True Catholic

True Catholic
[ True Catholic ]

Penny Wong delivers an emotional message to Israel Folau on Q&A

Posted by Faz on July 9, 2019, 11:32 am

Labor senator Penny Wong has used Q&A to deliver an emotional response to Israel Folau's social media commentary, saying: "I wish that public figures, politicians, sporting stars etc. might consider for a moment … where their words land in vulnerable Australians before they speak them."

...

"He is entitled to his beliefs. I disagree with them, and I think we ought to remember he doesn't speak for all Christians."

More (inc video) here.

You hit the nail right on the . . . er, pointy end, Faz.

Posted by John on July 9, 2019, 3:07 pm, in reply to "Penny Wong delivers an emotional message to Israel Folau on Q&A"

It's "emotional", and that's the only thing you can say about it. I'd prefer it to contain some truly Christian truth.

How do you manage to get it wrong so often?

Oh, I know, you believe there is value in Q&A and the utterances of Penny Wong. From climate change to morals, they both are forever trying to drive the nail in the wrong direction.

As for speaking for all Christians, well, you know, anyone can say, "I’m a Christian, and I believe so-and-so", but that doesn’t make everything they say authentic Christianity.

And then the “vulnerable Australians” part: what makes them vulnerable, Faz? The liars, fornicators, et cetera aren’t claiming to be vulnerable; why only the homosexual element? What are they vulnerable to?

Scared of a little emotion, John?

Posted by Faz on July 9, 2019, 4:54 pm, in reply to "You hit the nail right on the . . . er, pointy end, Faz."

It's "emotional" , and that's the only thing you can say about it.

Well, that's the only thing you can say about it. If it was all 'emotional' I'd agree, but having some emotion is ... well ... human.

I presume Penny Wong has seen the effect of the kind if vilification Folau engaged in on individuals.

It would be hard to imagine a depiction of Jesus' ministry devoid of emotion. Jesus was clearly moved by many of the people he encountered.

I'd prefer it to contain some truly Christian truth.

It did.

'I wish that we could have more expressions of love and forgiveness rather than condemnation when it came to belief', is about as New Testament as it gets. How often are love and forgiveness given by the NT writers?

How do you manage to get it wrong so often?

LOL. The master of the loaded question goes into overdrive!

Oh, I know, you believe there is value in Q&A and the utterances of Penny Wong. From climate change to morals, they both are forever trying to drive the nail in the wrong direction.

To be honest I'm not much of a fan of Q&A but I'm not sure my opinion counts because you know.

As for speaking for all Christians, well, you know, anyone can say, "I’m a Christian, and I believe so-and-so", but that doesn’t make everything they say authentic Christianity.

No. That applies to all of us.

And then the “vulnerable Australians” part: what makes them vulnerable, Faz? The liars, fornicators, et cetera aren’t claiming to be vulnerable; why only the homosexual element? What are they vulnerable to?

LOL, but poor Izzy is 'vulnerable' to losing his livelihood?

oh boo hoo

Posted by Mel on July 9, 2019, 6:31 pm, in reply to "Penny Wong delivers an emotional message to Israel Folau on Q&A"

What emotion? All she did was give an opinion but here is an emotion for ya.......when she showed the world a hateful side to her personality, Wong's refusal to shake the hand of Simon Birmingham at a National press club debate on national TV - very unprofessional, rude and arrogant especially holding a high position in the government.She is a total loser.Such a rude arrogant person. Won’t shake hands because someone doesn’t agree with her!No wonder the Libs won the election.And she has the nerve to down play the whole thing. She is not to be trusted.
Penny Wong is a 'professional' offence taker. Offended at everything, and everyone. Always playing the poor me, I'm a minority card.

Scared? How ridiculous! Disgusted? Now you’re talking!

Posted by John on July 9, 2019, 6:54 pm, in reply to "Scared of a little emotion, John?"

You “presume Penny Wong” yadiyadiyah? I guess presuming is easier than actually finding out, and just what is the “effect of the kind if vilification Folau engaged in on individuals.”? And “vilification”? You’re back on emotion, and it is emotion claimed to be felt by only one cohort of those nominated by Folau. Why don’t the liars, fornicators, idolaters, et cetera feel vilified?

