Hey Zig Forums

How to kill your credibility in ten seconds, by user

He didn't even mention Peter.

Wrong video. He was an ex-Jesuit 'priest', this is the video one where he speaks out specifically about being an ex-Jesuit Priest. Also i automatically lose all credibility once i question that denom, because not everyone has the legalistic religious authority to question it.

How to kill your credibility in ten seconds, by user

According to the Cornerstone exposé,[1] Rivera had a 'history of legal entanglements' including fraud, credit card theft, and writing bad checks. Warrants had been issued for his arrest in New Jersey and Florida, and he was wanted by the Spanish police for 'swindles and cheats'. While in the U.S. in 1967, he claimed to be collecting money for a Spanish college, which never received this money. The details of his religious claims changed over time. For example, in 1964 he claimed that he had left the Catholic Church in July 1952. Rivera later put the date at March 20, 1967 - an almost 15 year discrepancy. Despite this second claim of conversion from Catholicism in March 1967, Rivera was still promoting Catholicism in a newspaper interview of August that same year. Although supposedly placed involuntarily in the sanatorium where he claimed to have nearly been murdered in 1965 and held there for three months, he gave the date of his release as September 1967. This leaves a period of more than a year unaccounted for in Rivera's narrative.

The document exhibited by Rivera to prove his status as a Catholic priest was fraudulent. The Catholic Church denies his claim of having been a Jesuit priest, or another claim that he was a bishop. He had only one sister in London. She was not a nun, and she did not live in a convent, so the claim that his sister the nun nearly died in a convent in London was problematic. In an employment form dated 1963, Rivera stated he was married to Carmen Lydia Torres, and the couple had two children in the U.S. In his narrative, Rivera claimed that he was a priest living in Spain in 1963.

Cornerstone also questioned Rivera's claim to various degrees, including three doctorates (Th.D., D.D., and Ph.D.), reporting that his known chronology did not allow enough time to have completed these degrees. Rivera allegedly admitted that he had received these degrees from a non accredited entity sometimes referred to as a diploma mill located in the state of Colorado.

Besides, he's a catholic, "muh st. Peter" is always implied. Not even getting into the fact that Rome incorporated than subverted a couple hundred years after Christianity was already a thing.

Attached: 1449055117154.png (411x611, 100.07K)

...

- Yes, someone can believe false propostions about God or how to seek him and still be meaningfully said to be seeking God. Peter Kreeft gives among the standard arguments for the existence for God, the "argument from Bach," which is basically if there is no God, how could the sublime music of Bach exist. That might sound stupid, especially if you're not a musician, but the point is that even something like music points to transcendent qualities, and moves people to conversion more often than you might expect. For people who practice false religions, it might not avail them of salvation, but it that doesn't mean that they are not seeking after God (even if they misunderstand God), and in some cases they may even come to genuine conversion.

Also, as an aside, Buddhists do not worship a man Buddha. If they view him as just a man, they do not worship him, and those who do worhip the Buddha (or multiple Buddhas) view the Buddha as a divine figure, not just a man.

- There's nothing wrong with "mysticism." Have you read anything that St. Ignatius of Loyola wrote?

- If you want to split hairs, what Francis implied in that sentence was that God loves the "existence" of that person, which is an objective good even for the most evil person, not their homosexual inclinations or any homosexual acts.
- You are reading too much into words that were likely either off the cuff or not prepared with much thought. Again, he didn't say that God was unable to do everything, he said that God was not a magician with a magic wand able to do everything. He does not say that God cannot do everything, but not as a magician with a magic wand. The intent is not to deny God's omnipotence, but to affirm God's use of secondary causes. And in this quotation, I suspect that the English translation is not a great representation of the original Italian.

Did I ever say that the Church is a building? The Church is a body of people, those who belong to Christ throughout the world, and can be outside or inside. However, the Church is a visible, not hidden, body and it is hierarchical with different roles and positions of authority.

If you want to understand Catholics, instead of parsing cryptic newspaper quotes from Pope Francis, you would be better off reading the writings of the saints.