Christ's life ended in failure

[r3volution 3.0]

Philioque?

O, boy...

Next we'll be arguing homoiousios v. homoousios

[pcosmar]

I'm left wondering just who the hell this man is.

Watch and see.

[heavenlyboy34]

Philioque?

O, boy...

Next we'll be arguing homoiousios v. homoousios

wut?

[heavenlyboy34]

You just made my argument for me, though I don't think you intended to do so. Subordinating theology to individual whim is essentially what was accomplished through the notion that a substantive theological debate amounts to a mere mess, even if only intended as an argument from ignorance. Furthermore, thinking that America's problems began post-WWII is a pretty shallow view of history. Believing propaganda has a rich tradition going pretty well into the early days of America, at the very least well into the run up to the Civil War.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to hells_unicorn again.

Propaganda is critical to the "success" (depending on how you define the word) of American politics, and always has been.

[r3volution 3.0]

The bishops won't depose him because just about all of them agree with him, both politically and theologically. Any opponents that he has are either marginalized or otherwise too attached to their worldly influence as a prelate to risk mounting any real opposition.

That's true.

This is the consequence of centuries of Rome chasing out and persecuting staunch proponents of the faith, from the Waldensies to the Jansenists.

Better this than this.

It's a hard-knock life...

And to be clear, I'm not buying Francis' apology to the Waldensies for a minute...

Oh, if only it were insincere.

His apology to the apostates (including the Hussites and the Waldensians) is part of his...well, apostasy.

it reeks of a clandestine agitator who is sarcastically saying "sorry, not sorry" while gloating about how his order's Pelagian poison has seeped into all facets of Christendom, Protestant and otherwise. A Jesuit serpent may publically shed its skin, but never changes its nature.

LOL

Yes, less authority, more doctrinal anarchy, more modernism...that's the ticket.

[r3volution 3.0]

wut?

It was another somewhat senseless (& very bloody) fight within the Church over semantics; goes back to before the Great Schism.

[hells_unicorn]

Better this than this.

It's a hard-knock life...

The French Revolution was a cakewalk compared to what Rome's 30 years war did to most of Europe. And equating the French Revolution (the final result of both Roman ecclesiastic abuse and magistrate tyranny) with the reformation is asinine. It's tough to see the real forms when you're still stuck in the cave, in this case the cave being manufactured history a la The Son of Perdition and his minions.

Oh, if only it were insincere.

You don't know much about Jesuits do you? Having been a Roman Catholic for a while, and a very serious Thomist at that (I still read Aquinas occasionally), I can tell you up front that insincerity is a sacrament to people like the ones who instructed him.

His apology to the apostates (including the Hussites and the Waldensians) is part of his...well, apostasy.

If he was apologizing to apostates, he'd be apologizing to his own church. Granted, the persecution of the Jansenists was a pronounced attack against faithful Roman Catholics by professing Roman Catholics. Rome's historic self-flagellation is not limited to a few fanatics in an abbey I fear, currently nor historically.

Newsflash, the Feeneyites have a woefully incomplete understanding of the history of the western church. I adopted this position for a brief time period before I became better educated. With God's help, maybe you will some day.

Yes, less authority, more doctrinal anarchy, more modernism...that's the ticket.

Ah yes, argue with a straw man, that'll help your cognitive dissonance. I am definitely of a mind of have more authority, more soundness of doctrine, and much less modernism. But allow me to return the favor by pointing out just how ridiculous your position sounds.

Why doth thou protest so much at Francis I? Has he not authority by virtue of Vatican I as the head of the true church? Did not the very college of bishops that you wish would depose him elect him? I think you would do well to shut up and obey your holy father, he is the approved authority and you have no grounds upon which to question his monopoly upon the understanding of doctrine, layman.

Roman authority, by its very nature, is a mockery of the very concept of authority, and it does nothing but give license to lawlessness for a select view. You are seeing Roman authority in action right now as Francis goes about the world spreading a false, universalist religion.

[r3volution 3.0]

I'm about to hit the sack, no time to give a full response, but one item demands immediate attention:

The French Revolution was a cakewalk compared to what Rome's 30 years war did to most of Europe.

Rome caused the thirty years war?!

...it didn't have a little something to do with the mass rebellion of the heretics (protestants)?!

GTFOutta here

pudor!

The rebels have the blood of half of Germany on their hands, something for which I'll never forgive them.

Gustavus $#@!face Murderer Adolphus should be dug out of his crypt and tossed into the Baltic.

[heavenlyboy34]

I'm about to hit the sack, no time to give a full response, but one item demands immediate attention:



Rome caused the thirty year war?!

...it didn't have a little something to do with the mass rebellion of the heretics (protestants)?!

GTFO

pudor

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to r3volution 3.0 again.

[hells_unicorn]

Rome caused the thirty years war?!

