Theory about The Crisis and the chaos

Started by Miriam_M, October 29, 2018, 11:51:51 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Quaremerepulisti

Quote from: Xavier on December 17, 2018, 09:37:50 AM
Since the satisfaction issue was dealt with to satisfaction (pun intended!) on another thread, let's see if we can get back to Our Lady of Fatima one last time.

Just stop for a second and analyze your approach here.  You aren't writing to convince with detailed, logical argumentation and critical thought.  You're writing to bludgeon and bully with cheap polemics.  It's your whole m.o., not only on this issue but on others such as YEC.  It bothers you not one whit that you charge those who disagree with you as "anti-Catholic", "Protestant" in some way, etc. 

And you fail to make distinctions.  The Miracle of the Sun is one thing.  It's all the stuff that came afterwards that is the point of debate and the bone of contention.

QuoteRecall again what Pope Benedict XIV (De Canoni. Sanct.) says: "Though an assent of Catholic faith be not due to them, they deserve a human assent according to the rules of prudence by which they are probable and piously credible."

Which is begging the question; we simply don't think everything regarding Fatima is probable and piously credible.

QuoteIt is the privilege and the prerogative of Jesus and Mary to direct human acts in every age however they want. If they tell us episcopal consecration of individual countries are very good, and Papal Consecration of Russia in particular would save the Church from Communism, it is good and just for all churchmen to obey Jesus and Mary in that. If They give prophetic warnings of what may happen otherwise, it is for our good that this is done and it helps us to avoid or minimize it.

It's also their "privilege and prerogative" to create space aliens and have them visit Earth, but that does not give a good reason to think that they have done so or will do so.  And so, it is not credible that the Pope saying five words in Latin should avert a major catastrophe, result in the end of Communism, or whatever.  Which doesn't mean it is a bad idea in itself to do.  In fact, I wish he would do it (Gerard will disagree).  Now again if you make an argument that it is not an intrinsic cause-and-effect, but that God will positively will that Communism be destroyed or whatever, then again, as I said, we have the child tyrant of the Twilight Zone, letting whole countries be destroyed and millions of souls perish in hell because He did not get His way.  Which explains all the antics of Fatimists; a childish God worshiped by childish people.


QuoteThe matter is settled and the case is closed. Fatima is as approved as any apparition can ever be. Good Catholics will assent by pious faith, a human assent we give to miraculous facts outside Sacred Scripture. That is the teaching of the Popes, Saints and Doctors. The end.

A bullying argument; the inference is that those who don't assent by pious faith are bad Catholics.  I use my brain and refuse, and don't care what anyone else thinks.  The end.

Kreuzritter

Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on December 17, 2018, 08:13:19 AM
Your God is a pathetic, megalomaniac, egocentric dictator who will be worshiped by power-hungry people (e.g. bullies, just like we see a lot of on this forum) and sycophants and rightly despised by everyone else (psychologically normal people, that is).

Your "God" did not just make this to be what it is, but made it come to be through these very ongoing horrors:

[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcnH_TOqi3I&pbjreload=10[/yt]
[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMQZYYEBbkQ[/yt]
[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMVkbezKTJg[/yt]
[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQq93Q2txrs&pbjreload=10[/yt]
[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u854-7cFQKQ[/yt]

And every material being is locked into this by necessity, to kill and consume others in order to maintain a temporary existence, by virtue of this "God's" laws of conservation and entropy. The grand design of your so-called "deity".



QuoteThis idea explains a lot, in fact quite a lot, of the problems in the Church both pre- and post-Vatican II.  Sooner or later, psychologically bullied people rebel, and the results often aren't pretty.  If this is God, Catholicism is just one big lie from start to finish, designed to manipulate and bully people into the love of a God who does not love them in reality but sees them only as pawns in his master plan for self-glorification, and tant pis if this master plan involves horrible suffering for the vast majority of them

Your "God's"master plan involves systematic suffering and death as the means of his creative work and an essential part of the temporal existence of every living creature that has ever come to be.

You have no leg to stand on complaining about this supposed "dictator God" of some Catholics, just as you have no argument aginst John 3:3, Matthew 7:13-14 & 21-23, Matthew 25:31-46, etc., other than to dismiss them by interpretation through some speculative pansy-arsed theology that turns Jesus Christ into a Care Bear.

