The Christian Discussion Thread X: Originally there were 15

[Locus Praemonstratus]

Could someone explain to me what all this Amazonian Synod document entails?

The short of it is that it amounts to heresy and apostasy. It practically promotes pantheism and paganism. You can read the working document Intrumentum Laboris and witness it’s sheer odiousness, created by two cesspits, Germany and Latin America. For example, Part II, Chapter III, under suggestions:

Communities find it difficult to celebrate the Eucharist frequently because of the lack of priests. “The Church draws her life from the Eucharist” and the Eucharist builds the Church.[60] Therefore, instead of leaving communities without the Eucharist, change is requested in the criteria for selecting and preparing ministers authorized to celebrate the Eucharist.

I don’t know how anyone can stomach this nonsense.

[Neanderthaland]

Why did God allow Matt to lie in the Bible?
Matt 6:26-6:31 is total, utter and absolute lie. Nothing but lie, lie, lie and more lie. Lie, lie, lie and yet it's in the Bible. Why did God allow Matthew to lie in the NT? Seriously, I know that Jesus didn't write the Bible, but no oversight, at least to make sure there aren't any lies? I mean, you think Jesus would ensure that there aren't any lies in the NT, and yet here we have Matt 6:26-31. Come on Jesus, lift your game and remove the lies out of the NT. Considering that that lie is in the NT, it makes me wonder what other lies are in there.

So... Am I just in the wrong chapter, but where exactly are you talking about the lie, or anything close to regarding that?

I mean, I guess birds sometimes starve to death?

Or maybe he's saying that thematically it's wrong? That people who don't make plans for their future aren't taken care of by God.

IDK. Matthew probably is wrong about that, but it still seems like an odd thing to single out as "the lie of the Bible."

[The Archregimancy]

Why did God allow Matt to lie in the Bible?
Matt 6:26-6:31 is total, utter and absolute lie. Nothing but lie, lie, lie and more lie. Lie, lie, lie and yet it's in the Bible

Like others, I'm curious. On what basis is a metaphor-laden parable that's long been the subject of differing interpretations a 'lie'? It might help to outline your own interpretation of the parable.

[Locus Praemonstratus]

If the Church slips into heresy, then you stay in the Church and help her return to the right path. Jumping ship from the Ark of Salvation is never a good move.

He's simply proposing leaving a group of schismatics who might be moving from mere heterodoxy into outright heresy, and affiliating himself with the Church that's already on the right path of Right Belief; or, to give the latter capitalised words their technical name, 'orthodoxy'.

And he gets married priests without the other faff.

It's possible that I might just have the teensiest smidgen of bias, but I really don't see a problem here.

You don’t see the problem because you don’t think the Roman Church maintains ‘Right Belief’, to you (and you’re wrong, btw) we’re schismatics, to us you’re the schismatic. As for leaving Rome for Orthodoxy, according to Unitatis Redintegratio, ‘Nevertheless, our separated brethren, whether considered as individuals or as Communities and Churches, are not blessed with that unity which Jesus Christ wished to bestow on all those who through Him were born again into one body, and with Him quickened to newness of life - that unity which the Holy Scriptures and the ancient Tradition of the Church proclaim. For it is only through Christ's Catholic Church, which is "the all-embracing means of salvation," that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation. We believe that Our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, in order to establish the one Body of Christ on earth to which all should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God. This people of God, though still in its members liable to sin, is ever growing in Christ during its pilgrimage on earth, and is guided by God's gentle wisdom, according to His hidden designs, until it shall happily arrive at the fullness of eternal glory in the heavenly Jerusalem.’ (Chapter I Catholic Principles on Ecumenism, 3, paragraph 5) You can’t simply jump ship and maintain you’re in communion with Jesus Christ. However, if this Synod is ratified by the Holy See, that’d throw the whole of the Catholic Church into question. Unity can only happen with our separated brethren returning to the Church.

[The Archregimancy]

He's simply proposing leaving a group of schismatics who might be moving from mere heterodoxy into outright heresy, and affiliating himself with the Church that's already on the right path of Right Belief; or, to give the latter capitalised words their technical name, 'orthodoxy'.

And he gets married priests without the other faff.

It's possible that I might just have the teensiest smidgen of bias, but I really don't see a problem here.

