www.tebe-trazim.com

Pusti samosažaljenje kameno, Duh Sveti će nastanit...srce tvoje ranjeno
Sada je 20 ožu 2019 04:03

Vrijeme na UTC [LJV]




Započni novu temu Odgovori  [ 278 post(ov)a ]  Idi na stranu Prethodni  1 ... 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28  Sljedeće
Autor Poruka
PostPostano: 14 pro 2018 16:16 
Odsutan
Korisnik s preko 1000 postova
Korisnik s preko 1000 postova
Avatar korisnika

Pridružen: 10 lip 2008 20:55
Postovi: 4052
Lokacija: Santa Fe (New Mexico)
Podijelio: 0 zahvala
Zahvaljeno je: 64 zahvala
Bonifacije napisao:
U svojo kucnoj biblioteci Fran26 sigurno ima puno vjerskih knjiga. Ali to nazalost nisu samo dobre vjerske knjige koje bih mogao svakome preporuciti bez straha da cu tako ugroziti njegovo spasenje. Medju dobrim vjerskim knjigama tu se nalazi i gomila lose i veoma opasne duhovne literature. To su oni prokleti moderni teolozi koji su velikim dijelom odgovorni za sadasnju krizu Katolicke crkve. Oni su radili u pripremnim komisijama Drugog vatikanskog sabora i tako ga odveli u pogresnom smjeru,a izvrsili su i pakleni utjecaj na postkoncilske pape. Navest cu samo nekoliko imena: Joseph Ratzinger,Karl Rahner, Hans Urs von Baltasar,Ives Congar... Posebno je opasan ovaj Baltasar koji je u Katolicku crkvu ubacio herezu o spasenju svih ljudi,a koju su,cine se,velikodusno prihvatili postkoncilski pape. I zato Fran,dok druge opominjes da ne citaju lose knjige,pripazi da sam ne cinis istu gresku koju kod drugih zelis ispraviti.


Hans Urs von Balthasar tvrdio je u svojim knjigama "Was diirfen wir hoffen" (Čemu se smijemo nadati) i "Kleiner Diskurs iiber die Holle" (Kratka rasprava o paklu), da se smijemo nadati kako je pakao prazan. On je čak govorio o nužnosti nade u to da nitko ne će biti osuđen. Danas se može čuti da vjerovanje u vječnu kaznu protuslovi Božjoj dobroti. Na to bih najprije želio primijetiti da se von Balthasar znao ponekada izražavati drastično i jednostrano. Potrebno je čitati cjelokupno njegovo djelo da bi se moglo te tekstove pravilno svrstati. Onako kako ja razumijem von Balthasara, on nam je htio reći: Postoje dvije zablude. S jedne srane Origenova zabluda koji nam obećaje "apokathastasis", što će reći: Sve će se dovesti u red, i na kraju sve će biti pomireno. Ideja apokatastaze ni po čemu i nigdje nije u Bibliji utemeljena. Takvo pretkazivanje protuslovi ozbiljnosti čovjekove slobode. Bog nas ne osvaja na prepad, on nas ne spašava protiv naše volje. S druge strane, prema von Balthasaru je i Augustin otišao korak predaleko, tvrdeći da je samo jedan dio čovječanstva predodređen za spasenje te da Bog nije predvidio spas za sve. Biblija nam ne daje pravo misliti tako, jer ona jasno veli: Bog hoće, Bog želi da se svi ljudi spase i dođu do spoznaje istine, Krist je umro za sve. Von Balthasar pokušava takoreći pronaći put u sredini između oba ekstrema. On veli: Mi ne možemo i ne smijemo tvrditi da će se svi spasiti. Ali smijemo gajiti nadu za sve, i to aktivnu nadu, povezujući se s Gospodinom u molitvi, ljubavi i trpljenju, budući da je on za sve htio umrijeti i za sve umro. Za Urs von Blathasara sveta Mala Terezija od Djeteta Isusa uzor je takva stava. Ona veli: Moje će se nebo sastojati u tome da na zemlji činim dobro, da se borim za duše. Sudjelovanje u Kristovim patnjama postaje kreativnom nadom. Dakle, ne radi se o pretkazivanju "da je pakao prazan", nego se radi o obliku duhovnosti su-hodnje s Kristovom voljom, naime, biti tu za sve. Uključiti se u Kristovu smrt, u Kristov angažman za sve molitvom i vlastitim svjedočanstvom. Staviti mu se jednostavno na raspolaganje da se nama posluži za sve ljude! Zacijelo, ne smijemo reći da je pakao prazan. Ali se s Kristom moramo trsiti i boriti za spas svih! Uostalom, i Biblija nam prikazuje pakao kao zbiljnost. Važno je da pakao ne poimamo kao praznu hipotezu, nego kao realnost koja se nas tiče. Joseph Ratzinger "U službi istine"



Make a really unreserved decision to accept every man in his total worth and to seek one’s own final joy in this affirmation of others. If one sees things in this way, then “heaven for all” does not mean something like an inducement to laziness in our ethical commitment but rather the heaviest demand upon all of us that one can imagine: the decision for a patience that absolutely never gives up but is prepared to wait infinitely long for the other.... If, on the basis of God’s universal goodness, I cannot write anyone off for all eternity, then my eternal misfortune could consist precisely in the fact that I myself simply do not find the patience to wait infinitely long for the “conversion of the other”. Hans-Jürgen Verweyen "Christologische Brennpunkte"



“We have to preserve alongside one another, without balancing them up, the principle of the power of God’s general will for salvation, the redemption of all men through Christ, the duty to hope for the salvation of all men and the principle of the real possibility of becoming eternally lost.” And as far as preaching the Gospel is concerned, it is necessary that, “along with clear emphasis on hell as the possibility of permanent hardening, there should also be fully equal stress on encouragement to hopeful and trusting surrender to God’s infinite mercy.” Karl Rahner "Sacramentum Mundi"


“I cannot help having the impression that Paul at least occasionally harbored the fervent hope that all men will find salvation, a view that was later propagated as doctrine under the name apokatastasis and was, as doctrine, condemned. Even today, however, it is permitted to maintain this hope, under the presupposition that the solidarity with mankind expressed in the hope is practiced, struggled with and suffered through by Christians in a way similar to that manifested in the lives of the apostles.” Joachim Gnilka "The biblical message of heaven and hell—liberation or enslavement"


