Christian Discussion Thread VIII: Augustine's Revenge.

[Nordengrund]

Nor am I a registered Democrat. But yes, I shouldn't have assumed. I apologize for that.

No biggie.

My point was just that neither party is really based in Christian values fully. They've both got their baggage.

I'd love it if their were a party fully based in Christian values though.

The only problem with that would be what if a Christian disagreed with a party based on Christian values. I mean, the GOP (and probably some Dems) would say their party is based on Christian values, and affiliating with the other party makes you a lesser Christian.

What I'm saying is what if we had a party based on Christian democracy and promotes Christian values. Would Christians who disagree with that party technically be in error, or they cannot be promoting Christian values?

[Juniklub]

So, do Catholics still hold to Dictus Papae?

No, we do not; to the great relief of Marsilius of Padua and the Ghibellines amongst our ranks, we’ve never held to it, although much of the document does not scorch the Catholic’s sight or ear. Evident truths are expressed by what appears to be, per the most credible of investigations, the work of Cardinal Deusdedit; and no Roman would disagree, for example, with the first, twenty-sixth, or twenty-seventh statements, which declare the Church to be founded by God alone, cast doubt upon the right of those not in communion with Rome to be considered Catholic, and provide for the Pope’s ability to legitimise the rebellion of a tyrant’s subjects, respectively.

In spite of my earlier mention of Deusdedit of Todi, no agreement has been reached on the Dictatus papæ’s authorship, and even the most dispassionate of observers is likely to take issue with its twenty-third statement: ‘That the Roman pontiff, if he have been canonically ordained, is undoubtedly made a saint by the merits of St Peter; St Ennodius, bishop of Pavia, bearing witness, and many holy fathers agreeing with him. As is contained in the decrees of St Symmachus the Pope.’ Now, this has never been a doctrine adhered to by the Church; it thus becomes evident that, as with the other 26 points, the importance of the era ― that is to say, the Gregorian Reform ― is essential for comprehension.

Dictatus papæ is, in the Church’s eyes, a simple list. It is not presented in the manner typical of pontifical decrees. It is neither signed nor dated; it lacks both an exordium and conclusion, and is addressed to no-one in particular. It is nonbinding, but this does not keep it from being essential to the study of the aforesaid Gregorian Reform or expressing, as with the twenty-second point (on the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture), components of divine revelation. I must warn you, however, of my lack of theological formation or education; I am no heavyweight in this regard, and perhaps, it would be best to seek a more learned commentator’s declaration on the subject at hand. If I have erred, it has not been a conscious misrepresentation of the Church’s position, but merely an error.

[Venerable Bede]

So, do Catholics still hold to Dictus Papae?

No, we do not; to the great relief of Marsilius of Padua and the Ghibellines amongst our ranks, we’ve never held to it, although much of the document does not scorch the Catholic’s sight or ear. Evident truths are expressed by what appears to be, per the most credible of investigations, the work of Cardinal Deusdedit; and no Roman would disagree, for example, with the first, twenty-sixth, or twenty-seventh statements, which declare the Church to be founded by God alone, cast doubt upon the right of those not in communion with Rome to be considered Catholic, and provide for the Pope’s ability to legitimise the rebellion of a tyrant’s subjects, respectively.

In spite of my earlier mention of Deusdedit of Todi, no agreement has been reached on the Dictatus papæ’s authorship, and even the most dispassionate of observers is likely to take issue with its twenty-third statement: ‘That the Roman pontiff, if he have been canonically ordained, is undoubtedly made a saint by the merits of St Peter; St Ennodius, bishop of Pavia, bearing witness, and many holy fathers agreeing with him. As is contained in the decrees of St Symmachus the Pope.’ Now, this has never been a doctrine adhered to by the Church; it thus becomes evident that, as with the other 26 points, the importance of the era ― that is to say, the Gregorian Reform ― is essential for comprehension.

Dictatus papæ is, in the Church’s eyes, a simple list. It is not presented in the manner typical of pontifical decrees. It is neither signed nor dated; it lacks both an exordium and conclusion, and is addressed to no-one in particular. It is nonbinding, but this does not keep it from being essential to the study of the aforesaid Gregorian Reform or expressing, as with the twenty-second point (on the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture), components of divine revelation. I must warn you, however, of my lack of theological formation or education; I am no heavyweight in this regard, and perhaps, it would be best to seek a more learned commentator’s declaration on the subject at hand. If I have erred, it has not been a conscious misrepresentation of the Church’s position, but merely an error.

