June 25 - Supposed "Emergency" Meeting of the Roman Curia
(06-28-2013, 03:54 PM)The Tax Collector Wrote: Sorry mate! U missed the bus too. Reading comprehension 101. We are not referring to Sodomy, we are talking about those who "bear their cross". As far as unproven goes, you should broaden your reading selection.

I'm not your mate; that's clear from your sarcasm. Thanks, but sodomites make crosses for others, they don't bear them INNSHO.
Reply
(06-28-2013, 03:54 PM)The Tax Collector Wrote: As far as unproven goes, you should broaden your reading selection.

So, you know what I've read too? Interesting, since I've only got about 4 posts though I've lurked for years. Tell u what, you send me some pseudoscience to read; in turn 'splain to me what Dante means in the seventh circle. Oh, and get back to me on the Sts. Pius V and X. (Just what did they think appropriate punishments for this sin? Did they ever call it a "cross" to be born?)

Do you mean by "broadened" reading, only what's written in the last 30 years? or do you mean things actually written way back over 50 years ago?!
Reply
(06-28-2013, 04:07 PM)pervago Wrote:
(06-28-2013, 03:54 PM)The Tax Collector Wrote: As far as unproven goes, you should broaden your reading selection.

So, you know what I've read too? Interesting, since I've only got about 4 posts though I've lurked for years. Tell u what, you send me some pseudoscience to read; in turn 'splain to me what Dante means in the seventh circle. Oh, and get back to me on the Sts. Pius V and X. (Just what did they think appropriate punishments for this sin? Did they ever call it a "cross" to be born?)

Do you mean by "broadened" reading, only what's written in the last 30 years? or do you mean things actually written way back over 50 years ago?!

If you cannot grasp the simple, you will never grasp the complex. 
Reply
(06-28-2013, 04:12 PM)The Tax Collector Wrote:
(06-28-2013, 04:07 PM)pervago Wrote:
(06-28-2013, 03:54 PM)The Tax Collector Wrote: As far as unproven goes, you should broaden your reading selection.

So, you know what I've read too? Interesting, since I've only got about 4 posts though I've lurked for years. Tell u what, you send me some pseudoscience to read; in turn 'splain to me what Dante means in the seventh circle. Oh, and get back to me on the Sts. Pius V and X. (Just what did they think appropriate punishments for this sin? Did they ever call it a "cross" to be born?)

Do you mean by "broadened" reading, only what's written in the last 30 years? or do you mean things actually written way back over 50 years ago?!

If you cannot grasp the simple, you will never grasp the complex. 

What is that? like some ancient Chinese saying. Please, go back and read your condescending previous posts.

I jumped in on a couple of these sodomy hot burner threads, because this is important stuff and apparently whole bunches of people are getting sent to hell by Vox (just kidding) for taken a traditional  stand on the issue. Sorry, but I know a lot about this issue, have read a lot, just not a lot of the recent stuff that passes for science.

Simple science 101 is that correlation does not prove causality. Find me please something in "science" that doesn't just pander correlation, and good luck with that. Save the ancient Chinese wisdom for someone else.
Reply
The CCC (2358-2359) describes it as a disordered inclination that can be a trial, which ultimately will lead to salvation, if the person bears it properly.  It is not a sin unless acquiesced to.  This is the same thing the Council of Trent has to say with regards to concupiscene in general (Session V, Decree on Original Sin).
Reply
(06-28-2013, 04:12 PM)The Tax Collector Wrote:
(06-28-2013, 04:07 PM)pervago Wrote:
(06-28-2013, 03:54 PM)The Tax Collector Wrote: As far as unproven goes, you should broaden your reading selection.

So, you know what I've read too? Interesting, since I've only got about 4 posts though I've lurked for years. Tell u what, you send me some pseudoscience to read; in turn 'splain to me what Dante means in the seventh circle. Oh, and get back to me on the Sts. Pius V and X. (Just what did they think appropriate punishments for this sin? Did they ever call it a "cross" to be born?)

Do you mean by "broadened" reading, only what's written in the last 30 years? or do you mean things actually written way back over 50 years ago?!
If you cannot grasp the simple, you will never grasp the complex. 

I guess I can see why you jumped all over me. You just happened to be the most recent poster piling on St. Cecilia's Girl. My post, however is on topic (see first page). The OP is not about the-woe-is-me "crosses" of the poor, poor, you-don't-understand-my-pain sodomites that have infiltrated the Church and wear their meek and humble mask of many colors while doing the foulest deeds: they smile and smile and be a villain like nobody can. I am sorry that they have to "struggle" not to molest little boys, whom I knew first hand.

These threads always end up with the cura personalis crap: we must sympathize with and pray for the recovery of the monsters that are sometimes slapped on the wrist, sometimes not. Enough of the bs. This game's been going on for decades, and I recognize the sleight of hands they use. If you know the ugly underbelly of this beast, you would be a bit more irrate (like me).
Reply
(06-28-2013, 04:43 PM)SaintSebastian Wrote: The CCC (2358-2359) describes it as a disordered inclination that can be a trial, which ultimately will lead to salvation, if the person bears it properly.  It is not a sin unless acquiesced to.  This is the same thing the Council of Trent has to say with regards to concupiscene in general (Session V, Decree on Original Sin).

So what did Pius V and Pius X have to say about it? What of Aquinas?

Only problem is that neither Trent, nor St. Peter, nor St. Paul nor etc, etc, etc. equated the "lust for uncleanliness" (sodomite desires) with  concupiscence. One's like bestiality (contra naturam), one is a consequence of original sin. Again, I recommend Chrysostom's commentary on Romans.

That part of the CCC TOTALLY breaks with ALL tradition on the teaching of sodomy. Sorry, that's the facts. IF I were more "vulgar", I might say that the CCC is just covering sodomites' arses; that's all.
Reply
(06-28-2013, 03:44 PM)JoniCath Wrote:
(06-25-2013, 11:04 PM)Juanthetuba Wrote: So any updates? Seems the only thing we got to go on is the Voris vid.

AND the dosier given to Pope Benedict, AND his sudden abdication leaving the contents of the dossier to a younger man AND the arrest of a monsignor smuggling 26 MILLION dollars into the U.S.AND the discovery of a homosexual Catholic priest message forum. There's more, but if you can't see that this is BIG, it's hopeless to go on.

Wait...a message board? Goodness! Do you have a link of a news story so I can read about it?
Reply
well, back to the original topic.  Its now 4 days since this "breaking" news" and still nothing in the mainstream media.  it Looks like Michael Voris is floating to the top of my "untrustworthy news sources" list.  Weekly World Report looks more credible than him right now  :LOL: :LOL: :LOL:

Voris is always light on substance anyway and heavy on the rah rah rah and the  :blah: :blah: :blah:
Reply
(06-29-2013, 07:43 AM)AxxeArp Wrote: well, back to the original topic.   Its now 4 days since this "breaking" news" and still nothing in the mainstream media.  it Looks like Michael Voris is floating to the top of my "untrustworthy news sources" list.   Weekly World Report looks more credible than him right now  :LOL: :LOL: :LOL:

Voris is always light on substance anyway and heavy on the rah rah rah and the  :blah: :blah: :blah:

Well, the priest who made the accusations has been charged with filing false reports.  That someone lied is hardly Voris' fault. The claims which were being made seem to be reported accurately, its the accusations on the part of the priest which seem to have been wrong. 

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2013/06...-ring.html

Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)