Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Traditional Catholic Discussion / Re: Video Games?
« Last post by Tennessean on Today at 06:45:01 PM »
It's explained in the video, violence is a simulated sin, not real, seeing Mario jumping on turtles, Link swinging a sword or the soldiers of Age of Empires fighting doesn't make you violent, at least not to the average man. But seeing women in bikinis does cause you sexual attraction. I understand that it's different if the game recreates in it, like GTA.
It all sounds like excuses to me. Simulated violence can make some people anti-social, and simulated cleavage can make some people lust. Consumption of violence likely does incline people to violence. Mario is a frustrating game, I remember throwing controllers and cussing. Is it violent? Not really, but it probably helped create a lot of anti-social weirdos and soybeards.
Traditional Catholic Discussion / Re: Video Games?
« Last post by Aulef on Today at 06:23:49 PM »
Ok. Any game that has even the slightest elements of sexual immorality or profanity is forbidden. Violence is permissible up to a certain point, because of the difference between simulated sin and real sin.

So... Correct me if I'm wrong but I think the conclusion of the thread following Fr. Ripperger's explanation is that the following is allowed:

-Sports and racing games unless they show sexual immorality, blasphemy or any other type of immorality.

-Platform, strategy and puzzles games unless they show sexual immorality, blasphemy or any other type of immorality.

-Action, fighting and shooter games as long as they don't contain sexual scenes, very explicit violence with blood, profanity or any other type of immorality. Violence that isn't excessively explicit is allowed because it's a simulated but not real sin.

żI'm right?

Sounds reasonable to me. As far as I know, simulation games may be ok too (flight simulator, building farms or cities etc.).

Yet, it is important to remember that even if we're talking about safe videogames, they are licit only as long as they don't undermine your spiritual life.
Division is diabolic. Issues like this should be the priority of Pope Francis which must be provided clarity because it is about the human soul and he should not be consumed with those policies about the tress in the Amazon forest.

He and his Vatican staffers are more worried about my going to the TLM than politicians advocating legalized slaughter.

Exactly.  While Francis makes occasional statements regarding abortion being evil, he has made it clear from early in his papacy that he does not want to take sides in the culture war. (And that is how he would characterize Archbishop Cordileone's action.) He wants to be "pastoral" to abortion supporters.  I wish he would be half as pastoral to Catholics who want to attend the TLM.

In general, he does not provide clarity about any Catholic teaching, although he has managed to make it clear that there is something wrong with Catholics who want to attend a traditional Mass.
Who am I to judge?, is such a vague phrase that can be used by the demonic in justifying evil acts. The most recent pronouncement by the pontiff that I found problematic was when he stated in Feb 2 this year I think, about the blasphemers being part of the Communion of Saints. I find that statement by Pope Francis simply crossing the lines of the teachings of the previous popes.
General News and Discussion / Re: High Risk of Food Shortage in the US?
« Last post by Heinrich on Today at 04:36:04 PM »
oi m8 you got a meat loicense?

Division is diabolic. Issues like this should be the priority of Pope Francis which must be provided clarity because it is about the human soul and he should not be consumed with those policies about the tress in the Amazon forest.

He and his Vatican staffers are more worried about my going to the TLM than politicians advocating legalized slaughter.
Worst, people like Jeffrey Sachs who is a pro-abortion advocate is among those who has been appointed among the insiders by the pontiff together with godless Phyllis Zagano. Yes, TLM is banned by Pope Francis while the statute of Protestant Martin Luther is in the Vatican together with the pagan goddess Pachamama wherein many native Americans were killed and offered to that demonic figure. God knows all that is going on.
Let's forget about specific people or theoretical examples; you are a master of getting discussions off track; let us as Andy insisted stick to fundamental Catholic principles. Once we settle on what is the criteria for being a Catholic as the Catholic Church has established (by citing official sources); then we can move on to applying those principles to specific cases.
Now, before deciding that this someone has left or is not a member of the Church, we must know what mortal sin he is guilty of committing to be the causation of his leaving the Church.
That is what you keep insisting is the only cause. We all agree that it can be one of the causes.

Obviously you will say the mortal sin of heresy is the cause, to which I will ask you to demonstrate where the catechism's all three things necessary (listed below) for that mortal sin are before deciding that this someone has left or is no longer a member of the Church.
Not so obvious; in fact this is what you keep insisting on is the ONLY cause; so you keep bringing up the "three conditions for a mortal sin" argument. By the way; we all agree on what are the three conditions for a mortal sin; if you remember correctly, I was the one arguing for the "three conditions" on the other thread. So lets shake hands on this,  and get to the main point of contention. I will spell it out for you again: "Are material i.e. Innocent heretics members of the Church"?

