Steve bannon on 60 minutes

[Nihilo]

You're working so hard! I'm impressed.

Gaslighting! The icing on your passive aggressive cake of censored. At least we know now that we're all at the end of your charade. You can stop now.

It's easily found online.



You're going to do what you want, all I can do is accidentally stick my foot out when you run past with your fingers in your ears. :chuckle:

Of course you don't have to listen to me, but I haven't given you any teaching unique to me. The three pillars I gave you aren't mine - you'll find them in Catholic teaching - if you want to look for them. Google them, if you don't believe me. The bishops are the teaching magisterium of the Church. The Pope is the ultimate magisterial authority, but he's only first among the bishops. Google that too if you'd like.

The CCC is helpful. But Catholicism didn't start there and it doesn't end there.

Actually it does end there, since that was the point, when Pope St. John Paul ordered it made. Vatican II needed to be verbally integrated together with the infallible teachings on matters of faith and morals that the Church's magisterium has always taught, and she did that, and she's published it, in many languages, in the Catechism. It's the authoritative verbal expression of the one Catholic faith for the new millennium. And if you believe it, then you know that the one Catholic faith, is the one Christian faith, the same faith that started way back in Matthew 16:16 (KJV), and continued to Mt28:6(KJV)-Mk16:6(KJV)-Lk24:6(KJV), and now to today, in the Catechism, which is available in its entirety online, and can be had in print brand new, for around ten US dollars. It's the teachers edition, explicitly addressed, by Pope St. John Paul, to all the other Catholic bishops in full communion with him.

I hope you do read that letter on Americanism, and the history of the heresy of Americanism. It's interesting.

I'll check it out. And I'll be reading it in the full light of the Catechism.

 

[Nihilo]

I don't see anywhere where the Pope corrected the bishops' statement. He certainly has the authority to do so if necessary.

I know. It's one of the things I love about the Church, is her unambiguous hierarchical structure. Similar to marriage, but not the same.

 

[annabenedetti]

Gaslighting! The icing on your passive aggressive cake of censored. At least we know now that we're all at the end of your charade. You can stop now.

Why stop being myself? So many expectations and judgments of me, so little time...

Actually it does end there, since that was the point, when Pope St. John Paul ordered it made.

No it doesn't, since a pope can come along 500 years from now and make a new pronouncement which could nullify previous teaching.

Vatican II needed to be

There are a lot of traditionalist Catholics who would disagree vehemently with you.

now to today, in the Catechism, which is available in its entirety online, and can be had in print brand new, for around ten US dollars.

I've had my copy for many years, and I've read it from cover to cover.

 

[Nihilo]

Why stop being myself? So many expectations and judgments of me, so little time...

And why shouldn't we be able to say what you yourself are? Why should that be a crime?

'Not necessarily meaning you, understand.

No it doesn't, since a pope can come along 500 years from now and make a new pronouncement which could nullify previous teaching.

"Nullify?" 'You sure about that word?

There are a lot of traditionalist Catholics who would disagree vehemently with you.

Are those the ones who don't submit to the Church's magisterium, but instead hold their own views higher than the actual magisterium's teachings? Because who cares what they think? And even if you do, you shouldn't heed them.

I've had my copy for many years, and I've read it from cover to cover.

The Church's teaching on sin, on providence, and on what happens after death are some of my favorites, but the entire museum worth of paintings that it paints with words, is ultimately what's convinced me that the Catholic faith is the Christian^TM faith that we read about in the Bible, and in the encyclopedias and secular history books. HE IS RISEN, and the CCC is what He wants us to know today.

 

[annabenedetti]

And why shouldn't we be able to say what you yourself are? Why should that be a crime?

And where did I tell you you couldn't, or say it was a "crime?" Such a mighty and dramatic straw man you build.

I've indulged you in your whimsy all the way through, never constraining you. :chuckle:

"Nullify?" 'You sure about that word?

You can use one you like better. While it's never happened that a pope has changed an article of faith, I wouldn't be surprised, for example, to see that some hundreds of years down the road we'll see married priests or women priests. That's a hypothetical, but also not outside the realm of possibility, and in the case of women priests it would indeed be a break in Tradition. There's some precedence for married priests, and married Anglican priests have converted into the Catholic priesthood, but it's not the rule.

Are those the ones who don't submit to the Church's magisterium, but instead hold their own views higher than the actual magisterium's teachings? Because who cares what they think? And even if you do, you shouldn't heed them.

