Is there salvation outside the Catholic Church?

[epostle]

I know what works for me. If I know something may tempt me to do something I believe is wrong, I try to avoid being around it. I think that is wise.

If someone wears daring clothes, he or she shouldn't be surprised if something flops out.

If a greedy man wants to achieve perfection, he may benefit by giving up his idol of money.

It is indeed the people who make the choices; and if people want statues, they are opting to have them as potential problems in their churches. It's certainly not the statues' fault. You're the one who wants to attribute "human qualities" to statues, saying they can educate people!

According to you, symbols are meaningless, and everybody could read. This is absurd. You deny the evidence, deny historical facts, which makes discussion impossible.
+++
Art is an amazing way through which we may better pray and contemplate the depths of Christianity. Although there are many familiar examples of modern Christian art, looking to the very first images of Christ in art allows us to see how Christ was perceived by the early church. Understanding these oldest pictures of Jesus help us see that Christ reveals himself to his Church in a multitude of ways, which allows us to draw closer to Him in our understanding of his presence in the world.

This image, dating from the third century, is one of the oldest known images of Christ being worshiped by the Magi. The structure of this image, with each of the three Magi in line waiting to give their gifts to the Child Jesus, has become a familiar structure in representations of the Adoration of the Magi through the centuries. Cast from a sarcophagus found in the Catacomb of Priscilla, its bold strokes are far beyond its time with respect to artistic style. The Catacomb of Priscilla, located in Rome, was used for Christian burials in the second through the fourth centuries, and was notable because at least two popes were buried there in addition to many holy Christian martyrs. (The remains of St. Philomena were found here as well.) This catacomb also holds many other works of early Christian art, from images of the Annunciation to Christ as the Good Shepherd.

This image of Christ as the Good Shepherd was found in the Catacomb of Callistus, an extensive catacomb and burial ground again located in Rome. It is a ceiling fresco which dates to the third century, and portrays a remarkably youthful Christ carrying a lamb. Although Christianity utilized the image of a Good Shepherd to describe the relationship of Christ to his flock, or his Church, the image of a man bearing either a lamb or a calf is an ancient one. It was a popular motif in Greek sculpture and was known as a moskophoros, or “the bearer of the calf.” Seeing this motif appropriated to reflect Christian themes reflects the fact that the Church permeates culture, and its message remains timeless throughout centuries.
Here Are the 10 Oldest Images of Christ

 

[Giuliano]

That doesn't disprove miracles, which has nothing to do with the current discussion. Scientists are called in to disprove fraud, yet you find fault with that. There have been many fraudulent claims, which is why the Church is so careful.

No, I scoff at it. A spiritually aware person should know if something is a miracle or not . . . before the scientists weigh in. If something is truly a miracle, why not say so at once -- and be confident that science isn't going to show it a fake.

Then you don't know your Bible.

Here the passage is again: I don't see their successors being mentioned.

John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

Sheer nonsense. What was DEFINED does not mean INVENTED. You posted a verse on infallibility, which proves you don't know what it means.

If something is undefined and someone defines it, that is "inventing" the definition.

It's like you are saying the Apostles weren't being steered by the Holy Spirit because they didn't anticipate the Arian heresy 300 years into the future.

Actually I was thinking of the Council of Nicea where three creeds were proposed. That was in 325 AD. Only 56 years at the First Council of Constantinople in 381 AD, the creed got its first revision. Both councils, it seems were struggling with Arianism.

You just scoffed at the Church for using science (earthly things) to validate what science cannot explain. You contradict yourself. Scientists can only say that something has no explanation. AFTER THAT, the Church MAY declare a miracle, but most of time, doesn't.

I think the Church learned that if they depended on guidance from the Holy Spirit, science might contradict them. Superstitious men declared miracles and later they were exposed as frauds by science. Ha, that put the brakes on men saying they could tell if someone was a miracle or not.

The Pope is only infallible on matters of faith and morals. He is not a mind reader, a magician, nor a soothsayer. These are powers expected of the Pope by enemies, not Catholics. How the Church governs itself (ecclesiology) is huge topic. A rabbit trail.

What about "the things to come"? Should I cross that out of my Bible?

Why are there no trusted prophets in the Catholic Church?

Acts 21:9 And the same man had four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy.
10 And as we tarried there many days, there came down from Judaea a certain prophet, named Agabus.
11 And when he was come unto us, he took Paul's girdle, and bound his own hands and feet, and said, Thus saith the Holy Ghost, So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owneth this girdle, and shall deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.

Do you believe that Jesus appeared to Peter and told him to return to Rome? I do. Peter knew what the future held, too.