And your heartwarming piece on love and forgiveness really stirred me – stirred me, that is, into considering what the New Testament has to say about love and forgiveness, namely, that forgiveness follows repentance for sin.

Now where have I heard that before? Oh, I know, Izzy said it. His love for his fellow man urges repentance in order to gain forgiveness. You, on the other hand, feign love by picking and choosing what you find conveniently warm and fuzzy from the New Testament, don’t you?

Boo hooing about Penny

Posted by Faz on July 9, 2019, 7:53 pm, in reply to "oh boo hoo"

What emotion?

I agree. I didn't think the 'emotion' was excessive. I guess the sub-editor thought differently.

All she did was give an opinion but here is an emotion for ya.......when she showed the world a hateful side to her personality, Wong's refusal to shake the hand of Simon Birmingham at a National press club debate on national TV - very unprofessional, rude and arrogant especially holding a high position in the government.

Crikey! How is this relevant exactly?

She is a total loser.

Classy.

Such a rude arrogant person. Won’t shake hands because someone doesn’t agree with her!No wonder the Libs won the election.And she has the nerve to down play the whole thing. She is not to be trusted.

You're still going on about that?

Penny Wong is a 'professional' offence taker. Offended at everything, and everyone. Always playing the poor me, I'm a minority card.

Always? Reminds me of an old saying: 'If I've told you once, I've told you a thousand times, don't exaggerate!'

Smile Faz

Posted by Mel on July 9, 2019, 8:31 pm, in reply to "Boo hooing about Penny"

Not me, exactly, but a smile just for you

Posted by Faz on July 10, 2019, 2:56 pm, in reply to "Smile Faz"

Getting emotional

Posted by Faz on July 10, 2019, 3:08 pm, in reply to "Scared? How ridiculous! Disgusted? Now you’re talking!"

You “presume Penny Wong” yadiyadiyah? I guess presuming is easier than actually finding out,

Not sure what you're suggesting there. Do you want me to ask Penny?

... and just what is the “effect of the kind if vilification Folau engaged in on individuals.”?

Reverse it. There's a lot of fuss about the vilification of Folau. Maybe that could give you an insight.

And “vilification”? You’re back on emotion,

Not really, you're the one who keeps bringing it up.

and it is emotion claimed to be felt by only one cohort of those nominated by Folau.

Who makes that claim? Perhaps take it up with them.

Why don’t the liars, fornicators, idolaters, et cetera feel vilified?

Good point. Idolaters is code for Catholics (and some other denominations) so, you're right.

And your heartwarming piece on love and forgiveness really stirred me – stirred me, that is, into considering what the New Testament has to say about love and forgiveness, namely, that forgiveness follows repentance for sin.

And?

Now where have I heard that before? Oh, I know, Izzy said it. His love for his fellow man urges repentance in order to gain forgiveness. You, on the other hand, feign love by picking and choosing what you find conveniently warm and fuzzy from the New Testament, don’t you?

Assuming that's a genuine question, no.

No just pity.Keep busy Faz

Posted by Mel on July 11, 2019, 9:41 am, in reply to "Not me, exactly, but a smile just for you"

Another Christian perspective I

Posted by Faz on July 11, 2019, 1:07 pm, in reply to "Penny Wong delivers an emotional message to Israel Folau on Q&A"

Give me a break!

By Paul Collins
Please, please, give me a break from Israel Folau! We’ve all heard more than enough about who’s going to hell. He can believe whatever he wants and he can blow his bags ad nauseam to his Pentecostal mates. But we don’t have to take it seriously. He’s a rugby footballer, for goodness sake, not a biblical scholar! His literalist and fundamentalist views are simply wrong; they’re not what the bible says and they don’t represent the views of the vast majority of Christians.

I’m happy to confess I’m one of Folau’s targets. I’m an “idolater” happily on the way to hell. Idolaters include Catholics, Anglicans, Orthodox, other Christians and all the unwashed who haven’t been “born-again.” But the main focus of his talk/sermon last week at a Pentecostal gathering in Sydney’s Kenthurst was on the way “homosexuality is in disguise to try and take-over…this world.” He says that “kids…16-years-old-or-younger…are able…to change their gender.” And it’s not only “non-Christians” who are the problem, because “a lot of the churches today allow these things to happen.” Those born-again are the last “true believers in Christ.”

