Christian Discussion Thread XI: Anicetus’ Revenge

[Kowani]

You know things get serious when Lumi gets angry.

Anyway, to stay on topic I have a question for you guys. Should Church sermons be comfortable or uncomfortable? What I mean by this is that should a sermon be lighthearted or should it tug at your heart strings to make you feel guilty for what you have done that might've upset God?

well
the pulpit is a very effective microphone from which to introduce ideas and push for change (or if you're a megachurch, grift for cash)
and even theoretically secular ideas can be introduced in a christian framework
that might sometimes require making people a bit uncomfortable
and obviously, the primary purpose of a church isn't social commentary
but a church which does nothing but reassure people isn't a church, it's a spiritual morgue

[Sundiata]

Should Church sermons be comfortable or uncomfortable? What I mean by this is that should a sermon be lighthearted or should it tug at your heart strings to make you feel guilty for what you have done that might've upset God?

Church is a place to recuperate after the battles of our life. The church needs more militants, metaphorically speaking. Kindness is a virtue but being kind is not necessarily the same as being passive, craven, or weak. The church is an army and we are fighting a crusade. People aren't always going to appreciate the message of Christ.

In fact, Christ was spit on, beaten, and tortured to death. If you're popular with non-Christians you should be worried. Do not compromise your beliefs for popularity. Not everyone is going to like you or the way you uniquely express your faith. To honestly practice Christianity to most people, is strange.

Be prepared even for your fellow Christians to judge you, turn you away, and even hate you because you have the courage to be uncomfortable and say what they're not willing to.

St. Josemaria would often say that when you see an empty cross to imagine yourself hanging from it. Ideally, it's a fate every Christian should prepare and be prepared for.

[Tarsonis]

I dunno, if she's a rick and morty fan tell her it's sort of like "True Level."

As tempting as that would be, I don't want to risk offending her any further.

I already compared Superman to Joseph of Cupertino in our last conversation pertaining to theology (they both fly). I am on very thin ice with respect to pop-culture references.

Yeah, maybe not compare Superman to the patron saint of test taking.

[Sundiata]

As tempting as that would be, I don't want to risk offending her any further.

I already compared Superman to Joseph of Cupertino in our last conversation pertaining to theology (they both fly). I am on very thin ice with respect to pop-culture references.

Yeah, maybe not compare Superman to the patron saint of test taking.

I admit, it was a poor analogy and I did apologize.

[Tarsonis]

We actually don't know what heaven will be like. We have some allegorical portrayals, but all we really have is Christ told us it won't be like earth.

That's a little unfortunate, I looked over Dante's Paradiso earlier in the week to get a sense of one idealized conception of heaven and I was hit hard by the beauty of Dante's words. He was right to ultimately have his most beautiful love unmask herself as theology. It makes sense, no? After all, it was Beatrice who brought him more and more close to God.

Because, as you have seen, my loveliness which, even as we climb the steps of this eternal palace, blazes with more brightness.

Were it not tempered here, would be so brilliant that, as it flashed, your mortal faculty would seem a branch a lightning bolt has cracked.

In any other context, this surely would be an extremely vain statement for anyone to make. But epitomizing theology itself, it's a sensible notion because our mortal faculties do have their limits as they pertain to knowledge.

Remember that Dante's work is allegorical. It's an expression of Humanist Theology told through an Apocalyptic narrative.

[Sundiata]

That's a little unfortunate, I looked over Dante's Paradiso earlier in the week to get a sense of one idealized conception of heaven and I was hit hard by the beauty of Dante's words. He was right to ultimately have his most beautiful love unmask herself as theology. It makes sense, no? After all, it was Beatrice who brought him more and more close to God.



In any other context, this surely would be an extremely vain statement for anyone to make. But epitomizing theology itself, it's a sensible notion because our mortal faculties do have their limits as they pertain to knowledge.

Remember that Dante's work is allegorical. It's an expression of Humanist Theology told through an Apocalyptic narrative.

Yes, Dante's work is overall very humanistic. While he is no Bishop Barron, I think he did a generally good job of explaining the virtues that lead us to God and the sins that stray us away from God. For me, Dante didn't do a great job of explaining each person of the trinity, especially the Son. Accounting for that, the work is largely to entertain and promote discussion (especially political), I believe.

Are you a proponent of Christocentrism or emphasizing the second person of the trinity in relation to the others? I'm asking you this because it wouldn't be that uncommon for a Christian to hold. If I recall, this was the theological position of Pope John Paul II. Whatever case he made, he had a unique skill of bringing the context back to Christ.

[Luminesa]

You know things get serious when Lumi gets angry.

