Zone1 The Catholic Church went woke (sorta) before it was the 'in' thing, now here we are

[nomadic5]

At Vatican II, NON-Christians were allowed to have much input. That's odd all by itself. Why would a Christian organization, much less what some say is the Original Christian Church allow non-Christians to have a say in their Councils? Well, it was not a dogmatic Council so some say it's no big deal. But it WAS and is a big deal because it ushered in indifferentism and liberalism. Indifferentism means that it doesn't matter what religion you are, you can get to God through any of them. That is a LIE. Jesus said that the only way to the Father is through HIM.

So we've had massive problems in the Church and those problems "trickled down" to the non-Churched and all of society. So here we are. Fewer and fewer go to Church anymore. And why would they when it doesn't matter? You can apparently be saved even with no church at all.

I think many priests are attempting to un-do the serious damage of Vatican II. I went to a Church not long ago, for instance, where the priest did not have anyone distributing Communion but HIM, which is the way it should be done. And I could go on and on but the point is that once the least-liberal of all Churches goes liberal

all bets are off

Society is doomed

(sorry to be such a negative person. Sometimes truth sounds too negative. But are we to ignore it because it doesn't "tickle our ears"?

 

[nomadic5]

think for a minute on what it means to say that all religions save

so a religion that teaches women are inferior is just as valid as the one whose founder is Christ who loved women

I'm sure women do not want to adopt policies that come from the largely un-Christian nation of India, where the woman (this may not be true anymore?), when her husband died, had to die with him?

It is very important what people believe. Their eternal destiny is at stake. Society's welfare is also at stake. The 2 are inter-related

 

[The Irish Ram]

The Catholic Church backs the New World Order.

 

[nomadic5]

The Catholic Church backs the New World Order.

The fake Catholic Church does. But the original Catholic Church does not. The original Catholic Church always taught against communism (and that original Church carried on after Vatican II, it is called Society of St Pius X although a lot of Catholics don't even know about it).

Now we have a "church" (a mirage of one [the Francis one]) basically going along with the insane "climate change" knuckleheads

so yes, you are correct, the francis "church" is new world order.

 

[ding]

At Vatican II, NON-Christians were allowed to have much input. That's odd all by itself. Why would a Christian organization, much less what some say is the Original Christian Church allow non-Christians to have a say in their Councils? Well, it was not a dogmatic Council so some say it's no big deal. But it WAS and is a big deal because it ushered in indifferentism and liberalism. Indifferentism means that it doesn't matter what religion you are, you can get to God through any of them. That is a LIE. Jesus said that the only way to the Father is through HIM.

So we've had massive problems in the Church and those problems "trickled down" to the non-Churched and all of society. So here we are. Fewer and fewer go to Church anymore. And why would they when it doesn't matter? You can apparently be saved even with no church at all.

I think many priests are attempting to un-do the serious damage of Vatican II. I went to a Church not long ago, for instance, where the priest did not have anyone distributing Communion but HIM, which is the way it should be done. And I could go on and on but the point is that once the least-liberal of all Churches goes liberal

all bets are off

Society is doomed

(sorry to be such a negative person. Sometimes truth sounds too negative. But are we to ignore it because it doesn't "tickle our ears"?

There’s probably always been a tug of war between conservatives and liberals in the church.

 

[notmyfault2020]

There’s probably always been a tug of war between conservatives and liberals in the church.

True. But if you define Liberal as: being lax about morals, especially in reference to sexual morals

No one can be a true Christian and be a liberal. People are always trying to have their cake and eat it too. It can't be done with morals

 

[ding]

True. But if you define Liberal as: being lax about morals, especially in reference to sexual morals

No one can be a true Christian and be a liberal. People are always trying to have their cake and eat it too. It can't be done with morals

That’s not how I meant liberal. I meant centralized assistance versus subsidiarity.

As in….Government providing charity versus community providing charity.

 

[notmyfault2020]

That’s not how I meant liberal. I meant centralized assistance versus subsidiarity.

As in….Government providing charity versus community providing charity.

I don't get this answer. It doesn't seem to naturally follow from the original point I made

 

[ding]

I don't get this answer. It doesn't seem to naturally follow from the original point I made

If your point is that the Church is promoting immorality of any kind I would encourage you to read the catechism which clearly states the Church’s position.

 

[notmyfault2020]

If your point is that the Church is promoting immorality of any kind I would encourage you to read the catechism which clearly states the Church’s position.

you are not explaining a thing about your answer

But i guess u don't want to

cool. I will move on

 

[ding]

you are not explaining a thing about your answer

But i guess u don't want to

cool. I will move on

I do. I’m responding what you wrote. You said what I wrote had nothing to do with what you wrote. So I’m assuming your accusation of being liberal means sexually immoral. To which I directed you to the catechism which state the church’s position on immorality.

Have you read the catechism?

 

[notmyfault2020]

I do. I’m responding what you wrote. You said what I wrote had nothing to do with what you wrote. So I’m assuming your accusation of being liberal means sexually immoral. To which I directed you to the catechism which state the church’s position on immorality.

Have you read the catechism?

I have read the modern catechism (I was ignorant at one time) and have read parts of the old, pre-Vatican II catechisms. I don't see how that is relevant to the conversation @ hand. Did I ever say that being sexually immoral was all there is to being liberal? Well, if I said something thatseemed to imply such, I do apologize.

 

[BreezeWood]

I do. I’m responding what you wrote. You said what I wrote had nothing to do with what you wrote. So I’m assuming your accusation of being liberal means sexually immoral. To which I directed you to the catechism which state the church’s position on immorality.

Have you read the catechism?

- does that catechism reflect the 1st century exemplars ....

 

[notmyfault2020]

The "francis" Church is not the true Church Christ founded. The SSPX continues the teachings/practices of the True Church while the novus ordo ..
They dropped a lot of references to Hell in the "scriptural" part of the liturgy. One time I found this, how they altered Scripture.

There is a Scripture passage that says .. Jesus told us that certain demons only go away through FASTING and PRAYER, meaning doing those 2 things together

In the NO version, FASTING was deleted.

Satan knows what he is doing. Do we?