(Quote) Sean-851370 said:
What does it mean to say that the gates of hell will not prevail? Perhaps that they won't prev...
(Quote) Sean-851370 said:
What does it mean to say that the gates of hell will not prevail? Perhaps that they won't prevail but that they could come very, very close to prevailing?
So are Leo XIII and Pius X wacky conspiracy theorists for fearing what was in store for the Church in the future? Even Paul VI himself supposedly said that the smoke of Satan has entered the Church. The real threat isn't outside the Church; it's inside the Church.
I don't doubt that a monk can be involved with Opus Dei. But are there Opus Dei monks? Two different things there.
You never really learned to think. Banks lie and steal from people. Most probably don't, but those at the top have very sketchy histories. Same with our own government. Same with the Church. People see all these entities as monolithic structures. That conception of the Church perhaps goes back to the days of the Enlightenment or the Reformation. But that conception does not correspond with reality. The Church is made up of people, some of whom have anything but noble intentions. That has been shown throughout history. Today is no different.
Sure, you've been dismissive of the abuse scandal. You point out the serious problem of abuse in schools as a means to direct attention away from that same problem in the Church. Vatican II has more than a share of problems with the teachings of the Church. The whole conception of a "pilgrim Church" is problematic, i.e., the notion that the Church doesn't have the truth and always searching for the truth. After Vatican II, the Church was cast adrift on a sea of uncertainty, where something could be true at one point in time but not in another. That's historicism and modernism. Will you ever see that? I doubt so, because I don't think you have the ability to look much past the face of things. There is a lot below the surface in everything.
Its gets so ridiculous. Someone who has demonstrated absolutely no ability to think accusing me of not being able to think.
For God's sake, if you have any rational proof any men at the top of banks with sketchy history, report therm to the authorities. You won't of course, because all you have are rumors from the conspiracy web sires you frequent and believe in.
Then even more ridiculous you destroy your own argument when you finally point out that it is individuals, not the entities themselves that can be problems. Here you admit that all these structures you despise are not monolithic. Yet every thing you post says exactly the opposite of that. The banks do this, the church does that. Do you even read the gibberish you write?
I specifically asked you if your were ranting and raving about the abuse going on in those other institutions where the level of abuse is much higher than it ever was in the Church. And you decide that I was being dismissive of the abuse in the Church. Sorry to disabuse you, I was being dismissive of you.
You rantings about Vatican IUI only prove that your are completely clueless about Vatican II.
For your less than informed mind, the Church was not cast adrift by anything coming out of Vatican II. It did by those who like you, were clueless what the Documents of VII said and started doing all kinds of things "in the spirit of Vatican II."
So now, who was the last good Pope? Come on, Sean tell us we would all like to know.