You don’t see the problem because you don’t think the Roman Church maintains ‘Right Belief’, to you (and you’re wrong, btw) we’re schismatics, to us you’re the schismatic. As for leaving Rome for Orthodoxy, according to Unitatis Redintegratio, ‘Nevertheless, our separated brethren, whether considered as individuals or as Communities and Churches, are not blessed with that unity which Jesus Christ wished to bestow on all those who through Him were born again into one body, and with Him quickened to newness of life - that unity which the Holy Scriptures and the ancient Tradition of the Church proclaim. For it is only through Christ's Catholic Church, which is "the all-embracing means of salvation," that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation. We believe that Our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, in order to establish the one Body of Christ on earth to which all should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God. This people of God, though still in its members liable to sin, is ever growing in Christ during its pilgrimage on earth, and is guided by God's gentle wisdom, according to His hidden designs, until it shall happily arrive at the fullness of eternal glory in the heavenly Jerusalem.’ (Chapter I Catholic Principles on Ecumenism, 3, paragraph 5) You can’t simply jump ship and maintain you’re in communion with Jesus Christ. However, if this Synod is ratified by the Holy See, that’d throw the whole of the Catholic Church into question. Unity can only happen with our separated brethren returning to the Church.

I'd like to think that Tarsonis, at least, would have appreciated that my tongue was at least partially in cheek.

I mean, not entirely in cheek; I'm not going to use the Trump 'I was just joking' get-out clause, and clearly it was rooted in things I genuinely believe.

But given the length of time Tarsonis and I have been interacting, that closing arch note over my bias, and the fact that my previous post on the issue contained an Orthodox monk wielding a light sabre while I channelled Palpatine, I'd like to think that the target of the post didn't take me quite as seriously as you did; though I stress that I appreciate the strength of your convictions on the issue.

[Lost Memories]

If the Church slips into heresy, tradition alone wont be enough

If the Church slips into heresy, then you stay in the Church and help her return to the right path. Jumping ship from the Ark of Salvation is never a good move. If a bad synod is enough for you to leave the Church entirely, what would that say about your commitment to the sacramental Church to which you belong to right now? As soon as you personally disagree with something, you want to leave?

To add to that, the Catholic church isn't the one true church because what it says is nice and agreeable, but because it was founded by Christ, and through apostolic succession that link with Christ is kept alive. Then what the church says may also be agreeable or easy to accept, but that's a result and not the cause of it being the one true church.

Similarly, if your house becomes messy and dirty, it doesn't stop being your house, you just have to start working for cleaning it up.
Changing house because your current one gets dirty, is a bit jumpy.

Maybe in that hypothetical, Tars didn't have that sense of ownership and residence in the church.
Or hypothetically he doesn't like cleaning, going by the view both catholicism and orthodoxy being valid, which would make them rooms of the same house, where one room is dirty, so you stop going to that room, that's limp.

Sorry for calling you adjectives Tarsonis, but what you said before did seep of nervousness and/or disaffection.

[Locus Praemonstratus]

You don’t see the problem because you don’t think the Roman Church maintains ‘Right Belief’, to you (and you’re wrong, btw) we’re schismatics, to us you’re the schismatic. As for leaving Rome for Orthodoxy, according to Unitatis Redintegratio, ‘Nevertheless, our separated brethren, whether considered as individuals or as Communities and Churches, are not blessed with that unity which Jesus Christ wished to bestow on all those who through Him were born again into one body, and with Him quickened to newness of life - that unity which the Holy Scriptures and the ancient Tradition of the Church proclaim. For it is only through Christ's Catholic Church, which is "the all-embracing means of salvation," that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation. We believe that Our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, in order to establish the one Body of Christ on earth to which all should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God. This people of God, though still in its members liable to sin, is ever growing in Christ during its pilgrimage on earth, and is guided by God's gentle wisdom, according to His hidden designs, until it shall happily arrive at the fullness of eternal glory in the heavenly Jerusalem.’ (Chapter I Catholic Principles on Ecumenism, 3, paragraph 5) You can’t simply jump ship and maintain you’re in communion with Jesus Christ. However, if this Synod is ratified by the Holy See, that’d throw the whole of the Catholic Church into question. Unity can only happen with our separated brethren returning to the Church.

I'd like to think that Tarsonis, at least, would have appreciated that my tongue was at least partially in cheek.

I mean, not entirely in cheek; I'm not going to use the Trump 'I was just joking' get-out clause, and clearly it was rooted in things I genuinely believe.