QuoteNow every (or most) dictators desire the "love" of their subjects or at least their praise and pretend that it isn't just the raw exercise of power, which is why they have parades, holidays, celebrations, celebrating the "great things" the dictator has done for the people.  ...  I know all the arguments about Augustinian predestination, St. Paul and Romans, strict EENS and so on, backwards and forwards and they've all been beaten to death multiple times here and elsewhere. 

Now recall his own logically convoluted "argument", in trying to rescue theistic evolutionism from the straightforward moral conclusions concerning its "God", for how the existence of pain, suffering and death in the world prior to the Fall could have been caused by God prior to man's sin on account of foreseeing it, and watch the charade come apart by unraveling itself.

Quote
Frankly, I find people with such views disgusting individuals who worship a disgusting God and again, refuse to participate in the farce, and refuse to be bludgeoned into submission with arguments to authority.



QuoteYes, I know you will insist my experience must take a backseat to what is written on a printed page somewhere, but I don't care.  I saw what I saw, and that's that.

Oh, so NOW, when it's you, personal experience counts.

I've plumbed the depths. I've travelled outside of this law-locked physical realm . I've experienced my spirit as transcendent, witnessed angels speaking out of beams of blinding light, seen demons called into appearance out of whisps of incense, watched "reality" unravel at its seams and seeming impossibilities pop in and out of material existence, not in bouts of madnesss but through systematic method and at a command, and everything more which gives lie to the notion that the nature of cosmos as a whole is anything like that of your beloved mechanical "science" or that God, the Most High, is responsible for this part of it, this place east of Eden, being what it is. You've been duped. I don't care.  I saw what I saw, and that's that.



Kreuzritter

Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on December 17, 2018, 10:48:28 AM
A bullying argument; the inference is that those who don't assent by pious faith are bad Catholics.

No, you're a "bad Catholic"because you don't have faith, apparent in your rejection of the Church Jesus founded in scripture after scripture, doctrine after doctrine, and miracle after miracle as a big, blundering failure of an institution, which is the reason you place your reliance upon human reason, blind as it is, as the final arbiter of truth.

QuoteI use my brain and refuse, and don't care what anyone else thinks.  The end.

You clearly do care what people think, or you would shut up and sod off instead of playing the part of the forum's intellectual bully, continually scoffing at others as ignorant country bumpkins and crying about "Western Catholicism".

Frankly, this endless, self-pitying whining of yours, which has come through strongly in this thread, is making me physically ill.

Arvinger

#318
For all of his intelligent and in-depth discussion of specific theological issues, at the bottom QMR makes fundamental errors not much different from those of village atheists who claim that "they don't believe in God because there is so much slaughter in the Old Testament!". Essentially, your rant is nothing but your emotional judgment and expression of the fact that you simply don't like what you read in Sacred Scripture, Magisterium and numerous Saints, which you explicitly admit calling those upholding St. Paul's teaching in Romans and doctrine of strict EENS (explicitly taught by Aathanasian Creed and Council of Florence) "disgusting" and God revealing those doctrines "disgusting". You dont like that people go to Hell, that God justly executes punishment on those who deserve it and do not repent (even though God provided them with means of salvation), and that we were created to serve God and He can do with us whatever He pleases, and He does not owe us anything at all (but we receive tremendous graces from Him every day, including those necessary for salvation - if God owed us something, as you had temerity to claim in another thread, grace would not be grace but merely a payment). You are not the first one, these truths naturally offend creaturly pride, and it is understandable. To some extent I sympathize with that, as these truths are indeed difficult to accept (I struggle with them too) and we often lack humility necessary for this. Obviously, the fact that you don't like these truths has exactly zero bearing upon whether they are actually true or not.

I'm not sure what experience are you talking about and how could your experience be objectively evaluated (members of any religion claim to "have experienced" their particular deity), but it sounds like modernist phenomenology and is in fact nothing but subjectivism. Of course, you can replace theology with that, but don't expect your emotionalism to be treated as a serious theological argument.

Quote from: QuaremerepulistiTo which I reply, whatever happened to the Sermon on the Mount, "Blessed are the merciful, for they will obtain mercy", and whatever happened to the Scriptural truth that God has compassion.  Mercy is not just the bare practice of corporal and spiritual works of mercy as some seem to think, but over and above that an attitude of compassion, now seen (by many here) as evidence of weakness and condonation of sin.  That is a false compassion, but a true one nevertheless exists.  And is that how Christ acted?  Did He say to the woman taken in adultery, you dirty slut, you got what you deserved?  True, He berated the Pharisees for their self-righteousness but there is also definitely an aspect of compassion: true compassion.