...it didn't have a little something to do with the mass rebellion of the heretics (protestants)?!

GTFOutta here

pudor!

The rebels have the blood of half of Germany on their hands, something for which I'll never forgive them.

Gustavus Adolphus should be dug out of his crypt and tossed into the Baltic.

If you want to be technical, the Jesuits were at fault since their puppet Ferdinand II provoked the Bohemian revolt. You could argue semantics and say that Spain was most directly responsible for helping put a fanatic in charge of the Holy Roman Empire who didn't understand that the world had changed and that a peace between the Papist and Lutheran parties in Germany had already been settled.

But alas, I have no doubt that a professed worshiper of ecclesiastical tyranny has cares for such things, particularly one who has a fetish for medieval modes of execution and desecrating bodies of the deceased. Why deal with your opponent using logic and sound doctrine when you can simply burn them to cinders by brute force. Why you are supporting Rand Paul is a mystery to me, Marco Rubio is more your type.

[r3volution 3.0]

Why deal with your opponent using logic and sound doctrine when you can simply burn them to cinders by brute force.

One doesn't reason with a rabid dog, one puts it down, unfortunate as it may be (ala Old Yeller).

Why you are supporting Rand Paul is a mystery to me, Marco Rubio is more your type.

LOL

-
-

I think you may be confusing liberalism with democracy.

...not a mortal sin, our Dear Ludwig and many others did the same, after all.

The great, world-historical, horrifying, $#@!-up of the liberals was their embrace of democracy (including of the ecclesiastical kind: i.e. your heresy).

Rejecting democracy (spiritual or temporal) does not mean anti-liberalism, quite the opposite.

Don't be skurrrred...

[hells_unicorn]

One doesn't reason with a rabid dog, one puts it down, unfortunate as it may be (ala Old Yeller).

What does it mean for something to be unfortunate? Is God in control, or does he share dominion over creation with some formless force of chance/fortune? Rome's pagan sub-conscious always seems to bubble to the surface when under duress, it seems. And the irony of a ravenous wolf casting aspersions about rabid dogs is on part with the whole "Pot, Kettle, Black" cliche.

I think you may be confusing liberalism with democracy.

Not confusing them, though I do reject both for similar reasons.

...not a mortal sin, our Dear Ludwig and many others did the same, after all.

Given the mass graves of infanticide victims that were unearthed in close proximity to Roman affiliated convents and abbeys in France, I have no doubt that you think liberalism is not a serious problem. It takes a certain sort of seared conscience to either gloss over such things or pretend as though they never happened.

The great, world-historical, horrifying, $#@!-up of the liberals was their embrace of democracy (including of the ecclesiastical kind: i.e. your heresy).

I'm not an Anabaptist you moron, I don't support ecclesiastical democracy or some egalitarian equivalent, I simply require ecclesiastic officers be chosen by proper methods of ordination and be subordinate to God, not propagators of innovative superstitions. The $#@!-up of the liberals was their embrace of Antichrist, i.e. your heresy.

Rejecting democracy (spiritual or temporal) does not mean anti-liberalism, quite the opposite.

While I'd be wont to simply protest at your continual straw-manning me as a proponent of democracy (I despise the concept), I should instead point out that any notion of liberty, be it legitimate or otherwise, only exists today in Papist circles insofar as the Papacy is too distant to truly implement its preferred mode of governance. As much as heresiarchs like the ones whom occupied the Papacy beginning in the latter half of the 19th century were theologically depraved, they had a far better grasp of proper Roman Catholic government than people like Tom Woods Jr. do at present, sadly Mr. Woods understands Rome's place in the history of Western Civilization about as well as John Locke understood the true ramifications of Social Contract Theory (Hobbes was much closer to the reality).

Don't be stoopid.

[r3volution 3.0]

What does it mean for something to be unfortunate? Is God in control, or does he share dominion over creation with some formless force of chance/fortune? Rome's pagan sub-conscious always seems to bubble to the surface when under duress, it seems. And the irony of a ravenous wolf casting aspersions about rabid dogs is on part with the whole "Pot, Kettle, Black" cliche.

God, of course, does not exist. We're talking about the social implications of various ideologies. So...this is moot.

Not confusing them, though I do reject both for similar reasons.

Scratch a protestant and you get a democrat (or communist).

Given the mass graves of infanticide victims that were unearthed in close proximity to Roman affiliated convents and abbeys in France, I have no doubt that you think liberalism is not a serious problem. It takes a certain sort of seared conscience to either gloss over such things or pretend as though they never happened.

...no idea what you're talking about, and it isn't relevant anyway, but: sources?

I'm not an Anabaptist you moron, I don't support ecclesiastical democracy or some egalitarian equivalent, I simply require ecclesiastic officers be chosen by proper methods of ordination and be subordinate to God, not propagators of innovative superstitions. The $#@!-up of the liberals was their embrace of Antichrist, i.e. your heresy.

