The Christian Discussion Thread X: Originally there were 15

[Salus Maior]

If the Church ratifies this mess, it’ll be a dark day. Const and Arch better save me a seat.

I doubt that would happen. Pope Francis and the Vatican are orthodox enough that you won't have to become Orthodox lol. Perhaps have some encouragement from this recent event, where the Vatican is continuing to condemn moves by the German Bishops Conference.

As much as I'm critical of Pope Francis, I think he has more sense than this document is giving.

So, fingers crossed...

[Luminesa]

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news ... ynod-42327

At least they’re not saying that married priests will be the main topic.

What Tars is saying is that the married priests thing is the least problematic thing about the document.

Everything else about it...Is outright heresy. And I mean that seriously, it's advocating pantheism.

Whaaaaaa?

[Salus Maior]

What Tars is saying is that the married priests thing is the least problematic thing about the document.

Everything else about it...Is outright heresy. And I mean that seriously, it's advocating pantheism.

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.

[Salus Maior]

So, that Amazon Synod.

Seems like a heretical mess.

If the Church ratifies this mess, it’ll be a dark day. Const and Arch better save me a seat.

We fasting/praying, boys?

Disclaimer: I might not fast because the doctor says I need to gain weight, but I'm up for praying the Rosary daily. I've actually started to get in the habit of that.

[Hakons]

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.

The letter linked in the article is a great read too.

The theological errors and heresies, implicit and explicit in the Instrumentum Laboris of the imminent
Special Assembly of the Synod of Bishops for the Pan-Amazon, are an alarming manifestation of the
confusion, error and division which beset the Church in our day. No one can excuse himself from
being informed about the gravity of the situation and from taking appropriate action for love of
Christ and of His life with us in the Church. Above all, all the members of Christ’s Mystical Body,
before such a threat to her integrity, must pray and fast for the eternal good of her members who
risk being scandalized, that is led into confusion, error and division by this text for the Synod of
Bishops. Moreover, every Catholic, as a true soldier of Christ, is called to safeguard and promote the
truths of the faith and the discipline by which those truths are honored in practice, lest the solemn
assembly of the Bishops in Synod betray the mission of the Synod, which is “to assist the Roman
Pontiff with their counsel in the preservation and growth of faith and morals and in the observance
and strengthening of ecclesiastical discipline” (can. 342). On October 13, 2019, during the coming
Special Assembly of the Synod of Bishops for the Pan-Amazon, there will take place the Canonization
of Blessed Cardinal John Henry Newman. May the Holy Father and all the members of the Special
Assembly of the Synod of Bishops for the Pan-Amazon hear and accept the following luminous
teaching of this newest Saint of the Church, in which he warned against theological errors similar to
the above-mentioned errors in the Instrumentum Laboris:

“Private creeds, fancy religions, may be showy and imposing to the many in their day; national religions
may lie huge and lifeless, and cumber the ground for centuries, and distract the attention or confuse
the judgment of the learned; but on the long run it will be found that either the Catholic Religion is
verily and indeed the coming in of the unseen world into this, or that there is nothing positive, nothing
dogmatic, nothing real, in any of our notions as to whence we come and whither we are going”
(Discourses to Mixed Congregations, XIII).

“Never did Holy Church need champions against [the spirit of Liberalism in religion] more sorely than
now, when, alas! it is an error overspreading, as a snare, the whole earth; … Liberalism in religion is
the doctrine that there is no positive truth in religion, but that one creed is as good as another, and
this is the teaching which is gaining substance and force daily. It is inconsistent with any recognition of
any religion, as true. It teaches that all are to be tolerated, for all are matters of opinion. Revealed
religion is not a truth, but a sentiment and a taste; not an objective fact; not miraculous: and it is the
right of each individual to make it say just what strikes his fancy. Devotion is not necessarily founded
on faith. Men may go to Protestant Churches and to Catholic, may get good from both and belong to
neither. They may fraternize together in spiritual thoughts and feelings, without having any views at
all of doctrines in common, or seeing the need of them” (Biglietto Speech, May 12, 1879).

May God, through the intercession of the many truly Catholic missionaries who evangelized the
indigenous American people, among whom are Saint Turibius of Mogrovejo and Saint José de Anchieta,
and through the intercession of the saints whom indigenous American people have given to the
Church, among whom are Saint Juan Diego and Saint Kateri Tekakwitha, and especially through the
intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Queen of the Holy Rosary, who vanquishes all heresy, grant
that the members of the coming Special Assembly of the Synod of Bishops for the Pan-Amazon and
the Holy Father be protected from the danger of approving doctrinal errors and ambiguities, and of
undermining the Apostolic rule of priestly celibacy.

[Tarsonis]

A better question is what’s the least objectionable, which would be married priests. Look it up, it’s terrible.

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news ... ynod-42327

At least they’re not saying that married priests will be the main topic.

