Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Anσnymσus Posts Allowed => Topic started by: Änσnymσus on January 28, 2013, 02:24:00 PM
-
Please post these findings here.
-
I'm not sure anything could be worse than his insistence that Paul does not teach that bodies are r e s t o r e d in Introduction to Christianity.
-
The above is probably his worst indeed.
-
Can you provide concrete examples from Benedict XVI's writings, and explain how they are heretical (i.e., determine how they are contrary to a dogma of divinely revealed and Catholic faith, and proposed by the Church as such) and can you cite the dogma or doctrine that such examples contradicts and how it does so?
Thanks.
-
Can you provide concrete examples from Benedict XVI's writings, and explain how they are heretical (i.e., determine how they are contrary to a dogma of divinely revealed and Catholic faith, and proposed by the Church as such) and can you cite the dogma or doctrine that such examples contradicts and how it does so?
Thanks.
If you can't see that denying that bodies are r e s t o r e d in a corporeal sense violates the very basis of the Catholic Faith then your basic reasoning skills are fundamentally defective.
In fact I consider such sophistry to be almost like modernism except that it truly may sometimes result from complete stultification of the intellect.
People who knowingly defend Benedict when they know he denies the resurrection, particularly when they know that Bishop Tissier has spoken of Benedict's many heresies, yet at the same time claim to be loyal to the Faith and to the teachings of the Archbishop, don't have the mitigating circuмstance of ignorance.
Knowingly engaging in sophistry about Benedict's real beliefs is dishonesty, and when SSPX cult members willingly engage in it they are committing a truly brazen and contemptible sin.
-
Search for Faith Imperiled by Reason and read it.
Then honestly admit what it says.
People who debate like SSPX Fellay cult freaks aren't welcome here.
-
Can you provide concrete examples from Benedict XVI's writings, and explain how they are heretical (i.e., determine how they are contrary to a dogma of divinely revealed and Catholic faith, and proposed by the Church as such) and can you cite the dogma or doctrine that such examples contradicts and how it does so?
Thanks.
If you can't see that denying that bodies are r e s t o r e d in a corporeal sense violates the very basis of the Catholic Faith then your basic reasoning skills are fundamentally defective.
In fact I consider such sophistry to be almost like modernism except that it truly may sometimes result from complete stultification of the intellect.
People who knowingly defend Benedict when they know he denies the resurrection, particularly when they know that Bishop Tissier has spoken of Benedict's many heresies, yet at the same time claim to be loyal to the Faith and to the teachings of the Archbishop, don't have the mitigating circuмstance of ignorance.
Knowingly engaging in sophistry about Benedict's real beliefs is dishonesty, and when SSPX cult members willingly engage in it they are committing a truly brazen and contemptible sin.
Wow!
I posed request, and I get a rant about "sophistry" and "SPPX cult members." And a thumbs down to boot! How do you know I attend SSPX, or that I don't? How do you even know that I accept Benedict XVI as Pope or not? Maybe, just maybe, I am asking for actual proof rather than internet babble.
I want to see the words themselves to which you are referring, not your take on them. Seeing how you reacted to my questions with sensationalistic rhetoric and false assumptions, you may see why I wouldn't trust your judgment on these matters.
If you people take time to accuse anyone as a heretic who has not been formally condemned as such by the Church, then you certainly would take the time and precaution to at least cite the text in question.
Otherwise, then you sir (or madam) are the one who engages in "sophistry" and are intellectually dishonest.
-
When an SSPX cult member makes a bad faithed request, it's going to be treated as what it is.
If you can't search google, or can't read, or just can't admit that Benedict XVI has denied the fundamentals of the Catholic Faith, then it's because you are mentally deficient or intellectually dishonest.
-
Search for Faith Imperiled by Reason and read it.
Then honestly admit what it says.
People who debate like SSPX Fellay cult freaks aren't welcome here.
Er, no. The burden of proof rests upon you. You provide the proof to support your argument, or else keep quiet.
I'm not gonna fork over any cent to buy any book just to prove you right or wrong.
How am I debating like "SSPX Fellay cult freaks"? Do you think you are the moderator or something, to tell us who is or is not "welcome here"?
What's with the ad hominems?
If logic and honesty lead to the conclusion that Benedict XVI is a heretic, then please argue logically and honestly, lest your tactics and arguments prove to be counterproductive.