We attempted to understand what part freedom plays in the work of redemption. For this it is not adequate if one focuses on freedom alone. One must investigate as well what grace can do and whether even for it there is an absolute limit. This we have already seen: grace must come to man. By its own power, it can, at best, come up to his door but never force its way inside. And further: it can come to him without his seeking it, without his desiring it. The question is whether it can complete its work without his cooperation. It seemed to us that this question had to be answered negatively. That is a weighty thing to say. For it obviously implies that God’s freedom, which we call omnipotence, meets with a limit in human freedom. Grace is the Spirit of God, who descends to the soul of man. It can find no abode there if it is not freely taken in. That is a hard truth. It implies— besides the aforementioned limit to divine omnipotence—the possibility, in principle, of excluding oneself from redemption and the kingdom of grace. It does not imply a limit to divine mercy. For even if we cannot close our minds to the fact that temporal death comes for countless men without their ever having looked eternity in the eye and without salvation’s ever having become a problem for them; that, furthermore, many men occupy themselves with salvation for a lifetime without responding to grace—we still do not know whether the decisive hour might not come for all of these somewhere in the next world, and faith can tell us that this is the case. All-merciful love can thus descend to everyone. We believe that it does so. And now, can we assume that there are souls that remain perpetually closed to such love? As a possibility in principle, this cannot be rejected. In reality, it can become infinitely improbable—precisely through what preparatory grace is capable of effecting in the soul. It can do no more than knock at the door, and there are souls that already open themselves to it upon hearing this unobtrusive call. Others allow it to go unheeded. Then it can steal its way into souls and begin to spread itself out there more and more. The greater the area becomes that grace thus occupies in an illegitimate way, the more improbable it becomes that the soul will remain closed to it. For now the soul already sees the world in the light of grace. It perceives the holy whenever it encounters this and feels itself attracted by it. Likewise, it notices the unholy and is repulsed by it; and everything else pales before these qualities. To this corresponds a tendency within itself to behave according to its own reason and no longer to that of nature or the evil one. If it follows this inner prompting, then it subjects itself implicitly to the rule of grace. It is possible that it will not do this. Then it has need of an activity of its own that is directed against the influence of grace. And this engaging of freedom implies a tension that increases proportionately the more that preparatory grace has spread itself through the soul. This defensive activity is based—like all free acts—on a foundation that differs in nature from itself, such as natural impulses that are still effective in the soul alongside of grace. Sv. Edith Stein "Welt und Person"




Bonifacije napisao:
Tko je taj nesretnik i besramnik koji se usudio u svojoj obijesti napasti tako vaznu dogmu katolicke vjere? Ja odgovaram: Joseph Ratzinger u svojoj poznatoj knjizi 'Uvod u krscanstvo'. Ali zar je moguce? Covjek koji je toliko godina bio prefekt Kongregacije za nauk vjere! Zar je papa bio potpuno slijep da je takvog heretika postavio za glavnog cuvara Vjere? Ali dobro. I sv.Augustin je u svojim mladim danima bio heretik,manihejac,a poslije je postao jedan od najvecih katolickih teologa koji je tako djelotvorno branio katolicku vjeru protiv brojnih hereza. Ali izmedju Augustina i Ratzingera postoji jedna bitna razlika,a razlika je u tome sto se Augustin iskreno obratio i odbacio svaku herezu,a Ratzinger se nikad nije obratio. Bio je i ostao heretik.Kako u mladim danima,tako i u starim. Prije izbora za papu i nakon izbora za papu. I onda nije nikakvo cudo da je takav teolog zamracene pameti bio protivnik objava Marije Valtorte.

Bonifacije napisao:
Kao sto sam rekao da je Joseph Ratzinger bio i ostao heretik...

Nisam zaboravio ove riječi, zato te još jednom upozoravam Bonifacije! Pripazi što pišeš, kao što sam spomenuo Billy-u, spomenuti ću i tebi. Pazi što pišeš jer neću oklijevati posegnuti za ignoriraj listom. S obzirom koliko sam ti do sada progledao kroz prste, kazna bi ti mogla biti drastična.

_________________
Passion or coincidence
Once prompted you to say
"Pride will tear us both apart"


Vrh
 Profil  
Citiraj  
PostPostano: 14 pro 2018 17:01 
Odsutan
Korisnik s više od 100 postova
Korisnik s više od 100 postova

Pridružen: 25 kol 2016 09:59
Postovi: 399
Lokacija: Dolina suza
Podijelio: 6 zahvala
Zahvaljeno je: 31 zahvala
Vjeroispovjest: katolik
Status: U braku
Boni stavi ti njega na listu bluda i onda ste kvit :D


Vrh
 Profil  
Citiraj  
PostPostano: 14 pro 2018 17:07 
Odsutan
Korisnik s više od 100 postova
Korisnik s više od 100 postova
Avatar korisnika

Pridružen: 16 ožu 2017 19:26
Postovi: 283
Podijelio: 2 zahvala
Zahvaljeno je: 25 zahvala
Vjeroispovjest: katolik
Status: Solo
Lol Boni ladno kaže da je Ratzinger heretik.

_________________

I am the one I've been waiting for.


Vrh
 Profil  
Citiraj  
PostPostano: 14 pro 2018 20:06 
Odsutan
Korisnik s preko 1000 postova
Korisnik s preko 1000 postova
Avatar korisnika

Pridružen: 10 lip 2008 20:55
Postovi: 4052
Lokacija: Santa Fe (New Mexico)
Podijelio: 0 zahvala
Zahvaljeno je: 64 zahvala
Billy napisao:
Vidim da si se jako potrudio da odgovoriš.

Ne baš. :l30:

Billy napisao:
Pišeš puno i uglavnom dosta toga nepotrebno i krivo zaključuješ po pitanju mene.

Moguće. Budući da te ne poznajem, sudim samo prema ovom šta pišeš.

Billy napisao:
Meni nabijaš na nos da ja navodim kao nauk Crkve nešto što nisam uopće naveo da je nauk Crkve.
Naveo sam nazovimo to svjetovnu definiciju oholosti sa Wikipedije.

Znači, ti si ponudio svjetovnu definiciju oholosti?! Zašto bi to učinio?! Nismo li ovde razgovarali o tome šta je oholost?! Valjda se podrazumijeva, koja definicija se traži. Koliko god da je ovo internet žabokrečina, nauk Katoličke Crkve je još uvijek poželjan.

Billy napisao:
Po tebi kad god papa govori je nepogrešiv, što nije točno.

Nije to baš tako Billy.


The Pope possesses full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Catholic Church, not merely in matters of faith and morals, but also in Church discipline and in the government of the Church.

The Pope is infallible when he speaks ex cathedra.

By virtue of Divine right, the bishops possess an ordinary power of government over their dioceses.

In the final decision on doctrines concerning faith and morals, the Catholic Church is infallible.

The primary object of the Infallibility is the formally revealed truths of Christian Doctrine concerning faith and morals.

The totality of the Bishops is infallible, when they, either assembled in general council or scattered over the earth propose a teaching of faith or morals as one to he held by all the faithful.

Ludwig Ott ""Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma"




Q.The supremacy of St. Peter once established, what necessarily follows?

A. That all the successors of St. Peter hold the same rank and power; because the form of government established by Christ in his Church, was not to last merely during one or two centuries, but always, like the Church until the consummation of the world.

Q. Who are the successors of St. Peter?

A. The bishops of Rome, in which capital of the world, St. Peter established his See and ended his life.



Sa posebnim naglaskom na ovo;


Q. Do all the faithful owe obedience to the bishop of Rome?

A. Yes; all are bound to obey him as the vicar of Jesus Christ, the chief bishop of the whole Christian Church.

Q. Is it a grievous sin to refuse submission to the sovereign Pontiff?

A. "Whoever oppose," says St. Paul, "the lawful authorities, oppose the order of the Almighty, and those who resist such authority bring condemnation on themselves."