Anyway, to stay on topic I have a question for you guys. Should Church sermons be comfortable or uncomfortable? What I mean by this is that should a sermon be lighthearted or should it tug at your heart strings to make you feel guilty for what you have done that might've upset God?

well
the pulpit is a very effective microphone from which to introduce ideas and push for change (or if you're a megachurch, grift for cash)
and even theoretically secular ideas can be introduced in a christian framework
that might sometimes require making people a bit uncomfortable
and obviously, the primary purpose of a church isn't social commentary
but a church which does nothing but reassure people isn't a church, it's a spiritual morgue

That said, homilies with social commentary are important for reminding the congregation to be active in spreading the Gospel. Almost anyone can do Corporeal or Spiritual Acts of Mercy, they simply need to be shown how close to home those in need are.

[Sundiata]

When I mentioned the emphasis of Christ I don't mean to imply the heresy of Solus Christus or "in Christ alone." I am strictly referring to Christ (God the Son) in the context of the overall trinity. I do not mean to suggest that salvation only comes through Christ alone, for example.

[Tarsonis]

Remember that Dante's work is allegorical. It's an expression of Humanist Theology told through an Apocalyptic narrative.

Yes, Dante's work is overall very humanistic. While he is no Bishop Barron, I think he did a generally good job of explaining the virtues that lead us to God and the sins that stray us away from God. For me, Dante didn't do a great job of explaining each person of the trinity, especially the Son. Accounting for that, the work is largely to entertain and promote discussion (especially political), I believe.

Are you a proponent of Christocentrism or emphasizing the second person of the trinity in relation to the others? I'm asking you this because it wouldn't be that uncommon for a Christian to hold. If I recall, this was the theological position of Pope John Paul II. Whatever case he made, he had a unique skill of bringing the context back to Christ.

In a sense. Christ is the foundation of our faith, the bedrock of our Church. He is our high priest, so in a sense Christianity is Christocentric.

Christ is the incarnation, being both fully human and fully divine without obfuscation or division. Christ is our connection to God. Not just in his role as mediator, but metaphysical as well. By possessing both natures he joins our nature with God's for all eternity. He isn't just fully human and fully God. The bridge between man and God. Through him, we know God and God knows us. So it makes sense that most theology will be Christocentric in terms of focus.


However, I would reject any theology that seeks to elevate the Son above the Father.

[Tarsonis]

When I mentioned the emphasis of Christ I don't mean to imply the heresy of Solus Christus or "in Christ alone." I am strictly referring to Christ (God the Son) in the context of the overall trinity. I do not mean to suggest that salvation only comes through Christ alone, for example.

Solus Christus isn't heresy per se.. Protestants just have a bit of a different understanding of it than we do.

[Sundiata]

However, I would reject any theology that seeks to elevate the Son above the Father.

As you should, thank you for also reminding me of we pray the rosary and echo the prayers of Our Lady.

[Sundiata]

When I mentioned the emphasis of Christ I don't mean to imply the heresy of Solus Christus or "in Christ alone." I am strictly referring to Christ (God the Son) in the context of the overall trinity. I do not mean to suggest that salvation only comes through Christ alone, for example.

Solus Christus isn't heresy per se.. Protestants just have a bit of a different understanding of it than we do.

Ok, please clarify the mistake I'm making here. What do you mean that isn't a heresy?

[Tarsonis]

Solus Christus isn't heresy per se.. Protestants just have a bit of a different understanding of it than we do.

Ok, please clarify the mistake I'm making here. What do you mean that isn't a heresy?

The fact that salvation comes from Christ alone, isn't heresy, its biblical and Catholic dogma.

The discrepancy isn't over the origin of salvation, but the role of works in the process.

Protestants say works are completely removed from the equation, where we would say works are an essential part. We both agree that works do not merit or cause salvation, only Christ does. But works are an essential part of following Christ as St. James said.

It really boils down to a chicken and egg type debate. We say works are an exercise of faith, Protestants say works are a result of faith.

[Sundiata]

This is heresy.

If you do not choose the Lord you will not be saved. Why? Because you don't want to be saved. Yes, God loves you but if you don't love him in return you're risking the mistake that you never will. That's what hell is. When you're that far away from God, that far away from the sacraments, it gets impossible to reconcile. The life that you're living is far too important to waste on water that will not quench your thirst.

It is heresy, yes. So is Protestantism and Orthodoxy. I could care less if what I believe in is heresy. Many Catholics are probably heretics themselves in one way or another.

It is not "impossible to reconcile". Hell is not permanent. The term is used to mean an epoch or a long stretch of time. If God sentenced a person to Hell permanently, then He does not love all of his sons and daughters. Jesus was explicitly sent to save all men, not just people who believe in Him.