Some of them don't, some see the pope as an anti-pope, some see VII as the evil work of satan in the church, some don't see the Novus Ordo as legitimate or its Consecration as valid. But just as rebellious are those who hold their own individualistic ideas about Catholicism, rejecting what the teaching magisterium of the Pope and the bishops instruct them in favor of their own personal interpretation of the CCC. It's a similar mindset.

 

[annabenedetti]

Quite by chance, following a link in another thread, I came across this, written by Catholic lawyer and professor of law Amy Coney Barrett, who's currently the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals nominee:

Thus far we have been talking about the behavior of orthodoxCatholics in capital cases. But when people make sociological claimsabout who is a Catholic, or what Catholics think and do, they do notconfine their attention to the orthodox. One often reads in the popularpress about how many Catholics dissent from the Church's teachingabout contraception, abortion, divorce, homosexuality, or the ordinationof women." Some Catholics draw a more general conclusion fromthese particulars-that the Church's teaching is advisory rather thanauthoritative. Members are well-advised to consider it, but in the endthey are free to accept or reject it. This attitude about teaching is linkedto another about membership-that it is a matter of voluntary association. An individual is a Catholic in good standing if he says so. Theseattitudes about teaching and membership conflict with the Church's traditional understanding of itself, but they fit well with the American wayof thinking about religion as a free and democratic kind of enterprise.Envisioning Catholicism in this way severs the link between Churchmembership and belief about the death penalty...





Which ties in well with an examination of Americanism in which one sees oneself free to discard papal teaching if it doesn't fit with the American political conservative worldview - one in which Catholic teaching often doesn't find a good fit. Of course, one can deride the Pope, ignore the bishops, and continue on a highly individualistic path of cafeteria Catholicism which ends up being more Protestant in nature than Catholic, sure. It happens all the time.

 

[Nihilo]

And where did I tell you you couldn't, or say it was a "crime?" Such a mighty and dramatic straw man you build.

You know exactly what I was talking about. This is another massive passive aggressive response from you.

I've indulged you in your whimsy all the way through, never constraining you.

To your credit, in all honesty. Not everybody---and I mean, almost nobody---can perceive such professional grade and superior quality passive aggression. It evokes within such an unaware negativity and stress, and that can lead to anger, but it is constantly misplaced, due to the professional grade, superior quality of the passive aggression; in that, it is undetected because it is undetectable. That's part of the nature of this type of passive aggression. The part of it when wielded by a perceptive and insightful aggressor that makes it even more effective, is the precision. It evokes precisely stress in its unaware victim, like a guided missile, hitting on target with no collateral damage.

And so, I say to your credit in all honesty, because at least here we have an open and honest attempt to display passive aggression openly and honestly. Lee Atwater (President Geo. H.W. Bush's campaign manager) once said that professional wrestling was his favorite pastime, because it is so open about its dishonesty, and I appreciate that also.

You can use one you like better. While it's never happened that a pope has changed an article of faith, I wouldn't be surprised, for example, to see that some hundreds of years down the road we'll see married priests or women priests. That's a hypothetical, but also not outside the realm of possibility, and in the case of women priests it would indeed be a break in Tradition. There's some precedence for married priests, and married Anglican priests have converted into the Catholic priesthood, but it's not the rule.

Red herring, the married priests part. Pope St. Peter was married. It's not an infallible teaching on the matter of faith or morals; it's a current Church discipline, one that she can right now thankfully afford to do, following St. Paul's scriptural advice (1Co7:32-33KJV ; 1Co7:35KJV), but there may be coming a time where the bishops feel that they must abandon that discipline, if the demand for parish priests exceeds the current supply; it's an economic decision.

Some of them don't, some see the pope as an anti-pope, some see VII as the evil work of satan in the church, some don't see the Novus Ordo as legitimate or its Consecration as valid. But just as rebellious are those who hold their own individualistic ideas about Catholicism, rejecting what the teaching magisterium of the Pope and the bishops instruct them in favor of their own personal interpretation of the CCC. It's a similar mindset.

No it's not. It is very precise what is meant by a Catholic in full communion, one validly capable of celebrating the Eucharist. You must agree with the Church's infallible teachings in the matters of faith and morals (the CCC, and all of it), and have confessed any grave sins.