Stephen Keenan "Doctrinal Catechism"



Pročitaj si ovaj dio, pročitaj ga stotinu puta ako ti malo teže ide. Evo stavim ti ga još jednom;


Q. Do all the faithful owe obedience to the bishop of Rome?

A. Yes; all are bound to obey him as the vicar of Jesus Christ, the chief bishop of the whole Christian Church.

Q. Is it a grievous sin to refuse submission to the sovereign Pontiff?

A. "Whoever oppose," says St. Paul, "the lawful authorities, oppose the order of the Almighty, and those who resist such authority bring condemnation on themselves."



Billy napisao:
Po čemu si to bolji od Beškera ili Bradavice? Po čemu si bolji od mene?

Poznajem teologiju i filozofiju tisuću puta bolje nego svi koje si nabrojio zajedno. Možda po tome?!

Billy napisao:
Možda si običan farizej i pismoznanc u jednom.

Vrlo moguće, no to ne mjenja činjenicu da teologiju i filozofiju poznajem tisuću puta bolje od tebe ili npr. Dinka Bradvice. :)

Billy napisao:
Bogu hvala imam preko 40 GB knjiga u digitalnom obliku (jer nisam baš sve stavio u oblak da dijelim), a i veliku kolekciju knjiga.

I ti pored 40 GB knjiga citiraš Jutarnji list i Wikipediju. Nije li to žalosno?! :l30:

Billy napisao:
Namjerno se nisam pozivao na ni jednu.

Aha! I ja sam ponekad pomalo "spor". To si ti namjerno učinio. Sad kužim. Lol. Slika Slika

Billy napisao:
Fran na tebe neću Beškerom ili Augustin nego Isusom:
On je put, istina i život.
Ne zaboravi kome se je Isus objavio.
To vrijedi i danas.

Lk 10, 21U taj isti čas uskliknu Isus u Duhu Svetom: "Slavim te, Oče, Gospodaru neba i zemlje, što si ovo sakrio od mudrih i umnih, a objavio malenima. Da, Oče! Tako se tebi svidjelo.

Nije prvi put da se pozivaš upravo na ove riječi. Kao što sam ti prvi put rekao, kažem ti i sada: da pretpostavim, ovime se svrstavaš među "malene". I kao što sam te prije pitao, pitam te sada: znaš tko su ti maleni koje Isus ovde spominje?!

Billy napisao:
Bliži se Božić. Ja planiram dobru ispovijed.

Lijepo je to čuti. Samo, nisam baš siguran kako će to ići kod tebe s obzirom da, citiram;

Billy napisao:
Imam mana ali oholost ne stanuje kod mene.

Šta ćeš reći na toj ispovijedi?! Nema oholosti nema grijeha. Nema grijeha ima laži.


1 Iv 1,8 Reknemo li da grijeha nemamo, sami sebe varamo i istine nema u nama.


Billy napisao:
Oprosti što sam te pogrdno nazvao.
Žao mi je.

Nemoj se time opterećivati Billy. Nisi mi ništa novo otkrio. Sve ja to znam, bez da si mi rekao. A bome, nije da si prvi koji mi je rekao, citiram;

Billy napisao:
Ja pretpostavljam da si ti zavrijedio nešto novo na ovom forumu.
To ti je počasna titula "govno od čovika", a dobivaš ju prvi i trajna je.
Jednako ko tvoja ignore lista.
Dakle govno meni nemoj odgovarati a ti i tvoje provokacije me ne zanimaju.

Billy napisao:
Ti si govno od čovika jer manipuliraš i zavodiš.

Kažem ti: nemoj se time opterećivat. Niti ti šta zamjeram, niti pa ti imam šta oprostit.

_________________
Passion or coincidence
Once prompted you to say
"Pride will tear us both apart"


Vrh
 Profil  
Citiraj  
PostPostano: 14 pro 2018 20:31 
Odsutan
Korisnik s više od 100 postova
Korisnik s više od 100 postova

Pridružen: 17 tra 2018 20:10
Postovi: 257
Podijelio: 2 zahvala
Zahvaljeno je: 15 zahvala
Vjeroispovjest: katolicka
Status: U vezi
Ne znam Fran da li se ti to salis ili ozbiljno mislis? Ako se se salis,mogu prihvatit salu.Ako ozbiljno govoris,onda ti moram reci da je i tebe Sotona zaveo. I to jako zaveo. Volio bih da mi tocno kazes sto sam krivo rekao u postovima koje si citirao pa da ti mogu dati adekvatan odgovor. Jer ja koliko god se trudio da u tim citiranim postovima vidim nesto krivo,ipak ne mogu vidjeti nista krivo. Ali pretpostavljam da ti je zasmetala ova recenica: 'Ratzinger je bio i ostao heretik'. Jer opet ponavljam ne vidim nista pogresno u svojim tekstovima koje si citirao. Volio bih stoga da mi ukazes na moju zabludu ako vec mislis da zabluda postoji. I samo te podsjecam da taj Ratzinger vise nije papa i da zato svatko moze slobodno smatrati da je heretik. Ili ti mislis da karizma nepogresivosti ostaje i nakon sto se covjek odrekne papinske sluzbe? Nisam ni ja zaboravio da je jedan opci sabor Katolicke crkve svecano proglasio: Honorio haeretico anathema! Znas li ti tko je bio taj Honorius haereticus? Ne sjecam se dobro,ali cini mi se da si i ti jedno vrijeme upravo na ovom forumu promicao misljenje ili bolje reci herezu da Bog nikog ne baca u pakao. Ispravi me ako grijesim.


Vrh
 Profil  
Citiraj  
PostPostano: 14 pro 2018 22:35 
Odsutan
Korisnik s preko 1000 postova
Korisnik s preko 1000 postova
Avatar korisnika

Pridružen: 01 ruj 2012 14:15
Postovi: 1175
Podijelio: 18 zahvala
Zahvaljeno je: 59 zahvala
Vjeroispovjest: katolik
Status: U braku
Fran26 napisao:
Billy napisao:
Vidim da si se jako potrudio da odgovoriš.

Ne baš. :l30:

Billy napisao:
Pišeš puno i uglavnom dosta toga nepotrebno i krivo zaključuješ po pitanju mene.

Moguće. Budući da te ne poznajem, sudim samo prema ovom šta pišeš.

Billy napisao:
Meni nabijaš na nos da ja navodim kao nauk Crkve nešto što nisam uopće naveo da je nauk Crkve.
Naveo sam nazovimo to svjetovnu definiciju oholosti sa Wikipedije.

Znači, ti si ponudio svjetovnu definiciju oholosti?! Zašto bi to učinio?! Nismo li ovde razgovarali o tome šta je oholost?! Valjda se podrazumijeva, koja definicija se traži. Koliko god da je ovo internet žabokrečina, nauk Katoličke Crkve je još uvijek poželjan.

Billy napisao:
Po tebi kad god papa govori je nepogrešiv, što nije točno.