First, God doesn't sentence people to hell. You have the choice to follow his will or not and seek communion with him, the ultimate form of which is heaven. Reciprocating the love that God has for you is contingent upon your ability to discern what is good from what is not. It's the difference between reciprocating God's love on the basis of chance versus reciprocating God's love on the basis of reason.

You do not want to reject God's love in favor of permanent deprivation because you were tricked. You should care that you're practicing the faith reasonably. Hell is the definitive rejection of God's love for you. It's choosing the same fate as Satan, the same Satan who taught us to hate ourselves in pursuit of a quality that we already have- the likeness of God.

With respect to your comment that many Catholics are probably heretics, sure. You are not wrong that many people who have been baptized and confirmed in the church are in precarious positions with respect to their souls. Still, that doesn't mean that you or I have to be. We can both align our conduct and theological understanding with the way that we are ordered to do so. You should care.

Yes, Jesus came to save every single person but he did so in light of our free will and how stubborn we are. It's no coincidence that the Lord rode into Jerusalem on a mule. Who is that mule? Us.

"On its own the donkey would only... make an ass of itself."
-St. Josemaria Escriva

[Sundiata]

To be clear: I am not calling anyone an ass in a derogatory sense or to condescend. Jesus literally rode into Jerusalem on a donkey, in other words, an ass.

The quote of Josemaria's is a play on words, the symbol of the donkey was an important part of his theology.

This clarification is largely for anyone unfamiliar with Palm Sunday, St. Josemaria, or on the sensitive side in-general.

Again, I am not calling anyone a "ass" or being derogatory. It's an obvious metaphor.

[The New California Republic]

I didn't say gays need to be put to death. I said individuals who commit certain unnatural sexual acts are worthy of death. You're wrong, once again.

Oh lay off with it. In the current context everyone here knows what you are referring to, and you were very explicit about them being put to death, so don't try to pull the wool over our eyes:

[...] and certain unnatural sexual acts. [...] They're outside of God's grace, and must be killed judicially to spare the rest of society their corrupting influence. An evil person is never happy, and death is a release from the suffering which they inflict upon themselves. What is kinder than that?

[Sundiata]

Ok, please clarify the mistake I'm making here. What do you mean that isn't a heresy?

The fact that salvation comes from Christ alone, isn't heresy, its biblical and Catholic dogma.

The discrepancy isn't over the origin of salvation, but the role of works in the process.

Protestants say works are completely removed from the equation, where we would say works are an essential part. We both agree that works do not merit or cause salvation, only Christ does. But works are an essential part of following Christ as St. James said.

It really boils down to a chicken and egg type debate. We say works are an exercise of faith, Protestants say works are a result of faith.

No, that's not exactly true.

Protestants use the notion of "Solus Christus" to justify the doctrine that all believers are priests, the "priesthood of the baptized," or the "priesthood of all believers." This Sola is a heresy and a scourge. It's an explicit rejection of sacerdotalism. You can't accept this protestant Sola without rejecting the sacrament of Holy Orders, for example.

Also, salvation comes from all three person's of the Trinity, not just Christ (the son) alone. Is that clear or are we talking over each other here?

[Sundiata]

.

It really boils down to a chicken and egg type debate. We say works are an exercise of faith, Protestants say works are a result of faith.

This is true.

[The Blaatschapen]

You know things get serious when Lumi gets angry.

Anyway, to stay on topic I have a question for you guys. Should Church sermons be comfortable or uncomfortable? What I mean by this is that should a sermon be lighthearted or should it tug at your heart strings to make you feel guilty for what you have done that might've upset God?

Both.

The trick for a priest is to know when to use which.

[Sundiata]

You know things get serious when Lumi gets angry.

Anyway, to stay on topic I have a question for you guys. Should Church sermons be comfortable or uncomfortable? What I mean by this is that should a sermon be lighthearted or should it tug at your heart strings to make you feel guilty for what you have done that might've upset God?

Both.

The trick for a priest is to know when to use which.

Ideally, but our times are not conducive to a balanced approach. Sin is disgusting, it's not something to get comfortable with. There are so many issues in the world pertaining to church and state that we have to tackle, especially in the United States.

We have a responsibility to steer both parties in a single direction, especially towards the direction of life. Every idea also must be marshalled and steered. Purpose is not going to be found in passivity, but activity.

[Sundiata]

Not to dwell upon hot-button issues but there is not just an elephant in the room but the entire zoo.

