The statement that Luther was a heretic CAME FROM A POPE. SV's are not the pope; therefore, they have neither authority nor expertise in the matter.
That's irrelevant. Take the example of the faithful under Bishop Nestorius. When he started preaching heresy, they rejected him. "An emperor we have, but not a bishop." And that was before the official judgment came from Rome.
But it should not be surprising that the faithful as such are competent enough to discern heresy. After all, they are expected to know their Faith. If I know the Faith, I also know a deviation from the Faith. Though the lay faithful have no authority to legally declare someone a heretic before the Church, they can certainly point out that someone does not hold the Catholic faith. The Vatican-approved book Liberalism is a Sin by Fr. Felix Sarda y Salvany confirms this as well.
Quote:
The fact of the matter is that SV's have neither authority nor expertise to declare Pope Benedict XVI a heretic, and that settles the matter. Until SV's can demonstrate what authority they have to issue such proclamations, Catholics should turn a deaf ear to them, which is what 99.999% of Catholics do.
No, as I showed. You're avoiding the question. (If 99.9% of non-BLEEPS! turned a deaf ear to BLEEP!-ism, it would hardly have been necessary for the Remnant, Fatima Crusader, and Catholic Family News to unleash a deluge of articles attacking this position, don't you agree?)
You don't seriously contend that the SV position is held by more than a handful of people, do you? The overwhelming majority of people that have been baptized into the Catholic Faith haven't even heard of the SV theory, let alone espouse it. And the overwhelming majority of Catholics that assist at Mass, regardless of rite or New-vs-Old, reject SV'ism.
It is SV'ers who avoid the question: By whose authority do they proclaim that the post Pius XII popes are not popes? Are they members of the Magisterium that can proclaim these things with authority?
Quote:
Will you admit that you could be wrong and be adhering to an antipope?
Of course. If THE CHURCH tells me I am wrong, I will concede. Not until then.
Time is a bit short this weekend but I'd like to post a few important responses.
I apologize for the piecemeal approach but I don't think it will disturb the points we were discussing. I'd like to get a few of the basic challenges taken care of. I'll have to post them one at a time.
novusordowatch wrote:
Quote:
When you see Benedict XVI sincerely lamenting his modernism, please notify me. On a related note, I wonder if you would say all these things about "Cardinal" Mahony as well?
Here you go:
"The Liturgical Movement had in fact been attempting to overcome this reductionism, the product of an abstract sacramental theology, and to teach us to understand the Liturgy as a living network of tradition which had taken concrete form, which cannot be torn apart into little pieces, but has to be seen and experienced as a living whole. Anyone like myself, who was moved by this perception in the time of the Liturgical Movement on the eve of the Second Vatican Council, can only stand, deeply sorrowing, before the ruins of the very things they were concerned for." --Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, review of the book: The Organic Development of the Liturgy by Alcuin Reid ( OSB 2004. St. Michael's Abbey Press, Farnborough, England. 336 pp, cloth bound, ÂŁ20.95 ISBN 0 907077 43 9 )
No, I think in Fr. Ratzinger, and now in Benedict XVI, we have the quintessential modernist!
That may or may not be true, but St. Pius X warns about taking this accusation too far.
Quote:
Although they express their astonishment that We should number them amongst the enemies of the Church, no one will be reasonably surprised that We should do so, if, leaving out of account the internal disposition of the soul, of which God alone is the Judge, he considers their tenets, their manner of speech, and their action. Nor indeed would he be wrong in regarding them as the most pernicious of all the adversaries of the Church.
B16 may ultimately continue to objectively be an enemy of the Faith as I believe JPII was. But that still doesn't make him an anti-Pope.
In his book "On Being Christian," he says quite nonchalantly that members of other religions go to Heaven too, and we should not envy them simply because they have it easier than Catholics.
First, he was not Pope when he said that it wouldn't rule him out as Pope. And despite appeals to Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio of Paul IV (a problematic and circularly reasoned document from a failure of a Pope, that lacks the marks of infallibility, and in which by that applying to him, since by his own criteria he invalidly elevated his own nephew to the Cardinalate. Which "appears" to show that at one time he didn't believe his own document, which means he deviated from the faith, which throws him out of the Church and nullifies the document itself. )
John the 22nd obviously publicly manifested his un-Catholic belief that no one saw the beatific vision until the last judgement.
Second: I'd also have to see the context of Ratzinger's statement. I'd be surprised if there weren't some wiggly word in there like "mysterious" or "special" or "unknown to us". He and JPII are particularly good at avoiding taking a stand.
Nothing in there about the loss of grace transmitted through natural generation.
It's right in the first paragraph.
Quote:
"In the Genesis story that we are considering, still a further characteristic of sin is described.
Sin is not spoken of in general as an abstract POSSIBILITY BUT AS A DEED, AS THE SIN OF A PARTICULAR PERSON,
Adam, who stands
(1) at the origin of humankind...... AND........ (2) with whom the history of sin begins.
The account tells us that sin begets sin, and that therefore all the sins of history are interlinked."
