'Marxist cultural vision': USCCB head José Gomez decries social justice movements

[Peace]

5 minutes ago, Matthew 10 42 said:

What are you talking about? Read about the final judgement. Jesus says when a poor person was thirsty and you gave him water you were giving it to Jesus himself. And when you didn't you were refusing him water. How am I reading it to literally?

Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.

Let's say that I see a homeless black person on my way home from work today, and he asks me for a cup of water.

Are you asserting that our Lord Jesus is literally the same human being as the homeless black person? Yes, or no?

If yes, then you blaspheme.

If no, then you have not expressed any valid ground on which to assert that "God is black", and your whole argument goes out the window.

3 minutes ago, Peace said:

I'm siding with Nate from Black Catholic Messenger over you. And the other Black Catholics I've met who think this is far from "woke  mumbo jumbo". I respect your opinion and your right to express it. But I'm listening to Gloria Purvis over you without hesitation. Peace be with you and God bless.

Side with whomever you please. It ain't no skin off my back.

15 minutes ago, Matthew 10 42 said:

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.

Yeah I think you are reading this verse too literally. Look, if I do something kind for a homeless person, I glorify God by that action. I do it for God in that sense. The verse does not mean that if I gave a glass of water to a homeless person, that I just handed a literal glass of water to Jesus himself. What, you think that Jesus is sitting around drinking 800,000 cups a water a day that were given to homeless people?

[Peace]

And for the record, I'm not against the idea that our Lord Jesus is black. I think its certainly possible, and I don't have any issue with anyone who holds that belief. I have statutes of Jesus in my place that are black.

What I do have an issue with is coming up with silly arguments and rationales for the assertion in the name of wokeness, and going to a website where there are only a small handful of black posters and stating "God is black" knowing full well that nobody there is gonna agree with the statement. What is the point of coming here and stating "God is black" to a bunch of non-black people exactly? Perhaps there is a valid reason for that, but I do not see one.

I also have an issue with the politicization of the Catholic faith, whether that be for the BLM movement or for the various neo-con groups who attempt to do the same.

[Matthew 10 42]

These are Jesus words on the final judgement and who will go to Heaven and who will go to hell. If you want to argue this isn't what he's saying go ahead. 

Matthew 25:31-40

“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, "I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

“The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.” 

“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’ Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

[Peace]

6 minutes ago, Matthew 10 42 said:

These are Jesus words on the final judgement and who will go to Heaven and who will go to hell. If you want to argue this isn't what he's saying go ahead.

I just did. You are reading the passage too literally! If you want to blaspheme and state that our Lord Jesus is literally the same human being as a homeless man on the street "go ahead".

Besides this is nonsense! Not even YOU believe what you are saying. When you see a homeless person on the street, do you say "Please take this money and buy a meal, My Lord and Savior Jesus Christ."  If the homeless person is literally Jesus that is how you should address him.

I can't believe we are still arguing over this foolishness.

No, actually, I can.

But seriously, Matthew 10 42, are you REALLY Catholic? Or are you just pretending to be Catholic so people will take you seriously?

I have serious difficulty believing that any Catholic, no matter how conservative, liberal, "woke" or whatever, would sit at his computer and straight-up blaspheme on a Catholic website.

Edited November 15, 2021 by Peace

[hakutaku]

46 minutes ago, Peace said:

I have serious difficulty believing that any Catholic, no matter how conservative, liberal, "woke" or whatever, would sit at his computer and straight-up blaspheme on a Catholic website.

Lol

Quote

Lastly, we should especially mention the great parable of the Last Judgement (cf. Mt 25:31-46), in which love becomes the criterion for the definitive decision about a human life's worth or lack thereof. Jesus identifies himself with those in need, with the hungry, the thirsty, the stranger, the naked, the sick and those in prison. “As you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me” (Mt 25:40). Love of God and love of neighbour have become one: in the least of the brethren we find Jesus himself, and in Jesus we find God.

--Benedict XVI

Those blasphemous popes.

[Peace]

2 minutes ago, hakutaku said:

Lol

--Benedict XVI

Those blasphemous popes.

The stupidity continues.

But then again, that should come as no surprise from you considering that "the fool has said in his heart, there is no God".

Learn what a "parable" is and then report back to us.

[Vernon]

Quote

"The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.” 

See, he says "brothers of mine," not that they were himself literally. It's a manner of speaking. If I become the beggar on the street do I then become Jesus himself? Of course not. But if I'm living in Christ, any good done to me is done to him.

[Matthew 10 42]

Peace what is your interpretation of Jesus words on the Final Judgement? It's straight forward what he's saying. What is your view on what he's saying? And are you saying Benedict is committing blasphemy with this quote?  "Lastly, we should especially mention the great parable of the Last Judgement (cf. Mt 25:31-46), in which love becomes the criterion for the definitive decision about a human life's worth or lack thereof. Jesus identifies himself with those in need, with the hungry, the thirsty, the stranger, the naked, the sick and those in prison. “As you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me” (Mt 25:40). Love of God and love of neighbour have become one: in the least of the brethren we find Jesus himself, and in Jesus we find God.