 

[Giuliano]

According to you, symbols are meaningless, and everybody could read. This is absurd. You deny the evidence, deny historical facts, which makes discussion impossible.
+++
Art is an amazing way through which we may better pray and contemplate the depths of Christianity. Although there are many familiar examples of modern Christian art, looking to the very first images of Christ in art allows us to see how Christ was perceived by the early church. Understanding these oldest pictures of Jesus help us see that Christ reveals himself to his Church in a multitude of ways, which allows us to draw closer to Him in our understanding of his presence in the world.

This image, dating from the third century, is one of the oldest known images of Christ being worshiped by the Magi. The structure of this image, with each of the three Magi in line waiting to give their gifts to the Child Jesus, has become a familiar structure in representations of the Adoration of the Magi through the centuries. Cast from a sarcophagus found in the Catacomb of Priscilla, its bold strokes are far beyond its time with respect to artistic style. The Catacomb of Priscilla, located in Rome, was used for Christian burials in the second through the fourth centuries, and was notable because at least two popes were buried there in addition to many holy Christian martyrs. (The remains of St. Philomena were found here as well.) This catacomb also holds many other works of early Christian art, from images of the Annunciation to Christ as the Good Shepherd.

Would someone who had never heard the story know what it meant? I know the story and still don't understand all the details. Why is the wind blowing so much? Who is that to the left? Who's to the right, and why is he stretching his hand out like that? Educate me because that painting isn't.

This image of Christ as the Good Shepherd was found in the Catacomb of Callistus, an extensive catacomb and burial ground again located in Rome. It is a ceiling fresco which dates to the third century, and portrays a remarkably youthful Christ carrying a lamb. Although Christianity utilized the image of a Good Shepherd to describe the relationship of Christ to his flock, or his Church, the image of a man bearing either a lamb or a calf is an ancient one. It was a popular motif in Greek sculpture and was known as a moskophoros, or “the bearer of the calf.” Seeing this motif appropriated to reflect Christian themes reflects the fact that the Church permeates culture, and its message remains timeless throughout centuries.
Here Are the 10 Oldest Images of Christ

Why are you posting an image that depicts Jesus the way pagans had depicted the "calf bearer" for centuries? I can't tell if it's a lamb or or a calf to be honest; but it is remarkably pagan in style. I think that type of statue represented someone bringing a calf to be sacrificed to Athena. I thought Jesus offered himself as the lamb, so I do not "get" this fresco at all.

 

[GodsGrace]

And some Protestant eat and drink too much.
Weren't they "taught" not to by their pastors??

The point is that EVERYBODY sins - even when they are taught NOT to sin.
The Catholic Church has NEVER taught anybody to "pray to" statues. This is idolatry and something that the Catholic Church has ALWAYS taught against.

Go sit in judgement of the sins of your OWN sect's people.
When they are sin-free - then come and talk to me about Catholic sinners . . .

The CC has done a TERRIBLE JOB of educating its parishioners.
If they had, I might have stayed in that church.

They've started now.
TOO LITTLE
TOO LATE.

 

[epostle]

No, I scoff at it. A spiritually aware person should know if something is a miracle or not . . . before the scientists weigh in. If something is truly a miracle, why not say so at once -- and be confident that science isn't going to show it a fake.

There are plenty of miracles in history that they "said so at once" and plenty of fakes. A person can claim they have been healed of cancer, but unless medical science proves they had cancer in the first place, then the healing is merely a claim.

(1) Miracles are defined as: instances where events happen in such close temporal proximity and in logical connection to religious evocation, such as prayer; said events stand out from what we understand to be the set course of nature; said events cannot be explained through any known natural agency; said events create religious affections in the lives of those connected with them.

(2) Miracles are perceived to be interventions or influences of Supernature upon the lower sphere of nature.

(3) Thousands of such examples have been documented in modern times.

(4) When and if such occurrences affect the life of a believer, the believer is then justified in assuming that some supernatural effect has occurred

(5) If a supernatural effect happens, it is assumed that God works such an effect

(6) Such effects have occurred, therefore, the believer is justified in such a belief.

(7) A justified belief in the action of God is a justification for a rational belief in God. Therefore, the real first hand experience of this type of event, or the credible confidence in such documented cases justifies a rational warrant for belief.
Scientific Evidence for Miracles page 1: examination of the Lourdes rules for miracle acceptance.
Are you rational?
[/quote] Here the passage is again: I don't see their successors being mentioned.
John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.[/quote] Because something is absent from one verse does not mean it is non-existent. You keep baiting me about apostolic succession, and I submit you refuse to understand what it means, like you are blind to infallibility in that verse. Do you think the Spirit of Truth stopped showing things to come after the death of the last Apostle?

If something is undefined and someone defines it, that is "inventing" the definition. Actually I was thinking of the Council of Nicea where three creeds were proposed. That was in 325 AD. Only 56 years at the First Council of Constantinople in 381 AD, the creed got its first revision. Both councils, it seems were struggling with Arianism.