Nije to baš tako Billy.


The Pope possesses full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Catholic Church, not merely in matters of faith and morals, but also in Church discipline and in the government of the Church.

The Pope is infallible when he speaks ex cathedra.

By virtue of Divine right, the bishops possess an ordinary power of government over their dioceses.

In the final decision on doctrines concerning faith and morals, the Catholic Church is infallible.

The primary object of the Infallibility is the formally revealed truths of Christian Doctrine concerning faith and morals.

The totality of the Bishops is infallible, when they, either assembled in general council or scattered over the earth propose a teaching of faith or morals as one to he held by all the faithful.

Ludwig Ott ""Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma"




Q.The supremacy of St. Peter once established, what necessarily follows?

A. That all the successors of St. Peter hold the same rank and power; because the form of government established by Christ in his Church, was not to last merely during one or two centuries, but always, like the Church until the consummation of the world.

Q. Who are the successors of St. Peter?

A. The bishops of Rome, in which capital of the world, St. Peter established his See and ended his life.



Sa posebnim naglaskom na ovo;


Q. Do all the faithful owe obedience to the bishop of Rome?

A. Yes; all are bound to obey him as the vicar of Jesus Christ, the chief bishop of the whole Christian Church.

Q. Is it a grievous sin to refuse submission to the sovereign Pontiff?

A. "Whoever oppose," says St. Paul, "the lawful authorities, oppose the order of the Almighty, and those who resist such authority bring condemnation on themselves."

Stephen Keenan "Doctrinal Catechism"



Pročitaj si ovaj dio, pročitaj ga stotinu puta ako ti malo teže ide. Evo stavim ti ga još jednom;


Q. Do all the faithful owe obedience to the bishop of Rome?

A. Yes; all are bound to obey him as the vicar of Jesus Christ, the chief bishop of the whole Christian Church.

Q. Is it a grievous sin to refuse submission to the sovereign Pontiff?

A. "Whoever oppose," says St. Paul, "the lawful authorities, oppose the order of the Almighty, and those who resist such authority bring condemnation on themselves."



Billy napisao:
Po čemu si to bolji od Beškera ili Bradavice? Po čemu si bolji od mene?

Poznajem teologiju i filozofiju tisuću puta bolje nego svi koje si nabrojio zajedno. Možda po tome?!

Billy napisao:
Možda si običan farizej i pismoznanc u jednom.

Vrlo moguće, no to ne mjenja činjenicu da teologiju i filozofiju poznajem tisuću puta bolje od tebe ili npr. Dinka Bradvice. :)

Billy napisao:
Bogu hvala imam preko 40 GB knjiga u digitalnom obliku (jer nisam baš sve stavio u oblak da dijelim), a i veliku kolekciju knjiga.

I ti pored 40 GB knjiga citiraš Jutarnji list i Wikipediju. Nije li to žalosno?! :l30:

Billy napisao:
Namjerno se nisam pozivao na ni jednu.

Aha! I ja sam ponekad pomalo "spor". To si ti namjerno učinio. Sad kužim. Lol. Slika Slika

Billy napisao:
Fran na tebe neću Beškerom ili Augustin nego Isusom:
On je put, istina i život.
Ne zaboravi kome se je Isus objavio.
To vrijedi i danas.

Lk 10, 21U taj isti čas uskliknu Isus u Duhu Svetom: "Slavim te, Oče, Gospodaru neba i zemlje, što si ovo sakrio od mudrih i umnih, a objavio malenima. Da, Oče! Tako se tebi svidjelo.

Nije prvi put da se pozivaš upravo na ove riječi. Kao što sam ti prvi put rekao, kažem ti i sada: da pretpostavim, ovime se svrstavaš među "malene". I kao što sam te prije pitao, pitam te sada: znaš tko su ti maleni koje Isus ovde spominje?!

Billy napisao:
Bliži se Božić. Ja planiram dobru ispovijed.

Lijepo je to čuti. Samo, nisam baš siguran kako će to ići kod tebe s obzirom da, citiram;

Billy napisao:
Imam mana ali oholost ne stanuje kod mene.

Šta ćeš reći na toj ispovijedi?! Nema oholosti nema grijeha. Nema grijeha ima laži.


1 Iv 1,8 Reknemo li da grijeha nemamo, sami sebe varamo i istine nema u nama.


Billy napisao:
Oprosti što sam te pogrdno nazvao.
Žao mi je.

Nemoj se time opterećivati Billy. Nisi mi ništa novo otkrio. Sve ja to znam, bez da si mi rekao. A bome, nije da si prvi koji mi je rekao, citiram;

Billy napisao:
Ja pretpostavljam da si ti zavrijedio nešto novo na ovom forumu.
To ti je počasna titula "govno od čovika", a dobivaš ju prvi i trajna je.
Jednako ko tvoja ignore lista.
Dakle govno meni nemoj odgovarati a ti i tvoje provokacije me ne zanimaju.

Billy napisao:
Ti si govno od čovika jer manipuliraš i zavodiš.

Kažem ti: nemoj se time opterećivat. Niti ti šta zamjeram, niti pa ti imam šta oprostit.


Ne brini ti za moju ispovijed.
Tebi još uvijek nije jasno što sam rekao pod oholost ne stanuje kod mene.
Oholost je izvor svakog grijeha. U jednoj knjizi jednom sam čitao da svatko od nas je osobito slab na neku vrstu grijeha.
Nekome je to psovka, nekome je to propust mise, može biti blud ili preljub. Za nijedan od tih grijeha nitko neće reći oholost, nego prostak itd.
Čovjek koji živi sveto i nema tih grijeha tada biva kušan od đavla po izvoru svih grijeha. Oholosti.
U Bibliji imaš sv. Pavla.
Nakon obraćenja nije griješio, a da se ne uzoholi imao je trn.
Ja sam htio kazati da sam slab, te daleko od oholosti jer sam pao puno prije.

Zašto u isti koš stavljaš nepogrešivost i poslušnost papi?
To su 2 različita pojma.
Što ako papa zabludi?
Ako ide protivno nauku?
Dozvoli pričest protestantima, rastavljenim?
Budeš slušao Isusa ili papu?
Ajde odgovori bez copy paste.

_________________
Čak i kad te netko posrami jer misli da ima puno pravo na to, glavu i koljena sagni jedino pred Božjom veličinom, nikad pred ljudskom.


Vrh
 Profil  
Citiraj  
PostPostano: 14 pro 2018 22:47 
Odsutan
Korisnik s preko 1000 postova
Korisnik s preko 1000 postova
Avatar korisnika

Pridružen: 01 ruj 2012 14:15
Postovi: 1175
Podijelio: 18 zahvala
Zahvaljeno je: 59 zahvala
Vjeroispovjest: katolik
Status: U braku
Stjepan Bakšić - Papina nepogrešivost

Link:
https://1drv.ms/b/s!Aitxvg2kqC-irjOF3n7F4ZZXtjT5

_________________
Čak i kad te netko posrami jer misli da ima puno pravo na to, glavu i koljena sagni jedino pred Božjom veličinom, nikad pred ljudskom.