 

Also the article from Black Catholic Messenger quoted someone as saying "God is Black" I didn't come here and just state that.

[Vernon]

I hadn't heard of Gloria Pervis, so I looked her up and found an article and this question and her answer below. I find it extremely troublesome because, like the leftist media that isolates only cases where blacks have been killed and ignores those of whites, and that we do not get all the facts until AFTER the riot, she puts all these cases into the same basket. Many of those unarmed black men were resisting arrest and putting the lives of the officers in danger. She should have acknowledged that. She might also have acknowledged that many of the demonstrations were "riots" and should have distanced herself from the BLM thugs.

Quote

What has been your reaction to the nationwide demonstrations for racial justice that have happened in response to the police killing unarmed men and women of color? 

 Gloria Purvis – “I’m happy (about the demonstrations), because it brings to the forefront the national discussion that we should be having, and I’m hoping it encourages more and more Catholics to raise their voices. Number one, because we care about the dignity of the human person. And much like abortion that is the legal killing of a life in the womb, when you have these extrajudicial killings by police officers, it’s an abuse of the state power, it’s an abuse of policing. And so we as Catholics should raise our voices to say no – proper policing preserves life and brings people to the justice system where they can be fairly tried, examined, all those things. This short-circuits the justice system which we want to operate appropriately. 

 

[Peace]

25 minutes ago, Matthew 10 42 said:

Peace what is your interpretation of Jesus words on the Final Judgement? It's straight forward what he's saying. What is your view on what he's saying? And are you saying Benedict is committing blasphemy with this quote?  "Lastly, we should especially mention the great parable of the Last Judgement (cf. Mt 25:31-46), in which love becomes the criterion for the definitive decision about a human life's worth or lack thereof. Jesus identifies himself with those in need, with the hungry, the thirsty, the stranger, the naked, the sick and those in prison. “As you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me” (Mt 25:40). Love of God and love of neighbour have become one: in the least of the brethren we find Jesus himself, and in Jesus we find God.

"Love of God and love of neighbor have become one" is a succinct interpretation that I agree with, and no, there is nothing blasphemous about what the pope wrote.

But that's a far cry from insinuating that our Lord Jesus literally becomes another human being (millions of different human beings in this case).

25 minutes ago, Matthew 10 42 said:

Also the article from Black Catholic Messenger quoted someone as saying "God is Black" I didn't come here and just state that.

Yeah the woke LGBTQIA activist author of the original statement, who apparently wants to change traditional Catholic teaching on gender and sexual morality, is highly suspect too.

19 minutes ago, Vernon said:

I hadn't heard of Gloria Pervis, so I looked her up and found an article and this question and her answer below. I find it extremely troublesome because, like the leftist media that isolates only cases where blacks have been killed and ignores those of whites, and that we do not get all the facts until AFTER the riot, she puts all these cases into the same basket.

I don't think that is a fair conclusion from what she stated below. I see nothing in her statements that indicates that every instance of policy violence against an unarmed man was unjustified.

She might have said that somewhere else, but I do not see it in the statement that you quoted.

19 minutes ago, Vernon said:

Many of those unarmed black men were resisting arrest and putting the lives of the officers in danger. She should have acknowledged that. She might also have acknowledged that many of the demonstrations were "riots" and should have distanced herself from the BLM thugs.

I also find this to be untenable. She is not your puppet and you just get to pull her strings and so that she can say exactly what you want her to say, when you want her to say it. Just because she speaks to one aspect of the demonstrations does not mean that she is required to disavow every single aspect of the demonstrations.

If she had said something like "I am for the looting and the random acts of violence" then she would have been in the wrong, but she's not required to state "I disavow this, I disavow that" every time she speaks on the topic.

Hell, practically every subject in the world has a negative aspect to it. If I want to state my opinion concerning the Church's stance on various sexual issues, do I need to start it off each time by saying "I disavow the predator priests who have abused children"? This seems to be the same sort of standard that you are holding her to here, which is untenable to me.

[Matthew 10 42]

6 minutes ago, Peace said:

But that's a far cry from insinuating that our Lord Jesus literally becomes another human being (millions of different human beings in this case).

What are thoughts on this part: "Love of God and love of neighbour have become one: in the least of the brethren we find Jesus himself, and in Jesus we find God."

[Peace]

9 minutes ago, Matthew 10 42 said:

What are thoughts on this part: "Love of God and love of neighbour have become one: in the least of the brethren we find Jesus himself, and in Jesus we find God."

I find myself in my younger brother. That doesn't mean that I am literally the same human being as my younger brother.