"Origin of humankind" vs. "natural generation" two points along the same line. It's again, not a strong affirmation of what is plainly natural and supernatural reality but it's in no way a denial of that reality. It's a "new perspective." I know what he's talking about. I understand it. I can express it far more effectively than he can. I can't attribute malice towards him since the language he uses is perfect.
Take an example: Sins are interlinked. A man looks at pornography. He commits sin and is possibly guilty of a multitude of sins: the solitary vice, immodest looks and thoughts etc. etc. . But also, by his sin which seems to be isolated, he has compounded the sins of the pornographers, distributers and participants. He has contributed to their condemnation, by responding to their provocation, he has provoked them to continue and cooperated with their sin. They are now responsible for yet another person's sin by their participation and provocation. Sin begets sin. Adam's sin being the catalyst for the concupiscence that makes us tend
towards sin.
Quote:
Gerard wrote:
For many people, keeping an oath that goes against a major temptation can be very difficult. I've broken my baptismal promises many times. What is the weakness of a man with a strong intellect? Answer: Intellectual pride. Tantalizing new ideas that float between absolutes like a 9th or 11th chord would in music. There's something very appealing about mystery. Couple that with the high wall of faith that the Church demands we climb and you have a guarantee that the trip will be bumpy.
novusordowatch wrote:
Quote:
Now that's curious.
For other people breaking the oath against modernism had to do with pride; apparently for Fr. Ratzinger it was "weakness." Why? What is the reason you believe he was "weak" rather than proud?
Did you even read my answer? Look up. It says, "What is the weakness of a man with a strong intellect? Answer: Intellectual pride."
Now in order to respond to your question, I need to clarify something, are you equating pride with strength? Pride is a strength in someone's character? Or is it a weakness? Talk about curious.
Quote:
Could it have something to do with his claim to the papacy today?
Irrelevent to the discussion. Sheer speculation on your part based on your own misreading of what I stated. (I'm not saying that to rub your nose in it, I'm saying it to demonstrate what I believe to be the larger error in the SV position. A small mistake in the beginning leading to a large error down the road. )
Now, on the subject of the assertion: I thought he was a dissapointing and weak Cardinal and in the early days of his pontificate he's true to form. That is consistent and reasonable.
Quote:
If he was only weak, he would immediately have repented of his weakness and condemned modernism again.
So, if I understand you, it's only weak men who confess their sins and confront heresy. Was St. Peter weak when he was hanging upside down on the Cross? Or was he weak when he was not defending Christ and denying he knew him when confronted by a servant girl? Shall we pray to be given the weakness of martyrs if we find ourselves in a situation of persecution?
Quote:
No, we do not have a "weak" character here. We have a man of incredible pride. Ratzinger doesn't teach modernism out of weakness. He teaches it out of pride and conviction.
You've engaged in a disjunctive fallacy here. You must see that from my explanation above. You're saying Pride cannot be a weakness in a someone's character.
Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2005 2:44 am Post subject: Pope Benedict XVI
Let's see now...According to Our Lord's Word, we are to have a perfectly visible Pope until the End of Time...he may be a holy Pope, as we have had in the Past or a moral weakling as we have seen in the last few decades.
Now, according to our Catechism, the Pope is the Head of thr Church on Earth (i.e. the Church Militant)...But, just as Saint Peter, the First Pope appointed by God Himself to lead the Church and to feed His Lambs, so MUST Benedict XVI do ALSO, or he will be found to be DERELICT in his God-given DUTY. We have been told in the Bible that Peter (i.e. the reigning Pope...Saint Peter's successor) holds the KEYS to the Kingdom of Heaven...and NO ONE ELSE ON EARTH! What a crushing Responsibility!!!Therefore, Benedict XVI has been appointed the SPIRITUAL FATHER OF EACH AND EVERY SOUL ON EARTH..No matter what religion they practise or not...that has no bearing on the fact that he will be obliged, at the moment of his Death, to Render a STRICT ACCOUNT FOR EACH AND EVERY SOUL ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH! ...WHAT A DAUNTING THOUGHT!!!
Recently, the Holy Father went to visit his Jewish friends in the Synagogue in Cologne, Germany. As the Legitimate Successor of Saint Peter, he was DUTY-BOUND to bring the GOSPEL to those People in order to CONVERT them...Did he do it? ...That is the Big Question...If he did, that would be Good, and God would certainly be Pleased with his Servant because some (or many!)of those Immortal Souls would brought to the Knowledge and Salvation Promised to All who would believe in Him and be Baptized! If he did not mention Jesus Christ and His Gospel (as Saint Peter often did), then he sinned a sin of OMISSION. And this holds TRUE for all of the other Non-believers in the world...Muslims, Animists, etc. HIS BOUNDEN DUTY IS TO PREACH JESUS CHRIST CRUCIFIED...and not be dominated by Human Respect which is a sin. Any Pope Must Proclaim the TRUE Catholic Faith if he has any Intention /Hope of Saving his own Soul...as well as our own.