But given the length of time Tarsonis and I have been interacting, that closing arch note over my bias, and the fact that my previous post on the issue contained an Orthodox monk wielding a light sabre while I channelled Palpatine, I'd like to think that the target of the post didn't take me quite as seriously as you did; though I stress that I appreciate the strength of your convictions on the issue.

I apologise for my aggressiveness and rash judgement, that’s not something I should have done.

[Cappuccina]

Could someone explain to me what all this Amazonian Synod document entails?

The short of it is that it amounts to heresy and apostasy. It practically promotes pantheism and paganism. You can read the working document Intrumentum Laboris and witness it’s sheer odiousness, created by two cesspits, Germany and Latin America. For example, Part II, Chapter III, under suggestions:

Communities find it difficult to celebrate the Eucharist frequently because of the lack of priests. “The Church draws her life from the Eucharist” and the Eucharist builds the Church.[60] Therefore, instead of leaving communities without the Eucharist, change is requested in the criteria for selecting and preparing ministers authorized to celebrate the Eucharist.

I don’t know how anyone can stomach this nonsense.

I'm confused, what exactly is so terrible about this?

[The Archregimancy]

I'd like to think that Tarsonis, at least, would have appreciated that my tongue was at least partially in cheek.

I mean, not entirely in cheek; I'm not going to use the Trump 'I was just joking' get-out clause, and clearly it was rooted in things I genuinely believe.

But given the length of time Tarsonis and I have been interacting, that closing arch note over my bias, and the fact that my previous post on the issue contained an Orthodox monk wielding a light sabre while I channelled Palpatine, I'd like to think that the target of the post didn't take me quite as seriously as you did; though I stress that I appreciate the strength of your convictions on the issue.

I apologise for my aggressiveness and rash judgement, that’s not something I should have done.

Oh look, there's no need to apologise. Tone is very difficult to judge on the internet, and I'm perhaps guilty of occasionally mixing up serious posts about Orthodoxy with jokier posts about Orthodoxy, which may make it even harder to judge in this type of context.

So no harm done, and I wouldn't worry about it.

[Tarsonis]

Why did God allow Matt to lie in the Bible?
Matt 6:26-6:31 is total, utter and absolute lie. Nothing but lie, lie, lie and more lie. Lie, lie, lie and yet it's in the Bible. Why did God allow Matthew to lie in the NT? Seriously, I know that Jesus didn't write the Bible, but no oversight, at least to make sure there aren't any lies? I mean, you think Jesus would ensure that there aren't any lies in the NT, and yet here we have Matt 6:26-31. Come on Jesus, lift your game and remove the lies out of the NT. Considering that that lie is in the NT, it makes me wonder what other lies are in there.

How is any of that a lie?

Australia is having some hardship in life, and is whinging about it.

[The Archregimancy]

How is any of that a lie?

Australia is having some hardship in life, and is whinging about it.

I think it's more of a case of Australia suddenly questioning his previously rock-solid faith and engaging in lots of angsty hand-wringing about it. On current evidence, he's likely to become as effective a theological debater as a disgruntled former Christian as he was when he was still a fully gruntled Orthodox Christian.

[Tarsonis]

You don’t see the problem because you don’t think the Roman Church maintains ‘Right Belief’, to you (and you’re wrong, btw) we’re schismatics, to us you’re the schismatic. As for leaving Rome for Orthodoxy, according to Unitatis Redintegratio, ‘Nevertheless, our separated brethren, whether considered as individuals or as Communities and Churches, are not blessed with that unity which Jesus Christ wished to bestow on all those who through Him were born again into one body, and with Him quickened to newness of life - that unity which the Holy Scriptures and the ancient Tradition of the Church proclaim. For it is only through Christ's Catholic Church, which is "the all-embracing means of salvation," that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation. We believe that Our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, in order to establish the one Body of Christ on earth to which all should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God. This people of God, though still in its members liable to sin, is ever growing in Christ during its pilgrimage on earth, and is guided by God's gentle wisdom, according to His hidden designs, until it shall happily arrive at the fullness of eternal glory in the heavenly Jerusalem.’ (Chapter I Catholic Principles on Ecumenism, 3, paragraph 5) You can’t simply jump ship and maintain you’re in communion with Jesus Christ. However, if this Synod is ratified by the Holy See, that’d throw the whole of the Catholic Church into question. Unity can only happen with our separated brethren returning to the Church.

I'd like to think that Tarsonis, at least, would have appreciated that my tongue was at least partially in cheek.