Vrh
 Profil  
Citiraj  
PostPostano: 14 pro 2018 22:56 
Odsutan
Korisnik s preko 1000 postova
Korisnik s preko 1000 postova
Avatar korisnika

Pridružen: 01 ruj 2012 14:15
Postovi: 1175
Podijelio: 18 zahvala
Zahvaljeno je: 59 zahvala
Vjeroispovjest: katolik
Status: U braku
Zanimljiv članak, nova dogma Pape Franje:
Papina pogrešivost.

Under Francis, there’s a new dogma: Papal fallibility

https://cruxnow.com/church/2015/07/13/under-francis-theres-a-new-dogma-papal-fallibility/

Nije autor ni Bešker ni Bradavica.

_________________
Čak i kad te netko posrami jer misli da ima puno pravo na to, glavu i koljena sagni jedino pred Božjom veličinom, nikad pred ljudskom.


Vrh
 Profil  
Citiraj  
PostPostano: 15 pro 2018 19:36 
Odsutan
Korisnik s preko 1000 postova
Korisnik s preko 1000 postova
Avatar korisnika

Pridružen: 10 lip 2008 20:55
Postovi: 4052
Lokacija: Santa Fe (New Mexico)
Podijelio: 0 zahvala
Zahvaljeno je: 64 zahvala
Dopusti Billy da prvo kratko odgovorim Bonifaciju pa se onda osvrnem na ovo šta si pisao.


Bonifacije napisao:
Ne znam Fran da li se ti to salis ili ozbiljno mislis? Ako se se salis,mogu prihvatit salu.Ako ozbiljno govoris,onda ti moram reci da je i tebe Sotona zaveo. I to jako zaveo. Volio bih da mi tocno kazes sto sam krivo rekao u postovima koje si citirao pa da ti mogu dati adekvatan odgovor. Jer ja koliko god se trudio da u tim citiranim postovima vidim nesto krivo,ipak ne mogu vidjeti nista krivo. Ali pretpostavljam da ti je zasmetala ova recenica: 'Ratzinger je bio i ostao heretik'. Jer opet ponavljam ne vidim nista pogresno u svojim tekstovima koje si citirao. Volio bih stoga da mi ukazes na moju zabludu ako vec mislis da zabluda postoji. I samo te podsjecam da taj Ratzinger vise nije papa i da zato svatko moze slobodno smatrati da je heretik. Ili ti mislis da karizma nepogresivosti ostaje i nakon sto se covjek odrekne papinske sluzbe? Nisam ni ja zaboravio da je jedan opci sabor Katolicke crkve svecano proglasio: Honorio haeretico anathema! Znas li ti tko je bio taj Honorius haereticus? Ne sjecam se dobro,ali cini mi se da si i ti jedno vrijeme upravo na ovom forumu promicao misljenje ili bolje reci herezu da Bog nikog ne baca u pakao. Ispravi me ako grijesim.


Bonifacije: ignoriraj lista od 15.12.2018. do 15.12.2019.


Ažuriraj ignoriraj listu...

Ažuriranje u tijeku......

Ažuriranje završeno.


Bonifacije: ignoriraj lista od 15.12.2018. do 15.12.2019.
Filomena: ignoriraj lista od 24.4.2013. do 24.4.2023.
Prancing Commy: ignoriraj lista od 23.1.2013. do 23.1.2063.




Billy napisao:
Ne brini ti za moju ispovijed.

Ne brinem. Kako ćeš se ti ispovijedit, kada i šta ćeš reći, to su stvarno ni moje brige, niti pa me zanima. Zbunilo me ovo šta si napisao, citiram;


Billy napisao:
Imam mana ali oholost ne stanuje kod mene.

Toma kaže;


Whether pride is the first sin of all?

Objection 1. It would seem that pride is not the first sin of all. For the first is maintained in all that follows. Now pride does not accompany all sins, nor is it the origin of all: for Augustine says (De Nat. et Grat. xx) that many things are done "amiss which are not done with pride." Therefore pride is not the first sin of all.

Objection 2. Further, it is written (Sirach 10:14) that the "beginning of . . . pride is to fall off from God." Therefore falling away from God precedes pride.

Objection 3. Further, the order of sins would seem to be according to the order of virtues. Now, not humility but faith is the first of all virtues. Therefore pride is not the first sin of all.

Objection 4. Further, it is written (2 Timothy 3:13): "Evil men and seducers shall grow worse and worse"; so that apparently man's beginning of wickedness is not the greatest of sins. But pride is the greatest of sins as stated in the foregoing Article. Therefore pride is not the first sin.

Objection 5. Further, resemblance and pretense come after the reality. Now the Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 7) that "pride apes fortitude and daring." Therefore the vice of daring precedes the vice of pride.

On the contrary, It is written (Sirach 10:15): "Pride is the beginning of all sin."

I answer that, The first thing in every genus is that which is essential. Now it has been stated above (Article 6) that aversion from God, which is the formal complement of sin, belongs to pride essentially, and to other sins, consequently. Hence it is that pride fulfils the conditions of a first thing, and is "the beginning of all sins," as stated above (I-II:84:2), when we were treating of the causes of sin on the part of the aversion which is the chief part of sin.

Reply to Objection 1. Pride is said to be "the beginning of all sin," not as though every sin originated from pride, but because any kind of sin is naturally liable to arise from pride.

Reply to Objection 2. To fall off from God is said to be the beginning of pride, not as though it were a distinct sin from pride, but as being the first part of pride. For it has been said above (Article 5) that pride regards chiefly subjection to God which it scorns, and in consequence it scorns to be subject to a creature for God's sake.

Reply to Objection 3. There is no need for the order of virtues to be the same as that of vices. For vice is corruptive of virtue. Now that which is first to be generated is the last to be corrupted. Wherefore as faith is the first of virtues, so unbelief is the last of sins, to which sometimes man is led by other sins. Hence a gloss on Psalm 136:7, "Rase it, rase it, even to the foundation thereof," says that "by heaping vice upon vice a man will lapse into unbelief," and the Apostle says (1 Timothy 1:19) that "some rejecting a good conscience have made shipwreck concerning the faith."

Reply to Objection 4. Pride is said to be the most grievous of sins because that which gives sin its gravity is essential to pride. Hence pride is the cause of gravity in other sins. Accordingly previous to pride there may be certain less grievous sins that are committed through ignorance or weakness. But among the grievous sins the first is pride, as the cause whereby other sins are rendered more grievous. And as that which is the first in causing sins is the last in the withdrawal from sin, a gloss on Psalm 18:13, "I shall be cleansed from the greatest sin," says: "Namely from the sin of pride, which is the last in those who return to God, and the first in those who withdraw from God."

Reply to Objection 5. The Philosopher associates pride with feigned fortitude, not that it consists precisely in this, but because man thinks he is more likely to be uplifted before men, if he seem to be daring or brave. Sv. Toma Akvinski "Summa Theologiae"




I onda ti kažeš, citiram;


Billy napisao:
Bliži se Božić. Ja planiram dobru ispovijed.