Sermon on the Mount includes some pretty radical teachings about sin and Hell too. Actually, in the Sermon on the Mount Our Lord raises the moral bar in comparison the Old Testament law, so in the New Covenant Saints are required even more than in the Old Covenant (but of course they receive much greater and more abundant graces enabling them to achieve that). Compassion, mercy and justice go hand in hand.

Quote from: QuaremerepulistiBut what are the exact reasons for this death of charity in the Christian life, but for the way God is/was portrayed: a vengeful, angry God devoid of compassion and one taking out His wrath on the human race.  And a vengeful, angry God is worshiped by vengeful, angry people.

Oh, surely it has nothing to do with our selfishness, lack of compassion, greed, love of sin, impurity, etc. - no, let's blame God. Also, Scripture is filled with passages describing just wrath of God and His anger due to sins of humanity - of course, you can accuse me of "prooftexting" (even though usually you never provide exegetical counter-arguments), or you can try to put these passages on their head through eisegesis or employ some for of practical Marcionism, but thats is far removed from any sort of meaningful Christian worldview.

Honestly, I have more respect for atheists who have integrity to honestly argue their position than for liberal Catholics (oxymoron, I know) - an atheist rejects core teachings of Christianity, but at least he is open about it. A liberal Catholic also rejects those teachings, but pretends to pay lip-service to Sacred Scripture and Magisterium, while in reality he picks and chooses what he believes on the basis of his feelings, culture, personal preferences, etc.

Quaremerepulisti

Quote from: Arvinger on December 17, 2018, 11:42:35 AM
Essentially, your rant is nothing but your emotional judgment and expression of the fact that you simply don't like what you read in Sacred Scripture, Magisterium and numerous Saints, which you explicitly admit calling those upholding St. Paul's teaching in Romans and doctrine of strict EENS (explicitly taught by Aathanasian Creed and Council of Florence) "disgusting" and God revealing those doctrines "disgusting".

Of course I don't like what I read (or at least the way you think I should interpret it) because it is in fact disgusting; and, I will maintain, that is a sound argument if I show the source of the disgust by reasoned argument.  It violates basic principles of human decency, and disgust is a normal and natural reaction to something that does violate these in such a major way.  (Now I think basic human decency is actually a good thing and can (or should) work as a quasi-preamble of Faith.)  Now, a God who creates certain (in fact, most) men precisely as "vessels of wrath", just precisely so that He can "manifest His justice" by punishing them in horrible eternal torment, refuses to (in some way) give them necessary graces for salvation, and imagines that pulling the few from the massa damnata will manifest His mercy, is a sick bastard, looking out for Number One regardless of the horrible suffering inflicted on His creation.  Anyone with an ounce of human decency would say so.  If any human acted like this he would (or should) go to prison for life at least.  Ditto for those who interpret EENS in such a way as to mean God holds responsible for lack of faith those to whom He failed to grant it even though no obstacle was placed in the way (e.g. privative unbelief as opposed to positive unbelief) under the pretext they aren't really condemned for lack of faith, but other sins that can't be remitted without faith.

You will excuse me for not being impressed with citing Scripture, Magisterium, and Saints.  You are rejecting things you read and simply don't like in these sources.  The same Saints who held to Augustinian predestination had to do violence to the phrase "God will have every man to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" to mean the exact opposite of what it says.  (And I know how much you hate eisegesis, and how there's no textual reason whatsoever to interpret "every man" as "one from all types of man".)  Saint Francis de Sales, and plenty others after him, actually didn't adhere to this theory of predestination, as you well know, and it was never officially taught by the Magisterium.  Many Saints taught Baptism of Desire, as did the Magisterium, while Pius IX taught invincible ignorance.  (Yes, I know all the EENS counterarguments and they all suck; this topic has been beaten to death here and elsewhere; you must interpret things to mean the exact opposite of what they do upon a plain reading.)

And this isn't love; it's God putting over and above everything else what He is able to "manifest", and human good is only useful insofar as it serves that.  Well either God's love is real or it is not, and that's not love, it's utilitarianism.  I refuse to lie and say that God really loved the world, if He in fact did not.  The definition of love being, willing someone else's good for that someone else's sake.  And you haven't answered this last argument.  Calling it a "rant" isn't an answer. 