I mean, not entirely in cheek; I'm not going to use the Trump 'I was just joking' get-out clause, and clearly it was rooted in things I genuinely believe.

But given the length of time Tarsonis and I have been interacting, that closing arch note over my bias, and the fact that my previous post on the issue contained an Orthodox monk wielding a light sabre while I channelled Palpatine, I'd like to think that the target of the post didn't take me quite as seriously as you did; though I stress that I appreciate the strength of your convictions on the issue.

Is it possible to learn this power?

[United Muscovite Nations]

I'd like to think that Tarsonis, at least, would have appreciated that my tongue was at least partially in cheek.

I mean, not entirely in cheek; I'm not going to use the Trump 'I was just joking' get-out clause, and clearly it was rooted in things I genuinely believe.

But given the length of time Tarsonis and I have been interacting, that closing arch note over my bias, and the fact that my previous post on the issue contained an Orthodox monk wielding a light sabre while I channelled Palpatine, I'd like to think that the target of the post didn't take me quite as seriously as you did; though I stress that I appreciate the strength of your convictions on the issue.

Is it possible to learn this power?

Not from the ordinary magisterium.

[Tarsonis]

Australia is having some hardship in life, and is whinging about it.

I think it's more of a case of Australia suddenly questioning his previously rock-solid faith and engaging in lots of angsty hand-wringing about it. On current evidence, he's likely to become as effective a theological debater as a disgruntled former Christian as he was when he was still a fully gruntled Orthodox Christian.

I just know about his current situation. I empathize with him, but at the same time he’s basically using this thread to whine that all his problems aren’t being miraculously solved Riders of Rohan style.

[Tarsonis]

If the Church slips into heresy, then you stay in the Church and help her return to the right path. Jumping ship from the Ark of Salvation is never a good move. If a bad synod is enough for you to leave the Church entirely, what would that say about your commitment to the sacramental Church to which you belong to right now? As soon as you personally disagree with something, you want to leave?

To add to that, the Catholic church isn't the one true church because what it says is nice and agreeable, but because it was founded by Christ, and through apostolic succession that link with Christ is kept alive. Then what the church says may also be agreeable or easy to accept, but that's a result and not the cause of it being the one true church.

Similarly, if your house becomes messy and dirty, it doesn't stop being your house, you just have to start working for cleaning it up.
Changing house because your current one gets dirty, is a bit jumpy.

Maybe in that hypothetical, Tars didn't have that sense of ownership and residence in the church.
Or hypothetically he doesn't like cleaning, going by the view both catholicism and orthodoxy being valid, which would make them rooms of the same house, where one room is dirty, so you stop going to that room, that's limp.

Sorry for calling you adjectives Tarsonis, but what you said before did seep of nervousness and/or disaffection.

Historically, this view hasn’t particularly be the case. We can look to the Iconoclasm crisis as a perfect example. All the eastern churches fell into heresy

[Lost Memories]

Historically, this view hasn’t particularly be the case. We can look to the Iconoclasm crisis as a perfect example. All the eastern churches fell into heresy

But didn't they eventually come out of it?

It was said here some time back too, that heresy is the state of being in error, it isn't a definitive and irreversible condemnation.

[Luminesa]

If the Church slips into heresy, then you stay in the Church and help her return to the right path. Jumping ship from the Ark of Salvation is never a good move. If a bad synod is enough for you to leave the Church entirely, what would that say about your commitment to the sacramental Church to which you belong to right now? As soon as you personally disagree with something, you want to leave?

The Orthodox Church is fully valid in its sacraments, possessing no heretical doctrines. It’s merely in schism with Rome and thus converting would not be leaving the Ark of Salvation.

As for the Amazon Synod, This isn't the NO, a liturgy reform that is perfectly with the realms of legitimate doctrine, but ruffles the feathers of the traditionalists. No the Amazon Synod is blatant heresy that directly and pointedly contradicts the Gospel.
If the Roman Church ratifies such heretical teachings, it ceases being the Ark of Salvation, leaving the Orthodox Church as the last man standing. I cannot, in good knowledgeable conscience, worship in its halls and swear fealty to such heretical bishops. It’s not that i want to, it’s that I’ll have no choice in the matter. I will of course pray for and work towards Romans return to orthodoxy, but it will have to be from without.

We weathered the Arian crisis. We can survive this.