Since his vist to the Synagogue, there have, naturally, already been some of our Jewish friends who have passed on and met Jesus Christ, the Messiah, for their Particular Judgement..Some of them may feel cheated that No One ever told them about Jesus Christ and His Soul-Saving Catholic Church that He founded nearly 2000 ears ago in order to bring All Souls to Eternal Salvation...This is the LEAST we Catholics can expect from a FAITH-FULL Successor Of the Fisherman! Kyrie Eleison...
Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2005 7:38 am Post subject: Re: Ultra-traditionalist says pope should convert Jews
davidj wrote:
Eulogius wrote:
"Instead of leading their members to our Lord Jesus Christ, to Baptism and the confession of faith in his divinity, they refrain from this and so we consider these other religions as very dangerous," he told a news conference presenting a biography of Lefebvre.
Does anyone know about this new biography that Fr. Schmidberger was presenting? I thought we had a pretty comprehensive one written only a year or so ago,by Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, or is the same one?
To answer myself - it is the launch of the Italian translation, as retrieved from another thread:
"On the occasion of the Italian translation of the biography "Marcel Lefebvre" authored by Msgr. Bernard Tissier De Mallerais, a conference will be held in Rome near Hotel Columbus on Via della Conciliazione Saturday, November 19, 2005."
Joined: 05 Oct 2005 Posts: 58 Location: Florida, USA
Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2005 10:17 am Post subject:
DJR wrote:
You don't seriously contend that the SV position is held by more than a handful of people, do you? The overwhelming majority of people that have been baptized into the Catholic Faith haven't even heard of the SV theory, let alone espouse it. And the overwhelming majority of Catholics that assist at Mass, regardless of rite or New-vs-Old, reject SV'ism.
Last time I checked, truth wasn't determined by majority vote. How many "Catholics" reject traditionalism in general? Compared to the "official church," traditionalists are very, very few. The point is that it's irrelevant, and even somewhat telling, given that all traditionalists agree only a REMNANT will be left. (The newspaper bearing this title is not SV, after all.) If the facts lead to SVism (something prophesied by St. Nicholas of Flue, by the way), then it really doesn't matter how many people believe it.
Quote:
It is SV'ers who avoid the question: By whose authority do they proclaim that the post Pius XII popes are not popes? Are they members of the Magisterium that can proclaim these things with authority?
I don't avoid this question at all. I say your premise is flawed, and hence the question is faulty. Let me repeat my answer: it is not a matter of authority. We need no authority to point out facts. No SV claims to legally declare anything with any binding force before the whole Church. That is something only the proper authority could do. What we do is simply point to the facts and ask people to draw the necessary conclusions. By analogy, if you have witnessed a man commit murder, then you know he is a murderer and can act accordingly, even before the jury finds him guilty, or even if the jury acquits him.
Quote:
If THE CHURCH tells me I am wrong, I will concede. Not until then.
But that won't work here, since the very point at issue is whether what you recognize to be the Catholic Church is indeed the Catholic Church. Obviously, the modernists won't call each other's bluffs.
Joined: 05 Oct 2005 Posts: 58 Location: Florida, USA
Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2005 10:23 am Post subject:
Gerard wrote:
"The Liturgical Movement had in fact been attempting to overcome this reductionism, the product of an abstract sacramental theology, and to teach us to understand the Liturgy as a living network of tradition which had taken concrete form, which cannot be torn apart into little pieces, but has to be seen and experienced as a living whole. Anyone like myself, who was moved by this perception in the time of the Liturgical Movement on the eve of the Second Vatican Council, can only stand, deeply sorrowing, before the ruins of the very things they were concerned for." --Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, review of the book: The Organic Development of the Liturgy by Alcuin Reid ( OSB 2004. St. Michael's Abbey Press, Farnborough, England. 336 pp, cloth bound, ÂŁ20.95 ISBN 0 907077 43 9 )
Dear Gerard, I too have to watch my time and may not be able to continue here much longer. I thank you for the quote, but note that I asked for a sincere lamentation. These are crockodile tears, obviously, since Fr. Ratzinger himself keeps celebrating that "banal on-the-spot product" (his words) of the New Mass. Besides, the quote above simply says that he laments the New Mass, not that he regrets having worked for its introduction. I am waiting for Fr. Ratzinger regretting his New Theology, his collaboration with Rahner, Chenu, etc., and for his pertinacious denials of Catholic dogma.
Joined: 05 Oct 2005 Posts: 58 Location: Florida, USA
Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2005 10:31 am Post subject:
Gerard wrote:
First, he was not Pope when he said that it wouldn't rule him out as Pope.
Gerard, the issue was whether the man Joseph Ratzinger was a Catholic. He clearly manifests that he is not a Catholic. If you have any evidence that he became a Catholic before April 19, 2005, please share it.