You can argue that my sense of human decency is flawed.  I will argue in response that it is as basic for humans as to adhere to the principle of causality, or law of non-contradiction.  We are all outraged for instance when we see children in sex slavery.  You can argue that my sense of human decency is not applicable; IOW, that I'm applying human standards of "good" to "God is good".  And I will respond that I am applying my standards to God's effects in the world, which are finite and to which those standards apply. 

QuoteYou dont like that people go to Hell, that God justly executes punishment on those who deserve it and do not repent (even though God provided them with means of salvation),...

Of course I don't like that people go to hell.  Do you?  If so, then you're also mentally sick.  But, God does give us freedom which we can misuse, including the freedom to finally reject Him.  I know all the pathetic counterarguments, you know, like trying to compare what I said above with the reality of hell.  It's metaphysically impossible that one could love God and hate Him at the same time.

Quote... and that we were created to serve God and He can do with us whatever He pleases...

This principle I simply deny, in the voluntaristic sense that you mean it.  God has responsibility for His creation and can't "do whatever He pleases" like a sadist does to the animals he tortures.

Quote... and He does not owe us anything at all (but we receive tremendous graces from Him every day, including those necessary for salvation - if God owed us something, as you had temerity to claim in another thread, grace would not be grace but merely a payment).

As you well know, it is a payment in a sense - not that we merited it on our own but that Christ merited it for us, as I made very clear on that thread, and which you are now quite dishonestly making me appear to say something else.

QuoteYou are not the first one, these truths naturally offend creaturly pride, and it is understandable. To some extent I sympathize with that, as these truths are indeed difficult to accept (I struggle with them too) and we often lack humility necessary for this. Obviously, the fact that you don't like these truths has exactly zero bearing upon whether they are actually true or not.

They aren't truths.  They are difficult to accept precisely because they aren't truths, and the human intellect and will are attracted to truth and goodness, not error and evil.

QuoteI'm not sure what experience are you talking about and how could your experience be objectively evaluated (members of any religion claim to "have experienced" their particular deity), but it sounds like modernist phenomenology and is in fact nothing but subjectivism. Of course, you can replace theology with that, but don't expect your emotionalism to be treated as a serious theological argument.

It wasn't intended as such; by its nature it can only be convincing for me.  However, the anti-Modernist zeitgeist has really gone overboard when the reality and value of all religious experience is denied or dismissed as "mere subjectivism".  I don't think "Taste and see that the Lord is sweet" is referring to theological argumentation.

QuoteSermon on the Mount includes some pretty radical teachings about sin and Hell too. Actually, in the Sermon on the Mount Our Lord raises the moral bar in comparison the Old Testament law, so in the New Covenant Saints are required even more than in the Old Covenant (but of course they receive much greater and more abundant graces enabling them to achieve that). Compassion, mercy and justice go hand in hand.

Well of course they do.  That doesn't contradict what I just said.

Quote
Quote from: QuaremerepulistiBut what are the exact reasons for this death of charity in the Christian life, but for the way God is/was portrayed: a vengeful, angry God devoid of compassion and one taking out His wrath on the human race.  And a vengeful, angry God is worshiped by vengeful, angry people.

Oh, surely it has nothing to do with our selfishness, lack of compassion, greed, love of sin, impurity, etc. - no, let's blame God.

These are symptoms of lack of charity, not the cause of it.  And what exactly is supposed to be the remedy for those things?  Or do you expect people to act with love and mercy when such traits are not exemplified in the God they worship, or claim to worship.

QuoteAlso, Scripture is filled with passages describing just wrath of God and His anger due to sins of humanity...

For the truly evil, impenitent, and hardened in sin, yes; but bear in mind, expressions such as God's "wrath" and "anger" don't describe God in Himself, for He cannot change; but only how He appears to the sinner.  Now I know you will say this is "eisegesis" while I am saying that Scriptural interpretation simply cannot contravene sound philosophy about the immutability of God, so I guess we'll have to disagree.  But it is also filled with passages describing how anxious He is that sinners should turn back to Him, how He wills not the death of the sinner but that he be converted and live, and so on.


james03

QuoteTrue, authority is extremely important in order to get things done - when you have unskilled, unintelligent, unmotivated people doing the work.

You speak from ignorance.  In fact it is probably more important for high IQ people to learn to follow orders.  My current team is a group of engineers.  My estimate is that the lowest IQ in the group is probably 110, maybe higher.  Before I got here they were big f. ups.  Nothing getting done, people running around like chickens with their heads cut off.  I shut down this independent feminine collaborative crap and started seeing results within weeks.  Our main customer who used to complain now loves us and we are set up to win a 4000 manhour job.  And that's the start.

