Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Catholic Living in the Modern World => Topic started by: Jehanne on August 30, 2015, 07:24:53 AM
-
I have become convinced of this lately. I started a new job months ago and am working with a very nice man, a Novus Ordo Catholic who is strictly pro-life. I have not revealed my "traddie" side to him, but he has, from time to time, talked about the Faith. And, he has also expressed his doubts about it, going so far as to say that if there is no afterlife that he would be okay with such.
Explains a lot about the post-conciliar Church and, no doubt, Francis.
-
.
Most Catholics are agnostics.
What a load of bunk.
.
-
.
Most Catholics are agnostics.
What a load of bunk.
.
I thought this was off as well. It seems to be a stretch given one statement made by one NO Catholic. Most of the NO Catholics I knew when I was NO were most definitely not agnostic. They were ignorant, as I was, but not agnostic.
-
I think most if not all faithful go through periods in their
lives when their faith is stronger or weaker.
This happens to saints and sinners.
-
.
Most Catholics are agnostics.
What a load of bunk.
.
I thought this was off as well. It seems to be a stretch given one statement made by one NO Catholic. Most of the NO Catholics I knew when I was NO were most definitely not agnostic. They were ignorant, as I was, but not agnostic.
The guy I know is active in his NO parish, serves on the parish council, and goes to Mass regularly. He seems to me like a typical NO Catholic. I doubt that he would express his views publicly which he expressed privately to me, but thinking about it, his attitude seems to be the norm.
After all, why do most NO Catholics continue to attend the New Mass when it is patently obvious that the "old" Tridentine Mass is far more reverent and far more expressive of the belief in the Real Presence, unless, of course, one either doubts or simply does not believe in the Real Presence? Yet, where I live, the Tridentine Masses are poorly attended, as is the SSPX Mass.
-
What's true is that most nominal Catholics are at least heretics ... in light of their own polling data.
-
It's worse than that:
When I confronted my two Catholic colleagues on the panel with the apparent miracle of the virgin birth and asked how they could reconcile this with basic biology, I was ultimately told that perhaps this biblical claim merely meant to emphasize what an important event the birth was. Neither came to the explicit defense of what is undeniably one of the central tenets of Catholic theology.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB124597314928257169
Now, in fact, I would argue most people who even call themselves religious choose reason over God for many reasons. Most people who believe in the ʝʊdɛօ-Christian God, don’t really believe in most part—the way—people are happy to call themselves Christians or Jєωs, but they, but they pick and choose from the Scriptures. They say, well, Jonah didn’t live inside a whale. You know, I don’t really like the idea that Lot told the, the people of Sodom—he said, O.K., rape my daughters because I don’t want to you rape the angels. So go rape my daughters because they are just women, and women are chattel, and it’s O.K. I doubt many Catholics actually believe—in fact, I would be amazed to find any, including priests, who believe that when a priest blesses a wafer it turns into the body of a first century Jєω. I was on a stage with several people from the Vatican—the Vatican astronomer and, and several colleagues of mine: religious Catholics—and I asked them if any of them believed in the virgin birth and not one of them would said they did.
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/life-the-universe-and-nothing-is-it-reasonable-to-believe-there-is-a-go
-
This man would be "ok with" there being no afterlife?
That speaks volumes.
Let's just say the saints would NEVER have said something like this. They bet everything on the afterlife. They weren't living for this world even 1%.
If you're hoping "there's no afterlife" that means you're losing the game and wish the game didn't exist. It means you're on the road to hell and you know it.
Just one of those things people don't realize how much they're giving away. Then again, when you're living in a state of sin your intellect becomes clouded. You think everyone is as confused and unsettled as you.
-
Yes, there is a crisis in the Church. This anecdotal evidence certainly helps support that fact.
This is why we must avoid the conciliar Church and the Novus Ordo mass, lest we become heretics as well. Heresy isn't going to get us into heaven, that much is for sure. It might get us into hell though.
-
I am of an age remembering when every Catholic Church had the same
Faith, beliefs, and Rituals.
Then came Vatican 2. In my first V2 Class in 1965. It was taught
there, "Forget what those good nuns taught you in Catechism
Class." We are starting all over again.
The last time that this was heard was during the Protestant Reformation
in which if you did not swallow the official line, you head would be
rolling off.
I attended the 30th reunion of my High School Class and I saw the
results, not one of my former classmates were practicing their
Catholic Faith. Some left years before to Protestant sects. And
many were not practicing their faith. Some I knew since First
Grade in the Fall of 1953.
-
My thoughts: my mother is age 83 and I think she stays in New Order because she wants the changes. She agrees with contraception, agrees with divorce with remarriage and now, agrees that ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs are children of God. My other siblings stay there for the same reasons, and I get shunned.
I knew of a deacon and he is 80 and he told me that if he had his way, yeah, baptism would wait til one is 18, that is ready to take on the faith. So, he does not see baptism as the removal of original sin, but initiation. They are taught these notions when taking classes.
Another notion was that Our Lady was just like us at her death, old and wrinkled. Hm? She is not free of original sin. That was taught in classes for catechesis.
I would like to get the New Order people to realize they are in communism/marxist and supporting it. Then would they leave? My siblings aren't moving!
-
My thoughts: my mother is age 83 and I think she stays in New Order because she wants the changes. She agrees with contraception, agrees with divorce with remarriage and now, agrees that ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs are children of God. My other siblings stay there for the same reasons, and I get shunned.
This is so sad. When I hear older women say this, especially in front of their kids, I always wonder which of her children she wished she hadn't had.
