Credo in Deum Posted June 29, 2015 Share Posted June 29, 2015 (edited) Just what I would expect a penguin to say. Edited June 29, 2015 by Credo in Deum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peace Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 I have not made a claim on your penguinhood. But I do not know whether you are or are not a penguin. Do you have any evidence that you are not a penguin? Penguins can't use the internet homey. I'm just saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhuturePriest Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 Penguins can't use the internet homey. I'm just saying. That's what they want you to think. Haven't you seen the Penguins of Madagascar? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norseman82 Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgoRDYZQMrQ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yaatee Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 For the record, twenty million Facebook users have superimposed a rainbow over their profile photos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amppax Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 Vatican II being a pastoral council and not a dogmatic one, one can reject Vatican II in its entirety and still be completely Catholic. Try again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amppax Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 For the record, twenty million Facebook users have superimposed a rainbow over their profile photos. WOW! They must be right. Silly me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tojo Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 For the record, twenty million Facebook users have superimposed a rainbow over their profile photos. Frankly, given that plenty of people outside of the United States are doing so also, I'm surprised it's not several times higher. Facebook has 1.44 billion active monthly users. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yaatee Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 Try again. Yes. I don't understand this, catlick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yaatee Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 WOW! They must be right. Silly me. Just an observation, and I guess, pretty lame. After all, FB is mainly the younger generation, that 1 bill of youth. Except I'm on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superblue Posted July 2, 2015 Author Share Posted July 2, 2015 just goes to show you how bad off the world is on common sense when that many people take to FB to support what has happened, but it should have been a clue with Ireland on what a poor an crooked system would in turn do and or follow suit as in wanting to continue a progressive movement. But hey at least now the road is paved for polygamy to be welcomed, and why not incest as well. I find it really bizarre on how the Supreme court can actually claim to have limits on anything any more. like if someone came up to the supreme court and said it should be law that anyone can throw candy at a fat kid, supreme court is going to be, oooooo no no no that is it, that is a line we don't cross, unamerican yada yada. But for the Supreme Court, to go beyond its power, that it was designed to have, and declare what they have done to be legal, when such issues are at the state level, and for Congress to give up all power to the socialist party and the supreme court is beyond disgusting. I Already supplied a thread to holy matrimony which i really should have put in here. luckily the Church can side step this nightmare by just not issuing state marriage licenses and only performing the sacrament of marriage, which will have everyone on the screaming bloody murder socialist left side, wondering what in the world happened the supreme court said it is legal. It is sadder that society would rather listen to blatantly corrupt government officials and have what they say, shape and form their lives and let their actions be something to look up too, than to what the Church and Christ has to offer. It isn't society always at war with homosexuals, it is the democrat ( socialist party ) who keeps flaming hate with race baiting and the idea that the world hates homosexuals and that Christians want them to burn in hell and wont accept them ever, that is the deception. An a republican party who is beyond lazy to fight back and more concerned about protecting an image they no longer have. All this is, is showing we no longer have acceptable limits in society, Marijuana is now becoming acceptable, porn is easier to access that drugs, violence, sex, drugs, indecent language is easier accepted on mainstream tv, and our laws are being twisted to suit a new agenda. Instead of others of having to accept our laws it is now acceptable to let socialists destroy our laws from the inside out with applause to motivate them more an more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peace Posted July 4, 2015 Share Posted July 4, 2015 Try again. Perhaps - but why? Perhaps one might argue that if you entirely reject one of the Church's councils that there is an implicit rejection of Her authority over the Christian faithful within that rejection. Is that your argument? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amppax Posted July 4, 2015 Share Posted July 4, 2015 Perhaps - but why? Perhaps one might argue that if you entirely reject one of the Church's councils that there is an implicit rejection of Her authority over the Christian faithful within that rejection. Is that your argument? Are you defending his position? My point had more to do with the distinction he made regarding Vatican II as a pastoral council. His point simply isn't true. At the very least the 2 Dogmatic Constitutions (Lumen Gentium and Dei Verbum) demand assent, in their definitive statements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amppax Posted July 4, 2015 Share Posted July 4, 2015 Are you defending his position? My point had more to do with the distinction he made regarding Vatican II as a pastoral council. His point simply isn't true. At the very least the 2 Dogmatic Constitutions (Lumen Gentium and Dei Verbum) demand assent, in their definitive statements. Darn, I suppose my editing window disappeared. I didn't mean for that to be accusatory, I just didn't completely understand what you were getting at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peace Posted July 4, 2015 Share Posted July 4, 2015 Are you defending his position? My point had more to do with the distinction he made regarding Vatican II as a pastoral council. His point simply isn't true. At the very least the 2 Dogmatic Constitutions (Lumen Gentium and Dei Verbum) demand assent, in their definitive statements. I thought that what he asserted was basically correct - that the council was pastoral and that Vatican II does not contain any new definitions that Catholics are bound to assent to. As for the dogmatic constitutions - I think that even though they use the word "Dogma" - they are not necessarily infallible. My understanding is that we have to assent to them to the extent that they contain things that have already been infallibly defined, but we are not bound to assent to anything beyond that. So I wanted to know why you thought he was wrong. I think that one can reject Vatican II and remain a faithful Catholic (in theory at least). But in practice I somehow doubt it. It would seem that perhaps such a person does not follow the Church in spirit (but that is not something I can ultimately judge). Especially if such a person is discouraging other Catholics from attending the normal form of the Mass that the Church currently advocates. I very much agree with Vatican II, by the way (whether one characterizes it as dogmatic or pastoral). I generally try to stick with what the Church has to say whether it be doctrine or something more prudential. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now