More ...

Another Christian perspective II

Posted by Faz on July 11, 2019, 1:13 pm, in reply to "Another Christian perspective I"

Fr Rod Bower is the Rector of Gosford Parish:
https://www.facebook.com/anggos/videos/319068705706079/

Another Christian perspective III

Posted by Faz on July 11, 2019, 1:20 pm, in reply to "Another Christian perspective II"

Why Christians disagree over the Israel Folau saga

By Geoff Thompson
Coordinator of Studies: Systematic Theology, Pilgrim Theological College, University of Divinity

For many Christians, Israel Folau has become the talisman in the fight for religious freedom.

...

The question remains, though – why have these issues, and not others, have become flashpoints? There are other equally provocative biblical teachings that don’t generate the same passions among Christians.

Imagine if a high-profile Christian sportsman, for instance, tweeted Jesus’ teachings about how difficult it will be for the rich to enter the kingdom of God (especially if it was paraphrased as “Hell awaits you”).

In this scenario, it is very easy to imagine a less fraught response from many Christians. Instead of wholeheartedly backing his stand against wealth, the athlete’s Christian supporters might demur on the issue, saying how the teachings on wealth need to be “interpreted” in their context.

more ...

Mel's petard

Posted by Faz on July 11, 2019, 2:08 pm, in reply to "No just pity.Keep busy Faz"

I guess, at some time, you obeyed the instructions yourself.

I think that's what's known as 'hoist on your own petard'.

Methinks thou does protest too much

Posted by Mel on July 11, 2019, 3:39 pm, in reply to "Mel's petard"

Take IV

Posted by Mel on July 11, 2019, 3:40 pm, in reply to "Another Christian perspective III"

A couple of points , we've been over the issue to death now, you can take V now Faz.

They are all equally entitled to their opinion, just as Folau is.

Irony I

Posted by Faz on July 11, 2019, 4:17 pm, in reply to "Take IV"

A couple of points , we've been over the issue to death now, you can take V now Faz.

One point in the same spirit: If you're not interested, you're free to demonstrate that by not commenting ...

They are all equally entitled to their opinion, just as Folau is.

... because when you comment, it suggests you don't want to 'take V'.

Hoist on your own petard and now commenting on subject you think needs to 'take V'.

Irony?

Just as useless as the last one you gave

Posted by John on July 11, 2019, 5:01 pm, in reply to "Another Christian perspective I"

I’ve got to say it again, Faz, that just because a person claims to be a Christian, and even - even, I say - you proclaim someone to be a Christian and to have a “Christian perspective” there is no guarantee that what they say or write is in any way authentic Christianity.

And Paul Collins, for goodness sake! He is not nearly as qualified to speak on Christianity than Folau whom he tries to put down with his “He’s a rugby footballer, for goodness sake, not a biblical scholar!” And while he is right, unfortunately, when he says that Folau’s views don’t represent the views of the vast majority of Christians, they are in line with what the Bible teaches. Collins is wrong, not Folau

Even worse

Posted by John on July 11, 2019, 5:26 pm, in reply to "Another Christian perspective II"

Mr Nice Guy who thinks that is all that is required in a priest. Despite all his distracting hand-waving, his argument against 1 Cor 6:10 was most unconvincing. He chose the most convenient translation and based his argument on Philo of Alexandria, but it fell flat for anyone who knows the Douay-Rheims translation, namely:

“[10] Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God.”

”Liers with mankind” is pretty hard to explain away, no matter how much hand-waving you indulge in.

Ah, the politics of envy!

Posted by John on July 11, 2019, 5:37 pm, in reply to "Another Christian perspective III"

Folau must be wrong because he is wealthy. Pretty disgusting that you are prepared to sink to this level, Faz.

Thompson’s argument is pathetic. Yes, what if a high-profile Christian sportsman did tweet about the eye of a needle passage. (In passing, Christ didn’t say the rich will be damned; He simply said wealth, and its attendant pleasures make it difficult, not impossible, to enter the Kingdom.) But who would give a damn, anyway. I can’t imagine any rich person getting upset at that. Thompson refers to “these issues”. Rubbish! There is only one issue that has brought on hatred of Folau and his wife – homosexuality. Why only the homosexuals?