Now you are being obtuse. Was the Trinity redefined, revised and invented over a period of 4 centuries? No, but yes according to your reasoning. You seem to have a problem with the word "amendment" and "development" which I have explained in detail.

I think the Church learned that if they depended on guidance from the Holy Spirit, science might contradict them. Superstitious men declared miracles and later they were exposed as frauds by science. Ha, that put the brakes on men saying they could tell if someone was a miracle or not.

We think faith and reason are compatible. Do you?
Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998) | John Paul II

What about "the things to come"? Should I cross that out of my Bible?

Infallibility is explicit in John 13:16, and apostolic succession is inferred. "Things to come" doesn't have an expiry date.

Why are there no trusted prophets in the Catholic Church?

There are, you are on the outside looking through a small piece of stained glass and you base your observations on what little distortions you see.

The Prophecy at Rome

Pope greets prophet.

Prophecy: A Beginner’s Guide - Articles - Catholic Charismatic Renewal

Prophecy

 

[BreadOfLife]

The CC has done a TERRIBLE JOB of educating its parishioners.
If they had, I might have stayed in that church.

They've started now.
TOO LITTLE
TOO LATE.

Sooooo, you’re “okay” with all of the badly-behaving Protestants – but NOT okay with the badly-behaving Catholics – is that it??

And you don’t see ANY hypocrisy in your remarks??

Unreal . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

I know what works for me. If I know something may tempt me to do something I believe is wrong, I try to avoid being around it. I think that is wise.

If someone wears daring clothes, he or she shouldn't be surprised if something flops out.

If a greedy man wants to achieve perfection, he may benefit by giving up his idol of money.

It is indeed the people who make the choices; and if people want statues, they are opting to have them as potential problems in their churches. It's certainly not the statues' fault. You're the one who wants to attribute "human qualities" to statues, saying they can educate people!

Your argument here is ridiculous.
You are placing too much emphasis on things and not self control.

It’s one thing if a person‘s proclivity is a vice, like pornography or drinking or drugs.

EVERYBODY has to earn money to eat. A greedy man who walks away from money altogether will starve.

A vain person who is fa too concerned with their appearance cannot simply walk around naked.

A statue is a simple REMINDER and nothing else. If a person chooses to worship it – that’s on THEM, not the Church and not the person who created it. When youo are being judged – God is not going to blame a statue for your idolatry or money for your greed or food for your gluttony . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

We did settle it, and I'm not not in the mood to go to go back and discuss it again.

Uhhhhh, NO, we didn’t.

YOU settled on statues when the original argument was about ALL imagery.

MY position all along has been about IMAGES. This is why @epostle produces a 2nd century example of a Christian image.

YOU moved the goal posts to include only statues in churches . . .

 

[Grailhunter]

Apparitions Statistics, Modern : University of Dayton, Ohio
Marian Apparitions

 

[epostle]

Apparitions Statistics, Modern : University of Dayton, Ohio
Marian Apparitions

An excellent site.
First of all, it’s wrong to say that no one can comment on a thing without firsthand experience. That’s like the pro-aborts saying that men can’t talk about abortion because they are not women. It’s a fallacy.

I agree that there can be undue skepticism (and in this case, quite a bit, I think), but on the other hand (as has been pointed out above several times), no Catholic is required to believe in any Marian apparition, no matter how firmly established. It’s a private revelation. So no one ought to get unduly dogmatic about it.

What one can say with high assurance is that a Catholic who doubts even apparitions like Lourdes and Fatima is surely in a tiny minority of orthodox Catholics, and will therefore be somewhat likely to doubt other things that he mustn’t doubt as a Catholic.
Marian Apparitions & Public vs. Private Revelation

Biblical Evidence for Marian Apparitions

 

[Grailhunter]

An excellent site.
First of all, it’s wrong to say that no one can comment on a thing without firsthand experience. That’s like the pro-aborts saying that men can’t talk about abortion because they are not women. It’s a fallacy.

I agree that there can be undue skepticism (and in this case, quite a bit, I think), but on the other hand (as has been pointed out above several times), no Catholic is required to believe in any Marian apparition, no matter how firmly established. It’s a private revelation. So no one ought to get unduly dogmatic about it.

What one can say with high assurance is that a Catholic who doubts even apparitions like Lourdes and Fatima is surely in a tiny minority of orthodox Catholics, and will therefore be somewhat likely to doubt other things that he mustn’t doubt as a Catholic.
Marian Apparitions & Public vs. Private Revelation

Biblical Evidence for Marian Apparitions

Who is more of a critic of marian apparitions than the Catholic Church itself. I say that as a funny. But you know how they investigate that stuff.

 

[Giuliano]

Uhhhhh, NO, we didn’t.

YOU settled on statues when the original argument was about ALL imagery.

MY position all along has been about IMAGES. This is why @epostle produces a 2nd century example of a Christian image.

