to PapaBear3625

    Diocesan priests do not take vows of poverty. They take obedience, celibacy, and prayer 5 times a day. Monastics take vows of obdeience, celibacy, and poverty.

    Some priests retire rather well, since there usually is someone in the parish who is a good money manager that gives free financial advice to the priest.

  • ‘The door is always open’: Celibacy for priests not unchangeable dogma, Pope Francis says

    06/11/2014 10:23:12 AM PDT · 48 of 116
    Seraphicaviary to Gay State Conservative

    Since I was a seminarian, I can assure that there is a very intense program explaining how and why celibacy is a much greater gift than married love. Every man who is ordained knows a long time beforehand the nature of the vow. He has plenty of time to consider it (6 years minimum) before taking that vow. This is because any provable deception, fraud, or misunderstanding on the part of the man taking the vow invalidates the ordination. All the men I saw ordained knew celibacy was a greater gift and embraced it. That is essential for it to be a sacrifice. One leaves behind one good for the sake of obtaining a greater good.

  • Hearing: Electric Grid Vulnerable to EMP

    05/09/2014 8:11:27 AM PDT · 23 of 37
    Seraphicaviary to Cringing Negativism Network

    Is this not the original plot line for the Dark Angel series with Jessica Alba? An EMP sets everyone back to the pre-transistor technology.

    EMP will generate a charge in all the conductors and fry anything needing a pure crystal semi-conductor, but the lines will still be there. How soon would we be able to remake breakers and switches pre-semiconductor? We would be out for a bit, and mass chaos will ensue, but we will recover.

    Start putting fiber optic in your home. Glass fiber is immune to EMP because it does not depend on an ordered crystal structure, and you only need to Faraday cage the transmitters.

  • Seattle Catholic church members outraged to learn of violations by longtime priest

    05/09/2014 7:24:26 AM PDT · 45 of 68
    Seraphicaviary to daniel1212
    Since Scripture is reduced to being a servant to support church teaching, and the veracity of which is not dependent upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation, but upon the premise of the assured veracity of your church, then you are operating out of a cultic model, which comes from Hell.

    But of course scripture is a servant to Church teaching, because Scripture was written as a result of Church teaching in order to preserve it. But Scripture is silent on a lot of things, so Church teaching continues to be necessary. Anything else is idolatry of a book and not worship of the God the book is about.

    No matter. I got what I wanted, i.e. an accusation from you that I am following a model from Hell. Push long enough and it comes out. As you might have noticed, most of this came off the top of my head. I have neither the time or inclination to spend time researching and pulling exact quotes. We have long since left anything relevant to a rogue priest in Seattle. Maybe see you on the next thread, but this one has played out.

  • Seattle Catholic church members outraged to learn of violations by longtime priest

    05/08/2014 8:40:33 PM PDT · 38 of 68
    Seraphicaviary to metmom

    All those sacraments are valid. Prohibition does not affect validity. If the priest was laicised, then the sacraments would not be recognized. That requires Vatican approval. You are right that the bishop should have taken more active steps to get rid of the guy considering the confusion it causes.

    Look up Ex Opere Operato. The grace of the sacrament is God’s, not the priest’s. It explains a lot.

  • Seattle Catholic church members outraged to learn of violations by longtime priest

    05/08/2014 8:27:10 PM PDT · 37 of 68
    Seraphicaviary to daniel1212

    I wrote this out twice and deleted it accidentally, so I am going to keep it short>

    First, you are wrong on “unScriptural”. “On this Rock...” That is enough.

    Second, I do hold to imputed righteousness as well as imputed sin. Sin came through one person, and righteousness came through one person. Did anyone today gain sin directly though Eve? As such, though God can act directly, He chooses to act through His Church. We are only arguing over method. Righteousness is imputed... through His Church.

    You want grace to act only between God and each person. While that process exists, there is also grace to each person through other people. This points to a greater glory of God than individual action alone.

    As for the rest: Yes, I do not believe I have a charism to authoritatively interpret Scripture. Neither do you. Only the bishops have it because it is core to their function, their purpose on earth. As a former seminarian, I have more personal experience with bishops than most. If the Holy Spirit gave me anything, it is the ability to discern hypocrisy, and the men I have seen are not hypocrites. They live the same faith they preach.

    I have also seen faith lost, and by extension according to you, salvation lost. I have also seen that faith regained. It was not a false faith first replaced by a true faith. It was faith lost and then regained. I have personally seen this, and no words by you will convince me in place of “my lying eyes”.

  • Seattle Catholic church members outraged to learn of violations by longtime priest

    05/07/2014 8:57:17 PM PDT · 31 of 68
    Seraphicaviary to daniel1212
    One part interested me:

    That is error begetting error, which is that innocent infants need salvation, though they have done neither good nor evil. (Rm. 9:11) Sin is not imputed when there is no law, (Rm. 5:13) and the curse of sin which affect all creation will not extend into the next, in which souls are damned for their own sins, not that of their fathers. (Dt. 24:16; Rv. 20:12-15) Culpability is according to the principle in giving, "it is accepted according to that a man hath, and not according to that he hath not." (2 Corinthians 8:12)

    Infant are born with a sinful nature, and into a cursed world in which all sin and all die, but an infant is not going to Hell due to Adam, not shut out of Heaven due to simply being born with a sinful nature, which all believers also die with. I would argue that "innocent" infants need salvation. Our interpretation of those same citations are that all are born under the law, so sin is imputed to all until baptism. After baptism, Original Sin is gone and people are condemned for their own personal sin. That is the meaning of "next" in Rm 5:13 - the life you have after baptism.