We live in times that are uniquely sinful, not necessarily more sinful overall, but uniquely sinful. We've got to say things as they are. The church overall is losing members overall but gaining people through narrow avenues. While good in some respects, that is not a good sign for a grassroots approach to the ends that we are morally obliged to accomplish. The only way to influence the direction of the world is an upward approach with regard to our ambitions.

I've seen the same marches as you as well as marches in favor of marital sanctity. It's sincere activism but it doesn't seem to amount to anything less than performance at the federal level: rising abortion overall, contraception-use, divorce, church and state improperly distinguished.

We have plenty of politicians that are "good" at being politicians: fundraising, speaking, winning elections but overall, Christian morality is absent in these affairs and it shows. We get almost nothing but lipservice. While I don't want to suggest gloom and doom, we have a lot of pieces to get in the right places if we're ever going to leave a Christian impact on public policy. We also have many errors to reverse with respect to it all over the world.

I don't think that our job as Christians stops at evangelization or conversion. We need to get the right actors in place to establish states that function in align with our common morality. We need to reach the rich, the poor, the common, and the elite. I personally don't think it's just enough for us to reach the poor.

As Christians, how do we better reach the elite? The policy-makers? Those who are not necessarily materially poor, but spiritually so?

[Esheaun Stroakuss]

I would rather politicians focus on bettering the lives of all than favouring one religion over another, or even favouring religion at all. That said, the Church - whether it be Catholic, Protestant, whatever - is a powerful social institution and cannot be overlooked.

As for the issue of straying further from morality, it is the inevitable result of the supposed Death of God. The issue to me is not that we are moving away from God, it is that there is an absence of a coherent morality. The terms of service of being alive under capitalism revolve around compromising morals, ethics and to an extent self-respect in order to be able to pay rent every month, to be able to eat, and to be able to enjoy life. For that you need money.

The moral decay is not so much the fault of moving away from religion, but from a lack of a replacement or an alternative. This is why nihilism is a problem, particularly in these trying times where there is no light at the end of the tunnel. From there, you get doomers, cynical sell out save-your-soul-with-a-fee evangelism, and the tried and true "end times" Christianity.

Also from this comes all kinds of nasty alternatives, whether that be more laissez-faire or on the opposite end more oppressive ideologies. Fascism and Nazism are still alive and well because the current material conditions, especially in light of recessions and economic crises, allow for people to be sucked down the rabbit hole.

The solution? I haven't a clue.

[Turelisa-]

And yet, here you are.

Well, this is perhaps the greatest example of a burn I have seen in a while. I would recommend some immediate third-degree burn surgery at the hospital.

Didn't even scratch the surface. The deceit, hysteria and vicious ad hominem with which Tarsonis has disgraced himself exposes faults that show the Holy Spirit has done no work within him, despite his professed faith.
It just goes to show Catholicism, the spawn of Roman imperalism and mongrel mystico-paganism, is the heresy which it has always been.

[Suriyanakhon]

He's talking about the LGBs

Tbh this is not the first time that Turelisa has advocated that the likes of LGBT people be killed, so it's no surprise.

That's honestly really sad and disappointing.

Well, this is perhaps the greatest example of a burn I have seen in a while. I would recommend some immediate third-degree burn surgery at the hospital.

Didn't even scratch the surface. The deceit, hysteria and vicious ad hominem with which Tarsonis has disgraced himself exposes faults that show the Holy Spirit has done no work within him, despite his professed faith.
It just goes to show Catholicism, the spawn of Roman imperalism and mongrel mystico-paganism, is the heresy which it has always been.

The over-the-top flowery prose which other posters have already called out aside, Tarsonis hasn't rejected one of the core components of the Christian faith in the name of some sort of 16th century narcissistic theory of electness, and while I'm not a Roman Catholic by any stretch of the imagination, calling Catholicism mongrel mystico-paganism is quite frankly some ahistorical bullshit which would be laughed out of every theology seminar and history course. Making declarations about the state of another person's soul is just in extremely poor taste and arrogant.

[Salus Maior]

Well, this is perhaps the greatest example of a burn I have seen in a while. I would recommend some immediate third-degree burn surgery at the hospital.

Didn't even scratch the surface. The deceit, hysteria and vicious ad hominem with which Tarsonis has disgraced himself exposes faults that show the Holy Spirit has done no work within him, despite his professed faith.
It just goes to show Catholicism, the spawn of Roman imperalism and mongrel mystico-paganism, is the heresy which it has always been.

You're in no position to detect when or where the Holy Spirt works, bud.

You're just as much a clueless, myopic, fallible, and sinful human being as the rest of us. That you're pretending that you're not is only more intolerable and a farce.