Ah, the politics of making stuff up!

Posted by Faz on July 11, 2019, 7:16 pm, in reply to "Ah, the politics of envy!"

Folau must be wrong because he is wealthy.

Where have I said that exactly?

Pretty disgusting that you are prepared to sink to this level, Faz.

Pretty disgusting that you assert that I've said something that I actually haven't.

Thompson’s argument is pathetic. Yes, what if a high-profile Christian sportsman did tweet about the eye of a needle passage.

The author explains why he chooses this example.

(In passing, Christ didn’t say the rich will be damned; He simply said wealth, and its attendant pleasures make it difficult, not impossible, to enter the Kingdom.)

Not really sure why that clarification was necessary, but do go on ...

But who would give a damn, anyway. I can’t imagine any rich person getting upset at that.

Possibly.

Thompson refers to “ these issues”. Rubbish! There is only one issue that has brought on hatred of Folau and his wife – homosexuality. Why only the homosexuals?

I'm not sure any of the articles I've posted or any of the considered criticisms I've seen could be characterised as 'hatred'. Maybe some do, but 'hatred' is your strawman.

Most convenient translation

Posted by Faz on July 11, 2019, 7:43 pm, in reply to "Even worse"

Mr Nice Guy who thinks that is all that is required in a priest.

You have a thing about 'niceness'.

Despite all his distracting hand-waving, his argument against 1 Cor 6:10 was most unconvincing. He chose the most convenient translation and based his argument on Philo of Alexandria, but it fell flat for anyone who knows the Douay-Rheims translation, namely: “[10] Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God.” ”Liers with mankind” is pretty hard to explain away, no matter how much hand-waving you indulge in.

On that logic the Douay-Rheims translation is your 'most convenient translation'.

For goodness sake, John!

Posted by Faz on July 11, 2019, 7:50 pm, in reply to "Just as useless as the last one you gave"

I’ve got to say it again, Faz, that just because a person claims to be a Christian, and even - even , I say - you proclaim someone to be a Christian and to have a “Christian perspective” there is no guarantee that what they say or write is in any way authentic Christianity.

Yes (I also will say again) that applies to you, to me, to Israel Folau ...

And Paul Collins, for goodness sake! He is not nearly as qualified to speak on Christianity than Folau whom he tries to put down with his “He’s a rugby footballer, for goodness sake, not a biblical scholar!”

The sentence doesn't make sense.

And while he is right, unfortunately, when he says that Folau’s views don’t represent the views of the vast majority of Christians, they are in line with what the Bible teaches. Collins is wrong, not Folau

Of course, like Collins, you're entitled to your view. I guess the reader can decide who is more qualified to represent a Christian view.

On the politics of envy . . .

Posted by John on July 11, 2019, 8:45 pm, in reply to "Ah, the politics of making stuff up!"

. . . you were the one that introduced, seemingly with approval, Faz, Thompson’s piece suggesting that a high-profile Christian sportsman, (e.g. someone like Israel Folau, say), could tweet Jesus’ teachings about how difficult it will be for the rich to enter the Kingdom of God (especially if it was paraphrased as “Hell awaits you”). Since it is most unlikely that anyone would do this, why did this particular “Christian perspective” appeal so much to you?

You have previously commented unfavourably on Folau’s wealth in relation to my claim that he has had his livelihood threatened. In this post, you wrote:

“As for 'cost him his livelihood', are you serious? The guy's a multi-millionaire. He'll just go overseas. “

Translation: “Folau is wealthy – who cares about his right to keep earning?”

So much for your high dudgeon over my post.

Not chosen for convenience – just accuracy and concordance with many others

Posted by John on July 11, 2019, 9:13 pm, in reply to "Most convenient translation"

Would you like a few more? Try these translations of 1 Cor 6:9-10

Douay-Rheims
9
Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers,[10] Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God.

Knox
9
Yet you know well enough that wrong-doers will not inherit God’s kingdom. Make no mistake about it; it is not the debauched, the idolaters, the adulterous,10 it is not the effeminate, the sinners against nature, the dishonest, the misers, the drunkards, the bitter of speech, the extortioners that will inherit the kingdom of God.