[hakutaku]

56 minutes ago, Peace said:

But that's a far cry from insinuating that our Lord Jesus literally becomes another human being (millions of different human beings in this case).

Its exactly as ridiculous as saying bread and wine are literally Jesus, right?  I mean, how can he be millions of different breads?

Edited November 16, 2021 by hakutaku

[Vernon]

Quote

I also find this to be untenable. She is not your puppet and you just get to pull her strings and so that she can say exactly what you want her to say, when you want her to say it. Just because she speaks to one aspect of the demonstrations does not mean that she is required to disavow every single aspect of the demonstrations.

My problem is that she seems to accept as fact the liberal woke narrative that cops are out to get black people. Almost all the cases that evoked a demonstration or riot had an element of resistance of arrest.

She's been duped, IMHO. Here's a streetwise lady who see things clearly:

 

[Matthew 10 42]

Candace Owens went on and on that Ahmaud Arbery had what was coming to him. I doubt you know of Ahmaud and if you do you probably agree with her on that to. I'm guessing you will post some Larry Elder videos next.

[Peace]

15 minutes ago, hakutaku said:

Its exactly as ridiculous as saying bread and wine are literally Jesus, right?  I mean, how can he be millions of different breads?

The Catholic Church does not teach that bread and wine are literally Jesus, so that's irrelevant (as is typically the case with most things you write).

The fool has said in his heart, there is no God.

19 minutes ago, Vernon said:

My problem is that she seems to accept as fact the liberal woke narrative that cops are out to get black people. Almost all the cases that evoked a demonstration or riot had an element of resistance of arrest.

She's been duped, IMHO. Here's a streetwise lady who see things clearly:

Well I for one believe that there are systemic forms of racism within the US criminal justice system and that racism is fairly prevalent in US society, and I'm far from "woke".

I'm not "woke" but at the same time I am not naive with respect to the sad history of what has happened to black Americans in this country.

Where Purvis falls exactly - I have no idea. She could be too "woke" for me or perhaps you have your blinders on. I don't have an opinion on her nor you at this point. I'd need to see more of what she has written/said but I did not see anything in the particular statements that you quoted that caused me to feel that your conclusions were justified. But if there are other things that she has said/written that leads you to those conclusions, feel free to post them up. Perhaps I'll reach the same conclusion as you. I just don't see it based on what you posted.

[Vernon]

14 minutes ago, Matthew 10 42 said:

Candace Owens went on and on that Ahmaud Arbery had what was coming to him. I doubt you know of Ahmaud and if you do you probably agree with her on that to. I'm guessing you will post some Larry Elder videos next.

If you're a US citizen and if you vote, my guess is that you voted for Biden. Am I right?

Regarding Ahmaud Arbery, I remember that case. I'm interested in Candace Owens take on that one. From what I could see those men were acting outside the law and had no business chasing him and are responsible for his death. But if there are more facts I want to know about them. So what's wrong with Larry Elder? Is he another uppity black man who doesn't behave the way white liberals want?

[hakutaku]

18 minutes ago, Peace said:

The Catholic Church does not teach that bread and wine are literally Jesus, so that's irrelevant (as is typically the case with most things you write).

Oh... Oh no...  Yet another "good Catholic" asserting heresy to me?

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm#section2

Quote

In order to forestall at the very outset, the unworthy notion, that in the Eucharist we receive merely the Body and merely the Blood of Christ but not Christ in His entirety, the Council of Trent defined the Real Presence to be such as to include with Christ's Body and His Soul and Divinity as well... on the contrary, under the appearance of bread alone, as well as under the appearance of wine alone, we receive Christ whole and entire (cf. Council of Trent, Sess. XIII, can. iii)... 

...even before the actual division of the Species, Christ is present wholly and entirely in each particle of the still unbroken Host and in each drop of the collective contents of the Chalice.

 

Edited November 16, 2021 by hakutaku

[Vernon]

16 minutes ago, Peace said:

The Catholic Church does not teach that bread and wine are literally Jesus, so that's irrelevant (as is typically the case with most things you write).

The fool has said in his heart, there is no God.

Whoah, I was following and agreeing with almost everything you were saying, but please explain this one. I don't want to criticize it until I understand your meaning. What do you think the Church says regarding the bread and whine after consecration?

[Peace]

2 minutes ago, Vernon said:

Whoah, I was following and agreeing with almost everything you were saying, but please explain this one. I don't want to criticize it until I understand your meaning. What do you think the Church says regarding the bread and whine after consecration?

Friend, there is no bread and wine after consecration.

17 minutes ago, hakutaku said:

Oh... Oh no...  Yet another "good Catholic" asserting heresy to me?

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm#section2

 

You amuse me Satan. You really do. Study up some more on these matters, repent of your sins, and convert to the Catholic Faith. Then I will entertain a serious discussion with you.