 

[Nihilo]

Quite by chance, following a link in another thread, I came across this, written by Catholic lawyer and professor of law Amy Coney Barrett, who's currently the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals nominee:

Thus far we have been talking about the behavior of orthodoxCatholics in capital cases. But when people make sociological claimsabout who is a Catholic, or what Catholics think and do, they do notconfine their attention to the orthodox. One often reads in the popularpress about how many Catholics dissent from the Church's teachingabout contraception, abortion, divorce, homosexuality, or the ordinationof women." Some Catholics draw a more general conclusion fromthese particulars-that the Church's teaching is advisory rather thanauthoritative. Members are well-advised to consider it, but in the endthey are free to accept or reject it. This attitude about teaching is linkedto another about membership-that it is a matter of voluntary association. An individual is a Catholic in good standing if he says so. Theseattitudes about teaching and membership conflict with the Church's traditional understanding of itself, but they fit well with the American wayof thinking about religion as a free and democratic kind of enterprise.Envisioning Catholicism in this way severs the link between Churchmembership and belief about the death penalty...

All of which is an excellent reason to, when wondering what the Catholic Church thinks on a matter of faith or morals, simply crack the Catechism of the Catholic Church, find the matter in the index, and read. It's all well and good to poll Catholics, but there is the party line, and then there's what individuals individually (and perhaps illicitly, technically) believe, teach, and do.

Which ties in well with an examination of Americanism in which one sees oneself free to discard papal teaching if it doesn't fit with the American political conservative worldview - one in which Catholic teaching often doesn't find a good fit. Of course, one can deride the Pope, ignore the bishops, and continue on a highly individualistic path of cafeteria Catholicism which ends up being more Protestant in nature than Catholic, sure. It happens all the time.

Also the American political leftist worldview; see for instance the Church's teachings on the moral matter of self defense and the right to keep and bear arms.

 

[annabenedetti]

All of which is an excellent reason to, when wondering what the Catholic Church thinks on a matter of faith or morals, simply crack the Catechism of the Catholic Church, find the matter in the index, and read. It's all well and good to poll Catholics, but there is the party line, and then there's what individuals individually (and perhaps illicitly, technically) believe, teach, and do.

If only you'd give the CCC's teaching on social justice more than a passing raspberry...

Also the American political leftist worldview; see for instance the Church's teachings on the moral matter of self defense and the right to keep and bear arms.

If only you'd give the CCC's teaching on social justice more than a passing raspberry...

 

[annabenedetti]

You know exactly what I was talking about. This is another massive passive aggressive response from you.

No, it's actually correcting your dishonesty. In a nice way.

To your credit, in all honesty.

Except you're not being honest.

Not everybody---and I mean, almost nobody---can perceive such professional grade and superior quality passive aggression. It evokes within such an unaware negativity and stress, and that can lead to anger, but it is constantly misplaced, due to the professional grade, superior quality of the passive aggression; in that, it is undetected because it is undetectable. That's part of the nature of this type of passive aggression. The part of it when wielded by a perceptive and insightful aggressor that makes it even more effective, is the precision. It evokes precisely stress in its unaware victim, like a guided missile, hitting on target with no collateral damage.

And so, I say to your credit in all honesty, because at least here we have an open and honest attempt to display passive aggression openly and honestly. Lee Atwater (President Geo. H.W. Bush's campaign manager) once said that professional wrestling was his favorite pastime, because it is so open about its dishonesty, and I appreciate that also.

I like how you slid in that sideways mention of dishonesty at the end there. Very smooth.

And I liked "massive passive" just because it sounds like the beginning of a good song and I especially liked "it is undetected because it is undetectable" because it made me chuckle. :chuckle:

Anyway, I hope now that you've gotten all that out you can move on with a lighter heart.

Red herring, the married priests part. Pope St. Peter was married. It's not an infallible teaching on the matter of faith or morals; it's a current Church discipline, one that she can right now thankfully afford to do, following St. Paul's scriptural advice (1Co7:32-33KJV ; 1Co7:35KJV), but there may be coming a time where the bishops feel that they must abandon that discipline, if the demand for parish priests exceeds the current supply; it's an economic decision.

Actually, it's not. I noted the distinction between faith and discipline, and the exceptions to what is a longstanding rule. And I'm noting now that you didn't even touch on the concept of women priests, which again as I noted would be a complete break with Tradition.

No it's not. It is very precise what is meant by a Catholic in full communion, one validly capable of celebrating the Eucharist. You must agree with the Church's infallible teachings in the matters of faith and morals (the CCC, and all of it), and have confessed any grave sins.

We're talking about being of one mind with the Church, not whether one is in a state of grace. It appears to me that you're comfortably of one mind with the Church only where it aligns with your American individualistic conservative political views.

 

[Nihilo]

And I'm noting now that you didn't even touch on the concept of women priests, which again as I noted would be a complete break with Tradition.

