Mentalflatliner - what is reasonable?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
beowulf
Posts: 498
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Mentalflatliner - what is reasonable?

Post by beowulf »

Andrew wrote:Thank you, that's what I'm looking for. A direct question instead of all this quotations from popes, etc.

Since we believe that God himself became human and fulfilled the Law of Moses, (I'm pretty sure you know the story), we Catholics obviously don't agree that that is blasphemy. You first have to tear down my belief in Jesus as the Christ/Messiah before you can call me out for blasphemy. I'm pretty sure you don't follow the Mosaic Law to the letter anyway, so why are you so convinced I'll be damned for it? Do you condone stoning, or participate in it? Because God commanded that in the same set of laws in which he defined the Ten Commandments. Christians have their reasons for no longer following that law aside from those Ten Commandments, but what reason have you to follow those ten but not most of the rest? And I thought damnation was a New Testament concept, though I could be wrong.

It is a mortal sin punishable with hell-fire in the catholic religion.
God is my husband is a bizarre and sinful thing to say : a mortal sin that mocks god. A horrible sin , ugly and repugnant

PS the KJV is a protestant bible, but the catholic ones say the same about it.

the CCC
PART THREE
LIFE IN CHRIST
SECTION TWO
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
CHAPTER ONE
"YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND"
ARTICLE 2
THE SECOND COMMANDMENT

I. THE NAME OF THE LORD IS HOLY
2142 The second commandment prescribes respect for the Lord's name. Like the first commandment, it belongs to the virtue of religion and more particularly it governs our use of speech in sacred matters.
2143 Among all the words of Revelation, there is one which is unique: the revealed name of God. God confides his name to those who believe in him; he reveals himself to them in his personal mystery. The gift of a name belongs to the order of trust and intimacy. "The Lord's name is holy." For this reason man must not abuse it. He must keep it in mind in silent, loving adoration. He will not introduce it into his own speech except to bless, praise, and glorify it.74
2146 The second commandment forbids the abuse of God's name, i.e., every improper use of the names of God, Jesus Christ, but also of the Virgin Mary and all the saints
Andrew
Posts: 152
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 7:14 pm

Re: Mentalflatliner - what is reasonable?

Post by Andrew »

Yes, but under the Catholic understanding, it isn't considered blasphemy because we believe that God became incarnate and lived on earth for a while, and that he is a lot more personal than was previously understood. That doesn't mean we should disrespect him, but it does mean that the Church being metaphorically considered the Bride of Christ is not blasphemous, since we believe God works through the Church.
beowulf
Posts: 498
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Mentalflatliner - what is reasonable?

Post by beowulf »

It is what God thinks that matters. The CCC says it is a sin

Saying I am the wife of God, is such a silly and ugly thing to say! .Witches were burnt when the popes ruled Europe for much less than that.
Dante visited hell and he found some popes there.
Andrew
Posts: 152
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 7:14 pm

Re: Mentalflatliner - what is reasonable?

Post by Andrew »

The CCC says blasphemy is a sin, but it doesn't say that calling the Church the "Bride of Christ" is blasphemy. In fact, I'm pretty sure that metaphor is used by the CCC, so whoever wrote it thought the two were compatable.

Dante did not visit hell. He wrote about visiting hell, but he didn't actually, and I don't think anyone believes that he does. He put the popes there, and no one can say for sure whether they did indeed go that way or not. There have been some bad popes though, and it wouldn't surprise me if some of them had gone to hell. Not everything a pope does, says, or writes is infallible, so popes going to hell is meaningless.
beowulf
Posts: 498
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Mentalflatliner - what is reasonable?

Post by beowulf »

The RCC allows herself many theological ' liberties' , why was she such a cruel and determined enemy of 'heretics' when she had the power to burn people?

For the RCC God is a monkey dancing to her tune, and yet she was so ready to punish others for disagreeing with her!
Andrew
Posts: 152
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 7:14 pm

Re: Mentalflatliner - what is reasonable?

Post by Andrew »

I don't see any conflict between the Church's definition of blasphemy and the bride metaphor. It's your view of God that makes you think it's a theological liberty.
beowulf
Posts: 498
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Mentalflatliner - what is reasonable?

Post by beowulf »

Andrew wrote:I don't see any conflict between the Church's definition of blasphemy and the bride metaphor. It's your view of God that makes you think it's a theological liberty.
Yes the bride is in the CCC.
The CCC says that the church is a mystery and endowed with invisible realities. She is also divine, should the trinity be extended to acknowledge her divinity ?

It is indeed possible that in a mysterious manner and in the invisible reality God and the RCC are really married.
Everything is possible for God in the invisible mysterious realm .


III. THE MYSTERY OF THE CHURCH
771
The Church is essentially both human and divine, visible but endowed with invisible realities, zealous in action and dedicated to contemplation, present in the world, but as a pilgrim, so constituted that in her the human is directed toward and subordinated to the divine, the visible to the invisible, action to contemplation, and this present world to that city yet to come, the object of our quest.187


O humility! O sublimity! Both tabernacle of cedar and sanctuary of God; earthly dwelling and celestial palace; house of clay and royal hall; body of death and temple of light; and at last both object of scorn to the proud and bride of Christ! She is black but beautiful, O daughters of Jerusalem, for even if the labor and pain of her long exile may have discolored her, yet heaven's beauty has adorned her.188
Andrew
Posts: 152
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 7:14 pm

Re: Mentalflatliner - what is reasonable?

Post by Andrew »

In that context, it's just saying that the Church isn't entirely a human institution, and doesn't operate entirely with human fallibility. The Church can proclaim certain doctrine infallible in certain cases (not always, of course), and is divinely instituted, so in that respect, it is divine.
beowulf
Posts: 498
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Mentalflatliner - what is reasonable?

Post by beowulf »

Andrew wrote:In that context, it's just saying that the Church isn't entirely a human institution, and doesn't operate entirely with human fallibility. The Church can proclaim certain doctrine infallible in certain cases (not always, of course), and is divinely instituted, so in that respect, it is divine.
It says the church is mysterious and has invisible realities.

The CCC says the church is like a female Jesus ,bot human and divine:

779 The Church is both visible and spiritual, a hierarchical society and the Mystical Body of Christ. She
is one, yet formed of two components, human and divine. That is her mystery, which only faith can
accept.


In the context of CC 771 and 779, it is all about whether God the Father and God the Son and God the Holy Spirit 'have consummated their marriage to the RCC in some mysterious divine way in the invisible realm.

Divine copulation between God and humans is well known, the Holy Spirit with Mary for example, Divine copulation with the invisible divine part of the RCC is very likely. It is a question of faith.

I have faith. What a joy! I am a Catholic! Kudos to you for showing me the way.
Andrew
Posts: 152
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 7:14 pm

Re: Mentalflatliner - what is reasonable?

Post by Andrew »

Good grief, beowulf. Stop taking things out of context. What is meant by there being both a divine and human component is that God works through the Church which is made up of human beings.

Divine copulation has no precedence in Catholic tradition. The Holy Spirit was just that--a spirit. Thus, it was a miracle, not a physical act (Mary was still a virgin after that). The Church isn't a goddess, or any sort of divine being. That is completely in opposition to her teaching, so stop pretending that's what she teaches.
Post Reply