Quote:
And despite appeals to Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio of Paul IV (a problematic and circularly reasoned document from a failure of a Pope, that lacks the marks of infallibility, and in which by that applying to him, since by his own criteria he invalidly elevated his own nephew to the Cardinalate. Which "appears" to show that at one time he didn't believe his own document, which means he deviated from the faith, which throws him out of the Church and nullifies the document itself. )
Now that is just impudent! First of all, the document is a valid, legitimate Catholic document issued by the highest authority that is binding on all the faithful. But your comment goes to show how much the SSPX attitude regarding the papacy has eroded Catholic belief in papal authority. Anything we don't like can be dismissed at will, especially if we think it isn't infallible, as though that were even relevant. Let me remind you (esp. since you emphasize so much the lack of lay authority) that it is not yours to sit in judgment on an Apostolic Constitution, on a Papal Bull, or a Papal Encyclical. This document of Pope Paul IV is not subject to your review, critique, or approval. I am not familiar with Pope Paul's nephew, but that is obviously irrelevant, given what I just said.
Quote:
John the 22nd obviously publicly manifested his un-Catholic belief that no one saw the beatific vision until the last judgement.
Yes, though he did so (1) explicitly as his own personal view, not that of papal teaching, and was imposing it on no one; and (2) he was not denying dogma and therefore wasn't a heretic, and Pope Paul's constitution spoke specifically of heretics. Not every sin against the faith puts you outside the Church. Heresy does.
Quote:
Second: I'd also have to see the context of Ratzinger's statement. I'd be surprised if there weren't some wiggly word in there like "mysterious" or "special" or "unknown to us". He and JPII are particularly good at avoiding taking a stand.
Feel free to get a copy of the book and examine the context. The book will be published in 2006 by Ratzinger Press, I'm sorry, by Ignatius Press. I took the quote from "Co-Workers of the Truth", published in the 1990s.
Joined: 05 Oct 2005 Posts: 58 Location: Florida, USA
Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2005 10:49 am Post subject:
Gerard wrote:
It's right in the first paragraph.
Quote:
"In the Genesis story that we are considering, still a further characteristic of sin is described.
Sin is not spoken of in general as an abstract POSSIBILITY BUT AS A DEED, AS THE SIN OF A PARTICULAR PERSON,
Adam, who stands
(1) at the origin of humankind...... AND........ (2) with whom the history of sin begins.
The account tells us that sin begets sin, and that therefore all the sins of history are interlinked."
"Origin of humankind" vs. "natural generation" two points along the same line. It's again, not a strong affirmation of what is plainly natural and supernatural reality but it's in no way a denial of that reality. It's a "new perspective." I know what he's talking about. I understand it. I can express it far more effectively than he can. I can't attribute malice towards him since the language he uses is perfect.
What we have in the case of Fr. Ratzinger's treatment of original sin is vintage modernism. No, "sin begets sin" doesn't cut it. That's like saying, "violence begets more violence," and yet no one suggests that violence is transmitted to the soul at conception. Ratzinger's text here was part of a Lenten sermon, and he has an obligation to teach not a "new perspective" (we must hate novelty, says St. Pius X) but the Catholic doctrine, and to do that, all he needed to do was quote the Council of Trent. Instead, he pridefully replaced the Catholic teaching with his own existentialist musings that deny Catholic doctrine and dogma. Read what Trent says about original sin, and then compare it to what Ratzinger wrote there, and honestly tell me if you can recognize the two as saying the same thing. That is obviously not the case. Ratzinger teaches that with Adam, who stands at the origin, this world has become one inhabited by sin, which is in our surroundings, and we contract it not as an inherited sin through generation (he specifically rejects original sin as something inherited) but it confronts us from the outside, in our daily lives, even right as we enter the world. That is false. That is heresy.
Quote:
Sin begets sin. Adam's sin being the catalyst for the concupiscence that makes us tend towards sin.
No doubt that concupiscence is a catalyst for sin. But there is more to original sin that that, specifically, it is transmitted to the soul through natural generation. Original sin is a real sin in every conceived human being, even infants. It is a real sin, not just a state of affairs, damaged surroundings, unfavorable circumstances. The fact that Ratzinger denies it is an inherited sin gives it away.
Quote:
Did you even read my answer? Look up. It says, "What is the weakness of a man with a strong intellect? Answer: Intellectual pride."
I'm sorry, but I get confused when pride is defined as weakness. I guess the Pharisee in the Temple who denounced the public was also very weak.
Quote:
So, if I understand you, it's only weak men who confess their sins and confront heresy. Was St. Peter weak when he was hanging upside down on the Cross? Or was he weak when he was not defending Christ and denying he knew him when confronted by a servant girl? Shall we pray to be given the weakness of martyrs if we find ourselves in a situation of persecution?
You lost me now, I'm sorry. What I was saying is that if what you say is true, we would find Fr. Ratzinger publicly repenting of his modernism and promising amendment. (It has to be public because he committed the sin of modernism in public.)
Quote:
You're saying Pride cannot be a weakness in a someone's character.
I'm saying that this is nothing but a semantical-rhetorical game that confuses the issues. I am not impugning your integrity or character, just saying that I think this simply confuses things and is not helpful at all. In the end, we have made black into white and white into black.
