Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
I mean is it ok to be bestial?  Is it ok to be incestuous?  Of course not, you jackass!
Well said, Clemens Maria.

I can't wrap my mind around those who think God loves sodomites... or that it is OK to be gay "as long as you do not act upon it". What is wrong with these people? We do not need to act upon our thoughts in order to fall into mortal sin. Sin can be of thought as well. If we have filthy minds, we are not the children of God; but of the Devil. True chastity requires us to have a clean and pure mind. It is not sufficient to just "not act upon the sinful thoughts".

Sodomy is definitely strongly condemned in the bible and many times! The effeminate will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Here is St. Peter Damian on the unnatural vice:


Quote
“In fact, this vice cannot in any way be compared to any others, because its enormity supersedes them all. Indeed, this vice causes the death of bodies and the destruction of souls. It pollutes the flesh, extinguishes the light of reason, and expels the Holy Ghost from His temple in the heart of man, introducing in His stead the Devil who is the instigator of lust.

"It steers the soul into error, banishes all truth from the deceived soul, sets traps for those who fall into it, and then caps the well to prevent those who fall in from getting out. It opens the gates of Hell and closes the doors of Heaven to them, turns a former citizen of the heavenly Jerusalem into an heir of the infernal Babylon, transforming him from a heavenly star into a straw for the eternal fire. It wrenches a member from the Church and plunges him into the voracious flames of the fiery Gehenna.

“This vice strives to tear down the walls of the heavenly motherland and rebuild those of the ruined Sodom. Indeed, it violates temperance, kills purity, stifles chastity, and cuts the head of virginity – which is irrecoverable – with the sword of a most infamous union. It infects everything, stains everything, pollutes everything; leaving nothing pure, nothing but filth, nothing clean. ‘All things are clean to the clean,’ as the Apostle says, ‘but to them that are defiled, and to unbelievers, nothing is clean; but both their mind and their conscience are defiled (Tit 1:15).

“This vice expels one from the choir of the ecclesiastical host and forces one to join the ranks of the possessed and those who work in league with the Devil. It separates the soul from God and links it with the devils. This most pestiferous Sodomite queen makes those who obey her tyrannical laws repugnant to men and hateful to God, forcing them into a nefarious war against God and obliging them to enlist in the ranks of the perverse spirit.

"It [this sin] separates him from the company of angels and deprives the soul of its nobility, imposing on the unfortunate soul the yoke of its own domination. It tears its henchmen from the arms of virtues and leaves them exposed as prey to the arrows of all the vices. It leaves one to be humiliated in the Church, condemned at court, defiled in secret, and dishonored in public. It gnaws at the person’s conscience like a worm and burns his flesh like fire …

“The miserable flesh burns with the fire of lust, the cold intelligence trembles under the rancor of misgivings, and the unfortunate man’s heart is overwhelmed by hellish chaos, subjecting him to countless pains of conscience as he is tortured in punishment.

"Yes, as soon as this most venomous serpent plunges its fangs into the unfortunate soul, it is immediately deprived of its senses and memory, the edge of the intelligence is dulled, he forgets God and even himself."
2
St. Michael does not have a "masculine soul."  In fact, angels do not "have" souls at all.  They are pure spirits (neither male nor female) each distinct in species.  They do not have a substantial soul, they are intellectual immaterial substances.  

I think angels are of male nature. There must be a reason why they have always taken a male form in the Bible.
3
General Discussion / Re: Where did St. Augustine say this?
« Last post by trad123 on Today at 12:20:23 AM »
You'll note that the first part of the quote is missing, and I'm looking for it, but I'm not sure I'll find it, but not to say it doesn't exist.

A large number of useless books utilize this quote, and I mean the first part of the quote in particular, and refer to secondary sources as their source, which themselves use secondary sources. It's absurd how modern scholarship prizes itself on listing one's sources, and I have to wade through a lot of nonsense.
5
General Discussion / Re: Where did St. Augustine say this?
« Last post by trad123 on Today at 12:12:02 AM »
The Fathers Of The Church, A New Translation, Volume 27 of the entire series, appears to be 127 volumes long

which is Volume 15 of the writings of St. Augustine in the series which cover his writings

https://archive.org/details/fathersofthechur009508mbp

Go to page 301

The Creed, Chapter 10


I have not been able to find this quote in the New Advent collection of St. Augustine's writings.
6
Would you hold this statement to be true?:  "In order for a man to be heterosexual he has to, at the very least, entertain lustful (though natural) thoughts towards another woman or an image of a woman."  
Heterosexual is a modernist category which I don’t accept.  Married men can partake of the marital act without sin.  Unmarried men cannot entertain lustful thoughts without sin.  
7
.
I understand.
Flat-earthers are up in arms against Bart Sibrel because he's not a flat-earther too.
But they're in awe of a tinfoil cowboy hat jokester who uses Sibrel's material, 
    because he posts his videos under a "flat" earth title (whether he is himself or not doesn't seem to matter).
I understand.
8
Based on your posts here you obviously think it is ok to be gay as long as you are chaste.  It’s not ok to be gay.  If someone is chaste and doesn’t lust after others, they are not gay.  They are normal.  In order for a man to be gay he has to at the very least entertain unnatural lustful thoughts towards another man or an image of a man.  That is not chaste.  By definition a gay man is not chaste.  Matthew should ban you for promoting ideas that are not compatible with the Catholic faith.  You are a passive aggressive destroyer of the faith.  Please go away and stop your foolishness.
Would you hold this statement to be true?:  "In order for a man to be heterosexual he has to, at the very least, entertain lustful (though natural) thoughts towards another woman or an image of a woman."  
9
SSPX Resistance News / Re: Phoenix chapel debt
« Last post by Geremia on Yesterday at 11:53:59 PM »
Is Father Patrick Crane still with OLOS?
no
10
General Discussion / Re: Pope Francis tells gay man "God made you like this"
« Last post by poche on Yesterday at 11:40:57 PM »
Based on your posts here you obviously think it is ok to be gay as long as you are chaste.  It’s not ok to be gay.  If someone is chaste and doesn’t lust after others, they are not gay.  They are normal.  In order for a man to be gay he has to at the very least entertain unnatural lustful thoughts towards another man or an image of a man.  That is not chaste.  By definition a gay man is not chaste.  Matthew should ban you for promoting ideas that are not compatible with the Catholic faith.  You are a passive aggressive destroyer of the faith.  Please go away and stop your foolishness.
An important part of chastity is to not lust after others.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10