Religious

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by TJDave

How can that be?

I thought that Popes were elected by the faithful hierarchy.

Because sedevacanists have a problem with Vatican II's teachings. One of the many problems for them, from Vatican II, is ecumenical councils. For example Sedevaticanists subscribe to supersessionism. Any Pope not teaching Jews need to be proselytized means, to them, the chair is vacant.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

Pope Francis is an interesting Pope.
He's once again given sedevacantists fodder to believe the Chair of Peter has been occupied by an imposter.

"The beginning of the world is not the work of chaos that owes its origin to something else, but it derives directly from a supreme principle that creates out of love. The Big Bang, that today is considered to be the origin of the world, does not contradict the creative intervention of God; on the contrary, it requires it. Evolution in nature is not in contrast with the notion of [divine] creation because evolution requires the creation of the beings that evolve. [...]

When we read in Genesis the account of creation [we are] in danger of imagining that God was a magician, complete with a magic wand that can do all things. But he is not."
Source: http://sploid.gizmodo.com/pope-franc...eal-1651853568

Also see: http://www.jpost.com/Christian-News/...is-Says-380058

It shouldn't be. The Pope acknowledged evolution in 1950 way before the sedevaticanists discovered the so-called errors of Vatican II in 1965.

In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points.

Pius XII underlined the essential point: if the origin of the human body comes through living matter which existed previously, the spiritual soul is created directly by God ("animas enim a Deo immediate creari catholica fides non retimere iubet"). (Humani Generis) Pope John Paul II, MESSAGE TO THE PONTIFICAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES:
ON EVOLUTION, October 22, 1996,

Biology, including the theory of evolution, has been taught in Catholic Schools, according to my personal experience, since the 1960s and maybe earlier and is still taught today.

The Big Bang theory was accepted by the current Pope, Pius XI, when Catholic priest Georges Lemaître, in 1927 theorized the Big Bang.

Nothing new in the current Pope's statement about evolution and the Big Bang.

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

It shouldn't be. The Pope acknowledged evolution in 1950 way before the sedevaticanists discovered the so-called errors of Vatican II in 1965.

In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points.

Pius XII underlined the essential point: if the origin of the human body comes through living matter which existed previously, the spiritual soul is created directly by God ("animas enim a Deo immediate creari catholica fides non retimere iubet"). (Humani Generis) Pope John Paul II, MESSAGE TO THE PONTIFICAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES:
ON EVOLUTION, October 22, 1996,

Biology, including the theory of evolution, has been taught in Catholic Schools, according to my personal experience, since the 1960s and maybe earlier and is still taught today.

The Big Bang theory was accepted by the current Pope, Pius XI, when Catholic priest Georges Lemaître, in 1927 theorized the Big Bang.

Nothing new in the current Pope's statement about evolution and the Big Bang.

Thank you for all that.
I can see how boxcar totally rejects Catholic doctrine and believes Genesis verbatim.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

I don't know which one to pick. Choosing the Israelites as his "chosen people"...and then watching them as they rejected his only son?

Any people (nation) would have done the same thing because it's human nature.

Deciding that the only way to forgive a sin -- committed against HIMSELF -- would be through the spilling of the blood of his own son?

Who else could sin ultimately be against?

Sitting idly by without lifting a finger...as the world burns from within and without? So many more...

What makes you think that? God has been running the show of human history from day one. Only in Deism does the deists' god sit idly by.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

Thank you for all that.
I can see how boxcar totally rejects Catholic doctrine and believes Genesis verbatim.

Thank you. You see more than these popes and all the other antichrists who occupy a seat of power in Rome; for they do not understand what the nature of biblical faith is. They all believe in God. So do the demons.

Boxcar

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

But you and other skeptics would level the same charge against the Sola Scriptura crowd.

Boxcar

And your point?

[Actor]

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

And your point?

The point is that you skeptics always want things both ways, so why single just Delta Lover out for sucking the religious traditions of men through a straw?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

The point is that you skeptics always want things both ways, ...

Both ways? Exactly what is the dichotomy of which you speak?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Both ways? Exactly what is the dichotomy of which you speak?

Guzzle down a gallon of coffee. Maybe then you'll figure out the obvious.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Guzzle down a gallon of coffee. Maybe then you'll figure out the obvious.

Did Jesus drink coffee? He might frown on 1 gallon unless a "John" was near

[Actor]

Originally Posted by hcap

Did Jesus drink coffee?

Not likely. It was unknown in biblical times.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by hcap

Did Jesus drink coffee?

No...he was partial to wine spritzers.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Guzzle down a gallon of coffee. Maybe then you'll figure out the obvious.

You're saying that those who "rely on the teachings of the Holly Tradition of the Church" and the "Sola Scriptura crowd" hold opposing viewpoints?

[Actor]