YOU moved the goal posts to include only statues in churches . . .

Your memory is failing. The post where this topic began was in post # 837.

Is there salvation outside the Catholic Church?

I wrote this:

I once had a Catholic cite the Second Council of Nicea as his way of justifying statues. Not that I care either way about images; but he had been talking about the "Ten Commandments" so I asked him about the statues. Back came the reference to the Second Council of Nicea. Funny that the Orthodox agreed with everything in that Council; but they don't permit statues. If you read what's actually written, you see it approved flat pictures/ images; and that remains a source of schism between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

If I were Pope and thought it would help repair the breach with Constantinople, I'd give up the statues. I like them and don't see them as sinful; but I don't need them that much. Go back to what was agreed to.

Pay attention, or better yet get that sixth grader to go over your responses before you post them. I said I didn't care either way about images and even liked statues; but some Catholics seemed to have heart palpitations at the words "images" and "statues." If they bother you that much, why have them? They don't bother me. I've about had enough of your silliness.

No goal post was moved. It was about an Ecumenical Council that approved flat pictures but not statues. Don't blame me if the Catholic Church seems to think the two are identical.

 

[Giuliano]

Your argument here is ridiculous.
You are placing too much emphasis on things and not self control.

It’s one thing if a person‘s proclivity is a vice, like pornography or drinking or drugs.

EVERYBODY has to earn money to eat. A greedy man who walks away from money altogether will starve.

Argue about that with Jesus.

Mark 10:20 And he answered and said unto him, Master, all these have I observed from my youth.
21 Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.
22 And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions.

A vain person who is fa too concerned with their appearance cannot simply walk around naked.

A statue is a simple REMINDER and nothing else. If a person chooses to worship it – that’s on THEM, not the Church and not the person who created it. When youo are being judged – God is not going to blame a statue for your idolatry or money for your greed or food for your gluttony . . .

Matthew 6:13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.

 

[Grailhunter]

An excellent site.
First of all, it’s wrong to say that no one can comment on a thing without firsthand experience. That’s like the pro-aborts saying that men can’t talk about abortion because they are not women. It’s a fallacy.

I agree that there can be undue skepticism (and in this case, quite a bit, I think), but on the other hand (as has been pointed out above several times), no Catholic is required to believe in any Marian apparition, no matter how firmly established. It’s a private revelation. So no one ought to get unduly dogmatic about it.

What one can say with high assurance is that a Catholic who doubts even apparitions like Lourdes and Fatima is surely in a tiny minority of orthodox Catholics, and will therefore be somewhat likely to doubt other things that he mustn’t doubt as a Catholic.
Marian Apparitions & Public vs. Private Revelation

Biblical Evidence for Marian Apparitions

To be honest, I am not looking for biblical evidence of Marian Apparitions. Most of the time when I am in church I am sitting next to a fundamentalist...something, one of many Protestant religions. Love them to death, but I do tease them because they want their cake and eat it too. More or less the concept or methodology is that after the close of the Bible, the Trinity and all heavenly beings closed up shop. They say that they believe that divine events happen, but when they do, they are critical. Christianity is a male dominant religion so having a woman appearing in a divine way, just makes it worse. They look for things to happen a certain way. History bores people so they are destined to repeat it. The Jews had it in their head that the Messiah was going to be a human warlord king that would take down their oppresses and put them in power and write the 613 Mosaic Laws on everybody's heart and they would follow them. What they got was a loving God Messiah of peace and Christianity ended up welcoming the Pagans into the religion. So they rejected Him and instigated His torture and crucifixion. The prophets set them up. They missed the the proverbial boat. Likewise the Protestants have it in their head that Christ is going to return in a certain way, and if it is different, they could reject Him. If it is not scriptural they think it is not real, in some cases even evil. (Fundamentalism is away of staying focused on the scriptures but that focus prevents them from understanding or believing anything outside of the bible.) I am a Christian, and that is what I call myself, a very knowledgeable Christian I might say, sorry if it sounds like bragging. And I did not get that way by studying with a closed mind and rejecting all of the centuries old Christian beliefs. The belief of the inert status of the Trinity does not even make sense. I see the Trinity and angels just as active as we are. Why the Trinity loves us so much, I don't know, but I believe they are very involved in our lives. And just as Paul used females in his ministry I believe the Trinity can use females to minister to humanity. You would be surprised how many stories there are in the military of divine females coming to their rescue and even children caught in the line of fire. So when it comes to Marian Apparitions, I at least have a open mind, especially because of the number of sightings over the years. The stories of Mary over in Medjugorje, Bosnia and Herzegovina are very interesting. So do I believe? I lean that direction and if Mary appeared to me, I would probably be honored, definitely humbled.