    Were it not so, then who is under the law? Only the circumcised? If so, then the Romans all got away scott free, even without faith, because sin was not imputed to them. There is nothing to say the law only becomes active with the age of reason and only with regard to your personal choices. That is an error of the modern era.

    I know you will not agree. It does not matter. You seem to know something about Catholic theology, but reject it on a personal interpretation of Scripture, whereas we believe the Holy Spirit gives that particular charism only to the bishops. I trust that the Holy Spirit is smart enough to not give such a gift to men who would abuse it for personal gain, and my personal experience with the bishops has confirmed this belief. I cannot believe that lowly men could defeat or corrupt the will of the Holy Spirit.

    Even our preists do not have authority to interpret scripture on their own. They must teach what the local bishop tells them to teach.

  • Seattle Catholic church members outraged to learn of violations by longtime priest

    05/07/2014 4:39:19 PM PDT · 28 of 68
    Seraphicaviary to daniel1212

    A complete response to your post involves a post-graduate level course in the theology of Baptism that I had in 2009 and would bore to tears most people reading it here. Since the situation is about what Catholics believe and how they view Baptism, a Protestant theology of Baptism is irrelevant and off topic. This thread is not about comparative theology.

    In accord with the above, I make two notes:

    1. The charge of “Unscriptural” means little to us where Scripture is silent. That is why we have Tradition and the Magisterium. In this case, absence of scriptural record regarding infant baptisms is not proof that they are invalid.

    2. Sacraments are not just signs, but actually confer the grace of which the sacrament is a sign. It is the power of God working through men, not works of men. Baptism actually wipes away all mortal and venial sins, though not the temporal effects of sin. If they were just signs that required cognizance of their condition and desire for absolution, then we have again the question that was raised during the various plagues and disasters about what happens to children before the age of reason. Are they to be deprived of grace because some considered them “too young for Baptism”? You try telling a mother that her child cannot be baptised because he is too young to understand when aforesaid child may not live long enough. We have a hard time believing God would withold grace because of an age limit.

  • Seattle Catholic church members outraged to learn of violations by longtime priest

    05/06/2014 7:21:02 PM PDT · 18 of 68
    Seraphicaviary to Gamecock

    The priniciple is Ex Opere Operato. The power of the sacrament is Christ’s, not of the priest or minister. In Baptisms, so long as the one baptizing has the intention of what the Church intends and use the proper form and matter(i.e. must say the right words), the sacrament is valid. The sinful state of the minister is not relevant. In Marriage, the ministers of the sacrament are the people being married, not the priest.

    The sacramments needing a priestly ordination are Eucharist, Annointing the Sick, and Reconciliation, all of which have a absolution component. The sacraments by the priest would be considered valid because the priest was not laicised (which requires Vatican approval), but illicit because he did not have the permission of the bishop. They will not have to be “re-done”.

    If the preist had not used the words “In the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” during Baptisms, then it would have been a Chinese Fire Drill trying to find everyone affected to let them know the Baptisms were invalid.

    Much of Catholic theology follows Aristotelian philosophy with regard to Form and Matter to make something real. Such it is with the Sacraments.

  • Your Government Owes You a Job

    04/29/2014 2:58:17 AM PDT · 17 of 53
    Seraphicaviary to 2ndDivisionVet
    Ok, the guy is a law student. He is not a historian or economist. The idiot does not know that it has been tried before. Back then, it was the Second French Republic. Ask anyone who knows economic history how that turned out. It quickly turns into straight up welfare. One person paid to dig a hole, another to fill it. Mind you, Paul Krugman thinks that is a great idea, even though nothing has been gained and yet money changed hands.

    Raul also makes the idiotic argument that starts “In the richest country in the world....” Hey progressives, guess what? There are things even the richest country in the world cannot afford. Being richest is not the same as having infinite resources.

    This idea of government as employer of last resort has gotten traction over the last year or so in mainstream media, as if it has never been tried before and is elegantly simple. Read a history books some time, will ya!

  • Vatican responds to Francis’ call to Argentinian woman; more details emerge

    04/25/2014 3:28:33 AM PDT · 85 of 140
    Seraphicaviary to Iscool

    First I need to say you misunderstand my use of charity and humility. You apparently think I understood them as works, which I do not. They are virtues; behaviors observable in a person to see the Spirit in a person. They are not works, but they are gifts of the Holy Spirit and evidence when He is there. Are saying a person can be a total jerk and still have the Spirit in him?

    And anyway, the verses you picked out actually proved my point. When two or more bishops get together, He is among them. The thing they have that the average person does not is the teaching office of the Church. When bishops get together, the Spirit promotes authentic teaching that is not available to just any group of Christians that get together.