In my previous job I oversaw blue collar guys.  I trusted them a whole lot more to get the job done then this current group, but that will improve.

The only place where anarchy level independence might be beneficial is in the pure creative space where you are inventing, like university research.  But I've seen that blow up when they tried to take a great idea to market.  Total $h!t show.  Even Elon Musk is reported to be a nazi.  Steve Jobs?  What was the average IQ of his team?

But I'm not defending bunker trads.  And I'm the last person to say you need to "protect" your kids by keeping them from doing stuff.  Avoid the false dichotomy.  Case in point.  When my kids wanted to go out hiking, they asked if they could take the car.  I said "sure, have fun."  I didn't ask where they were going.  I didn't remind them to bring water, etc....  But they still respected my authority because I own the car.  You need a proper balance of BOTH.
"But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God (Jn 3:18)."

"All sorrow leads to the foot of the Cross.  Weep for your sins."

"Although He should kill me, I will trust in Him"

Vetus Ordo

Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on December 17, 2018, 01:37:04 PM
The same Saints who held to Augustinian predestination had to do violence to the phrase "God will have every man to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" to mean the exact opposite of what it says.  (And I know how much you hate eisegesis, and how there's no textual reason whatsoever to interpret "every man" as "one from all types of man".)

There are contextual reasons, though. The same for similar passages as John 3:16 or 2 Peter 3:9.

Exegesis, whatever school it may follow, will always try to establish a harmonious whole of the scriptural testimony. These texts can be interpreted as referring, as it were, to God's complacential will, rather than His decretive will, without doing violence to reason. God's love towards mankind as a whole has been openly declared in the person of Christ, assuring them that whosoever comes to Him shall never be cast out (John 6:37). No repenting believer shall be excluded from saving mercy and the call to repentance and salvation is universal, only God knowing who are His sheep. None of them, in the end, can be snatched out of His hand (John 10:28).
DISPOSE OUR DAYS IN THY PEACE, AND COMMAND US TO BE DELIVERED FROM ETERNAL DAMNATION, AND TO BE NUMBERED IN THE FLOCK OF THINE ELECT.

Xavier

#322
No, QMR, you are wrong. Christian life has two main purposes (1) to grow daily in the knowledge and love of God, and of our neighbor, i.e. to increase in faith, hope, love, grace and merit; and, as far as possible, (2) to help and assist others do the same, willing for them what you would will for yourself. As Our Lord Jesus Christ has taught and done. And my purpose, if you want to call it that, is nothing other those two. I already provided much earlier detailed and clear reasons showing Our Lady of Fatima's apparitions are manifestly of supernatural origin. The fulfilled prophecy pre-announcing a miracle on Oct 13th, the miracle itself where pilgrims experienced their clothes being dried, beside the moving sun, the many later public miracles witnessed and experienced even by Popes, especially Pope Pius XII; the fact of Communism's spread and influence throughout the world etc etc. My last post, which I hoped would really be a last post, was a summary of the articles and arguments given earlier, the nature of private revelations, the Papal approvals, and such.

Now, you suggest above you are ok with the Miracle of the Sun. Is that correct? Just to clarify, your difficulty is with later events? But later events first of all were confirmed by many miracles, of which Pope Pius XII himself is an eyewitness. Is he not credible in your eyes?

"When the Pilgrim Virgin statue was touring Italy, and miracles were being worked wherever it went, Pius XII stated in amazement: "We can hardly believe our eyes."

Or by "later", how late do you mean?

You continue in other replies to think poorly of God; God does not gain anything if we serve Him; we grow in union with Him and become like Him if we do. His glory is already infinite and unlimited; it is manifested in creation and among us when we serve Him with all our hearts, as we should; it is really God Who glorifies His Saints, and they "give" Him glory only to the extent they allow *His* glory to be manifested in their lives. Yet, you speak against glorifying God, misunderstanding, like typical modern secularists do, what it means that the motive of all our actions should be to give glory (understood in this sense, not in the incorrect way you have misinterpreted it) to Almighty God. This does not mean anyone gives to God what He does not have, but rather that God gives Himself to those who do this.

