Am I the only person who actually DISAGREES with Father Altman's video?

[Lilllabettt]

31 minutes ago, MeteorShower said:

I'm sure your intentions were good but I don't consider myself weak and I HIGHLY resent being called that. Nor have I ever purposely intended to "scorn" God, but my beliefs are just different now. Anyway, I clearly shouldn't have commented in the first place so I apologise. 

I didn't say you were weak, but the stated reason for giving up your religion was.

But it sounds like other people are not the reason you don't practice Catholicism?  Rather your beliefs "are just different now."  A change of beliefs is a perfectly decent reason not to practice a religion. More power to you. 

If you feared torture, death or permanent separation from family those might be good enough reasons for me, or at least comprehensible. 

If you believed a religion was true but gave it up because of dumbutts that would be weak sauce. You may as well give up Canadian citizenship... Canadia has relatively fewer dumbutts belonging to it than most, but there are still enough. 

The question of which religion is true is too important to let dumbutt mortals get in the way. I think God shares my pov (naturally)

 

[Peace]

2 minutes ago, Lilllabettt said:

If you feared torture, death or permanent separation from family those might be good enough reasons for me, or at least comprehensible.

I dunno I think it would depend on the type of torture. Are we talking about the comfy chair?

 

[Lilllabettt]

32 minutes ago, Peace said:

I dunno I think it would depend on the type of torture. Are we talking about the comfy chair?

 

Cake or death my friend, cake or death

[fides' Jack]

36 minutes ago, Peace said:

Heck, I am practically beholden to Satan according to @fides' Jack. But we still get along.

I've been away for a bit - lot's going on.

I would never say anyone here is beholden to satan.  I would say that everyone here is under his influence to various degrees.  Probably everyone in the world is.  If it's not obvious to people that satan is behind the demoncrat party right now, I wouldn't even know how to make it more obvious.  I guess the only thing left is for them to come out and just state it.  But that would undermine some of the progress he's made, so that's not going to happen.

[Peace]

16 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

I've been away for a bit - lot's going on.

I would never say anyone here is beholden to satan.  I would say that everyone here is under his influence to various degrees.  Probably everyone in the world is.  If it's not obvious to people that satan is behind the demoncrat party right now, I wouldn't even know how to make it more obvious.  I guess the only thing left is for them to come out and just state it.  But that would undermine some of the progress he's made, so that's not going to happen.

If Satan is behind the Dems, I suppose you think that God is behind Trump and the GOP?

[Aloysius]

demonic influences certainly affect all centers of power, there's a reason one of the things satan is known as is ruler of this world.

why do you think we're supposed to pray for our leaders?  it's not just about their health or that they'll do the right thing.  heavy is the head that wears the crown--with responsibilities and with the pressures of demonic forces, dominions and principalities that only Christ the King can truly conquer.  be thankful every day that you don't have so much power in this world.

satan works through both the democrats and the gop.  individual leaders may be better or worse at resisting him than others.  it does very little good to try to point out which leaders have splinters in their eyes and which ones have logs in their eyes--unfortunately the modern democratic order encourages everyone to do so. 

whatever side you were on, you should be at peace that whatever small role you took in the outcome by voting, that it was done in an attempt to be faithful to your conscience and to God and with the best interests of everyone else in mind.  take off that heavy crown democracy places on you every election--it's out of your hands now.  pray, hope, and don't worry.

[fides' Jack]

On 11/6/2020 at 7:17 AM, Peace said:

If Satan is behind the Dems, I suppose you think that God is behind Trump and the GOP?

I've been asking myself this question a lot lately, particularly regarding Trump.  My natural inclination is to say, "No, of course not!"  But I think that's a fear response, because right now you can lose your job if you support Trump.  And if you say he has God behind him, it's actually easier to dismiss you than just saying you're a Republican.

I don't know if you heard about this: 

 

I don't know if I believe it.  I want to believe it.  

We know from Sacred Scripture that God often uses the least-expected people to bring about His plans.  That's been true since Genesis, all the way through the Old Testament, through the New Testament, even to modern-day apparitions and politics.  If it's true that God works in mysterious ways, it's far more true that God works in unexpected ways.

I never liked Trump.  But to anyone with an open mind, it's clear he's done better for the country than any president for some time.  I still don't like him.  I don't like people who see him as a messiah-figure, and I really don't understand that position.  

I am confident in God, though.  I know that God can use whoever He sees fit for any purpose.  Our Lord is the true Messiah, and He is certainly capable of using someone like Trump.

It's also true that the Republican base is becoming more religiously conservative again, so in a way, this "prophecy" has already proven true.  Republican politicians, not so much.  

Certainly this is a matter of good vs evil.  That's very painfully clear.  And it's true that the evil side is behind the Demoncrat party currently.  But Republicans are not the opposite of Democrats.

It's interesting that truth and goodness are more easily found in the average American conservative right now than in the hierarchy of the Catholic Church.  Bishops are supposed to be spiritual, and not of this world, but the more closely they align themselves with this world, the more God moves worldly people to Himself.

TLDR: I think it remains to be seen.  There's a lot of evidence that's more or less the case.  I would say, more specifically conservatives than Republicans.  I don't identify as a Republican (even though I am).  I identify as a conservative. 

[HumilityAndPatience]

On 11/19/2020 at 8:48 PM, fides' Jack said:

It's interesting that truth and goodness are more easily found in the average American conservative right now than in the hierarchy of the Catholic Church

I think the heresy of Americanism is actually beginning to rear it's head in a way which is floating under many people's radars. 