-
I want to see the words themselves to which you are referring,
Too stupid to google?
Just posted a whole book by a bishop. Would you read it and honestly report what it says or not?
-
When an SSPX cult member makes a bad faithed request, it's going to be treated as what it is.
If you can't search google, or can't read, or just can't admit that Benedict XVI has denied the fundamentals of the Catholic Faith, then it's because you are mentally deficient or intellectually dishonest.
Oh, so you have some sort of supernatural ability to see my intentions, huh?
How exactly do you know that my request was made in bad faith?
No, you have to be the one to bring the text here if you wish to substantiate your claims. The burden of proof lies on you.
How can I see whether or not Benedict XVI is a heretic or not if all I get is internet babble?
-
I want to see the words themselves to which you are referring,
Too stupid to google?
Just posted a whole book by a bishop. Would you read it and honestly report what it says or not?
Wow!
Oh man, it's like talking to a brick wall here...
Do you see why people like Seraphim respond with the "blah blah rebuttal"? How can anyone take your claims seriously if you are not serious about making your claims and resort to chicanery and harassment to make a point you don't even bother to prove or demonstrate?
-
Er, no. The burden of proof rests upon you. You provide the proof to support your argument, or else keep quiet.
No, the burden doesn't fall on those who've explained the topic hundreds of time to bad-willed, dishonest or downright stupid individuals.
If you can't use google and read what we're referring to that's your bad will.
Not our problem. If you want the answer to your question, you only have to do a google search. It's apparent you don't want the answer.
I'm not gonna fork over any cent to buy any book just to prove you right or wrong.
It's online free. Not that you have any interest in reading it.
How am I debating like "SSPX Fellay cult freaks"? Do you think you are the moderator or something, to tell us who is or is not "welcome here"?
I'm not the moderator, but people who support SSPX lies aren't welcome here.
Questions asked in bad faith aren't welcome.
What's with the ad hominems?
What's with the bad-faithed argumentation?
If logic and honesty lead to the conclusion that Benedict XVI is a heretic, then please argue logically and honestly, lest your tactics and arguments prove to be counterproductive.
You've already proved you're not interested in the answer, but in criticizing anything we say to prove our point.
That is to say, you're not interested in good faith discussion.
A warning to those in the +Fellay cult. If you knowingly lie to yourself and to others about Benedict XVI's lack of orthodoxy, then you are leading yourself and others to eternal damnation. Because lying is a sin. Though you'd never think it from the behavior of certain +Fellay cult priests.
-
Oh, so you have some sort of supernatural ability to see my intentions, huh?
You already showed you weren't interested in reading the book.
How exactly do you know that my request was made in bad faith?
I'm certain you know how to google. If you're unwilling to use it I'm unwilling to use it for you. The section of writing being referred to is very well known. It's not my job to spell it out for you as many times as you ask.
No, you have to be the one to bring the text here if you wish to substantiate your claims. The burden of proof lies on you.
The truth doesn't depend on whether or not I argue to your satisfaction.
I know I'm right, I referred you to a source to read. Now if you wish to deny Benedict XVI is a heretic, go right ahead.
I've shown why I think it, and I've given sources.
If you don't want to read, that's your problem.
How can I see whether or not Benedict XVI is a heretic or not if all I get is internet babble?
You mean, how can you use google and read?
But that would require good faith: something in short supply among +Fellay cultists and others.
-
Er, no. The burden of proof rests upon you. You provide the proof to support your argument, or else keep quiet.
No, the burden doesn't fall on those who've discussed the topic hundreds of time to bad-willed, dishonest or downright stupid individuals.
If you can't use google and read what we're referring to that's your bad will.
Not our problem. If you want the answer to your question, you only have to do a google search. It's apparent you don't want the answer.
I'm not gonna fork over any cent to buy any book just to prove you right or wrong.
It's online free. Not that you have any interest in reading it.
How am I debating like "SSPX Fellay cult freaks"? Do you think you are the moderator or something, to tell us who is or is not "welcome here"?
I'm not the moderator, but people who support SSPX lies aren't welcome here.
Questions asked in bad faith aren't welcome.
What's with the ad hominems?
What's with the bad-faithed argumentation?
If logic and honesty lead to the conclusion that Benedict XVI is a heretic, then please argue logically and honestly, lest your tactics and arguments prove to be counterproductive.
You've already proved you're not interested in the answer, but in criticizing anything we say to prove our point.
