RockyMountainCanary

@TheOrthoEnsign Yeah, right after that he notes either accepting or condemning them but a fool is the man who pretends to be God and says unequivocally that the 'heathen' are all going to hell, daring to enter into his judgement, indeed the first will be last, and the last first!

@DonkeyoftheWest Yeah that's part of how they'll be condemned: by the law as testified to by their consciences.

The question of what happens to unreached heathens is actually a very important one to answer correctly (they're damned). A lot of people think their own hearing of the Gospel was because God was kinda low-key normatively obligated to provide it as a "fair shot" or something.

@SteveSkojec The only conclusion for one who agrees with this is that Jesus himself is the fountainhead of this monstrosity, no?

"Why should anyone feel the need to apologize for condemning an idea that looks fairly monstrous from any angle and whose principal use down the centuries has been the psychological abuse and terrorization of children? Who, after all, is saying something more objectively atrocious, or more aggressively perverse? The person who claims that every newborn infant enters the world justly under the threat of eternal torment and that a good God imposes or permits the imposition of a state of perpetual agony on finite, created rational beings as part of the mystery of his love or sovereignty or justice (or whatever else)? Or the person who frankly observes that such ideas are cruel and barbarous and depraved? Which of these two should really be, if not ashamed of his or her words, at least hesitant, ambivalent, and even a little penitent in uttering them? And which has a better right to moral outrage at what the other has said? And, really, do these questions not answer themselves? A belief does not merit unconditional reverence just because it is old or because its proponents claim a divine authority for it that they cannot prove; neither should it be immune to being challenged in terms commensurate to the scandal it poses. And the belief that a God of infinite intellect, justice, love, and power would condemn rational beings to a state of endless suffering, or would allow them to condemn themselves on account of their own delusion, pain, and anger, is probably worse than merely scandalous. It may be the most horrid notion the religious imagination has ever entertained, and the most irrational and spiritually corrosive picture of existence possible. And anyone who thinks such language too strong or caustic while at the same time finding the traditional picture of a hell unobjectionable needs to think again." amzn.to/4fXtJpw

@SteveSkojec ‘Fails to understand’

@SteveSkojec Having said that the current milieu of Jansenistic pessimism fail to undergo heart of the Father who makes light work of the smoldering wick. Distrusting His Mercy seems like a good way to not finding it as much as presuming on it

"I am convinced that, just below the surface of most believers’ seemingly equable and settled convictions regarding the reality of an eternal hell, there is a positively volcanic ferment of doubt and repugnance that, if not scrupulously repressed, just might erupt into the open and reduce their faith to ashes. Somewhere deep down, even the most convinced defender of the conventional picture realizes that it is morally absurd, and fears that this absurdity, if frankly confronted, menaces the entire structure of belief." - David Bentley Hart, "That All Shall Be Saved"

@OrthodoxOrigen Um, I think just about every saint was more or less tempted against their faith at some point. This isn't some kind of gotcha. She overcame the temptation and immediately started working stupendous miracles after her heroic death through God as a reward for her Faith.

Interesting that the original French autographs of St. Therese’s “Story of a Soul” (her autobiography) mention atheism. Her sister edited this out of the original publications of the text. Interestingly, the original text portrays her similar in tone to Christian existentialism

After his wife’s death, the great sculptor Auguste Rodin wanted to abandon his art. But a priest reminded him that his talent was not his own: it was a gift from God meant to be shared with the world. That priest was St. Peter Julian Eymard, the great Apostle of the Eucharist, whose feast we celebrate today. This is how Rodin immortalized the great saint👇

@dmoonlives You sound like a masturbator

Christian women seethe and convulse like demoniacs when they read Ephesians 5:22-24. Feminism is so deeply ingrained in their collective consciousness that they feel physical discomfort upon hearing the infallible word of God as it pertains to wifely submission.

@ChudThomist You’re gonna have a tough time in religous life. The likelihood of you not being as orthodox nor as morally pure as you think you are is pretty high. If the Holy Spirit revealed to you your mental and voluntary errors you would be tempted to despair. At least that’s my guess.