And Pope Francis himself has already in his reign examined the matter, and said, I believe his words were, "That door is shut." 'Seems that male clergy comes right from the horse's mouth. Horse being, Christ Himself. As the archbishop of Boston said recently, something like, "If it were my Church, I'd ordain women, but it's not my Church."

We're talking about being of one mind with the Church, not whether one is in a state of grace.

There is only one way to validly and licitly celebrate the Eucharist, and that is under the conditions I put forth, taken from the Catechism. Those who satisfy the conditions, and those only, are Catholics in full communion.

 

[The Barbarian]

What does God's quote-unquote "word," have to say, about what the Hebrews should do, to an alien, who commits sodomy or bestiality or some other gravely immoral sexual act?

The same thing He told them to do when an Israelite did it. If you're asking me if we are told to not punish immigrants equally with citizens, then no, He isn't telling you that. Read it again:

Leviticus 19:34 But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.

Treat them as you would your fellow citizens, God says. Do you agree?

The act that's the point of marriage, and the act whose divine point is procreation? When it's crassly and inflammatorily debased, like sodomy, or censored? "What does God want us to do to LGBs?"

God says that sin is between a man and God. I'll let God handle it as He says He will. Unless they involve someone who doesn't consent.

It's pretty difficult to show Jesus had any concerns about that kind of sin; He had a limited time in His ministry on Earth, so He focused on things that He felt were most important.

Maybe you should defer to His judgement?

 

[The Barbarian]

Do people have the right to do with their own stuff, what they want, or not? Do Americans have the right to not allow aliens to enter our territory, if we don't want to?

That's what seems to have you so worked up. Americans are pretty solidly in favor of letting DACA kids stay. The fact that it would cause a recession if we suddenly removed them all, is a secondary factor. It is, for most Americans a matter of justice and morality. These kids didn't ask to be brought here. They were just carried in without a say. Now that America is what they know, it's immoral to ship them out, quite apart from the fact that it would hurt America to do so.

Even many republicans get that, which is why there's no interest in Congress in forcing them out. It's why Trump backtracked; he'd like Congress to save him by letting them stay. That way he wouldn't anger the nazis and KKK by doing it himself.

 

[annabenedetti]

And Pope Francis himself has already in his reign examined the matter, and said, I believe his words were, "That door is shut." 'Seems that male clergy comes right from the horse's mouth. Horse being, Christ Himself. As the archbishop of Boston said recently, something like, "If it were my Church, I'd ordain women, but it's not my Church."

I specifically placed that hypothetical years into the future, not in current times. And if a pope 500 years from now agrees with Cardinal O'Malley, then the pope will have spoken. Correct?

There is only one way to validly and licitly celebrate the Eucharist, and that is under the conditions I put forth, taken from the Catechism. Those who satisfy the conditions, and those only, are Catholics in full communion.

Whether on accident or on purpose, you're entirely missing the point. This discussion isn't about being in communion with the church (as opposed to being excommunicated). This is about having a Catholic mindset. Not a Protestant, individualistic, American political and social conservative appreciation for the Catechism of the Catholic Church - when it agrees with one's Protestant, individualistic, American political and social conservative mindset.

 

[Nihilo]

The same thing He told them to do when an Israelite did it.

That's right, and what was that?

If you're asking me if we are told to not punish immigrants equally with citizens, then no, He isn't telling you that.

I wasn't saying or hinting at that.

Read it again:

Leviticus 19:34 But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.

Treat them as you would your fellow citizens, God says. Do you agree?

Do I agree that this is what the ancient Hebrews were taught? Of course. Does it pertain to our discussion of whether it's moral or immoral to deport people who are aren't Americans from America? Of course not.

And what, again, did God tell the ancient Hebrews to do to those who practice sodomy and other gravely immoral sexual acts? Do you agree with it?

God says that sin is between a man and God.

He said it was a sin between people in your favorite Hebrew scripture Leviticus.

I'll let God handle it as He says He will. Unless they involve someone who doesn't consent.

So you won't even agree with what your Church teaches and believes about the morality of such depraved acts then?

It's pretty difficult to show Jesus had any concerns about that kind of sin

It's actually extraordinarily easy to do, since His own Apostles taught of the gravely immoral character of it, in the Christian Bible, and His Church teaches the same thing even today.

; He had a limited time in His ministry on Earth, so He focused on things that He felt were most important.

And His Apostles too taught all that, and His Church teaches all that today also.

Maybe you should defer to His judgement?

I am.