"So of course we have all these "proofs" of God's love such as Incarnation, Crucifixion, Eucharist, Sacred Heart, etc." - QMR. yes, all very many and such great proofs of God's Infinite Love. The question is, what poor recompense have we given Him for such great Love? That should be the driving question in every Christian heart. All our actions should be for the glory of God and for the salvation of souls.

When our homes and our nations are consecrated to the Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Heart, Jesus and Mary will gratuitously obtain for us the grace that we - being poor sinners, and with so few merits - are unable to obtain for ourselves. Like the miraculous conversion of Russia.

Russia has already undergone a great transformation - even if it is far from complete - that hardly anyone could have foreseen even 30 years ago. From Communism to Orthodox Christianity. A relative of mine went to Russia recently and the faith of the people, and their devotion to Our Lady, is quite strong. Btw, it is not a question of 5 minutes, but it will probably take a few months at least to organize. Pope John Paul II's assassination attempt was on May 13th, 1981, and after he recovered he took great interest in finding out about Our Lady of Fatima - whom he credited with saving his life - and completing the Consecration finally on March 25th, 1984 - almost 3 years later, without naming Russia specifically, as Fr. Amorth and others told us, and as the official text shows. For ecumenical reasons.

After a partial consecration, we did see a partial fall of Communism. Some say the Communists are still biding their time and waiting to take over power again, but it doesn't matter. The Russian people have rejected atheism and secularism and come back in large measure to their ancient Christian Faith. After a complete consecration, we will see the complete downfall of Communism, and the return of Russia not to a partial conversion but to the Catholic Church.
Bible verses on walking blamelessly with God, after being forgiven from our former sins. Some verses here: https://dailyverses.net/blameless

"[2] He that walketh without blemish, and worketh justice:[3] He that speaketh truth in his heart, who hath not used deceit in his tongue: Nor hath done evil to his neighbour: nor taken up a reproach against his neighbours.(Psalm 14)

"[2] For in many things we all offend. If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man."(James 3)

"[14] And do ye all things without murmurings and hesitations; [15] That you may be blameless, and sincere children of God, without reproof, in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation; among whom you shine as lights in the world." (Phil 2:14-15)

Quaremerepulisti

Quote from: Vetus Ordo on December 18, 2018, 04:53:28 AM
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on December 17, 2018, 01:37:04 PM
The same Saints who held to Augustinian predestination had to do violence to the phrase "God will have every man to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" to mean the exact opposite of what it says.  (And I know how much you hate eisegesis, and how there's no textual reason whatsoever to interpret "every man" as "one from all types of man".)

There are contextual reasons, though. The same for similar passages as John 3:16 or 2 Peter 3:9.

So exegesis is Alice in Wonderland.  Everyone has his reasons to interpret every word in Scripture to mean exactly what he wants it to mean, just like Alice in Wonderland, but then of course circularly turns around and claims Scripture as proof his reasons are correct.

I admit I do this with Genesis 1 vs. modern science regarding the age of the earth, and other places in Scripture where God seems to be the cause of evil vs. the philosophical impossibility of God being the author of evil.  At least I'm honest about it.

QuoteExegesis, whatever school it may follow, will always try to establish a harmonious whole of the scriptural testimony.

Of course it does, and in order do to that it must, in every case, whether openly or surreptitiously, bring in something from outside the scriptural testimony in order to reconcile apparent discrepancies.  The only argument is regarding what, exactly, is going to be brought in, with each side, naturally, claiming that what it does is "exegesis" whereas what everyone else does is "eisegesis".

QuoteThese texts can be interpreted as referring, as it were, to God's complacential will, rather than His decretive will, without doing violence to reason.

And where in Scripture do we see God's "complacential" and "decretive" will defined?  Nowhere, obviously.  It's something brought in from outside to reconcile the texts.   Other exegetical schools, as you know, interpret Romans in the light of "God will have every man to be saved" and not the reverse, or say that St. Paul was really referring to the Jews as a group.

In any event, all this should be sufficient to disprove the contention that sound exegesis demands Augustinian predestination, and that anyone who denies it is "against Scripture".

awkwardcustomer

Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on December 17, 2018, 01:37:04 PM
Now, a God who creates certain (in fact, most) men precisely as "vessels of wrath", just precisely so that He can "manifest His justice" by punishing them in horrible eternal torment, refuses to (in some way) give them necessary graces for salvation, and imagines that pulling the few from the massa damnata will manifest His mercy, is a sick bastard, looking out for Number One regardless of the horrible suffering inflicted on His creation.   