Interesting. 8-) I wonder if the Vatican will feel the need to back off from relations with the SSPX in order not to foul up the "Vatican/Jewish Dialogue".
If THE CHURCH tells me I am wrong, I will concede. Not until then.
But that won't work here, since the very point at issue is whether what you recognize to be the Catholic Church is indeed the Catholic Church. Obviously, the modernists won't call each other's bluffs.
Well, then enlighten us as to where the Catholic Church is. Is it only SV's?
And after you point out where the Church went, please explain why it is that SV's refuse to elect another pope. If the people that merely appear to be Catholic aren't truly Catholic, that leaves the remaining true Catholics with the authority to elect a pope. Why haven't the true Catholics done this if they are the only true Catholics and the others are mere frauds?
Of course; when I've been a V.II catholic.
Back then I liked his books. They looked to be so much more catholic than the heretic stuff which dominated the V.II church and this is partly true. His laxly interview books ("The salt of the earth" or how it's called in English, etc) I liked a lot but later I learned this is because they don't hurt anybody's feelings.
Until I took a closer look at the entire catholic doctrine. Then I've been astonished to read Ratzinger's books. For example his "re-find the mid" (or something like that; don't know the translation at the mo because I read the original). It's terrible. It's clearly semi protestant. And so on.
We've to pray a lot for our pope so he may find back to the whole chatolic faith.
Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2005 1:31 am Post subject: All thoughts and no actions
kaszodish wrote:
Yes. He is a profound thinker.
...but not much good at following up those profound thoughts with corrective action. Like the late, Pope St John Paul the Great he may dabble in a bit of book-writing or even some poetry while tickling the keys of his grand piano, but take time out to crush liberalism and modernism in the Roman Catholic Church - no way!
Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2005 5:48 am Post subject: Re: All thoughts and no actions
AskStPhilomena wrote:
kaszodish wrote:
Yes. He is a profound thinker.
...but not much good at following up those profound thoughts with corrective action. Like the late, Pope St John Paul the Great he may dabble in a bit of book-writing or even some poetry while tickling the keys of his grand piano, but take time out to crush liberalism and modernism in the Roman Catholic Church - no way!
Perhaps he is waiting for the opportune moment to reveal his battle ax. Maybe he wants to put in place good men in the curia who will support him when he begins the reform. Who knows? Rome wasn't built in a day. Patiencia.
'Dialogue is the reverse of relativism' ---isn't that what Kaspar was just quoted as saying too? (Not as if Kaspar and the Rabbi wouldn't have collaborated on the speach)
Joined: 05 Oct 2005 Posts: 58 Location: Florida, USA
Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2005 6:34 pm Post subject:
[quote="DJR"]
novusordowatch wrote:
DJR wrote:
.
Quote:
If THE CHURCH tells me I am wrong, I will concede. Not until then.
But that won't work here, since the very point at issue is whether what you recognize to be the Catholic Church is indeed the Catholic Church. Obviously, the modernists won't call each other's bluffs.
Well, then enlighten us as to where the Catholic Church is. Is it only SV's?
The Catholic Church is eclipsed. And if you believe in the message of La Salette, then this should come as no surprise. I admit that I do not know of a single bishop with ordinary jurisdiction, much less of a Pope. But just because I don't know doesn't mean it's not possible. We must have Faith. Most people on this world are people I don't know. God is punishing the Church. You may think this is all very fanciful and silly, but do you have a better explanation? An eclipsed Church in no way contradicts Catholic doctrine. A heretical Pope does. A magisterium teaching falsehood does. Harmful or evil universal disciplinary law does. Curiously enough, Bl. Anna-Maria Taigi saw a miraculous papal election in one of her visions. Better yet, St. Nicholas of Flue prophesied:
"The Church will be punished because the majority of her members, high and low, will become so perverted. The Church will sink deeper and deeper until she will at last seem to be extinguished, and the succession of Peter and the other Apostles to have expired. But, after this, she will be victoriously exalted in the sight of all doubters."
What do you think? Sound like our times today? If St. Nicholas of Flue could believe and prophesy this without denying Catholic doctrine, then this is something we can consider as a possible answer to what's happening here.
Quote:
And after you point out where the Church went, please explain why it is that SV's refuse to elect another pope. If the people that merely appear to be Catholic aren't truly Catholic, that leaves the remaining true Catholics with the authority to elect a pope. Why haven't the true Catholics done this if they are the only true Catholics and the others are mere frauds?
Well, let's see. There are plenty of people who adhere to their own "Pope." There is the St. Jovite cult in Canada, the Palmar de Troya cult in Spain, the David Bawden cult in Kansas, the Fr. Lucian Pulvermacher cult in Montana/Washington.... are you happy about these? I mean, these people have answered your question, and yet you're still not happy, are you?