 

[prism]

Art is an amazing way through which we may better pray and contemplate the depths of Christianity. Although there are many familiar examples of modern Christian art, looking to the very first images of Christ in art allows us to see how Christ was perceived by the early church. Understanding these oldest pictures of Jesus help us see that Christ reveals himself to his Church in a multitude of ways, which allows us to draw closer to Him in our understanding of his presence in the world.

Baloney!
No one knows what Jesus looked like, including 'old pictures' of Him. If God wanted us to know His physical earthly appearance of Him there would have been chapters written in the Bible.. Apostate Israel made that mistake with their idolatry. We don't need art to help us pray. God's Word and Spirit is sufficient.
Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord: (For we walk by faith, not by sight 2 Corinthians 5:6-7 (KJV)

2 Corinthians 5:16 (KJV) Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more.

 

[Giuliano]

There are plenty of miracles in history that they "said so at once" and plenty of fakes. A person can claim they have been healed of cancer, but unless medical science proves they had cancer in the first place, then the healing is merely a claim.

My question is why the Catholic Church can't tell if something is a miracle or not without consulting science first.

(1) Miracles are defined as: instances where events happen in such close temporal proximity and in logical connection to religious evocation, such as prayer; said events stand out from what we understand to be the set course of nature; said events cannot be explained through any known natural agency; said events create religious affections in the lives of those connected with them.

(2) Miracles are perceived to be interventions or influences of Supernature upon the lower sphere of nature.

(3) Thousands of such examples have been documented in modern times.

(4) When and if such occurrences affect the life of a believer, the believer is then justified in assuming that some supernatural effect has occurred

(5) If a supernatural effect happens, it is assumed that God works such an effect

(6) Such effects have occurred, therefore, the believer is justified in such a belief.

(7) A justified belief in the action of God is a justification for a rational belief in God. Therefore, the real first hand experience of this type of event, or the credible confidence in such documented cases justifies a rational warrant for belief.
Scientific Evidence for Miracles page 1: examination of the Lourdes rules for miracle acceptance.
Are you rational?

I've seen some miracles myself, and I didn't need to have scientists verify them for me. I've also prayed for things most people would call miracles, and sometimes my prayers were answered. Don't waste my time then about whether miracles exist. Rather I want to know why people filled with the Holy Spirit can't tell if God did something miraculous or if a human faked it.

Because something is absent from one verse does not mean it is non-existent.

How convenient that you can add whatever suits your purpose to that verse.

You keep baiting me about apostolic succession, and I submit you refuse to understand what it means, like you are blind to infallibility in that verse. Do you think the Spirit of Truth stopped showing things to come after the death of the last Apostle?

I don't see it today, that's for sure.

Now you are being obtuse. Was the Trinity redefined, revised and invented over a period of 4 centuries? No, but yes according to your reasoning. You seem to have a problem with the word "amendment" and "development" which I have explained in detail.

Of course it was invented, revised and redefined. You may want to call it something else, but the evidence is there.

We think faith and reason are compatible. Do you?
Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998) | John Paul II

So you say, but then you fall into teaching ideas that contradict each other. Above, you used the logical fallacy knows as argumentum ad ignorantiam when you said successors aren't mentioned but that means they're meant.

Infallibility is explicit in John 13:16,

Infallibility for whom? For the Apostles, yes.

and apostolic succession is inferred.

From what axioms? How do you account for "heretical" bishops if the Holy Spirit is guiding the successors?

"Things to come" doesn't have an expiry date.

I'm still waiting for evidence that a Pope or bishop of this century or the last had the Holy Spirit revealing "things to come" to him.

There are,
you are on the outside looking through a small piece of stained glass and you base your observations on what little distortions you see.

The Prophecy at Rome

Did the Pope recognize him as a legitimate prophet?

Prophecy: A Beginner’s Guide - Articles - Catholic Charismatic Renewal

Prophecy

Why aren't bishops and Popes given the power of prophecy? I would think things would go a lot better to have clergy with spiritual eyes and ears open would be a plus. I find it odd that Jesus made that promise to the Apostles and you say also to their successors; but their successors lack the prophetic gift while you believe private individuals have it. Something is wrong with this picture.

 

[Giuliano]

This is complete ignorant nonsense.

The SAME can be said about those with a penchant for exposing themselves.
Should they be strapped down so that they can't remove their clothing??

Should a vain woman only be allowed to wear burlap sacks instead of fashionable clothing??

should a greedy man be locked away so he can't make money??

It's not the skin that's evil.
It's not the clothing that';s evil,
It's not the money that's evil, It is the PERSON.

Christ Himself made WINE. Is HE responsible for those who got drunk at the Wedding at Cana??
You seem to be one of those people who blames everybody else for their sins instead of looking in a mirror . . .

The question may also be how much responsibility the Catholic Church has when it tolerates some things.

The news from two days ago is that the annual drag show at John Carroll University got cancelled. Is that a good thing or a bad one?