You either recognize a final (earthly) authority, with respect to doctrinal disagreements, or you are an anarchist and a rebel.

While I'd be wont to simply protest at your continual straw-manning me as a proponent of democracy (I despise the concept), I should instead point out that any notion of liberty, be it legitimate or otherwise, only exists today in Papist circles insofar as the Papacy is too distant to truly implement its preferred mode of governance. As much as heresiarchs like the ones whom occupied the Papacy beginning in the latter half of the 19th century were theologically depraved, they had a far better grasp of proper Roman Catholic government than people like Tom Woods Jr. do at present, sadly Mr. Woods understands Rome's place in the history of Western Civilization about as well as John Locke understood the true ramifications of Social Contract Theory (Hobbes was much closer to the reality).

By the 19th century, the filth unleashed by the "reformation" had boomeranged back around to infect to the Church: See 1789.

I'll take a classically trained Jesuit over some monkey rolling around on the floor any old day of the week.

Don't be stoopid.

Well, I'm not protestant, so...no chance of that.

[pcosmar]

I can not believe that any Christian would believe anything about the cross was a failure. not any aspect or from any viewpoint.
The world may see it as such., for lack of understanding.

Hopefully many folks that follow this man will wake up. This is not the first questionable thing to come out of this mans mouth.

There are people in all churches that are believers,, and there are those that are not.

[Nirvikalpa]

I can not believe that any Christian would believe anything about the cross was a failure. not any aspect or from any viewpoint.
The world may see it as such., for lack of understanding.

Hopefully many folks that follow this man will wake up. This is not the first questionable thing to come out of this mans mouth.

I can't believe how many people are in uproar over this. Yes, if you quote and try to digest one sentence out of his entire homily it's easy to get angry and feel lost. It's the description beforehand which really deciphers the meaning of this message.

We can get caught up measuring the value of our apostolic works by the standards of efficiency, good management and outward success which govern the business world.

Success in the human, "business world" is not often the best way to measure success, or good deeds, all the time.

Not that these things are unimportant! We have been entrusted with a great responsibility, and God’s people rightly expect accountability from us. But the true worth of our apostolate is measured by the value it has in God’s eyes. To see and evaluate things from God’s perspective calls for constant conversion in the first days and years of our vocation and, need I say, great humility.

Our worldly deeds are measured by God - so something that may seen to have of little value by human eyes may show greatness in God's eyes.

The cross shows us a different way of measuring success. Ours is to plant the seeds: God sees to the fruits of our labors. And if at times our efforts and works seem to fail and produce no fruit, we need to remember that we are followers of Jesus… and his life, humanly speaking, ended in failure, the failure of the cross.

The key here is "humanly speaking."

Jesus dying on the cross was the seed, forgiveness is the fruit of God's labor. People of the time believed that the Son of God was going to revolt against the Romans, and act as a political figurehead to the fall of Rome. To human eyes that watched him die on the cross, it seemed that Jesus' efforts failed - he not only was sentenced to death, but in a completely barbaric and shocking way. However, it is precisely what God wanted - Jesus' death WAS the fruit. The value Jesus' death had in God's eyes was infinite, but in human's eyes... a failure.

He also reiterates this later, right before thanking religious women:

Many of these are known only to God, but they bear rich fruit for the life of the Church.

[Eagles' Wings]

If I were to give Francis the most charitable benefit of the doubt that I could muster, there are still MASSIVE problems with the theological implications of this statement. Jesus' humanity, as a matter of settled doctrine throughout numerous early church councils and debates, was deemed to be perfect and in full conformity with the original purpose of man's existence, ergo he is often referred to as "The Second Adam". Furthermore, "in human terms" basically betrays a full out Pelagian heresy that argues that mankind has always been mortal and sinful, which also calls into question whether God created man to seek after sin and evil.

At best, Francis I made an extremely dubious statement in order to kowtow to a modern audience that is theologically stupid. At worst, and I think this is more likely, Francis I is stating here something which is fully in line with the Pelagian heresy, which the Jesuit order has been pushing in various forms since Ignatius of Loyola first started the order.

If I felt so inclined (I don't at the moment), I'd do an entire theological rebuttal of this incongruous homily and use it as proof against anyone joining the RCC.

There is absolutely, positively, and without a shred of doubt, NOTHING slanderous about this thread.

Are you so inclined yet, HU? What you have said in this post is a fine start.

[Eagles' Wings]

I can not believe that any Christian would believe anything about the cross was a failure. not any aspect or from any viewpoint.
The world may see it as such., for lack of understanding.

Hopefully many folks that follow this man will wake up. This is not the first questionable thing to come out of this mans mouth.

There are people in all churches that are believers,, and there are those that are not.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to pcosmar again.