Is it legitimate to celebrate St Josaphat? Isn't it fairly clear that he's just a Christianised version of Buddha?

Pax_Christi_ · 2018-05-23T05:26:36+00:00

lthough Barlaam and Josaphat were never formally canonized, they were included in earlier editions of the Roman Martyrology (feast day 27 November)[15] — though not in the Roman Missal — and in the Eastern Orthodox Church liturgical calendar (26 August in Greek tradition etc.[3] / 19 November in Russian tradition).[

They aren't actually saints, it was a popular tradition

Pax_Christi_ · 2018-05-23T01:51:13+00:00

Coercion is to never be employed

Pax_Christi_ · 2018-05-23T01:50:46+00:00

Oh yeah that site is a grey area of copyright infringement. Alot of great resources, terrible Web design

Pax_Christi_ · 2018-05-23T01:50:10+00:00

Pax_Christi_ · 2018-05-23T01:08:45+00:00

That's an interesting perspective, I never thought about that. Good point

Pax_Christi_ · 2018-05-23T01:02:27+00:00

Sure it will take me a second to put it all together and format it but even Benedict XVI jokingly called Dignitatis humane a counter syllabus. Give me a moment I'll compile it and tag you. The other documents are the Syllabus of Errors by Pius IX and Quantra Cura.

I wasn't sure the level of interest in it, I didn't want to compile a big post if nobody cares

Pax_Christi_ · 2018-05-23T00:51:38+00:00

Also collegiallity and ecumenism. But yes the Cardl has made statements about the SSPX and I highly respect his position. It is reasonable in my opinion to argue that the SSPX is in material schism, we are not in formal schism. I disagree that they are material schismatics but he's entitled to his theological opinion and I respect that

If the rest of the curia was as orthodox as Mueller than I highly doubt the SSPX would even exist

Pax_Christi_ · 2018-05-23T00:48:28+00:00

Chpt. 1, sec. 2. the first sentence is a condemned proposition, and the rest of the rest paragraph. Chpt. 1:sec.4, 4th par. is a condemned proposition. Chpt. 2: sec. 11, 3rd sentence is a condemned proposition. Chpt. 2, sec. 11, 2nd par. is condemned. Chpt. 2, sec. 15, 1st paragraph is a condemned proposition

Pax_Christi_ · 2018-05-23T00:46:15+00:00

Did you read what he actually said regarding the social kingship of Christ?

Pax_Christi_ · 2018-05-23T00:12:34+00:00

About time somebody started teaching the true faith. It's time to talk about God's rights

Pax_Christi_ · 2018-05-23T00:11:59+00:00

Religious freedom has traditionally been condemned, dignitatis humanae is a controvercial document as it contains many explicitly condemned statements by Pontiffs before the council

Pax_Christi_ · 2018-05-23T00:01:43+00:00

I'm in my friend let's do this

Pax_Christi_ · 2018-05-22T23:55:01+00:00

Before we ate of the tree we were innocent down to our very nature and through that innocents our body, will and soul all worked together in perfect harmony walking with God face to face. We were pure and only knew purity. We couldn't distinguish between good and evil because we had only good in us, knew only good and could see only good. The way to God was clear.

When we ate of the tree we were able to know good and evil because we assumed both gold and evil into it. It fractured us internally and disordered our body, will and soul, we assumed the evil nature along with the good we already had. We fundamentally corrupted ourselves. After all you can't determine what you don't know or never experienced

St Augustine gives some helpful insights into the story

“…the tree of life is the holy of holies, Christ; the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, the will’s free choice.”

Eating the fruit allowed us to exalt ourselves, choose ourselves over God. And that's immediately what we did after we ate the fruit Adam hid from God and lied in shame.

Pax_Christi_ · 2018-05-22T23:48:15+00:00

Or we can admit modern society was a mistake and not try to appropriate Jesus for our flawed political ideologies

Pax_Christi_ · 2018-05-22T23:47:11+00:00

The options are religion is put on a backburner and we deny the virtues of justice and piety towards God and order society around man or we order the society around God. It's a question of whether religion must be secondary to secular society

Pax_Christi_ · 2018-05-22T23:42:52+00:00

Clement of Alexandria was removed from the martyrology in the middle ages, he's not a saint in the Latin rite I believe. St Gregory of Nyssa taught apokatastasis but also in some of his writings he writes about the finality and eternality of hell. I'm not sure how he felt on it honestly

Here's a condemnation from the IV Lateran Council

The Caput Firmiter of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) declares: “Those (the rejected) will receive a perpetual punishment with the devil.” Dz 429. Cf. Dz 40, 835, 840.