New President at Jesuit University Cancels Drag Queen Show

A new president at a Jesuit university in Ohio has canceled a drag queen show, leading to mixed reactions and activism among students.

Michael Johnson, Ph.D., became president of John Carroll University (JCU) in University Heights, Ohio, June 1, 2018, where an annual drag queen show had been occurring since 2013. Johnson canceled the show largely in response to an op-ed piece published in The Carroll News Oct. 1, 2018.

It is a scandalous attempt at the corruption of Catholic youth by the very priests and laypeople charged with their education.Tweet
Declan Leary, the author of the op-ed titled "Drag queens and Jesuits," discussed the contradictory nature of having a drag queen show on a Catholic campus:

I can't help but wonder who thought it would be a good idea to hire grown men to dress up as women on a Catholic campus for the deviant entertainment of misguided young people. It is a terrifying testament to the decay of our faith and our University that, throughout the approval process for this event and the six years for which it has now continued, not a single person in a position of authority stood up (or at least stood with sufficient strength) to suggest that perhaps such a flagrant celebration of sexual perversity might just be wrong.

This offense, and the many like it being perpetrated on other nominally Catholic campuses across the world, is more than just a deviation from doctrine, though that in itself is sufficient cause for condemnation. It is an assault on the dignity of the human person and the divine gift of ordered sexuality. Even further, it is a scandalous attempt at the corruption of Catholic youth by the very priests and laypeople charged with their education.

This video is from 2017:

 

[epostle]

Your memory is failing. The post where this topic began was in post # 837.

Is there salvation outside the Catholic Church?

I wrote this:

I once had a Catholic cite the Second Council of Nicea as his way of justifying statues. Not that I care either way about images; but he had been talking about the "Ten Commandments" so I asked him about the statues. Back came the reference to the Second Council of Nicea. Funny that the Orthodox agreed with everything in that Council; but they don't permit statues. If you read what's actually written, you see it approved flat pictures/ images; and that remains a source of schism between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

Nonsense. Iconoclasm was deemed heretical. The schism occurred 4 centuries later, and had nothing to do with images.

For many westerners, and in the Orthodox folklore, icons are the Eastern substitute for statues commonly, and erroneously, believed to the forbidden in the Orthodox Church. Actually, statues are by no means forbidden in Orthodoxy and were always a regular part of the decorative and devotional furnishing of the sacred space, the church interior...
...Icon, now commonly used as a technical term for the flat, perspective less devotional pictures of oriental Orthodoxy is simply the Greek word for “image.” The Ecumenical Counciliar dogmatic decrees on icons refer, in fact, to all religious images including three-dimensional statues...
Professor Sergios Verkhovskoi, the conservative professor of dogmatics at St. Vladimir’s Seminary forthrightly condemns as heretical anyone who declares statues as unOrthodox or in any way canonically inferior to paintings...
How, then, did the common opinion arise that statues were “western,” “heterodox,” “heretical”? The answer is quite simple and derived from sound cultural and sociological foundations.​

Statues were common in Byzantium. Our title picture illustrates an ivory, three-dimensional statuette, of the Virgin and Child, “Hodegetria,” from 10th Century Constantinople.

Virgin and Child (Theotokos Hodegetria) (Statuette) | V&A Search the Collections
(taken from an ORTHODOX site)

The Seventh Ecumenical Council
Held in Nicea, Asia Minor in 787. 367 Bishops were present.

The Iconoclast Controversy
It centered around the use of icons in the Church and the controversy between the iconoclasts and iconophiles. The Iconoclasts were suspicious of religious art; they demanded that the Church rid itself of such art and that it be destroyed or broken (as the term "iconoclast" implies).

The iconophilles believed that icons served to preserve the doctrinal teachings of the Church; they considered icons to be man's dynamic way of expressing the divine through art and beauty. The Iconoclast controversy was a form of Monophysitism: distrust and downgrading of the human side.

The Council's Proclamation

"We define that the holy icons, whether in color, mosaic, or some other material, should be exhibited in the holy churches of God, on the sacred vessels and liturgical vestments, on the walls, furnishings, and in houses and along the roads, namely the icons of our Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ, that of our Lady the Theotokos, those of the venerable angels and those of all saintly people. Whenever these representations are contemplated, they will cause those who look at them to commemorate and love their prototype. We define also that they should be kissed and that they are an object of veneration and honor (timitiki proskynisis), but not of real worship (latreia), which is reserved for Him Who is the subject of our faith and is proper for the divine nature, ... which is in effect transmitted to the prototype; he who venerates the icon, venerated in it the reality for which it stands."

"or some other material" get it?​

The Seventh Ecumenical Council - Content - Ecumenical Patriarchate: Holy and Great Council (again, this is an ORTHODOX site)

If I were Pope and thought it would help repair the breach with Constantinople, I'd give up the statues. I like them and don't see them as sinful; but I don't need them that much. Go back to what was agreed to.