Sad mi računica ne štima. Oholost ne stanuje kod tebe, prema tome, ni grijeh ne stanuje kod tebe. Pitanje glasi: po što ti onda ideš na ispovijed?! To me zbunilo. :l30:

Billy napisao:
Tebi još uvijek nije jasno što sam rekao pod oholost ne stanuje kod mene.
Oholost je izvor svakog grijeha. U jednoj knjizi jednom sam čitao da svatko od nas je osobito slab na neku vrstu grijeha.
Nekome je to psovka, nekome je to propust mise, može biti blud ili preljub. Za nijedan od tih grijeha nitko neće reći oholost, nego prostak itd.
Čovjek koji živi sveto i nema tih grijeha tada biva kušan od đavla po izvoru svih grijeha. Oholosti.
U Bibliji imaš sv. Pavla.
Nakon obraćenja nije griješio, a da se ne uzoholi imao je trn.
Ja sam htio kazati da sam slab, te daleko od oholosti jer sam pao puno prije.


Nije mi jasno, niti pa mi može biti jasno. Razmeš engleski?! Jesi razumio citirano od Tome šta kaže o oholosti?! Iz ovog šta pišeš, nisam baš siguran. Čovječe! Pa psovka, propust mise, blud ili preljub dolazi upravo od oholosti. Bez obzira što ljudi preljub nazivaju preljub a ne oholost. Oholost je uzrok tog preljuba jer si čovjek uzima za pravo ono šta mu ne pripada. Ukrasti žvakaću u dućanu jest krađa i to sitna krađica. Tu se slažemo. Ali ta krađa je proizašla iz oholosti jer si prisvojio nešto što ti ne pripada, bez obzira kako to malo bilo. Oholost ne stanuje kod tebe, ali se slažeš sa time da si grešan čovjek, jel?! Odakle onda ta grešnost dolazi?! Možeš na neki suvisli način objasnit?! :l30:


Billy napisao:
U Bibliji imaš sv. Pavla.
Nakon obraćenja nije griješio, a da se ne uzoholi imao je trn.


Kako znaš da Sv. Pavao nakon obraćenja nije griješio?!


Here he speaks of the remedy against pride. In regard to this he does three things. First, he mentions the remedy applied; secondly, he discloses his prayer to have the remedy removed (v. 8 ); thirdly, he tells the Lord’s answer giving the reason for the remedy applied (v. 9).

In regard to the first it should be noted that very often a wise physician procures and permits a lesser disease to come over a person in order to cure or avoid a greater one. Thus, to cure a spasm he procures a fever. This the Apostle shows was done to him by the physician of souls, our Lord Jesus Christ. For Christ, as the supreme physician of souls, in order to cure greater sins, permits them to fall into lesser, and even mortal sins. But among all the sins the gravest is pride, for just as charity is the root and beginning of the virtues, so pride is the root and beginning of all vices: “Pride is the beginning of all sin” (Sir. 10:15, Vulgate). This is made clear in the following way. Charity is called the root of all the virtues, because it unites one to God, who is the ultimate end. Hence, just as the end is the beginning of all actions to be performed, so charity is the beginning of all the virtues. But pride turns away from God, for pride is an inordinate desire for one’s own excellence. For if a person seeks some excellence under God, if he seeks it moderately and for a good end, it can be endured. But if it is not done with due order, he can even fall into other vices, such as ambition, avarice, vainglory and the like. Yet it is not, properly speaking, pride, unless a person seeks excellence without ordaining it to God. Therefore pride, properly called, separates from God and is the root of all vices and the worst of them. This is why God resists the proud, as it says in Jas. (4:6). Therefore, because the matter of this vice, that is, pride, is mainly found in things that are good, because its matter is something good, God sometimes permits his elect to be prevented by something on their part, e.g. infirmity or some other defect, and sometimes even mortal sin, from obtaining such a good, in order that they be so humbled on this account that they will not take pride in it, and that being thus humiliated, they may recognize that they cannot stand by their own powers. Hence it says in Rom. (8:28): “We know that in everything God works for good with those who love him,” not by reason of their sin, but by God’s providence.


Therefore, because the Apostle had good reason for glorying in the spiritual choice by which he was chosen by God: “He is a chosen instrument of mine” (Ac. 9:15), and in his knowledge of God’s secrets, because he says that he was caught up into the third heaven where he heard secret words, which it is not granted to man to utter, and in enduring evils because he had “far more imprisonments, with countless floggings, and often near death” (2 Cor. 11:23), and in his virginal integrity, because “I wish that all were as I myself am” (1 Cor. 7:7), and especially in the outstanding knowledge with which he shone and which especially puffs one up: for these reasons the Lord applied a remedy, lest he be lifted up with pride. And this is what he says: to keep me from being too elated by the abundance of revelations: “Do not exalt yourself through your soul’s counsel, lest your soul be torn in pieces like a bull” (Sir. 6:2); “Being exalted I have been humbled and troubled” (Ps. 88:15, Vulgate). Furthermore, to show that these revelations were made to him, he says: a thorn was given me, i.e., for my benefit and my humiliation: “You have lifted me up and set me as it were upon the wind” (Job 31:22); there was given, I say, to me a thorn tormenting my body with bodily weakness, that the soul might be healed. For it is said that he literally suffered a great deal from pain in the ileum [pelvis]. Or a thorn in the flesh, i.e., of concupiscence arising from my flesh, because he was troubled a great deal: “For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do. . . So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. . . So then, I of myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin” (Rom. 7:19, 21, 25). Hence, Augustine says that there existed in him movements of concupiscence which God’s grace, nevertheless, restrained.


That thorn, I say, is a messenger of Satan, i.e., a wicked angel, for it was an angel sent by God or permitted, but it was Satan’s because Satan’s intention is to subvert, but God’s is to humble and to render approved. Let the sinner beware, if the Apostle and vessel of election was not secure.


Now the Apostle was anxious to have this thorn removed and prayed that it might; hence he says: Three times I besought the Lord about this, that it should leave me. Here it should be noted a sick person, ignorant of the reason why a physician supplies a stinging plaster, asks him to remove it. But the physician, knowing its purpose, that is, for health, does not oblige him, caring more for his improvement. Similarly the Apostle, feeling that the sting was painful to him, sought the help of the unique physician to remove it. For he expressly and devoutly asked God three times to remove it, the thorn, from him: “We do not know what to do, but our eyes are upon you” (2 Chr. 20:12). Perhaps he asked this many times, but he asked him expressly and earnestly three times, or three times, namely, many times. For three is a perfect number. And of course it was right to ask, because “For he wounds, but he binds up” (Job 5:18); “Pray that you may not enter into temptation” (Lk. 22:46).


Then he states the Lord’s answer: but he, i.e., the Lord, said to me: My grace is sufficient for you. Here he does two things. First, he states the Lord’s answer; secondly, the reason for the answer (v. 9b).