That is to say, you're not interested in good faith discussion.
A warning to those in the +Fellay cult. If you knowingly lie to yourself and to others about Benedict XVI's lack of orthodoxy, then you are leading yourself and others to eternal damnation. Because lying is a sin. Though you'd never think it from the behavior of certain +Fellay cult priests.
What can I say? The cascade of ad hominems and rash assumptions is seemingly inexhaustible.
So, I am going to hell because I expect too much from people, like providing their own evidence?
Do you not realize that your sort of tactics, lack of charity, and intellectual dishonesty are enabling people to surrender themselves to Benedict XVI more than Fellay or Menzingen? Do you not worry that God will judge you as complicit in these sorts of shenanigans because you refuse to argue logically?
I am trying to actually help you here by making you realize that you are going about this the wrong way.
-
So, I am going to hell because I expect too much from people, like providing their own evidence?
Did I say that? Or are you dishonest?
Keep asking dishonest questions: and yes, you're on the road to hell.
If you think I'm wrong about Benedict XVI's remark, or that Bishop Tissier is wrong, prove it.
-
Can you provide concrete examples from Benedict XVI's writings, and explain how they are heretical (i.e., determine how they are contrary to a dogma of divinely revealed and Catholic faith, and proposed by the Church as such) and can you cite the dogma or doctrine that such examples contradicts and how it does so?
Thanks.
Let's stop arguing about this guy's intentions. It is a distraction from the topic at hand. I will do as he has asked and prove Benedict's heresies simply because I think it will benefit others as well. Let's start with this quote:
Benedict XVI, Co-Workers of the Truth, 1990, p. 217: “The question that really concerns us, the question that really oppresses us, is why it is necessary for us in particular to practice the Christian Faith in its totality; why, when there are so many other ways that lead to heaven and salvation, it should be required of us to bear day after day the whole burden of ecclesial dogmas and of the ecclesial ethos. And so we come again to the question: What exactly is Christian reality? What is the specific element in Christianity that not merely justifies it, but makes it compulsorily necessary for us? When we raise the question about the foundation and meaning of our Christian existence, there slips in a certain false hankering for the apparently more comfortable life of other people who are also going to heaven. We are too much like the laborers of the first hour in the parable of the workers in the vineyard (Mt. 20:1-16). Once they discovered that they could have earned their day’s pay of one denarius in a much easier way, they could not understand why they had had to labor the whole day. But what a strange attitude it is to find the duties of our Christian life unrewarding just because the denarius of salvation can be gained without them! It would seem that we – like the workers of the first hour – want to be paid not only with our own salvation, but more particularly with others’ lack of salvation. That is at once very human and profoundly un-Christian.”
Benedict rejects EENS, that is, the Church's teaching that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. In the above quote he says that there as "so many other ways that lead to salvation".
Benedict XVI, Principles of Catholic Theology, 1982, p. 381: "If it is desirable to offer a diagnosis of the text [of the Vatican II docuмent, Gaudium et Spes] as a whole, we might say that (in conjunction with the texts on religious liberty and world religions) it is a revision of the Syllabus of Pius IX, a kind of counter syllabus… As a result, the one-sidedness of the position adopted by the Church under Pius IX and Pius X in response to the situation created by the new phase of history inaugurated by the French Revolution, was, to a large extent, corrected..."
So, according to Benedict, Vatican II was a "counter-syllabus" that "corrected" the "one-sidedness" of the position of Pope Pius IX and Pope St. Pius X. I don't think I need to explain why the above is absolute nonsense.
Benedict XVI, God and the World, 2000, p. 373: “There were in fact Christian hotheads and fanatics who destroyed temples, who were unable to see paganism as anything more than idolatry that had to be radically eliminated.”
Benedict apparently isn't aware of the Bible verse that says gods of the pagans are devils. People who oppose paganism are "fanatics" and "hotheads"?
Benedict XVI, God and the World, 2000, p. 76: “Q. In the beginning the earth was bare and empty; God had not yet made it rain, is what it says in Genesis. Then God fashioned man, and for this purpose he took ‘dust from the field and blew into his nostrils the breath of life; thus man became a living creature.’ The breath of life – is that the answer to the question of where we come from? A. I think we have here a most important image, which presents a significant understanding of what man is. It suggests that man is one who springs from the earth and its possibilities. We can even read into this representation something like evolution.”