This is where you tossed the catechism and run with Van Noort. But in doing that you ignore the elephant in the room Michael. All I am doing is putting a spotlight on the elephant so you cannot possibly miss it - except on purpose.
Reading this I am very tempted to think that you have nearly zero reading comprehension. I am the only one on this thread that has posted a quote from the Catechism!!
From Page 2, this is the second reply; from the Catechism of St Pius X:
9 Q. State distinctly what is necessary to be a member of the Church?
A. To be a member of the Church it is necessary to be baptized, to believe and profess the teaching of Jesus Christ, to participate in the same Sacraments, and to acknowledge the Pope and the other lawful pastors of the Church.
You see Stubb, the charge that I engaged in:"tossing the Catechism out and running with Van Noort"; when I did no such thing, can only come from a person like yourself, who regularly "tosses' out Church doctrine when it doesn't square with his own personal opinions. Secondly, why on earth would you even think that the two sources contradict each other? Thirdly, if they did contradict each other, why would I post them one right after the other? 
The question/subject of this thread presupposes that the person is already a member of the Church, so deciding whether or not they meet the criteria, or ever were a member in the first place is unnecessary. 
No, if there is no objective criteria for verifying who is a member of the Church, then we cannot know "who is a member in the first place"? How do you know that a person is a member? How do you establish this? What is the 'standard' that they Church uses?
The most normal and rational thing to do, is to consult an official source from the Church itself to see how she determines who is a member; then we can see who "fits" into this "standard"; is this so "wild and crazy" of an idea?
Division is diabolic.
Yes. i thought that unity is one of the four marks of the true Church: One, holy, Catholic and Apostolic being the 4 marks?
My take on this is the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is the One that Jesus made. Now, it is obvious that the infiltration over it by the diabolic is going on just on the fact that the Bishops are divided in terms of implementation of the Catechism of our Church. Nevertheless, the wrongful act of these Church leaders do not create any kind of infirmity to the Holiness of the Mystical Body of Jesus that is the foundation of our true adoration as Catholics. This is a clear situation that God is allowing the devil to do his work the way Job suffered from it. We just continue to pray and be obedient to love God and loving our fellow being. The correct adoration to God is where we find the unity and that is only through Jesus, I humbly submit.
oi m8 you got a meat loicense?
Well, the Word of God, the Promise of Christ, and the Teaching of the Church are itself a Proof of the Indefectibility of the Hierarchical Church. Here is the Catholic Encyclopedia:

"Among the prerogatives conferred on His Church by Christ is the gift of indefectibility. By this term is signified, not merely that the Church will persist to the end of time, but further, that it will preserve unimpaired its essential characteristics. The Church can never undergo any constitutional change which will make it, as a social organism, something different from what it was originally.

It can never become corrupt in faith or in morals; nor can it ever lose the Apostolic hierarchy, or the sacraments through which Christ communicates grace to men. The gift of indefectibility is expressly promised to the Church by Christ, in the words in which He declares that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. It is manifest that, could the storms which the Church encounters so shake it as to alter its essential characteristics and make it other than Christ intended it to be, the gates of hell, i.e. the powers of evil, would have prevailed. It is clear, too, that could the Church suffer substantial change, it would no longer be an instrument capable of accomplishing the work for which God called it in to being.

He established it that it might be to all men the school of holiness. This it would cease to be if ever it could set up a false and corrupt moral standard. He established it to proclaim His revelation to the world, and charged it to warn all men that unless they accepted that message they must perish everlastingly. Could the Church, in defining the truths of revelation err in the smallest point, such a charge would be impossible. No body could enforce under such a penalty the acceptance of what might be erroneous. By the hierarchy and the sacraments, Christ, further, made the Church the depositary of the graces of the Passion. Were it to lose either of these, it could no longer dispense to men the treasures of grace."
Thank you for yet another non-sequitur copypaste post.   :toth:
General News and Discussion / Re: Russia Invades Ukraine
« Last post by Julio on Today at 04:12:32 PM »
6:40pm: Kyiv accuses NATO of 'doing literally nothing' to stop Russia
Ukraine's top diplomat Dmytro Kuleba on Wednesday accused NATO of "doing literally nothing" in the face of Russia's invasion, while praising the EU for its "revolutionary" decisions to back Kyiv.

"NATO as an alliance, as an institution, is completely sidelined and doing literally nothing. I'm sorry to say it," Kuleba told the World Economic Forum in Davos.

But he praised Brussels for its "revolutionary, groundbreaking decisions, which even they themselves did not expect to make". (Emphasis supplied)

From that pronouncement of a Ukrainian diplomat, it now shows that his country has the inability to fight the Russians under the present conditions by which they are merely provided with weapons through the NATO alliance.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10