He says therefore, I asked, but the Lord said to me, my grace is sufficient for you. As if to say: it is not necessary that this bodily weakness leave you, because it is not dangerous, for you will not be led into impatience, since my grace strengthens you; or that this weakness of concupiscence depart, because it will not lead you to sin, for my grace will protect you: “Justified by his grace as a gift” (Rom. 3:24). And of course, God’s grace is sufficient for avoiding evil, doing good, and attaining to eternal life: “By the grace of God I am what I am” (1 Cor. 15:10); “But the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom. 6:25).


But on the other hand it says in Jn. (15:16): “Whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you.” Therefore, Paul either asked discreetly and deserved to be heard, or indiscreetly and hence sinned. I answer that a man can speak of one and the same thing in two ways: in one way according to itself and the nature of things; in another way according to its relation to something else. Hence, it happens that something evil according to itself and to be avoided is in relation to something else able to be sought. Thus, a medicine, inasmuch as it is bitter should be avoided, yet, when it is considered in relation to health, a person seeks it. Therefore a thorn in the flesh according to itself is to be avoided as troublesome, but inasmuch as it is a means to virtue and an exercise of virtue, it should be desired. But because that secret of divine providence, namely, that it would turn out to his advantage, had not been revealed to him yet, the Apostle considered that in itself it was bad for him. But God who had ordained this to the good of his humility did not oblige him, as far as his wish was concerned; indeed, once he understood its purpose, the Apostle gloried in it, saying, I will all the more gladly boast of my weaknesses, that the power of Christ may rest upon [dwell in] me. And although he did not oblige him as to his wish, yet he heard him and does hear his saints to their advantage. Hence, Jerome says in the Letter to Paulinus: “The good Lord frequently does not grant what we wish, in order to bestow what we should prefer.”


Then he gives the reason for the Lord’s response when he says, for my power is made perfect in weakness [infirmity]. This is a remarkable expression: virtue is made perfect in infirmity; fire grows in water. But this can be understood in two ways, namely, materially and by way of occasion. If it is taken materially, the sense is this: infirmity is the material on which to exercise virtue; first, humility, as stated above; secondly, patience: “The testing of your faith produces steadfastness” (Jas. 1:3); thirdly, temperance, because hunger is weakened by infirmity and a person is made temperate. But if it is taken as an occasion, infirmity is the occasion for arriving at perfect virtue, because a man who knows that he is weak is more careful when resisting, and as a result of fighting and resisting more he is better exercised and, therefore, stronger. Hence it says in Jdg. (3:1) that the Lord was not willing to destroy all the inhabitants of the land, but preserved some in order that the children of Israel might be exercised by fighting against them. In the same way, Scipio also did not wish to destroy the city of Carthage, in order that the Romans, having external enemies, would not have internal enemies, against whom it is more painful to wage war than against outsiders, as he said.


Then the Apostle mentions the effect of this answer from the Lord, saying: I will all the more gladly boast of my weaknesses, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. He mentions two effects. One is glorying; hence he says: because my virtue is made perfect in infirmity, I will all the more gladly boast of my weaknesses, i.e., given to me for my profit; and this because it joins me closer to Christ: “But far be it from me to glory except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Gal. 6:14); “But he that is glorified in poverty, how much more in wealth?” (Sir. 10:34. Vulgate). The reason I will glory gladly is that the power of Christ may rest upon me [dwell in me], i.e., that through infirmity the grace of Christ may dwell and be made perfect in me: “He gives power to the faint, and to him who has no might he increases strength” (Is. 40:29).


The other effect is joy. Hence he says: For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses. In regard to this he does two things. First, he mentions the effect of joy; secondly, he assigns the reason for it (v. 10b).


He mentions the effect of joy and the matter of joy. He says therefore: because the power of Christ dwells in me in all tribulations, I am content, i.e., I am greatly pleased and take joy in the infirmities I mentioned: “Count it all joy, my brethren, when you meet various trials” (Jas. 1:2). The weaknesses in which he rejoices abundantly on account of Christ’s grace are then listed. First, those which come from an internal cause, namely, his infirmities; hence he says, in my weaknesses: “Their infirmities were multiplied: afterwards they made haste” (Ps. 16:5, Vulgate), namely, toward grace. Secondly, those that come from an external cause: first, as to the word, when he says, in insults: “Then they left the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonor for the name” (Ac. 15:4); then as to deed, and this either as to a lack of good things, when he says, in hardships, i.e., in the lack of things necessary and in the poverty by which he was pressed: “Contribute to the needs of the saints” (Rom. 12:13). Or as to experiencing evils inflicted, and this as to external things: “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake” (Matt. 5:10), when he says, in bodily persecutions, which we experience from place to place and everywhere, as well as to internal things, saying, in calamities, i.e., in anxieties of soul: “I am straitened on every side” (Dan. 13:22, Vulgate). But in all these things the material which makes for joy is that they are for Christ. As if to say: I am pleased because I suffer for Christ: “But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or a thief” (1 Pet. 4:15).


He assigns the reason for this joy, when he says, for when I am weak, then I am strong, i.e., when as a result of what is in me or as a result of persecutions, I fall into any of the aforesaid, God’s help is applied to me to strengthen me: “Your consolations cheer my soul” (Ps. 94:19); “Let the weak say, I am strong” (Jl. 3:10, Vulgate); “Though our outer nature is wasting away, our inner nature is being renewed every day” (2 Cor. 4:16). And in Ex. (1:12) it says that the more the Israelites were oppressed, the more they multiplied. Sv. Toma Akvinski "On the Second Epistle to the Corinthians"



Billy napisao:
Ja sam htio kazati da sam slab, te daleko od oholosti jer sam pao puno prije.

Na oholosti i zbog oholosti se prvo pada. To je ono kaj ti nemereš razmeti. Bez brige: nisi daleko od oholosti. Sama pomisao da si daleko od oholosti jest oholost par excellence. :roll:


Izr 16,18 Pred slomom ide oholost i pred padom uznositost.


Billy napisao:
Zašto u isti koš stavljaš nepogrešivost i poslušnost papi?
To su 2 različita pojma.


Doista, to su dva različita pojma. Uvijek se radilo o poslušnosti papi. Nije pitanje njegova nezabludivost, pitanje je poslušnost. To je ono kaj tebe muči. Poslušnost. Šta ti to brani da budeš poslušan papi?! Oholosti u tebi nema, to smo utvrdili. Šta je to onda u tebi da te tjera na neposluh papi?! Kaže Dujkan, citiram;

dujam napisao:
Neka me proglase jos jednom naivnim, no ne vidim kako samu sebe ne gledas kao dubre koje pljuje po papi? Onako, objektivno gledano, tesko sam dubre, ali bar ne pljujem po papi. Bar sam u tom manje dubre nego ti. Ja bar tvrdim da sam smece, koje vrijedi mnogo manje nego papa. Ti, nasuprot tome, tvrdis, mrtva ladna da vrijedis vise od pape, jer, dakle, tastina ti govori sto on treba radit.....Ja kuzim sto papa radi, ali ne kuzim sto bi trebao. Ja kuzim gdje me crkva kudi, ali ne znam kako to popravit. Vidis, draga moja, takva istina nas oslobada. Istina o meni; da sam jadan....