God doesn't do this.

But rather than argue, let me ask - how would you arrange things if you were God?

More specifically, where would individuals who freely chose evil and refused to repent fit into your scheme?


And formerly the heretics were manifest; but now the Church is filled with heretics in disguise.  
St Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lecture 15, para 9.

And what rough beast, it's hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
WB Yeats, 'The Second Coming'.

Quaremerepulisti

Quote from: Xavier on December 18, 2018, 05:55:58 AM
Now, you suggest above you are ok with the Miracle of the Sun. Is that correct? Just to clarify, your difficulty is with later events?

Correct.  And it was only the Miracle of the Sun that was formally approved by the Church, so your arguments about Popes, etc., only apply to it.

QuoteBut later events first of all were confirmed by many miracles, of which Pope Pius XII himself is an eyewitness. Is he not credible in your eyes?  "When the Pilgrim Virgin statue was touring Italy, and miracles were being worked wherever it went, Pius XII stated in amazement: "We can hardly believe our eyes."

I can certainly believe Pius XII received a "replay" of the Miracle of the Sun (although I don't put as much credibility in this as the Miracle itself obviously).  This doesn't make credible the later claims by Sister Lucy.

QuoteYou continue in other replies to think poorly of God; God does not gain anything if we serve Him; we grow in union with Him and become like Him if we do. His glory is already infinite and unlimited; it is manifested in creation and among us when we serve Him with all our hearts, as we should; it is really God Who glorifies His Saints, and they "give" Him glory only to the extent they allow *His* glory to be manifested in their lives. Yet, you speak against glorifying God, misunderstanding, like typical modern secularists do, what it means that the motive of all our actions should be to give glory (understood in this sense, not in the incorrect way you have misinterpreted it) to Almighty God. This does not mean anyone gives to God what He does not have, but rather that God gives Himself to those who do this.

I don't think poorly of God, which is why I have no reservations about holding Him to a standard (and even challenging Him on it, as I said).  It is those who think God primarily does everything for His self-glorification (too bad if it involves horrible suffering of His creation) who think poorly of Him, think that He can do "whatever He wants" with His creation and are aghast that I should challenge this version of God as petty dictator.  And you have your own petty ideas here, with the idea that the most important thing is that God's glory be "manifest" - which is to make of God a vain egoist.

You (and other posters) either ignore this or angrily respond with a tirade because - deep down - you know I am right, but this issue cuts to the core of "traditional" (meaning post-Reformation) Western Catholicism, and would therefore cause you to have to reexamine your worldview, which is always painful.

Quote"So of course we have all these "proofs" of God's love such as Incarnation, Crucifixion, Eucharist, Sacred Heart, etc." - QMR. yes, all very many and such great proofs of God's Infinite Love. The question is, what poor recompense have we given Him for such great Love? That should be the driving question in every Christian heart. All our actions should be for the glory of God and for the salvation of souls.

These only prove God wants our love but not that He loves us if God really is like described above; a petty, vain, egocentric dictator.  All (or most) dictators want to be loved, of course, as the "savior of the people" (while ruling over them with an iron fist) and so this God wouldn't be above doing things such as providing these "proofs" to manipulate us into doing so.

And again, you resort to cheap psychological manipulation via guilt - that love demands "recompense" - because you read this in some devotional book somewhere.  That's not how TRUE love works.  You're not married, but I can tell you that if spouses constantly demanded of each other what "recompense" was made to the other for their love and constantly berated each other for not "measuring up" no marriage would EVER last longer than six months.  But God is held to a lower standard than even an earthly spouse, so it seems.

QuoteWhen our homes and our nations are consecrated to the Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Heart, Jesus and Mary will gratuitously obtain for us the grace that we - being poor sinners, and with so few merits - are unable to obtain for ourselves. Like the miraculous conversion of Russia.

Again, I have no problem of course with consecrations to the Sacred and Immaculate Hearts in themselves.  But the idea that God could convert Russia but refuses to do so until He gets these consecrations (in fact five magic words in Latin from the Pope) again makes of God a vain dictator.

QuoteRussia has already undergone a great transformation - even if it is far from complete - that hardly anyone could have foreseen even 30 years ago. From Communism to Orthodox Christianity...

It really defies belief that you would take this as evidence of Divine action as a result of the partial consecration.  You're clearly and evidently distorting facts to fit a narrative (just like everyone else apparently these days).