    Were that not so, then how could there be any fractioning of the Church with regard to teaching? If the same Holy Spirit were guiding every small group of Christians that came together, then all would come up with the same teaching on their own. The fact that this does not happen means some group is getting it right and another is getting it wrong. Some group is not getting the teaching direct from the Holy Spirit. All the rest is just figuring out which group has it right.

  • Vatican responds to Francis’ call to Argentinian woman; more details emerge

    04/24/2014 10:08:24 PM PDT · 80 of 140
    Seraphicaviary to metmom

    Logic error here. jjotto is implying the voice is not really the Holy Spirit. Indeed, Catholics believe you need the Holy Spirit to interpret Scripture. The question is how does the Spirit do this?

    In the Catholic Church, the Spirit is present when the bishops act in concert. “Where two or three are gathered...” I’m sure you know the rest. That is how the Church claims authority to interpret Scripture. When they are in the councils, the Holy Spirit is the authorizing agent for the pronouncements of the council. Yes, this includes things not directly referenced in the Bible. For a Catholic to deny what comes out of a council is functionally equivalent to denying God. In the past this was covered by anathemas directed against whatever heresy with which the council was concerned.

    The Holy Spirit may contact a person directly, but it would be very difficult to prove. Good luck to whoever tries that, especially if the claimant shows a lack of charity and humility.

  • Vatican responds to Francis’ call to Argentinian woman; more details emerge

    04/24/2014 5:33:25 PM PDT · 44 of 140
    Seraphicaviary to PapaNew

    This is the same Sola Scriptura argument that Catholics and Protestants have disagreed on for centuries.

    Protestants believe that if something is silent in the Bible then God has no position on the matter, so depending on the version of Protestant belief it is either 1) prohibited, or 3) allowed according to the whims of the interpreter.

    Catholics believe that God is bigger than can fit in all the books in all the libraries that will ever exist. Though the Bible has all that is necessary and sufficient for salvation, there is so much more of God to be explored. One who truly loves God will naturally seek more than what is in the Bible. So long as it is not contradicting what is stated in the Bible, it is worthy of consideration. That is why priests have to learn philosophy and theology, which involve investigations about God beyond what is in the Bible for a deeper understading. It is also this need for more that we have Magisterium and Tradition to tell us more about God.

    It is as if you do not know or understand yet what Catholics are about. Saying something is not strictly scriptural and therefore allowed/not allowd has no effect on us, because we have also to consider Tradition and Magisterium.

    We will not convice you here. You will not convince us either. Both sides are just talking past each other. As it is an internal matter to the Catholic Church, why are you even concerned?

  • US headed for more conservative future, even if only by birth rates

    04/21/2014 11:49:22 PM PDT · 17 of 55
    Seraphicaviary to MinorityRepublican

    Look up James Taranto’s Roe Effect. Taranto has been pushing this idea for years.

  • John Paul II enabled abuse, should not be canonized

    04/21/2014 8:22:00 PM PDT · 59 of 67
    Seraphicaviary to aMorePerfectUnion

    The crux of your three questions is so that you would no longer have doubt. Sorry. That is not how it works. You must have a possibility to doubt.

    You are free to not believe. It is not my job to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. I am only commanded to make a reasonable case, i.e. witness, and the rest is up to you. If you wait for evidence, then you will not see it until the afterlife....

    And then it will be too late.

    Oh, and the definition of a saint I am using is all those in heaven (Church Triumphant), not all believers on earth (Church Militant). You are free to change the definition , but then we are talking about different things, and your argument will have no force. Call it un-Bibilical if you want. It was not meant to be “Biblical”. I am doing theology here, not Biblical studies.

  • John Paul II enabled abuse, should not be canonized

    04/21/2014 6:02:11 PM PDT · 51 of 67
    Seraphicaviary to TigerTown

    After seeing some of the discussion, time to weigh in as one who attended a Catholic seminary...

    The model is of a heavenly court. You CAN go direct to the King and get the healing you ask for, but that is only a two-way channel of relation. The King wants more from us than that. It is a higher good that we ask others to pray for us and to pray for others than to take everything directly to the King all the time and leave our neighbors out of it.

    The point of the miracle is that it shows the putative saint is in heaven and next to God, and therefore able to intercede on the behalf of the petitioner and relay the prayer to God, like a court messenger. All the prayers go to the King, who is the only one with the power to grant the request.

    If you are looking for “proof” of a miracle, then what criteria would you use? The only thing we have so far is that it usually happens in a relatively short period of time and is “unexplainable” to science, not necessarily an acual violation of the laws of chemistry and physics. Extreme unprobablility is enough, becuase the point is to foster faith that the King listens to the cries of His people.

    Philosopher David Hume also though miracles never happened, because it was always more likely the reporter of the miracle lied than for something unlikely happen in nature. Such a dark world in which he lived! If it could be proved, then faith would not be necessary. Uncertainty about the situation is critical to a miracle. There must be a possibilty for doubt, otherwise you would “know”, and not “believe”. Faith here is defined the way it is in Hebrews 11:1 - An assurance of things not seen.

    I could go on for hours, but there are other threads to see. Laters.