There was no disagreement until the late 7th century. We don't "need" them either but we like them too.

Pay attention, or better yet get that sixth grader to go over your responses before you post them. I said I didn't care either way about images and even liked statues; but some Catholics seemed to have heart palpitations at the words "images" and "statues." If they bother you that much, why have them? They don't bother me. I've about had enough of your silliness.

We are constantly attacked by ignorant Monophysite type fundamentalists over our BIBLICAL use of statues, and we are entitled to defend ourselves against such stupidity.

No goal post was moved. It was about an Ecumenical Council that approved flat pictures but not statues. Don't blame me if the Catholic Church seems to think the two are identical.

You have a way of re-defining councils. See above.

Argue about that with Jesus.

Mark 10:20 And he answered and said unto him, Master, all these have I observed from my youth.
21 Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.
22 And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions.

Matthew 6:13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.

These are lovely verses but I fail to understand what they have to do with vice.

 

[epostle]

My question is why the Catholic Church can't tell if something is a miracle or not without consulting science first.
I've seen some miracles myself, and I didn't need to have scientists verify them for me. I've also prayed for things most people would call miracles, and sometimes my prayers were answered. Don't waste my time then about whether miracles exist. Rather I want to know why people filled with the Holy Spirit can't tell if God did something miraculous or if a human faked it.

To those who believe, evidence is not necessary. To those who refuse to believe, no amount of evidence will suffice. Validation through science is for unbelievers, not believers.

How convenient that you can add whatever suits your purpose to that verse.

I don't create an entire off topic theology over one verse. Learn the difference between what is explicit and what is implicit. Infallibility is explicit, apostolic succession is implicit, as I explained.

I don't see it today, that's for sure.
Of course it was invented, revised and redefined. You may want to call it something else, but the evidence is there.

The evidence, the first few councils, clearly shows development of doctrine. You just refuse to accept it. Trinitarian theology came into fuller bloom at the Council of Chalcedon. The doctrine of the Trinity was not invented, revised or redefined. That's just plain denial on your part.

The Catholic Church would say there was one apostolic deposit, given from Christ to the Apostles, and there’s been no change in that, in terms of essence or substance; so the Catholic Church preserves that, and is the Guardian of it. But, on the other hand, there is a growth in depth of clarity, in the understanding of those truths, without essential change. In other words, the subjective grasp of men increases, without the actual doctrine or dogma changing in an essential way. That’s the main distinction to keep in mind when one is talking about development.
Development of Doctrine (Index Page for Dave Armstrong)​

So you say, but then you fall into teaching ideas that contradict each other.

But you don't name these alleged "contradictory teachings", you just assert them, a straw man, and then you accuse me of a logical fallacy.

Above, you used the logical fallacy knows as argumentum ad ignorantiam when you said successors aren't mentioned but that means they're meant.

I'm waiting for you to give the expiry date for "things to come". The reformers trashed apostolic succession because it was politically expedient.

Infallibility for whom? For the Apostles, yes.

Yes, but again, you give no date when the Church ceased to teach without error. I submit you haven't a clue what infallibility means, nor do you understand apostolic succession.
The Biblical Church - Scripture Catholic
APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY AND SUCCESSION - Scripture Catholic

From what axioms? How do you account for "heretical" bishops if the Holy Spirit is guiding the successors?

Infallibility (teaching without error) has nothing to do with impeccability (living without sinning). Anti-Catholics constantly confuse the two, and so do you. Can you name ONE heretical bishop that taught ex cathedra? No, you can't, because it's IMPOSSIBLE.

I'm still waiting for evidence that a Pope or bishop of this century or the last had the Holy Spirit revealing "things to come" to him.

Read the encyclicals of the last 100 years. The Papal Encyclicals Online

Did the Pope recognize him as a legitimate prophet?

A picture of the Pope embracing the prophet isn't enough? Obviously you ignored the context that went with the picture. I can only spoon feed you so much without pasting walls of text that no one reads. Here it is the context, for the second time.
The Prophecy at Rome
Please stop asking questions on information you ignore.

Why aren't bishops and Popes given the power of prophecy? I would think things would go a lot better to have clergy with spiritual eyes and ears open would be a plus. I find it odd that Jesus made that promise to the Apostles and you say also to their successors; but their successors lack the prophetic gift while you believe private individuals have it. Something is wrong with this picture.

Ephesians 4:11-16 lists 5 different functions. Popes, bishops, prophets, teachers etc. are DIFFERENT FUNCTIONS.

You asked why there is no prophecy in the Catholic Church, and I proved otherwise. Now you are raising the bar because you have, again, been proven wrong. Prophecy is not a power, it is a gift of the Holy Spirit, who blows where He wills. There is nothing in Scripture that demands that prophecy accompanies ordination.