"Saint" in both Greek and Latin is simply the word "holy". It's pretty much just saying the Pope is "his holiness" here.

[Salus Maior]

No biggie.

My point was just that neither party is really based in Christian values fully. They've both got their baggage.

I'd love it if their were a party fully based in Christian values though.

The only problem with that would be what if a Christian disagreed with a party based on Christian values. I mean, the GOP (and probably some Dems) would say their party is based on Christian values, and affiliating with the other party makes you a lesser Christian.

What I'm saying is what if we had a party based on Christian democracy and promotes Christian values. Would Christians who disagree with that party technically be in error, or they cannot be promoting Christian values?

I think it's fairly simple on how to create a Christian political party.

Economic policies that make life better for the poor and for family living, and conservative social policies.

[Venerable Bede]

The only problem with that would be what if a Christian disagreed with a party based on Christian values. I mean, the GOP (and probably some Dems) would say their party is based on Christian values, and affiliating with the other party makes you a lesser Christian.

What I'm saying is what if we had a party based on Christian democracy and promotes Christian values. Would Christians who disagree with that party technically be in error, or they cannot be promoting Christian values?

I think it's fairly simple on how to create a Christian political party.

Economic policies that make life better for the poor and for family living, and conservative social policies.

This sounds more Jewish than Christian.

[Salus Maior]

I think it's fairly simple on how to create a Christian political party.

Economic policies that make life better for the poor and for family living, and conservative social policies.

This sounds more Jewish than Christian.

Well, we did come from them

What would you think would be more Christian?

[Juniklub]

"Saint" in both Greek and Latin is simply the word "holy". It's pretty much just saying the Pope is "his holiness" here.

I should have checked Wikipedia because the translation in their entry reflects this, but it is too late now. In my previous readings, however, it appeared to be interpreted as a proclamation on the Pope’s personal sanctity being inherited from St Peter, not merely a stylistic embellishment or customary form of address for the Holy Father. I’ve yet to encounter an author treating it as the logical conclusion of 1 Peter 1:16; to the possible dismay of Cardinal Deusdedit, Dictatus papæ’s use of sanctus has been understood, it seems to me, in only the strictest of definitions. I will have to look into it.

[Coasi]

Very lapsed Christian myself. Family is deeply, deeply Catholic, but I can't say I'm a fan of the Catholic Church.

[Venerable Bede]

This sounds more Jewish than Christian.

Well, we did come from them

What would you think would be more Christian?

Beyond affirming Christianity as true and supporting the Church and Christian feasts and fasts, and having a Christian leader, there isn't really anything more. Christianity emphasizes transcending the law, whereas the state is completely centered on it.

[Venerable Bede]

This sounds more Jewish than Christian.

Well, we did come from them

What would you think would be more Christian?

Beyond affirming Christianity as true and supporting the Church and Christian feasts and fasts, and having a Christian leader, there isn't really anything more. Christianity emphasizes transcending the law, whereas the state is completely centered on it.

[Venerable Bede]

"Saint" in both Greek and Latin is simply the word "holy". It's pretty much just saying the Pope is "his holiness" here.

I should have checked Wikipedia because the translation in their entry reflects this, but it is too late now. In my previous readings, however, it appeared to be interpreted as a proclamation on the Pope’s personal sanctity being inherited from St Peter, not merely a stylistic embellishment or customary form of address for the Holy Father. I’ve yet to encounter an author treating it as the logical conclusion of 1 Peter 1:16; to the possible dismay of Cardinal Deusdedit, Dictatus papæ’s use of sanctus has been understood, it seems to me, in only the strictest of definitions. I will have to look into it.

Only strict definition in Latin and Greek is the canonized one. Otherwise it just means something "set apart" in a religious sense, from the chalice, to God, to Christians in general.

[Nordengrund]

The only problem with that would be what if a Christian disagreed with a party based on Christian values. I mean, the GOP (and probably some Dems) would say their party is based on Christian values, and affiliating with the other party makes you a lesser Christian.

What I'm saying is what if we had a party based on Christian democracy and promotes Christian values. Would Christians who disagree with that party technically be in error, or they cannot be promoting Christian values?

I think it's fairly simple on how to create a Christian political party.

Economic policies that make life better for the poor and for family living, and conservative social policies.

I guess, but if a Christian is personally pro-life and opposed to same sex marriage, but feels that those things should be personal decisions and it would be ineffective to outlaw them?