The reasons BLEEPS! cannot elect a Pope are sundry. For one thing, the Church's indefectibility guarantees that there is at least one true Catholic bishop with proper (ordinary) jurisdiction. This bishop would have to be found, first of all, though I am certain there is more than just one. Believe it or not, attempts to find such bishops have been made. Secondly, the whole situation is still way too nebulous, confusing, and paralyzing at this point. SVs do not agree on valid or legitimate bishops in the first place (no surprise here because there is no known authority that could by itself determine whether the Thuc consecrations, for instance, are acceptable or not), nor would you be able to unify all BLEEPS! to accept a proposed "conclave." It's just not possible. It is my personal belief that this situation will not be worked out and solved until the Novus Ordo Church has been destroyed, probably during World War III or the Three Days of Darkness (mentioned by holy souls such as Bl. Anna Maria Taigi and Padre Pio). In fact, Bl. Anna Maria Taigi saw in one of her visions that the corpses in Rome were as numerous as the fish in the Tiber after the Three Days. (The Three Days will destroy almost all of God's enemies on earth.)
So there are some speculations for you. Sorry, I can't do better than speculate, but that is all we can do right now, but it shouldn't shake the faith of a serious Catholic. Your questions are legitimate, of course, and that's why I've made an attempt to answer them.
Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2005 6:55 pm Post subject: Nebulous, confusing, and paralyzing SV
novusordowatch wrote:
the whole situation is still way too nebulous, confusing, and paralyzing at this point. SVs do not agree on valid or legitimate bishops in the first place
Thank you for succinctly summing up the BLEEP! position.
Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2005 9:43 pm Post subject: Ultra...
The Heading reads:'Ultra-traditionalist says Pope should convert Jews'...
According to Biblical accounts, the First Pope, Saint Peter, did indeed Convert many Jews...by the Thousands!...And this same duty has been Divinely imposed on All of the Popes...up to the very present moment... And if Pope Benedict XVI strives with all his strength and being to Convert not only the Jews, but Every Single Immortal Soul on Earth, WELL and GOOD for him, for he will be richly rewarded for his zealous efforts...On the other hand, if the Pontiff proves himself to be negligent/remiss in this, his bounden GOD-given Duty, he will have to face GOD's daunting Wrath/Judgement as well as that of History and that of those Jews and all of the Unbaptized Immortal Souls who will fail to attain that Goal which their Creator had set for them: To Know, To Love and to Serve GOD in this short life and to partake of Divine Bliss Forever in Heaven. . Yes, indeed, the Pope MUST Convert JEWS...IF he Truly Loves them!!!
If THE CHURCH tells me I am wrong, I will concede. Not until then.
But that won't work here, since the very point at issue is whether what you recognize to be the Catholic Church is indeed the Catholic Church. Obviously, the modernists won't call each other's bluffs.
Well, then enlighten us as to where the Catholic Church is. Is it only SV's?
The Catholic Church is eclipsed. And if you believe in the message of La Salette, then this should come as no surprise. I admit that I do not know of a single bishop with ordinary jurisdiction, much less of a Pope. But just because I don't know doesn't mean it's not possible. We must have Faith. Most people on this world are people I don't know. God is punishing the Church. You may think this is all very fanciful and silly, but do you have a better explanation? An eclipsed Church in no way contradicts Catholic doctrine. A heretical Pope does. A magisterium teaching falsehood does. Harmful or evil universal disciplinary law does. Curiously enough, Bl. Anna-Maria Taigi saw a miraculous papal election in one of her visions. Better yet, St. Nicholas of Flue prophesied:
"The Church will be punished because the majority of her members, high and low, will become so perverted. The Church will sink deeper and deeper until she will at last seem to be extinguished, and the succession of Peter and the other Apostles to have expired. But, after this, she will be victoriously exalted in the sight of all doubters."
What do you think? Sound like our times today? If St. Nicholas of Flue could believe and prophesy this without denying Catholic doctrine, then this is something we can consider as a possible answer to what's happening here.
Quote:
And after you point out where the Church went, please explain why it is that SV's refuse to elect another pope. If the people that merely appear to be Catholic aren't truly Catholic, that leaves the remaining true Catholics with the authority to elect a pope. Why haven't the true Catholics done this if they are the only true Catholics and the others are mere frauds?
Well, let's see. There are plenty of people who adhere to their own "Pope." There is the St. Jovite cult in Canada, the Palmar de Troya cult in Spain, the David Bawden cult in Kansas, the Fr. Lucian Pulvermacher cult in Montana/Washington.... are you happy about these? I mean, these people have answered your question, and yet you're still not happy, are you?
The reasons BLEEPS! cannot elect a Pope are sundry. For one thing, the Church's indefectibility guarantees that there is at least one true Catholic bishop with proper (ordinary) jurisdiction. This bishop would have to be found, first of all, though I am certain there is more than just one. Believe it or not, attempts to find such bishops have been made. Secondly, the whole situation is still way too nebulous, confusing, and paralyzing at this point. SVs do not agree on valid or legitimate bishops in the first place (no surprise here because there is no known authority that could by itself determine whether the Thuc consecrations, for instance, are acceptable or not), nor would you be able to unify all BLEEPS! to accept a proposed "conclave." It's just not possible. It is my personal belief that this situation will not be worked out and solved until the Novus Ordo Church has been destroyed, probably during World War III or the Three Days of Darkness (mentioned by holy souls such as Bl. Anna Maria Taigi and Padre Pio). In fact, Bl. Anna Maria Taigi saw in one of her visions that the corpses in Rome were as numerous as the fish in the Tiber after the Three Days. (The Three Days will destroy almost all of God's enemies on earth.)