NLT
9Don’t you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don’t fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality, 10or are thieves, or greedy people, or drunkards, or are abusive, or cheat people—none of these will inherit the Kingdom of God.

NIV
9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

NKJV
9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor [a]homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.

Notice the prevalence of passages that validate Folau’s post, despite all Bower’s distracting hand-waving?

Missing the point

Posted by Faz on July 12, 2019, 7:02 am, in reply to "On the politics of envy . . ."

On the politics of envy . . . you were the one that introduced, seemingly with approval, Faz ...'

Interesting phrase that, 'seemingly with your approval'. It would be like saying your support of Folau means that you 'seemingly' support the notion that 'idolaters' (unsubtle code for Catholics in the kind of Protestantism Folau follows) should also go to hell?

... Thompson’s piece suggesting that a high-profile Christian sportsman, (e.g. someone like Israel Folau, say) ..., could tweet Jesus’ teachings about how difficult it will be for the rich to enter the Kingdom of God (especially if it was paraphrased as “Hell awaits you”). Since it is most unlikely that anyone would do this, why did this particular “Christian perspective” appeal so much to you?

The author is trying to draw out the point that there is an inconsistency in fervour when it comes to the hard sayings of Christianity.

Whatever the literal translation of the 'eye of a needle quote', it's metaphorical meaning is clear. Jesus is saying that it's 'all but impossible' to be rich and be his follower, so much so, that 'giving it all away' would be the starting point.

On that basis, 'hell awaits rich people' is about as reasonable as 'hell awaits homosexuals'.

The author is not saying he 'approves' of the former but he's using it say we shouldn't approve of the latter.

In short, you've missed the point.

You have previously commented unfavourably on Folau’s wealth in relation to my claim that he has had his livelihood threatened.

The context of my 'disapproval' is not about his wealth per se, it's about him seeking crowd funding for a contract dispute. I think that's wholly unreasonable. I think the way he's gone about this whole issue is unprincipled. He agreed to the conditions of his contract and freely signed it knowing that to do what he did before would threaten that contract. He effectively broke that promise and, despite his personal wealth, is asking others to pay for his broken promise under the guise of religious freedom.

In this post , you wrote: “As for 'cost him his livelihood', are you serious? The guy's a multi-millionaire. He'll just go overseas. “ Translation: “Folau is wealthy – who cares about his right to keep earning?”

It's about perspective, John. Folau chose to put his 'living' in jeopardy. He chose to publish that tweet knowing that he has thousands of followers and knowing that he promised not to do it (by virtue of freely accepting the terms of his contract and in the context of the previous controversy).

Beyond that, and not being a particular fan of Rugby, I know that he's a prodigiously talented athlete and the prospect of him earning overseas was always a possibility in an international sport. I have no doubt that he still has a few more years of earning the big bucks in him.

His problem could be that prospective employers may doubt his commitment to keeping to the terms of a contract, but I dare say, given his talent, there will plenty out there who will take the risk.

So much for your high dudgeon over my post.

Na, high dudgeon is your bailiwick, John.

But wait, there's more ...

Posted by Faz on July 12, 2019, 7:25 am, in reply to "Not chosen for convenience – just accuracy and concordance with many others"

Do you not realise that people who do evil will never inherit the kingdom of God? Make no mistake -- the sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, the self-indulgent, sodomites, thieves, misers, drunkards, slanderers and swindlers, none of these will inherit the kingdom of God.

New Jerusalem Bible

Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor sodomites nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.

US Conference of Catholic Bishops Books of the Bible

Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers—none of these will inherit the kingdom of God.

New Revised Standard Version

Take VI?

Posted by Faz on July 12, 2019, 7:29 am, in reply to "Take IV"

A couple of points , we've been over the issue to death now, you can take V now Faz.

I notice that you haven't given John the benefit of your advice, Mel.

Is that because the issue is only 'been over to death' when you disagree?

Just sayin'.

(in parenthesis)

Posted by Faz on July 12, 2019, 8:19 am, in reply to "Ah, the politics of envy!"