[Hakons]

I think it's fairly simple on how to create a Christian political party.

Economic policies that make life better for the poor and for family living, and conservative social policies.

I guess, but if a Christian is personally pro-life and opposed to same sex marriage, but feels that those things should be personal decisions and it would be ineffective to outlaw them?

I'm personally against homicides. Sadly, people still make the personal decision to commit homicides. Therefore, we don't need laws against homicide, because are ineffective? Christians should always defend Christ and his teachings, not ignore them because sometimes they would be ineffective.

I personally don't think Christians need to be so opposed to same sex marriage. Christians are united in Holy Matrimony while same sex couples are married purely by the State. Both are legitimate for the state, but only one is legitimate in the eyes of the Lord.

[Nioya]

Does anyone here know where I could get a good rosary online? I'd like a simple wooden one. Probably black.

[Luminesa]

Does anyone here know where I could get a good rosary online? I'd like a simple wooden one. Probably black.

Any Catholic bookstore should have nice rosaries in stock. Check Catholic.org.

[Diopolis]

The only problem with that would be what if a Christian disagreed with a party based on Christian values. I mean, the GOP (and probably some Dems) would say their party is based on Christian values, and affiliating with the other party makes you a lesser Christian.

What I'm saying is what if we had a party based on Christian democracy and promotes Christian values. Would Christians who disagree with that party technically be in error, or they cannot be promoting Christian values?

I think it's fairly simple on how to create a Christian political party.

Economic policies that make life better for the poor and for family living, and conservative social policies.

The problem is that no one agrees on what the first part entails.

[Salus Maior]

Very lapsed Christian myself. Family is deeply, deeply Catholic, but I can't say I'm a fan of the Catholic Church.

Sorry to hear that.

[Theodosios]

Very lapsed Christian myself. Family is deeply, deeply Catholic, but I can't say I'm a fan of the Catholic Church.

Given the Vatican II, and Francis's recent remarks and actions, I wouldn't be myself.

[Salus Maior]

Very lapsed Christian myself. Family is deeply, deeply Catholic, but I can't say I'm a fan of the Catholic Church.

Given the Vatican II, and Francis's recent remarks and actions, I wouldn't be myself.

1. Vatican II, while I have some disagreements with it, was not that bad. And 2. Francis is true to the teachings of the Church like any Pope would be, the media just tends to twist what he says.

[Nioya]

Guys I got back from church

[Pasong Tirad]

I think it's fairly simple on how to create a Christian political party.

Economic policies that make life better for the poor and for family living, and conservative social policies.

This sounds more Jewish than Christian.

Trying to make life better for the poor sounds very Christian to me.

[Coulee Croche]

Very lapsed Christian myself. Family is deeply, deeply Catholic, but I can't say I'm a fan of the Catholic Church.

Given the Vatican II, and Francis's recent remarks and actions, I wouldn't be myself.

What recent remarks are you referring to?

[Theodosios]

Given the Vatican II, and Francis's recent remarks and actions, I wouldn't be myself.

1. Vatican II, while I have some disagreements with it, was not that bad.

Why do you think this?

Given the Vatican II, and Francis's recent remarks and actions, I wouldn't be myself.

What recent remarks are you referring to?

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/768948/Pope-Francis-Islamic-terror-terrorism-speech-Christianity-Catholic-populist-movements

Unsure of credibility.

[Diopolis]

1. Vatican II, while I have some disagreements with it, was not that bad.

Why do you think this?

What recent remarks are you referring to?

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/768948/Pope-Francis-Islamic-terror-terrorism-speech-Christianity-Catholic-populist-movements

Unsure of credibility.

We have bad popes from time to time, that's why they can't change doctrine. Alexander VI didn't do it. Honorius III didn't do it. Benedict XI didn't do it. Stephen VII didn't do it. Even Honorius I, who specifically tried, didn't manage it. The current pope will not be any different.

[Luminesa]

1. Vatican II, while I have some disagreements with it, was not that bad.

Why do you think this?

What recent remarks are you referring to?

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/768948/Pope-Francis-Islamic-terror-terrorism-speech-Christianity-Catholic-populist-movements

Unsure of credibility.

Quite a load of bunk, when he's stated multiple times that he is aware of Islamic terrorism, and that we should pray for an end to it.

http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2016/12 ... _o/1280434

Once again, the mass media twists Pope Francis's words to mean something they don't.