O tome se radi. Uvijek se i o tome radilo. Kaže svetac;


Tko si ti da prosuđuješ odluke svojega pretpostavljenog? — Ne uviđaš li da on ima više podataka od tebe na osnovi kojih sudi; više iskustva, bolje, razboritije i nepristranije savjetnike, a povrh svega milost, posebnu milost, stalešku milost, Božju svjetlost i pomoć? Sv. Josemaria Escriva "Put"



Sad ja tebe pitam Billy: tko si ti da prosuđuješ odluke svojega pretpostavljenog? U ovom slučaju pape. Možeš mi na to odgovoriti?! :l30:


Billy napisao:
Što ako papa zabludi?
Ako ide protivno nauku?
Dozvoli pričest protestantima, rastavljenim?

Kako će papa odlučiti tako bude. Papa odlučuje šta je nauk Crkve a šta nije. Papa odlučuje tko će se pričestiti a tko ne. Ne ti Billy, ne šaćica entuzijasta, ne Toma Blizanac i njegov brat Marko, nego papa. A vi ste ga dužni slušati.


Q. Who is the true and chief head of the Church?

A. Jesus Christ is the true head of the Church, who, being himself invisible, governs his Church from heaven in an invisible manner.

Q. Did Jesus Christ appoint any vicar on earth to govern his Church in quality of visible chief or head?

A. Yes: he appointed for that purpose St. Peter and his successors.

Q. The supremacy of St. Peter once established, what necessarily follows?

A. That all the successors of St. Peter hold the same rank and power; because the form of government established by Christ in his Church, was not to last merely during one or two centuries, but always, like the Church until the consummation of the world.


Q. Do all the faithful owe obedience to the bishop of Rome?

A. Yes; all are bound to obey him as the vicar of Jesus Christ, the chief bishop of the whole Christian Church.

Q. Is it a grievous sin to refuse submission to the sovereign Pontiff?

A. "Whoever oppose," says St. Paul, "the lawful authorities, oppose the order of the Almighty, and those who resist such authority bring condemnation on themselves."

Q. Is it necessary that all Christian Churches be in strict communion with the See of Rome?

A. So all the Fathers teach. St. Ireneus, lib iii, cap. 3, says: "The Roman Church is the principal, and hence all other Churches must be united to her." St. Cyprian, lib. i Epist. 8 – "There is only one God, one Christ, one Church, one chair of Peter, established by the Word of Christ himself." St. Jerom, Epist. to Pope Damasus – "I am attached to your chair, which is that of St. Peter, – I know that the Church is built upon that rock;" and again, "Whoever eats not the Lamb in that house, is profane; whoever takes not refuge in that ark, shall perish in the waters of the deluge; whoever is not with you, is against Jesus Christ; whoever gathereth not with you, scattereth abroad."

Stephen Keenan "Doctrinal Catechism"




Billy napisao:
Budeš slušao Isusa ili papu?

Zar su Isus i papa u sukobu pa da moram birati jednog između njih?!



Billy napisao:
Stjepan Bakšić - Papina nepogrešivost

Link:
https://1drv.ms/b/s!Aitxvg2kqC-irjOF3n7F4ZZXtjT5

Šta sa tim linkom?! Ne razmem. :l30:



Billy napisao:
Zanimljiv članak, nova dogma Pape Franje:
Papina pogrešivost.

Under Francis, there’s a new dogma: Papal fallibility

https://cruxnow.com/church/2015/07/13/u ... llibility/

Nije autor ni Bešker ni Bradavica.

Dobro kažeš: nije autor ni Bešker ni Bradavica. Možeš nam otkrit tko jest?!


Billy napisao:
Ajde odgovori bez copy paste.

Nisam ti ja baš od tih tipova koji pišu privatne mudrolije. Nemrem odgovoriti bez, kako ti to kažeš, copy paste.


p.s. Boksačkim rječnikom rečeno Billy, bolje bi ti bilo da si ostao ležati na podu. :)

_________________
Passion or coincidence
Once prompted you to say
"Pride will tear us both apart"


Zadnja izmjena: Fran26; 15 pro 2018 19:48; ukupno mijenjano 1 put/a.

Vrh
 Profil  
Citiraj  
PostPostano: 15 pro 2018 19:46 
Odsutan
Korisnik s više od 100 postova
Korisnik s više od 100 postova

Pridružen: 17 tra 2018 20:10
Postovi: 257
Podijelio: 2 zahvala
Zahvaljeno je: 15 zahvala
Vjeroispovjest: katolicka
Status: U vezi
Zasto sutis,Fran 26?Jos uvijek cekam da mi preciziras sto sam pogresno rekao u svojim postovima. Ne tvrdim da sam nepogresiv,ali ne vidim u cemu sam pogrijesio. A bit ce da sam tesko pogrijesio ako prijetis ignore listom. Nemoj da i ja tebi pocnem prijetiti vjecnim mukama u paklu. A vjeruj mi,Fran,iskustvo pakla mnogo je gore nego iskustvo ignore liste. Pored toliko velikih i svetih teologa ti citas Ratzingera i Rahnera. Sramota! Sjeti se sto sam ti rekao ovog ljeta:'Ako se mozda grijes na drva,sacuvaj te proklete knjige za sljedecu zimu da imas cime potpaliti vatru. I dok budes gledao kako te knjige gore u vatri razmisljaj kako autori tih knjiga gore u vatri pakla." Evo,zima je vec dosla i prilika je da se to ucini. Baci to smece od teolgije u vatru ako ne zelis zavrsiti u vatri pakla. Baci i Rahnera i Ratzingera i Baltasara. Sto ce ti oni ako imas Tomu Akvinskog i Augustina,Roberta Bellarmina i Suareza,Bonaventuru i sv.Anselma. Evo,i danas sam imao u rukama sasvim slucajno Uvod u krscanstvo od Ratzingera i ponovno sam procitao sto je rekao u vezi duse. Procitaj i ti ako treba pa mi iskreno reci da li bi jedan pravovjerni katolicki teolog tako govorio o jedno sredisnjoj istini katolicke vjere. A u to vrijeme bio je samo obicni svecenik i teolog i sigurno nije uzivao karizmu nepogresivosti niti je govorio ex cathedra. Zasto onda mislis da nije mogao krivo govoriti o vjeri. A tko krivo govori o vjeri,taj je valjda krivovjerac iliti heretik.


Vrh
 Profil  
Citiraj  
Prikaz prethodnih postova:  Sortiraj po  
Započni novu temu Odgovori  [ 278 post(ov)a ]  Idi na stranu Prethodni  1 ... 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28  Sljedeće

Vrijeme na UTC [LJV]


Tko je online

Nema registriranih korisnika pregledava forum i 1 gost


Ne možeš započinjati nove teme.
Ne možeš odgovarati na postove.
Ne možeš uređivati svoje postove.
Ne možeš izbrisati svoje postove.
Ne možeš postati privitke.

Traži prema:
Idi na:  
cron
Pokreće phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
phpbb.com.hr