Benedict XVI, God and the World, 2000, p. 139: “The Christian picture of the world is this, that the world in its details is the product of a long process of evolution but that at the most profound level it comes from the Logos.”
Evolution is contrary to Church teaching, yet Benedict is promoting it in what I quoted above. God created all things, this is an obvious Dogma.
Benedict XVI, The Meaning of Christian Brotherhood, pp. 87-88: “The difficulty in the way of giving an answer is a profound one. Ultimately it is due to the fact that there is no appropriate category in Catholic thought for the phenomenon of Protestantism today (one could say the same of the relationship to the separated churches of the East). It is obvious that the old category of ‘heresy’ is no longer of any value. Heresy, for Scripture and the early Church, includes the idea of a personal decision against the unity of the Church, and heresy’s characteristic is pertinacia, the obstinacy of him who persists in his own private way. This, however, cannot be regarded as an appropriate description of the spiritual situation of the Protestant Christian. In the course of a now centuries-old history, Protestantism has made an important contribution to the realization of Christian faith, fulfilling a positive function in the development of the Christian message and, above all, often giving rise to a sincere and profound faith in the individual non-Catholic Christian, whose separation from the Catholic affirmation has nothing to do with the pertinacia characteristic of heresy. Perhaps we may here invert a saying of St. Augustine’s: that an old schism becomes a heresy. The very passage of time alters the character of a division, so that an old division is something essentially different from a new one. Something that was once rightly condemned as heresy cannot later simply become true, but it can gradually develop its own positive ecclesial nature, with which the individual is presented as his church and in which he lives as a believer, not as a heretic. This organization of one group, however, ultimately has an effect on the whole. The conclusion is inescapable, then: Protestantism today is something different from heresy in the traditional sense, a phenomenon whose true theological place has not yet been determined.”
Benedict above says that Protestants aren't heretics. This simply is not true. They ARE heretics. This is obvious.
Benedict XVI, Zenit News story, Sept. 5, 2000: “We are in agreement that a Jew, and this is true for believers of other religions, does not need to know or acknowledge Christ as the Son of God in order to be saved…”
False.
Saint Fulgentius: “Hold most firmly and never doubt at all that not only pagans, but also all Jews, all heretics, and all schismatics who finish this life outside of the Catholic Church, will go into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.”
One who rejects Jesus Christ cannot be saved.
Benedict XVI, July 24, 2009 Homily at Vespers: “The role of the priesthood is to consecrate the world so that it may become a living host, a liturgy: so that the world may not be something alongside the reality of the world, but that the world itself shall becomes a living host, a liturgy. This is also the great vision of Teilhard de Chardin: in the end we shall achieve a true cosmic liturgy, where the cosmos becomes a living host. And let us pray the Lord to help us become priests in this sense...”
Teilhard was a New Ager, and considering his reference to Teilhard and use of terms such as "Cosmos", so is Benedict.
So yes, it's obvious that Benedict is a heretic.
-
No, because intentions can be gauged, and it's important to point out when bad-faithed +Fellay cult debating tactics are used.
When a point is made, if the cultist doesn't acknowledge it in any way but simply demands more and more evidence while refusing to acknowledge anything said, then it's necessary to point out the bad will being shown.
Liars can "win" debates by stonewalling and refusing to admit or acknowledge what is presented, while at the same time expecting to be treated as though they are honest. It is vitally important that their dishonesty be exposed. When an honest person debates with the dishonest, the dishonest can appear to win and successfully deceive when his dishonest tactics aren't exposed.
That's how Jews "win" debates. They are unashamed to lie, yet make it taboo to question their sincerity and motivations.
Anyone here can read Bishop Tissier or Si Si Non Non or part of Introduction to Christianity.
If they then pretend they've never heard of the issues, demand "proof" that you present to them - then they are not honest people, and must be exposed as such.
It isn't just that dishonest people be permitted to debate with honest people.
The dishonest should be banned.
-
Well, regardless of his intentions, those quotes nevertheless will prove a very improtant point.
-
Well, regardless of his intentions, those quotes nevertheless will prove a very improtant point.
He almost surely knows about all those quotes and doesn't care.
-
Let's stop arguing about this guy's intentions. It is a ditraction from the topic at hand. I will do as he has asked and prove Benedict's heresies simply because I think it will benefit others as well.
Thank you, kind and honest Guest!