First, has Russia really converted to Orthodox Christianity?  Sure, if you miscount based on the "ethnic principle" like religious leader might be wont to do.  However:

QuoteAnother criterion to count religious populations in Russia is that of "religious observance". Based on this principle, very few Russians would be religious. It has been found that between 0.5% and 2% of people in big cities attend Easter services, and overall just between 2% and 10% of the total population (3 to 15 million people) are actively practising Orthodox Christians. However, most Russians do attend Christmas services and avoid drinking alcohol during Easter....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Russia

I think not, if only at most 2% of people in Moscow and St. Petersburg even bother going to Church for Easter.

Second, even if so, so what?  This would mean God provided the "grace", not to convert to Catholicism, but to convert to Orthodoxy.  Seriously?



Quaremerepulisti

Quote from: awkwardcustomer on December 18, 2018, 07:56:09 AM
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on December 17, 2018, 01:37:04 PM
Now, a God who creates certain (in fact, most) men precisely as "vessels of wrath", just precisely so that He can "manifest His justice" by punishing them in horrible eternal torment, refuses to (in some way) give them necessary graces for salvation, and imagines that pulling the few from the massa damnata will manifest His mercy, is a sick bastard, looking out for Number One regardless of the horrible suffering inflicted on His creation.   

God doesn't do this.

Tell that to the Augustinian predestination crowd.

QuoteMore specifically, where would individuals who freely chose evil and refused to repent fit into your scheme?

If you think that this has anything whatsoever to do with the reality of hell, then you clearly don't have the faintest clue about what's being talked about.

Vetus Ordo

Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on December 18, 2018, 07:38:41 AM
So exegesis is Alice in Wonderland.  Everyone has his reasons to interpret every word in Scripture to mean exactly what he wants it to mean, just like Alice in Wonderland, but then of course circularly turns around and claims Scripture as proof his reasons are correct.

I admit I do this with Genesis 1 vs. modern science regarding the age of the earth, and other places in Scripture where God seems to be the cause of evil vs. the philosophical impossibility of God being the author of evil.  At least I'm honest about it.

I'm not sure where that Alice in Wonderland rant came from, Quare.

I was simply pointing out that wider scriptural context can determine the exegesis of a particular text. I'm sure you're not the only one honest about presuppositions playing a key factor in the interpretation of texts, sacred or otherwise.

Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on December 18, 2018, 07:38:41 AM
And where in Scripture do we see God's "complacential" and "decretive" will defined?  Nowhere, obviously.  It's something brought in from outside to reconcile the texts.   Other exegetical schools, as you know, interpret Romans in the light of "God will have every man to be saved" and not the reverse, or say that St. Paul was really referring to the Jews as a group.

In any event, all this should be sufficient to disprove the contention that sound exegesis demands Augustinian predestination, and that anyone who denies it is "against Scripture".

That is not my contention.

My contention is that there are exegetical grounds to interpret those passages in an Augustinian way that do not do any violence to reason or to the texts themselves. The difference between the various schools of thought is not the lack of integrity of their exegetical efforts but rather their explanatory power: which of them can more successfully present a coherent whole where Scripture doesn't contradict itself nor sound reason.
DISPOSE OUR DAYS IN THY PEACE, AND COMMAND US TO BE DELIVERED FROM ETERNAL DAMNATION, AND TO BE NUMBERED IN THE FLOCK OF THINE ELECT.

awkwardcustomer

#328
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on December 18, 2018, 08:47:53 AM
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on December 18, 2018, 07:56:09 AM
More specifically, where would individuals who freely chose evil and refused to repent fit into your scheme?

If you think that this has anything whatsoever to do with the reality of hell, then you clearly don't have the faintest clue about what's being talked about.

Why didn't you answer the question?

All the fuss that you and others are making really boils down to this one issue.
And formerly the heretics were manifest; but now the Church is filled with heretics in disguise.  
St Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lecture 15, para 9.

And what rough beast, it's hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
WB Yeats, 'The Second Coming'.

Quaremerepulisti

Quote from: awkwardcustomer on December 18, 2018, 09:12:33 AM
Why didn't you answer the question?

I already did, upthread.  Your insinuation that I am denying the reality of hell is, frankly, ridiculous.

QuoteAll the fuss that you and others are making really boils down to this one issue.

No, it doesn't.  Your claim that it does shows you don't understand the issue.  At all.  Start by reading the CE article or some other piece on predestination then get back to us.