(In passing, Christ didn’t say the rich will be damned; He simply said wealth, and its attendant pleasures make it difficult, not impossible, to enter the Kingdom.)

Your beloved Douay-Rheims says:

Jesus saith to him: If thou wilt be perfect, go sell what thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me. And when the young man had heard this word, he went away sad: for he had great possessions.

Then Jesus said to his disciples: Amen, I say to you, that a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say to you: It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven.

For the record, I agree with your interpretation, but if you were to interpret the Douay-Rheims in the literal way you interpret it in relation to homosexuality, then you could be excused for thinking that this was about the rich and not just about the love of wealth. You could also be excused for thinking the latter interpretation is one of 'convenience'.

Take note,

Posted by Mel on July 12, 2019, 10:39 am, in reply to "Take VI?"

I notice that you haven't given John the benefit of your advice, Mel.

And I've noticed that John doesn't need my advice at all. He seems quiet capable, informed and intellectually honest to hold his ground. He delivers the authentic Catholic perceptive better than you or I.
I see you like to take the contrary view to just about everything 'catholic'- that's fine, but using the subtle differences you twist meanings or opinions or attitudes around without realizing that authentic Catholic teachings cannot change. Or, maybe you want to change our Catholic perspective because you do not approve of them and hold up Paul Collins as if he has something good to say. Well I hate to burst your bubble he has nothing to offer an orthodox catholic while his adherence to magisterial teachings are in question.

Are you having a senior's moment, Faz?

Posted by John on July 12, 2019, 11:59 am, in reply to "But wait, there's more ..."

You're agreeing with me! That's hard to fathom! What's the catch? Are you telling me that I really didn't need to go to the trouble of rounding up all those various translations? That you agree Izzy was right all along?

I think it's time for a cup of tea and a Bex, Faz - you're losing your grip. Keep on going this way, and you could end up Catholic!

P.S. Sorry, I forgot about the good lie-down - tea, Bex and a good lie-down is the full prescription.

P.P.S. On your ending up Catholic - could the Church handle it?

Previous Message

I didn't take long, did it?

Posted by John on July 12, 2019, 12:06 pm, in reply to "Take note, "

For Mel to wake up to your modus operandi, I mean, Faz. How many times, over the last many years, have I written something like this:

"I see you like to take the contrary view to just about everything 'catholic'- that's fine, but using the subtle differences you twist meanings or opinions or attitudes around ..." [bolding and italics mine]

Previous Message

I notice that you haven't given John the benefit of your advice, Mel.

And I've noticed that John doesn't need my advice at all. He seems quiet capable, informed and intellectually honest to hold his ground. He delivers the authentic Catholic perceptive better than you or I.
I see you like to take the contrary view to just about everything 'catholic'- that's fine, but using the subtle differences you twist meanings or opinions or attitudes around without realizing that authentic Catholic teachings cannot change. Or, maybe you want to change our Catholic perspective because you do not approve of them and hold up Paul Collins as if he has something good to say. Well I hate to burst your bubble he has nothing to offer an orthodox catholic while his adherence to magisterial teachings are in question.

Sorry: IT didn't take long . . .[NT]

Posted by John on July 12, 2019, 2:02 pm, in reply to "I didn't take long, did it?"

Previous Message

Inflated 'orthodox' bubble

Posted by Faz on July 12, 2019, 5:05 pm, in reply to "Take note, "

And I've noticed that John doesn't need my advice at all.

Good. For the record, neither do I.

(Smile for you)

He seems quiet capable, informed and intellectually honest to hold his ground. He delivers the authentic Catholic perceptive better than you or I.

That is, you agree with him.

I see you like to take the contrary view to just about everything 'catholic' ...

Small 'c' Catholic?

You mean, on issues covered recently on this forum I disagree with you and John? I guess so.

... that's fine, but using the subtle differences you twist meanings or opinions or attitudes around without realizing that authentic Catholic teachings cannot change.

But they do.

There are many examples, but a 'life and death' issue that has changed completely in my life time is capital punishment. Currently the Catechism (#2267) says:

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.

Even that, according to this article doesn't go far enough:

The new teaching, contained in Catechism No. 2267, says the previous policy is outdated and that there are other ways to protect the common good.