So there are some speculations for you. Sorry, I can't do better than speculate, but that is all we can do right now, but it shouldn't shake the faith of a serious Catholic. Your questions are legitimate, of course, and that's why I've made an attempt to answer them.
The Catholic Church's being eclipsed does not mean it has disappeared, nor does it mean its hierarchy has vanished. The Church is going through a bad time, no doubt about it. But it did during the Arian heresy also, and it didn't lose its pope and hierarchy.
The Catholic Church exists visibly and always will. There will be Catholics in the world until its consummation. Our Lord said so. "Behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world."
The Catholic Church is going strong in those places where people have kept the Faith.
You never answered the question as to where the Church went. What or who, in the opinion of SV'ers, is the Catholic Church now? Is it only SV'ers? If not, then who qualifies, how, and by whose authority do you come to your conclusion?
Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2005 10:20 pm Post subject: when figtrees bud
Re Romans prophecy of a last call conversion (whoops, I mean completion, or regrafting) of the Jews, Benedictâs audience in Rome this month with the President of Israel, Moshe [Moses] Katsav, and their discussion around the thorny issue of the return of the chapel of the first Mass, seems another budding fig.
From Jerusalem Post, Nov17â05 'Pope Tells Katsav He Will Visit Israel'
ââŚ[H]e thereby became the first president of Israel to have officially met with two pontiffs. Katsav and the pope discussed the current anti-Semitism in Europe, as well as the status and future of Christian holy sites in Israel.
âThe president had welcomed Pope John Paul II when the latter made his historic visit to Jerusalem in 2000. Katsav invited Benedict to Israel at their meeting, and showed him photographs of the ancient church discovered recently at Megiddo.
âThe meeting with the new pope has been fraught with controversy resulting from a report in a Vatican publication that the two would sign an exchange agreement whereby Israel would cede control of the room of the Last Supper to the church in return for a church property in Spain that more than five centuries ago served as a synagogue.
â⌠Katsav professed to know nothing of the matter but, when the rumors persisted, Beit Hanassi issued an official statement declaring that no document would be signed by Katsav and Benedict. Denials notwithstanding, there are skeptics in Israel who claim they were just a cover-up to defuse a sensitive situation...â
Comment: This sacred site on top Mount Zion is to Christians the key to the eschato-logic of the word âZionâ as the Mass and place of intersection of Heaven and Earth, the Holy Sacrifice being the forecourt of Heaven.
The chapel of the First Mass - the 'Cenaculum' or dining room or âUpper Roomâ where Jesus, with His Apostles assisting, offered the last rite of Passover, and simultaneously, or dovetailing with it, the First Mass - is one of the Catholic Church's most sacred sites, after the Holy Sepulchre chapel in Jerusalem, the Basilica of the Annunciation of the Incarnation in Nazareth, and the Basilica of the Nativity in Bethlehem.
The Christians held the site from year 70 until the invasion by Arab Muslim gangs in the 7th century. The Crusader army saved the Holy City at the end of the 11th century but was driven out again, this time by the Muslim Turks, who promptly renovated the chapel as a mosque.
From Serge Trifkovic's book The Sword of the Prophet (that should be on the syllabus of every school in the Western world):
"After Saladin's death his possessions were divided among his lesser successors who lost Jerusalem again to the Crusaders in 1229, but the latter's strength and unity was waning and by 1244 the city fell again to the Muslims, this time continuously until its conquest by the Israelis in 1967. The deathblow to the Crusaders was given by al-Malik al-Zahir Baybars, a Mamluke [Turk] who previously had stopped the Mongols. He destroyed the venerated Church of Nativity in Nazareth. Caesarea capitulated under the condition that its 2,000 knights would be spared, but once inside the city the Muslims murdered them all. When Antioch fell to the Muslims, 16,000 Christians were put to the sword, and 100,000 are recorded to have been sold as slaves..."