The Arian crisis wasn’t this bad

Considering that the Church has undergone far worse and has always stood firm, I believe this time will be no different. We should pray for our bishops and for our religious leaders, that they make wise decisions about this upcoming Synod. I certainly don’t think that the Church will ever cease to be the Ark of Salvation, not as long as God steers the ship. Which He always has. Have courage!

[Luminesa]

Why did God allow Matt to lie in the Bible?
Matt 6:26-6:31 is total, utter and absolute lie. Nothing but lie, lie, lie and more lie. Lie, lie, lie and yet it's in the Bible. Why did God allow Matthew to lie in the NT? Seriously, I know that Jesus didn't write the Bible, but no oversight, at least to make sure there aren't any lies? I mean, you think Jesus would ensure that there aren't any lies in the NT, and yet here we have Matt 6:26-31. Come on Jesus, lift your game and remove the lies out of the NT. Considering that that lie is in the NT, it makes me wonder what other lies are in there.

Aus, with all the love I have for you in my heart as a Christian sister, I see that your heart is turbulent and that you are afraid God will not take care of you. You’ve told me your situation, it’s horrible. But those things are the works of men, and of the Devil, to take peace away from your life. It may not be now, it may not be tomorrow, but God will pull you through everything. I’ve lost my house to a hurricane, I’ve lost family, I’ve had depressive episodes which have swung me into feeling nothing but apathy on some days. God has pulled me through all of it, and He will pull you through your own.

The Devil wants you to believe the Bible is lying. Jesus did not say those things as a lie, and those are Jesus’s own words Matthew wrote down. He always cares for the poor and the downtrodden, He does it all over the world every day. He is close to you as well. You may not feel it in your anger and hopelessness, but He is. Please ask Him to reveal Himself to you, and He will. And we will pray for you as well.

[The Archregimancy]

I'd like to think that Tarsonis, at least, would have appreciated that my tongue was at least partially in cheek.

I mean, not entirely in cheek; I'm not going to use the Trump 'I was just joking' get-out clause, and clearly it was rooted in things I genuinely believe.

But given the length of time Tarsonis and I have been interacting, that closing arch note over my bias, and the fact that my previous post on the issue contained an Orthodox monk wielding a light sabre while I channelled Palpatine, I'd like to think that the target of the post didn't take me quite as seriously as you did; though I stress that I appreciate the strength of your convictions on the issue.

Is it possible to learn this power?

Not from a Roman Catholic.


Fulfill your destiny, Tarsonis.

[The Archregimancy]

I think it's more of a case of Australia suddenly questioning his previously rock-solid faith and engaging in lots of angsty hand-wringing about it. On current evidence, he's likely to become as effective a theological debater as a disgruntled former Christian as he was when he was still a fully gruntled Orthodox Christian.

I just know about his current situation. I empathize with him, but at the same time he’s basically using this thread to whine that all his problems aren’t being miraculously solved Riders of Rohan style.

Reading Luminesa's post and your post, it's clear that there's a situation I'm not aware of that's causing him profound personal distress.

So I deeply regret my post, and apologise for my insensitivity.

[Auze]

I apologise for my aggressiveness and rash judgement, that’s not something I should have done.

Oh look, there's no need to apologise. Tone is very difficult to judge on the internet, and I'm perhaps guilty of occasionally mixing up serious posts about Orthodoxy with jokier posts about Orthodoxy, which may make it even harder to judge in this type of context.

So no harm done, and I wouldn't worry about it.

One never appreciates just how important a role tone has in language until you try being non-serious on the internet.

[Tarsonis]

In other news, happy belated Anniversary of the Relief of Vienna everybody!

[Auze]

In other news, happy belated Anniversary of the Relief of Vienna everybody!

I'd link to the Sabaton song, but let's face it, that probably has already come into everybody's minds.

[Luminesa]

I just know about his current situation. I empathize with him, but at the same time he’s basically using this thread to whine that all his problems aren’t being miraculously solved Riders of Rohan style.

Reading Luminesa's post and your post, it's clear that there's a situation I'm not aware of that's causing him profound personal distress.

So I deeply regret my post, and apologise for my insensitivity.

We talked via TG and then I saw this post, which made me very worried. And it’s okay! You didn’t know. That’s why I mentioned it.

[Lower Nubia]

Whaaaaaa?

Well, Cardinal Burke seems to believe it is.

A fasting/prayer crusade, that is.

The link pretty much lists the big problems with it.

Oy vey. That’s heresy alright.