[fides' Jack]

8 hours ago, HumilityAndPatience said:

I think the heresy of Americanism is actually beginning to rear it's head in a way which is floating under many people's radars. 

Define the heresy of Americanism.

[HumilityAndPatience]

9 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

Define the heresy of Americanism.

The definition of Pope Leo is sufficient for sure, on this. My view is that this heresy is flying under the radar via a false Traditionalism. 

[fides' Jack]

Having now read a bit about it now, I think I agree.  Fr. Ripperger warns against this in a few of his videos, too, though not by name (or if it was by name I just didn't remember it).

It's good to be reminded of that, too, especially now.  Because there's a trap waiting for us there under the guise of libertarianism.  When we're swept up in a war over our basic constitutionally-protected freedoms, it's very easy to go to the other extreme and try to remove even good laws.  

Interestingly, though, the political side that's removing the good laws is the left, again.  They advocate for freedom to murder children, freedom to do any drugs they want, etc...  I side with Matt Walsh on the issue of pornography - there should be laws against it.

Edited November 21, 2020 by fides' Jack

[HumilityAndPatience]

17 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

Interestingly, though, the political side that's removing the good laws is the left, again.  They advocate for freedom to murder children, freedom to do any drugs they want, etc...  I side with Matt Walsh on the issue of pornography - there should be laws against it.

I agree with you except on the above- the political paradigm of left and right is a false one, to me. They're all on the same team...

[Aloysius]

I'm confused about how Americanism is being used here, because it appears to me a bit removed from Pope Leo XIII's actual definition; I have noticed that because of the name of this heresy it's often thrown about to suggest someone being caught up in American politics too much, supporting one political party or the other, or being too patriotic or nationalist is an Americanist, but that's not what it really means as far as I read Leo's statement on it.  (any of those things could be criticized for any other number of reasons, but they're not necessarily Americanism as Leo XIII defined it) patriotism or nationalism has nothing to do with what Leo was condemning--what he was most arguing against was the version of Church-State relations exemplified by the United States and classical liberalism, the opposite of Americanism is something like integralism, (or Christendom).

But with Vatican II, the Church has generally made its peace with separated church-state relations.  The Americanist heresy really would only persist now if someone rejected the idea of Christ the King, that in an ideal world the principles of Christ would reign over all; but as far as someone supporting the classical liberal arrangement of Church-state relations today, that's pretty well established since Vatican II as an acceptable situation as long as the Church is given her liberty.  Leo wanted more than liberty for the church, he wanted favor for it by the state, but since Vatican II the church has been willing to accept her liberty and simply hold that favor for the church would be an ideal some day, but that it's an ideal that would only come about if the world was better evangelized and that it should never be imposed by force on an unevangelized world.  as far as I'm concerned that solves the issue of Vatican II's relation to older ideas like the americanist heresy (and the syllabus of errors issue as well)--classical liberalism that grants the church her liberty is a good system to defend and promote within an unevangalized world; Christ the King and Christendom is for an evangelized world where people would of course be happy for the Church and the principles of Christ to have both liberty and the favor of the state, without coercion.

actually, in a sense the "Americanist heresy" could be argued as a criticism against something like saying they are ok with the state allowing gay civil unions (or civilly defined gay marriage, as these really become just semantics of whether to use the word 'marriage' at that point) as long as they allow the church to maintain the sacrament of marriage as she deems fit--in fact, that is precisely the kind of logic Leo XIII was condemning when he talked about the "Americanist" heresy.  it's the kind of logic that permits the Church her liberty from the state, but exists in such a state of divorce from the state that it begins to even define unions and marriage laws distinctly from it.  of course, civil divorce laws have already come to that anyway, so it'd just be another step away in terms of society moving away from being a Christian society.

now of course, I think you could hold to the logic I have argued above for that issue as well--it is not that you are saying that in an ideally evangelized society you would not like the state's marriage laws to conform to natural law, you are simply accepting that our society is not an evangelized society and there remains work to be done.

but how does any of this connect to things people are saying about American politics in this thread?

[HumilityAndPatience]

6 minutes ago, Aloysius said:

but how does any of this connect to things people are saying about American politics in this thread?

If you see my original interaction re Americanism above, it is not so much about American politics but deeper- rather politicisation and a false Traditionalism which has infected the Church. I'm loosely thinking within the realms of obedience/authority and social teaching, for example.  I don't disagree with much of what you said in your post @Aloysius- when I get time, I will try to flesh out what I mean more.

[Aloysius]

Right.  I am very much against the politicization running through Catholicism and have argued against it before, I just don't think it quite fits Leo XIII's definition of Americanism.  what I hate about the politicization of church teaching in these debates inside Catholic circles is how people basically impose the level of obligation and responsibility on their fellow Catholics to the point of thinking that because of democracy, God will judge us all as if we were ourselves the rulers of our country, when in reality we are still the subjects--God judges rulers more harshly, and so should the Church in her discipline, but that standard should not apply to people who just vote the best they can.  It seems to me that people caught up in politics often treat each other and their voting decisions as if that makes them a ruler who would be so harshly judged.  but we're subjects even if we have some kind of an input on our government--that's not to say there are not moral obligations in your vote, but driving wedges between people and Christ over their political disagreements--particularly when it's a matter of people understanding things differently, thinking different things are more or less likely to happen under different politicians, thinking different strategies are better or worse in terms of how they should vote, etc.  by all means people should debate what the right way to vote would be according to Catholic moral teachings, but some people are ready to excommunicate or interdict their fellow Catholics as if that person had just plunged the realm into heresy, desolation, and darkness.