The fun part about dating life as a Catholic is that, besides 99% of women de facto not being an option because they aren’t Catholic, the 1% of women that are Catholics are brainwashed by feminism almost as much.

@IMcmlviii69665 @TheWMReview Still doesn’t change the fact that they resisted the suppression of a Pope while still holding allegiance to the Holy See.

@DonkeyoftheWest @TheWMReview Pius VI reached an agreement with Catherine II (cf. Cardinal Joseph Hergenröther, History of the Church)

'They miserably deceive themselves who think they can adhere to the Roman See while resisting the Pontiff' – Fr Palmieri SJ Fr Domenico Palmieri SJ directly refutes the 'recognise and resist' ecclesiology of the Gallicans: wmreview.org/p/palmieri-xxx…

@CathRoser Only those who recognize him would know it but then again, I suppose someone could just google image it.

@DonkeyoftheWest Character limit and that’s why I have the picture of him there

"If one wishes to blame the post-council alone let it be done—it is not devoid of faults; but one ought not forget that it is the natural son of the Council, and that it has drawn those principles from it which, exasperating them, it has then based its most devastating contents"

It is entirely possible that someone, not a prelate and thus without coercive power for the common good, could cause more damage than good on this website through injudicious admonishment, especially if that person has been guilty of the same sin as St Thomas notes.

@JoshuaTCharles 'Therefore one ought to forego fraternal correction, when we fear lest we may make a man worse.' Summa II-II, 33, art. 6. newadvent.org/summa/3033.htm

Precisely. This isn’t difficult or complicated, and it applies to all sins—including the sins many modern women prefer to not be corrected on.

@timotheeology @HarrisonHSmith He was a great sleuth and intrepid defender of the truth. When he got married to the African he also was investigating corruption in the African church if I remember, which is always dangerous.

Thinking of @HarrisonHSmith's "Israel may murder Charlie soon" tweet from August 13 of last year, I just recalled George Neumayr's time-stamped, self-prognosticated Twitter murder in early 2023: God rest GN's soul.

@hdpayens Well it predates even James instructions as Jesus Himself sent them with oil to heal: Mark 6:13

The assumption is straightforward: Extreme Unction was a medieval invention designed to replace physical healing with a spiritual ritual for the dying. Then you read Origen's Homilies on Leviticus, written around 240 AD. Long before any medieval council formalized the language, Origen is already explaining the Christian use of blessed oil to the early Church. He does not treat the anointing of the sick as a symbolic memorial or a temporary apostolic miracle that faded away. He ties it directly to the biblical command in James 5:14-15. Is anyone among you sick? Let him call the presbyters, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil. Origen identifies this anointing as involving both bodily healing and the forgiveness of sins, but he makes a careful distinction. He calls the physical healing a "lesser healing" in contrast to the "greater healing" of the soul through the remission of sins. This shatters the timeline. The early Church was not waiting until the Middle Ages to cope with the loss of physical healing. They understood the anointing exactly as James described: a sacrament ordered toward both body and soul, with the spiritual healing of sins as the greater gift. The presbyters did not merely pray for recovery. They administered an active, objective instrument of grace that brought bodily healing while forgiving sins through the Lord's command. Why does the earliest Christian witness treat James 5 as a normative Church practice rather than a temporary gift that expired?

@chrisdcath @SteveSkojec @jdflynn Okay then, peace out

@DonkeyoftheWest @SteveSkojec @jdflynn Yea im intentionally not engaging the point cause it doesnt neatly apply nor outright defeat my point. When two people are talking past each other this much, theres no point in engaging cause it will be fruitless.

Modesty is a virtue, not a dress code. It can develop within a person but not be imposed upon them.

@chrisdcath @SteveSkojec @jdflynn Or at least that’s what I remember from years ago 😂

@chrisdcath @SteveSkojec @jdflynn I think you’re missing the point. St Thomas notes that law is the for the masses and takes into consideration those who are weak in virtue. The virtuous need no law, while the weak would be overcome if everything was legislated. Belongs to religion to encourage them