 

[Giuliano]

Nonsense. Iconoclasm was deemed heretical. The schism occurred 4 centuries later, and had nothing to do with images.

For many westerners, and in the Orthodox folklore, icons are the Eastern substitute for statues commonly, and erroneously, believed to the forbidden in the Orthodox Church. Actually, statues are by no means forbidden in Orthodoxy and were always a regular part of the decorative and devotional furnishing of the sacred space, the church interior...
...Icon, now commonly used as a technical term for the flat, perspective less devotional pictures of oriental Orthodoxy is simply the Greek word for “image.” The Ecumenical Counciliar dogmatic decrees on icons refer, in fact, to all religious images including three-dimensional statues...
Professor Sergios Verkhovskoi, the conservative professor of dogmatics at St. Vladimir’s Seminary forthrightly condemns as heretical anyone who declares statues as unOrthodox or in any way canonically inferior to paintings...
How, then, did the common opinion arise that statues were “western,” “heterodox,” “heretical”? The answer is quite simple and derived from sound cultural and sociological foundations.​

Statues were common in Byzantium. Our title picture illustrates an ivory, three-dimensional statuette, of the Virgin and Child, “Hodegetria,” from 10th Century Constantinople.

Virgin and Child (Theotokos Hodegetria) (Statuette) | V&A Search the Collections
(taken from an ORTHODOX site)

The Seventh Ecumenical Council
Held in Nicea, Asia Minor in 787. 367 Bishops were present.

The Iconoclast Controversy
It centered around the use of icons in the Church and the controversy between the iconoclasts and iconophiles. The Iconoclasts were suspicious of religious art; they demanded that the Church rid itself of such art and that it be destroyed or broken (as the term "iconoclast" implies).

The iconophilles believed that icons served to preserve the doctrinal teachings of the Church; they considered icons to be man's dynamic way of expressing the divine through art and beauty. The Iconoclast controversy was a form of Monophysitism: distrust and downgrading of the human side.

The Council's Proclamation

"We define that the holy icons, whether in color, mosaic, or some other material, should be exhibited in the holy churches of God, on the sacred vessels and liturgical vestments, on the walls, furnishings, and in houses and along the roads, namely the icons of our Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ, that of our Lady the Theotokos, those of the venerable angels and those of all saintly people. Whenever these representations are contemplated, they will cause those who look at them to commemorate and love their prototype. We define also that they should be kissed and that they are an object of veneration and honor (timitiki proskynisis), but not of real worship (latreia), which is reserved for Him Who is the subject of our faith and is proper for the divine nature, ... which is in effect transmitted to the prototype; he who venerates the icon, venerated in it the reality for which it stands."

"or some other material" get it?​

The Seventh Ecumenical Council - Content - Ecumenical Patriarchate: Holy and Great Council (again, this is an ORTHODOX site)
There was no disagreement until the late 7th century. We don't "need" them either but we like them too.
We are constantly attacked by ignorant Monophysite type fundamentalists over our BIBLICAL use of statues, and we are entitled to defend ourselves against such stupidity.
You have a way of re-defining councils. See above.

You read all that and didn't recognize it was talking about icons and not statues? The Orthodox Church is changing now too -- some of them even sit in pews today. So it doesn't surprise me if some Russian Orthodox guy says statues are okay. Putin is changing the Orthodox Church. Many of the clergy are his puppets.

125-foot statue of Jesus planned for Russian site once set aside for Lenin

Authorities in Vladivostok, the largest city in far eastern Russia, are planning to erect a gigantic statue of Jesus Christ on a site once designated for a monument of Vladimir Lenin.

The statue, which has not yet been approved by the Russian Orthodox Church, is to be 125 feet high – the same height as the Christ the Redeemer monument in Rio de Janeiro, according to blueprints made public by Vyatsky Posad, a Russian Orthodox Christian center. The statue will stand on top of a hill looking east over the Pacific Ocean.

Soviet authorities issued orders for the construction of a 98-foot-high bronze statue of Lenin at the site in 1972. Another statue, of Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin, was planned to be built on a neighboring hill. But construction hitches meant the plans were repeatedly postponed, before eventually being scrapped altogether in 1990.

Supporters of the Jesus statue are enthusiastic, despite the lack of details about the project. Descriptions of the statue as a “symbol of the unity of the Russian people” that would “bless” ships leaving and arriving in the port city were later deleted from the Vyatsky Posad’s website, for reasons that remain unclear. Attempts by Religion News Service to contact the Vyatsky Center for comment were unsuccessful.

These are lovely verses but I fail to understand what they have to do with vice.

I wrote: If a greedy man wants to achieve perfection, he may benefit by giving up his idol of money.

You wrote: EVERYBODY has to earn money to eat. A greedy man who walks away from money altogether will starve.

I then cited that passage from Jesus telling the man to sell all his possessions.