Sadly. Married priests is actually something I support. The rest is just ridiculous

[Luminesa]

If the Church ratifies this mess, it’ll be a dark day. Const and Arch better save me a seat.

We fasting/praying, boys?

Disclaimer: I might not fast because the doctor says I need to gain weight, but I'm up for praying the Rosary daily. I've actually started to get in the habit of that.

I need to get back in that habit. I’m also horrible at fasting. XD

[The Archregimancy]

So, that Amazon Synod.

Seems like a heretical mess.

If the Church ratifies this mess, it’ll be a dark day. Const and Arch better save me a seat.

Yesssss......


Join us......

Feel the Force move within you, you must do.

[Hanafuridake]

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news ... ynod-42327

At least they’re not saying that married priests will be the main topic.

What Tars is saying is that the married priests thing is the least problematic thing about the document.

Everything else about it...Is outright heresy. And I mean that seriously, it's advocating pantheism.

Where does it advocate pantheism though?

[Diopolis]

So, that Amazon Synod.

Seems like a heretical mess.

If the Church ratifies this mess, it’ll be a dark day. Const and Arch better save me a seat.

Nooo...
We’ve got space for you in tradition.

[Tarsonis]

If the Church ratifies this mess, it’ll be a dark day. Const and Arch better save me a seat.

Nooo...
We’ve got space for you in tradition.

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

[Hakons]

Nooo...
We’ve got space for you in tradition.

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?

[Diopolis]

Nooo...
We’ve got space for you in tradition.

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

We weathered the Arian crisis. We can survive this.

[Tarsonis]

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?

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.

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

We weathered the Arian crisis. We can survive this.

The Arian crisis wasn’t this bad

[Diopolis]

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

In the Arian crisis angry mobs forcibly deposed faithful bishops wherever they were found, driving the true faithful to worship in SSPX-like conditions.
Also lol at the idea that the orthodox are part of the ark of salvation at the same time as the Roman Catholic church. Branch theory is heresy.

[Tarsonis]

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.




The Arian crisis wasn’t this bad

In the Arian crisis angry mobs forcibly deposed faithful bishops wherever they were found, driving the true faithful to worship in SSPX-like conditions.

Alright, yeah popularly it’s not as bad. Ecclesiastically, it’s far worse. In Arius’ times the doctrines in question hadn’t been formally codified yet. So while it was heretical, there was an institutional ambiguity in place until Nicea resolved the whole thing. Not the case here, the synod is directly contradicting established dogma’s and doctrines that go back before to before Christ had even died.

Also lol at the idea that the orthodox are part of the ark of salvation at the same time as the Roman Catholic church. Branch theory is heresy.

“These Churches, although separated from us, possess true sacraments, above all by apostolic succession, the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are linked with us in closest intimacy. Therefore some worship in common (communicatio in sacris), given suitable circumstances and the approval of Church authority, is not only possible but to be encouraged.” -unitatis redintegratio


Nobody is talking about branch theory here, talking about Church doctrine.

[Hakons]

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

I know I'm a newly minted Catholic, but this is ridiculous. There are concrete differences between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church that can't just be handwaved away. I'm also surprised by your lack of faith in the Church. There's literally no way the Church will adopt many of the aspects found in the working document for the synod. Show some hope and faith in your Church, my goodness. It's not the Roman Church, it's the Church, and that's a fundamental level of faith any Catholic should have.

[Tarsonis]

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.




The Arian crisis wasn’t this bad

I know I'm a newly minted Catholic, but this is ridiculous. There are concrete differences between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church that can't just be handwaved away.

there are sure. But from the Catholic side they’re Considered pretty minor.

I'm also surprised by your lack of faith in the Church. There's literally no way the Church will adopt many of the aspects found in the working document for the synod. Show some hope and faith in your Church, my goodness.

Sorry, I should clarify this is all hypothetical. Me musing what I would do *if* the Church adopted these horrifically heretical doctrines. I have faith the Church will stomp this nonsense out, but with faith comes doubt and that doubt is quite frightening. I’m a hope for the best, but prepare for the worst kind of guy.

It's not the Roman Church, it's the Church, and that's a fundamental level of faith any Catholic should have.

Well it’s both. It’s the Church centered around the Holy See of Rome. I only used Roman to differentiate from the autocephalous Orthodox Churches which, while still in schism, are considered valid by the Vatican. Should the Catholic Church adopt these doctrines, as a remote as a possibility as it might be, then the Orthodox churches will be the only valid ones left, just like Rome was the only valid church during the iconoclasm crisis

[Australian rePublic]

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.

[Kowani]

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.

This may be the only time I’ll ever defend Christianity, buuut…Jesus was long dead by the time the NT was written. There are many other problems of historical accuracy in the NT, but you can’t blame Jesus for that.

[The Land of the Moths]

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?

[Hanafuridake]

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

[Locus Praemonstratus]

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.

What is the lie here?

[NewLakotah]

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?

[The Archregimancy]

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.

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.