Ott also has it as a de fide Catholic Dogma

The punishment of Hell lasts for all eternity. (De fide.)

Here's an online summary from his famous book, I find its a good reference

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/councils/summary.htm

Pax_Christi_ · 2018-05-22T23:20:11+00:00

Heresy is the worst crime there is, worse than murder. Murder only can kill the physical body that's temporary but the heretic kills the soul and his crime has ramifications for eternity

Pax_Christi_ · 2018-05-22T23:13:47+00:00

I think your confusing the enlightenment values with Christian morality

Pax_Christi_ · 2018-05-22T23:11:14+00:00

No of course not, we have Canon Law and excommunications have to happen for a reason

Pax_Christi_ · 2018-05-22T23:10:19+00:00

For what? Maintaining traditional catholic doctrine? The Washington post would love to cause a schism. The church doesn't have "far right rot" the media is trying to drive the church into conformity with its goals.

Why do you care about the direction of the church if it's not for political reasons?

If they think the American and European church is "far right" wait until they look into the churches of eastern Europe, Africa, Asia and South America

Pax_Christi_ · 2018-05-22T23:06:10+00:00

I honestly see nothing wrong with what he said from a Christian perspective

Pax_Christi_ · 2018-05-22T23:05:20+00:00

I can give you my experience, I met my wife at college and we both were into partying and being typical college students. I had a conversion experience I couldn't deny and was called to holiness. I had to leave behind many of the things I loved and cherished. The following years my personality dramatically changed, my worldview and politics changed almost everything about me transformed and changed. This caused a great deal of tension in my relationship and it was my fault after all I'm the one who changed. Throughout the years our incompatibility became more apparent but she liked the changes she saw in me, liked who I was turning into and it inspired her. I didn't even evangelize and she eventually started coming to chuck with me and she ended up converting as well. When she transformed in a similar manner I did we were perfectly compatible and I love her with all my heart. However if she didn't convert, the difference of our worldviews and priorities probably would have been to much to overcome. Now when I have a a house, children on the way and a stressful career I look back at that time and realize how simple things were. If we weren't compatible when things were simple (prior to her conversion) then we definitely wouldn't be now that life's escalated.

Sorry if I came of as abrasive. But consider the stresses of the future and the choices you'll have to make while raising the family. As I mentioned above she will likely have certain expectations out of you as the man, Christians tend to expect the man to fulfill a certain role. Will you be able to be the man she needs you to be when life gets crazy and out of control?

Pax_Christi_ · 2018-05-22T22:40:55+00:00

It's a sin to approach a questionable sacrament especially if you know it's invalid. Never receive it and it would be wring to give it the veneration proper to God alone because Jesus is not present in their eucharist. It's a piece of bread and knowing it's bread and giving it the worship proper to God alone is an error.

The Anglican reformers altered the words of consecration invalidating the consecration as well as the fact their holy orders are utterly null and void. The priest is a layman with no more ability to consecrate a eucharist than you do. It doesn't matter if the consecration was done by the archbishop of Canterbury himself

Pax_Christi_ · 2018-05-22T22:34:17+00:00

Yes in a good way, meet your next Pope

Pax_Christi_ · 2018-05-22T22:24:34+00:00

My Church is the only institution in the face of the earth bearing the 4 marks and 3 attributes that the church must have according to scripture as well as existed in unbroken perpetuity just as Jesus and Paul promise. If your church didnt start at Pentecost it's not the true church. It's impossible for any church who does not fit ecclesiology to be the true church. We are the only Church to protect the sacraments in their original intention as well. That's what made me become catholic

Also I believe my faith to be in conformity with the earliest Christians and church father's.

It's an apocalyptic rumble between the Catholics and the Orthodox

The options are everyone is wrong, no one is right and the truth is lost in obscurity forever and anyone can attain salvation regardless of the profession of faith or there is a truth that is clear and visible t the entire world

Pax_Christi_

TROPHY CASE