The Isreal Parliament, the Knesset, gives the following profile of Iranian-born President Katsav (and note that Malachi means âprophetâ):
âFormer mayor of Kiryat Malachi, Member of Knesset and minister representing the Likud party, and the eighth president of the State of Israel. Katsav was born in 1945 in Yazd, Iran, and immigrated to Israel with his family in 1951. After a short stay at the "Sha'ar Ha'Aliyah" camp in Haifa, his family was sent to the Kastina Ma'abara (immigrant tent-camp) near Be-er Tuvia, which is today Kiryat Malachi. He attended the Ben Shemen Children's Village for primary school and graduated from high school in Be'er Tuvia. Katsav enlisted into the Israel Defense Forces in 1964 and reached the rank of corporal in the Communications Corps. While studying and serving in the military, Katsav also worked and helped to support his family. As the first student from Kiryat Malachi to attend the Hebrew University of Jerusalem beginning in 1968, Katsav headed the "Gahal" (Herut-Liberals) student faction. While studying, he taught history and mathematics in a high school, and then he graduated in 1971 with a BA in economics and history. In 1969, at the age of 24, Katsav was elected mayor of Kiryat Malachi as the coalition leader representing Gahal and the National Religious Party. He was the youngest mayor ever to be elected in Israel. Two months later, there was a second round of elections in which his party lost the majority. Representing the Likud Party, he became mayor again in 1974 and maintained that position until 1981. Katsav was elected to the 9th Knesset representing the Likud, and remained in the Knesset until becoming president. During the ninth Knesset, Prime Minister Menachem Begin sent Katsav twice to Iran to encourage the Jews there to immigrate to Israel. Under the governments of Begin and Yitzhak Shamir, Katsav served as the deputy Minister of Construction and Housing during the tenth Knesset (1981-1984). He was elected to the eleventh Knesset as one of the top seven members of the Likud and then served as the Minister of Labor and Welfare during the National Unity Government which served in the years 1984-1988. During the twelfth Knesset (1988-1992) he served as the Transportation Minister under Yitzhak Shamir, and under Benjamin Netanyahu's government (1996-1999), he served as Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Tourism. During the thirteenth Knesset, Katsav served as the Knesset Opposition Likud Chairman. The public positions filled by Moshe Katsav include the following: Chairman of the Iranian Immigrants Organization; Chairman of the commission to determine higher education tuition; Member of Ben-Gurion University Board of Trustees. In addition, he received an honorary doctorate from the University of Nebraska, Omaha. Following the resignation of President Ezer Weizman, Katsav announced his candidacy for the position of president to run against MK Shimon Peres. Despite the predictions that Peres would win the election, Katsav was elected by the Knesset to be the eighth president of the state with a 63-57 majority. Katsav is the second president of Sephardic origin, and the first president to have been born in an Islamic country.
Joined: 26 Jun 2004 Posts: 422 Location: somewhere in the Old South
Posted: Thu Nov 24, 2005 11:57 am Post subject:
Sorry I did not know this thread was already in the running when I posted the same on a different thread. Of course I wanted to get my two cents running in the matter:
Quote:
/// Mark in the Old South commentary ///
I prefer to be called a uber-traditionalist myself. Good news dispite the left wing slant by Reuters. A call out for prayers to their conversion is in order me thinks.
I see from the other posters that I am not the only Uber-traditional Catholic in the bunch? I do feel the call for prayer is important. Once a year at the Good Friday Service is not quite enough in my estimation. A little "Our Father, Hail Mary and a Glory Be" each day wouldn't kill anyone here. Well it may piss off Satan to no end but you have recourse in that regard as well.
Happy kneeling everyone. _________________ BEWARE OF ERRORS OUT OF RUSSIA
Mark in the Old South
Joined: 26 Jun 2004 Posts: 422 Location: somewhere in the Old South
Posted: Thu Nov 24, 2005 12:09 pm Post subject:
novusordowatch wrote:
Blah blah blah.........
I used to hold the SV position in some measure of respect. I did not agree with them but I could relate to some of their positions. Since the death of Pope John Paul II all of that have faded away. I got enough of the anti-pope rants from the Baptist in my neighborhood when I was growing up. I didn't like it coming from them then and I was Protestant then, I sure don't like it any better now that I am Catholic and certainly not coming from other //cough cough// "Catholics". _________________ BEWARE OF ERRORS OUT OF RUSSIA
Mark in the Old South
I agree with him: Jews need to be told the truth by Rome and save their souls. Period. Go for it, Father Franz!!![/quote]
Encyclical of Pope Pius XII Mystuci Corporis Christi states cearly that the Old Law which had been abolished:
29. And first of all, by the death of our Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished; then the Law of Christ together with its mysteries, enactments, institutions, and sacred rites was ratified for the whole world in the blood of Jesus Christ. For, while our Divine Savior was preaching in a restricted area -- He was not sent but to the sheep that were lost of the house of Israel [30] -the Law and the Gospel were together in force; [31] but on the gibbet of his death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees, [32] fastened the handwriting of the Old Testament to the Cross, [33] establishing the New Testament in His blood shed for the whole human race. [34] "To such an extent, then," says St. Leo the Great, speaking of the Cross of our Lord, "was there effected a transfer from the Law to the Gospel, from the Synagogue to the Church, from many sacrifices to one Victim, that, as our Lord expired, that mystical veil which shut off the innermost part of the temple and its sacred secret was rent violently from top to bottom."
By the way, I am sorry but "Chrystus Jest KrĂłlowi" is not correct. It should be :Chrystus KrĂłlem!"
All times are GMT - 5 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2
Page 2 of 2
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