"Consequently the church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person," and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide," reads the new text, which was approved in May [2018] but only published Thursday.

There could hardly be a more consequential change both in emphasis and substance!

Or, maybe you want to change our Catholic perspective because you do not approve of them and hold up Paul Collins as if he has something good to say.

Unfortunately for you the 'our' includes me and ... brace yourself ... Paul Collins.

Well I hate to burst your bubble he has nothing to offer an orthodox catholic while his adherence to magisterial teachings are in question.

According to you?

I hate to burst your inflated 'orthodox' bubble, but you don't have that authority. I think Paul Collins will rest easily even though you dismiss him.

Just opinions

Posted by Faz on July 12, 2019, 5:10 pm, in reply to "I didn't take long, did it?"

For Mel to wake up to your modus operandi, I mean, Faz. How many times, over the last many years, have I written something like this: "I see you like to take the contrary view to just about everything 'catholic'- that's fine, but using the subtle differences you twist meanings or opinions or attitudes around ..." [bolding and italics mine]

I have a similar view about your twists and turns, John.

And, again, neither you or Mel have any capacity to claim any authority in relation to 'orthodoxy'.

You just have opinions like the rest of us.

Too much Bex?

Posted by Faz on July 12, 2019, 5:17 pm, in reply to "Are you having a senior's moment, Faz?"

Are you having a senior's moment, Faz?

LOL. Run out of gas, John?

You're agreeing with me! That's hard to fathom! What's the catch? Are you telling me that I really didn't need to go to the trouble of rounding up all those various translations? That you agree Izzy was right all along?

I'm having a senior's moment?

I think it's time for a cup of tea and a Bex, Faz - you're losing your grip. Keep on going this way, and you could end up Catholic!

Like you? Not interested in your 'grumpy Catholic' sect, John. You, of course, are welcome to it!

P.S. Sorry, I forgot about the good lie-down - tea, Bex and a good lie-down is the full prescription.

Sorry to repeat what you've already written? Maybe a little too much Bex, John?

P.P.S. On your ending up Catholic - could the Church handle it?

So far, so good, John.

Re: Just opinions with a difference

Posted by Mel on July 12, 2019, 5:49 pm, in reply to "Just opinions"

And, again, neither you or Mel have
any capacity to claim any authority
in relation to 'orthodoxy'.

You just have opinions like the rest of us.

An appeal to authentic teachings of the Catholic Church is sufficient to claim orthodoxy. You don't appeal to them , rather you dissent at every turn. Face it Faz the Catholic Church will not bend to the currents of the day.
Even Paul Collins admits that he can "no longer conscientiously subscribe to the policies and theological emphases coming from the Vatican and other official church sources."

Grappling Faz

Posted by Mel on July 12, 2019, 6:43 pm, in reply to "Inflated 'orthodox' bubble"

Faz you bring up a good point however, rather than a 'change' the Church calls it a development.

Revision in continuity with preceding Magisterium

In the Letter to the Bishops Cardinal Ladaria explained that the revision of n. 2267 of the CCC “expresses an authentic development of doctrine that is not in contradiction with the prior teachings of the Magisterium” and said “these teachings, in fact, can be explained in the light of the primary responsibility of the public authority to protect the common good in a social context in which the penal sanctions were understood differently, and had developed in an environment in which it was more difficult to guarantee that the criminal could not repeat his crime”.
https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2018-08/pope-francis-cdf-ccc-death-penalty-revision-ladaria.html

The article below explains it well too.

Some people are tempted to think it is a simple reversal or rejection of traditional Catholic teaching. To see why this is not the case, let’s consider both the traditional and contemporary Catholic teaching in greater detail. .....
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/did-the-church-change-its-teaching-on-the-death-penalty

Na, just opinions

Posted by Faz on July 12, 2019, 7:15 pm, in reply to "Re: Just opinions with a difference"

An appeal to authentic teachings of the Catholic Church is sufficient to claim orthodoxy.

Who says?

You don't appeal to them , rather you dissent at every turn.

In your opinion.

To paraphrase John: 'Just because a person claims to be a orthodox there is no guarantee that what they say or write is in any way orthodox'.

Face it Faz the Catholic Church will not bend to the currents of the day.