Benedict XVI, Co-Workers of the Truth, 1990, p. 217: “The question that really concerns us, the question that really oppresses us, is why it is necessary for us in particular to practice the Christian Faith in its totality; why, when there are so many other ways that lead to heaven and salvation, it should be required of us to bear day after day the whole burden of ecclesial dogmas and of the ecclesial ethos. And so we come again to the question: What exactly is Christian reality? What is the specific element in Christianity that not merely justifies it, but makes it compulsorily necessary for us? When we raise the question about the foundation and meaning of our Christian existence, there slips in a certain false hankering for the apparently more comfortable life of other people who are also going to heaven. We are too much like the laborers of the first hour in the parable of the workers in the vineyard (Mt. 20:1-16). Once they discovered that they could have earned their day’s pay of one denarius in a much easier way, they could not understand why they had had to labor the whole day. But what a strange attitude it is to find the duties of our Christian life unrewarding just because the denarius of salvation can be gained without them! It would seem that we – like the workers of the first hour – want to be paid not only with our own salvation, but more particularly with others’ lack of salvation. That is at once very human and profoundly un-Christian.”
Wow, that is heretical alright. I would say Benedict's abuse of the parable of the laborers in the vineyard (wasn't that in last Sunday's Gospel) is blasphemous.
You can see the Hegelian influence very markedly, with an existential slant.
Benedict XVI, Principles of Catholic Theology, 1982, p. 381: "If it is desirable to offer a diagnosis of the text [of the Vatican II docuмent, Gaudium et Spes] as a whole, we might say that (in conjunction with the texts on religious liberty and world religions) it is a revision of the Syllabus of Pius IX, a kind of counter syllabus… As a result, the one-sidedness of the position adopted by the Church under Pius IX and Pius X in response to the situation created by the new phase of history inaugurated by the French Revolution, was, to a large extent, corrected..."
Wow, that just [censored]!
Benedict XVI, God and the World, 2000, p. 373: “There were in fact Christian hotheads and fanatics who destroyed temples, who were unable to see paganism as anything more than idolatry that had to be radically eliminated.”
But paganism is nothing "more than idolatry that had to be radically eliminated."
Benedict XVI, God and the World, 2000, p. 76: “Q. In the beginning the earth was bare and empty; God had not yet made it rain, is what it says in Genesis. Then God fashioned man, and for this purpose he took ‘dust from the field and blew into his nostrils the breath of life; thus man became a living creature.’ The breath of life – is that the answer to the question of where we come from? A. I think we have here a most important image, which presents a significant understanding of what man is. It suggests that man is one who springs from the earth and its possibilities. We can even read into this representation something like evolution.”
Benedict XVI, God and the World, 2000, p. 139: “The Christian picture of the world is this, that the world in its details is the product of a long process of evolution but that at the most profound level it comes from the Logos.”
Okay, this is just creepy right here.
Benedict XVI, The Meaning of Christian Brotherhood, pp. 87-88: “The difficulty in the way of giving an answer is a profound one. Ultimately it is due to the fact that there is no appropriate category in Catholic thought for the phenomenon of Protestantism today (one could say the same of the relationship to the separated churches of the East). It is obvious that the old category of ‘heresy’ is no longer of any value. Heresy, for Scripture and the early Church, includes the idea of a personal decision against the unity of the Church, and heresy’s characteristic is pertinacia, the obstinacy of him who persists in his own private way. This, however, cannot be regarded as an appropriate description of the spiritual situation of the Protestant Christian. In the course of a now centuries-old history, Protestantism has made an important contribution to the realization of Christian faith, fulfilling a positive function in the development of the Christian message and, above all, often giving rise to a sincere and profound faith in the individual non-Catholic Christian, whose separation from the Catholic affirmation has nothing to do with the pertinacia characteristic of heresy. Perhaps we may here invert a saying of St. Augustine’s: that an old schism becomes a heresy. The very passage of time alters the character of a division, so that an old division is something essentially different from a new one. Something that was once rightly condemned as heresy cannot later simply become true, but it can gradually develop its own positive ecclesial nature, with which the individual is presented as his church and in which he lives as a believer, not as a heretic. This organization of one group, however, ultimately has an effect on the whole. The conclusion is inescapable, then: Protestantism today is something different from heresy in the traditional sense, a phenomenon whose true theological place has not yet been determined.”
Okay...? So the "evolution" that he spoke about applies to the Church too?