 

[Nihilo]

That's what seems to have you so worked up. Americans are pretty solidly in favor of letting DACA kids stay. The fact that it would cause a recession if we suddenly removed them all, is a secondary factor. It is, for most Americans a matter of justice and morality. These kids didn't ask to be brought here. They were just carried in without a say. Now that America is what they know, it's immoral to ship them out, quite apart from the fact that it would hurt America to do so.

Even many republicans get that, which is why there's no interest in Congress in forcing them out. It's why Trump backtracked; he'd like Congress to save him by letting them stay. That way he wouldn't anger the nazis and KKK by doing it himself.

So do we have the right, or not? You never answered. Why not?

 

[Nihilo]

I specifically placed that hypothetical years into the future, not in current times. And if a pope 500 years from now agrees with Cardinal O'Malley, then the pope will have spoken. Correct?

If he agrees that the Church belongs to Jesus Christ, and not to himself or to the bishops then, then of course.

Whether on accident or on purpose, you're entirely missing the point. This discussion isn't about being in communion with the church (as opposed to being excommunicated).

Not being officially excommunicated, but being validly able to celebrate the Eucharist. Those who through disagreement with the Church's official teaching organ in matters of faith and morals, and/or through commission of grave sins without confession, are not Catholics in full communion with the Church.

This is about having a Catholic mindset.

And what is that bugaboo, specifically?

Not a Protestant, individualistic, American political and social conservative appreciation for the Catechism of the Catholic Church - when it agrees with one's Protestant, individualistic, American political and social conservative mindset.

I can only guess that you're referring to me; fear not, as I accept the whole of the Catechism word for word, no less and no more, as only a person of the Book can. But there is room between those words for the logic that implicitly underpins and founds them all together.

 

[annabenedetti]

The CCC is helpful. But Catholicism didn't start there and it doesn't end there.

Actually it does end there, since that was the point, when Pope St. John Paul ordered it made.

No it doesn't, since a pope can come along 500 years from now and make a new pronouncement which could nullify previous teaching.

And Pope Francis himself has already in his reign examined the matter, and said, I believe his words were, "That door is shut."

I specifically placed that hypothetical years into the future, not in current times. And if a pope 500 years from now agrees with Cardinal O'Malley, then the pope will have spoken. Correct?

If he agrees that the Church belongs to Jesus Christ, and not to himself or to the bishops then, then of course.

Then we agree that Catholicism didn't begin and doesn't end with the CCC, rather it rests on the three pillars of Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium.

 

[annabenedetti]

This is about having a Catholic mindset.

And what is that bugaboo, specifically?

Here's one way it can be summed up (although at the risk of oversimplification):

One cause of the bifurcation of Catholic viewpoints is the death of a collective Catholic mindset. Catholics no longer think like Catholics. They think like Republicans, Democrats, liberals, conservatives, socialists or secularists, but not as Catholics.



Take that as you will from a currently non-practicing Catholic, which makes all of this kind of funny and ironic. I'm defending a faith I grew up in but don't currently practice from someone who would like to be fully Catholic - but seemingly only on his terms. I say embrace all of it or don't embrace any of it, which is why I can't in good faith say I do that myself at this time.

I can only guess that you're referring to me; fear not, as I accept the whole of the Catechism word for word, no less and no more, as only a person of the Book can. But there is room between those words for the logic that implicitly underpins and founds them all together.

You don't have to guess. I said as much in my previous post, while allowing for the fact that I can't know your heart, only how I perceive your thinking from your spoken words. There isn't room for Americanism in a fully immersed Catholicism. I say that only to provide a jumping-off point for your own study and research, if you're interested.

 

[Nihilo]

Then we agree that Catholicism didn't begin and doesn't end with the CCC, rather it rests on the three pillars of Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium.

I never said that it began with the Catechism.

But your hypothetical 500 years hence, makes a great presumption. It wasn't until the 1500s that the Church first published her infallible teachings on matters of faith and morals, in the Roman Catechism. And then another 400+ years later we have today's Catechism of the Catholic Church. There's no reason to think that the Church will follow the same schedule going forward. In fact, there's great reason to believe that we're all done with revisions forever. The Second Vatican council dealt with the world in the wake of the Protestant Reformation from a vantage point unavailable in the 1500s, and IMO that's enough time to meld together her unchanging teachings in matters of faith and morals, with a post-Christendom and yet still Christian world.

We witness for example her steadfast support for the separation between Church and state, and the human right of religious liberty, while still proclaiming that HE IS RISEN, and all that stems from that historical fact.