At best it doesn't 'bend' but it discerns, listens and changes as it has done for millennia. The 'unchanging' nature of the church is a fantasy promulgated by those who can't face the legitimate need for change.

Even Paul Collins admits that he can "no longer conscientiously subscribe to the policies and theological emphases coming from the Vatican and other official church sources."

And, assuming this is an accurate quote, he's still a Catholic, not in your eyes it would seem, but that's your problem.

If it walks like a change

Posted by Faz on July 12, 2019, 7:47 pm, in reply to "Grappling Faz"

Faz you bring up a good point however, rather than a 'change' the Church calls it a development.

Who's splitting hairs now?

The church has gone from a philosophical acceptance of capital punishment (see for example Augustine and Aquinas) to enthusiastic participation in torture and killing of heretics during the inquisition, to now saying it's 'inadmissible'.

You can call it a 'development' but taking life is about as grave a moral consideration as it comes and the church has gone from 'yes' to 'no'.

But even if you accept notions of 'development', your notion that 'authentic Catholic teachings cannot change' is simply not the case.

And even an understanding of the word 'development' is consistent with, not counter to, 'change'. To 'develop' is to 'grow or cause to grow and become more mature, advanced, or elaborate' (ref).

There are plenty of other examples of change of emphasis and substance in Church teaching.

By any other name...

Posted by Mel on July 13, 2019, 8:48 am, in reply to "If it walks like a change"

The church has gone from a philosophical acceptance of capital punishment (see for example Augustine and Aquinas) to enthusiastic participation in torture and killing of heretics during the inquisition, to now saying it's 'inadmissible'.

.
Both were speaking of the good for the whole community when in danger, that is the part that has been developed through the centuries.Let's not get too caught up in this development as it has taken more than 500 years to be developed as it stands today. If you want to call it a change - fine - it is for the sake of including teachings on abortion . The Church does not want to contradict Herself by seeming to accept one and not the other. The Inquisition and other dark times in church history were shameful, they included the participation of secular bodies and other denominations as well. It is impossible to justify such times at all, but individuals will be held accountable and not the entire Church, on the day of judgment .

There are plenty of other examples of change of emphasis and substance in Church teaching.

We are speaking about moral teachings not traditions Faz.

Orthodox is as Orthodox does

Posted by Mel on July 13, 2019, 8:55 am, in reply to "Na, just opinions"

All you need to do is check for yourself, check Scripture, Church Fathers, Vatican sources.

Even Paul Collins admits that he can "no longer conscientiously subscribe to the policies and theological emphases coming from the Vatican and other official church sources."

That quote was taken from his website.
http://www.paulcollinscatholicwriter.com.au/explanation_for_resignation.html

So I would never use his materials in my research or studies etc..

So you say

Posted by Faz on July 13, 2019, 9:19 am, in reply to "Orthodox is as Orthodox does"

All you need to do is check for yourself, check Scripture, Church Fathers, Vatican sources.

LOL. After that, you still have an opinion.

So I would never use his materials in my research or studies etc..

Why would you when you've got Izzy Folau?

So say all of us

Posted by Mel on July 13, 2019, 9:28 am, in reply to "So you say"

Why would you when you've got Izzy Folau?

He might be your Church Father but not mine. Oh yes, you are right, he has an opinion too.

If you 'develop' you 'change'

Posted by Faz on July 13, 2019, 9:29 am, in reply to "By any other name..."

We are speaking about moral teachings not traditions Faz.

Your actual phrase was 'authentic Catholic teachings cannot change'.

I think that the authenticity of Catholic teachings on capital punishment cannot be reasonably questioned given its history.

I think that the moral implications of this teaching, given that it is about life and death, cannot be reasonably understated.

Even taking your statement about 'development' at face value, it's not a term that's consistent with 'cannot change'. 'Development' is by its nature 'change'.

Exactly

Posted by Faz on July 13, 2019, 9:33 am, in reply to "So say all of us"

He might be your Church Father but not mine. Oh yes, you are right, he has an opinion too.

Exactly my point.

Don't get too excited!!

Posted by Mel on July 13, 2019, 9:35 am, in reply to "Exactly"

You might hurt yourself.

« Index

[ True Catholic ]