Benedict XVI, Zenit News story, Sept. 5, 2000: “We are in agreement that a Jew, and this is true for believers of other religions, does not need to know or acknowledge Christ as the Son of God in order to be saved…”
This is of anti-Christ. This is the evil that prompted St. John to write his Gospel and defend the divinity of Our Lord so strongly.
Benedict XVI, July 24, 2009 Homily at Vespers: “The role of the priesthood is to consecrate the world so that it may become a living host, a liturgy: so that the world may not be something alongside the reality of the world, but that the world itself shall becomes a living host, a liturgy. This is also the great vision of Teilhard de Chardin: in the end we shall achieve a true cosmic liturgy, where the cosmos becomes a living host. And let us pray the Lord to help us become priests in this sense...”
What absurd optimism: a cosmic liturgy that breaks down the barrier between those in Holy Orders and those who are not.
So yes, it's obvious that Benedict is a heretic.
See, I hadn't read Benedict's words before.
Now it makes sense when you guys say, "So Rosemary's Baby got to Rome after all these years." Or, "It's Damien all grown up and in Rome." Or something like that.
Thank you very much!
-
Well, regardless of his intentions, those quotes nevertheless will prove a very improtant point.
He almost surely knows about all those quotes and doesn't care.
Shows what you know.. Read the above post.
-
Shows what you know.. Read the above post.
Let your yes be yes and your no be no.
You post in anonymous, and then play games, when asked to look something up, you look it up if you're good-willed.
-
As for Benedict's denial of the resurrection of bodies, here is his exact quote:
“Paul [St. Paul] teaches not the resurrection of physical bodies but of persons…” (Joseph Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity, (republished in 1990 with Ratzinger’s approval), p. 277
-
Thank you, kind and honest Guest!
I would also like to say thank you. It's nice that after four pages of stupidity, someone with goodwill posted something relevant to the thread.
-
Thank you, kind and honest Guest!
I would also like to say thank you. It's nice that after four pages of stupidity, someone with goodwill posted something relevant to the thread.
Do you think the person didn't know of those quotes?
Couldn't use google?
Or couldn't read Faith Imperiled by reason?
Or was he just trying to be obnoxious?
-
Reading such internet sources as New Advent that are run by neo
conservative Catholics that Benedict XVl is perfectly orthodox and
it is all in our imagination that the current Pope deviates from
Catholic Teaching.
-
Thank you, kind and honest Guest!
I would also like to say thank you. It's nice that after four pages of stupidity, someone with goodwill posted something relevant to the thread.
Do you think the person didn't know of those quotes?
Couldn't use google?
Or couldn't read Faith Imperiled by reason?
Or was he just trying to be obnoxious?
Boy, you really need to grow up. Don't let your personality disorders and insatiable need to feed your ego blind you.
The guy even conceded that Ratzinger is a heretic, and yet you still persist in judging this person.
You are just proof that it is people like you who are making sure people remain in the N. O.
-
Shows what you know.. Read the above post.
Let your yes be yes and your no be no.
You post in anonymous, and then play games, when asked to look something up, you look it up if you're good-willed.
Don't throw stones in a glass house. You are posting anonymously too. If you were good willed, you would have provided those quotes himself.
If you have the time to respond to these posts, surely you could copy and paste something, or type it up yourself.
The fact that you keep judging and even giving thumbs down to the person's concession that Ratzinger is a heretic shows that you are in these internet discussion merely for the sake of satisfying some sort of egomaniacal pathology of yours.
-
Thanks for not posting anonymously, Alex.
I can understand the need to allow non-members to post anonymously but should not members have the decency to come out of hiding when they post? After all they have their screen names to hide behind already. The threads would be so much easier to follow as well. You squabblers should read this:
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/PLEASE-GROW-UP
-
Don't throw stones in a glass house
I'm not playing games. He is. He's asking a question not out of a sincere desire for an answer but in order to bait responses.
. You are posting anonymously too.
That's right, but I have much better reason. I'm not trolling. I'm honestly answering questions. The person trolling knows where to find such quotes
If you were good willed, you would have provided those quotes himself.
I am good-willed, I answered the question. The person asking wasn't interested in the answer, but in finding a pretext to attack.
You are not good-willed, but malicious. You are here to insult people.
If you have the time to respond to these posts, surely you could copy and paste something, or type it up yourself.
First I make sure I'm dealing with someone honestly asking the question.
The fact that you keep judging and even giving thumbs down to the person's concession that Ratzinger is a heretic shows that you are in these internet discussion merely for the sake of satisfying some sort of egomaniacal pathology of yours.
This proves that your real purpose here. It's not to discuss the Faith, but to damage reputations. While hiding your own identity
Asking dishonest, baiting questions which is the MO of "curioustrad" is not about honest discussion, but about engaging in baiting.
He is clearly malevolent, and frankly quite dull, especially that last bit about Churchill and Bishop Williamson being on the way back into an authority position in the SSPX.
Those are either the ravings of a delusional or they are words said by someone with a reckless regard for the truth.
-
Boy, you really need to grow up.
Tell you what, I'll stop calling people dishonest when they stop acting like transparent instigators and trolls.
For example, the egotistical "curioustrad" - asking for Father Pfeiffer to respond to his question on this forum.
Don't let your personality disorders and insatiable need to feed your ego blind you.
Yes, I get angry with trolls.
The guy even conceded that Ratzinger is a heretic, and yet you still persist in judging this person.
How do you know? Who's who? This person isn't interested in a good-faith discussion.
You are just proof that it is people like you who are making sure people remain in the N. O.
People in the NO don't troll the anonymous sub-forum.
You're clearly a jerk who won't say these things on the main forum because your agenda is too transparent there.
-
Pharisees ask disingenuous questions anonymously to try to trip others up.
Those who are with the SSPX have a bad reputation for using dishonest methods to damage reputations.
-
dis·in·gen·u·ous
Adjective
Not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.
-
Can you provide concrete examples from Benedict XVI's writings, and explain how they are heretical (i.e., determine how they are contrary to a dogma of divinely revealed and Catholic faith, and proposed by the Church as such) and can you cite the dogma or doctrine that such examples contradicts and how it does so?
Thanks.
Guys,
Please just answer this guy's question.
If he's just here to bait, you'll know soon enough.
I myself want others to quote Benedict XVI's heresies because I don't want to spend the time nor the money reading his writings but I may have to do so anyway.
-
Can you provide concrete examples from Benedict XVI's writings, and explain how they are heretical (i.e., determine how they are contrary to a dogma of divinely revealed and Catholic faith, and proposed by the Church as such) and can you cite the dogma or doctrine that such examples contradicts and how it does so?
Thanks.
Guys,
Please just answer this guy's question.
If he's just here to bait, you'll know soon enough.
I myself want others to quote Benedict XVI's heresies because I don't want to spend the time nor the money reading his writings but I may have to do so anyway.
I provided some heretical quotes from Benedict on page four.
-
:shocked: I had never read that he had said this, about the resurrected bodies, I mean. Had to google it. :facepalm:
-
Benedict XVI, Zenit News story, Sept. 5, 2000: “We are in agreement that a Jew, and this is true for believers of other religions, does not need to know or acknowledge Christ as the Son of God in order to be saved…”
False.
This is addressed to the guy who is saying that context is everything.
What would be the context for this quote?
Only way to salvage this quote would be that the person quoting it left off the part where this was all rejected.
Did Benedict XVI say "does not need to know or acknowledge Christ as the Son of God in order to be saved by the tradition of the Church and the most sacred Second Vatican Council, denies this and proclaims broadly that outside the Church there is no Salvation and he who does not acknowledge Christ as His Lord and Savior is forever damned." ---- If Benedict XVI finished off that sentence in that fashion then I do think we shouldn't take quotes out of context.
So, what was the context?
-
I think you're grasping at straws with that argument. Considering the fact that Benedict prays in ѕуηαgσgυєs and is a supporter of the heretical docuмent "Nostra Aetate", I highly doubt that was his context.
-
So, what was the context?
Well, if you want context, you might try looking at the new Catechism, which claims to present the faith in its entirety. In general, I think that is a better though perhaps lengthier approach to forming an informed judgment than reading selected excerpts from the Pope's books. The Catechism has some defects that will become apparent, but it still reaffirms many of the basic truths of the faith, and most conservative Catholics today will get their faith directly from this Catechism, so it's worth going through if you intend to study in depth what the Pope really teaches.
On the subject of no salvation apart from Christ and outside the Church,
"Outside the Church there is no salvation"
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336
847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337
848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338
-
Benedict XVI has written a vast array of heretical things.