While my mother never returned to tradition, she was not happy about the changes (except for Saturday afternoon Mass) but didn't think she had a choice.
She always wished her children had more children and was sad because all of my older siblings had the attitude of two and no more. By the time we had our third child, her mind had already gone. She didn't know me or her grandchildren anymore, but I know she would be happy to know that we didn't think "two was enough".
-
In my local Novus Ordo parish which I attended for about a year before I became traditional there is only one family that seems like they might have the faith. Of course the females wear pants and do not cover their heads and the parents might use contraception, but they seem to care about the religion and go to Mass regularly and have a respect for the blessed sacrament during exposition and they always genuflect. And the mother once was talking about a baby who died without baptism and she seemed sad like she really believed that the baby did not go to heaven because of the lack of baptism. But that is just one family in a large parish. Outside of them I doubt if anyone believed in the whole faith.
I believe that many of them are not agnostics and do believe in some kind of God, but they reject the true God and the teachings of the Catholic Church and believe in a God of their own making, an idol.
-
Most of them are 'not' agnostics......however, they'll willingly turn into ones if the Church does something that's too tradical for them, such as telling them fαɢɢօtry should be made illegal, or saying that the Inquisition did nothing wrong.
-
I think most of us agree that your typical NO is something alright, but I don't think agnostic describes them. Agnostics claim that they believe in nothing because nothing can be proved. NO Catholics generally always believe in something (many, quite ardently), though it's usually the wrong thing.
-
I am of an age remembering when every Catholic Church had the same
Faith, beliefs, and Rituals.
Then came Vatican 2. In my first V2 Class in 1965. It was taught
there, "Forget what those good nuns taught you in Catechism
Class." We are starting all over again.
The last time that this was heard was during the Protestant Reformation
in which if you did not swallow the official line, you head would be
rolling off.
I attended the 30th reunion of my High School Class and I saw the
results, not one of my former classmates were practicing their
Catholic Faith. Some left years before to Protestant sects. And
many were not practicing their faith. Some I knew since First
Grade in the Fall of 1953.
It's actually a great blessing -- a bolstering of your Faith -- to see that you are certainly doing the right thing. To see the hard, scientific evidence -- the proof -- of what the Novus Ordo religion does to lives.
In 1970, people could say, "Obedience! Give it a chance!" and they had more excuse.
Today, looking at the wasteland of the Church, it's hard to excuse Vatican II without some serious willful blindness.
-
Today, looking at the wasteland of the Church, it's hard to excuse Vatican II without some serious willful blindness.
Matthew,
Why is the SSPX trying so hard to reconcile with Churchmen who will not defend and profess the Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ? Consider Francis' double-talk:
http://catholicism.org/the-multiplication-of-the-loaves-and-fishes-was-real.html
Why would anyone want to have anything to do with such nonsense? Here's the original source, by the way:
http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/1943-does-pope-francis-really-believe-the-gospels
-
.
This whole thread is gibberish. (Referring to the thread title and the abject failure of its author to provide any backup for this ridiculous claim -- even while other posting members have done their best to make sense of the nonsense.)
The two references, out of which Jehanne obtained these quips (below, from the first page of the thread), are quotes from Lawrence M. Krauss (professor of "cosmology") who is no more Catholic than he is "agnostic." He is clearly secular and atheist, even if he doesn't think that of himself. He scoffs at everything the Church teaches -- because that's the spirit of our age -- while pretending not to care about the Church or what it teaches, because he can sell copy that way. People listen to his nonsense because their heads are full of mush in the first place. His contempt of the very notion of religion is palpable and he is mystified how anyone can presume that he'll have any part of a discussion involving religion. The first venue begins with these two paragraphs (notice how he implies equivalency of religion with witchcraft and astrology):
Last week, I had the opportunity to participate in several exciting panel discussions at the World Science Festival in New York City. But the most dramatic encounter took place at the panel strangely titled "Science, Faith and Religion." I had been conscripted to join the panel after telling one of the organizers that I saw no reason to have it. After all, there was no panel on science and astrology, or science and witchcraft. So why one on science and religion?
I ended up being one of two panelists labeled "atheists." The other was philosopher Colin McGinn. On the other side of the debate were two devoutly Catholic scientists, biologist Kenneth Miller and Vatican astronomer Guy Consolmagno. Mr. McGinn began by commenting that it was eminently rational to suppose that Santa Claus doesn't exist even if one cannot definitively prove that he doesn't. Likewise, he argued, we can apply the same logic to the supposed existence of God. The moderator of the session, Bill Blakemore, a reporter with some religious inclination, surprised me by bursting out in response, "Then I guess you are a rational atheist."
I would take issue with his claim that Guy Consolmagno is a "devout Catholic." Nor is he agnostic. But he is very intelligent.
Catholics are not agnostics, and if you think they are then you don't know what agnostic means.
It's worse than that:
When I confronted my two Catholic colleagues on the panel with the apparent miracle of the virgin birth and asked how they could reconcile this with basic biology, I was ultimately told that perhaps this biblical claim merely meant to emphasize what an important event the birth was. Neither came to the explicit defense of what is undeniably one of the central tenets of Catholic theology.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB124597314928257169
Now, in fact, I would argue most people who even call themselves religious choose reason over God for many reasons. Most people who believe in the ʝʊdɛօ-Christian God, don’t really believe in most part—the way—people are happy to call themselves Christians or Jєωs, but they, but they pick and choose from the Scriptures. They say, well, Jonah didn’t live inside a whale. You know, I don’t really like the idea that Lot told the, the people of Sodom—he said, O.K., rape my daughters because I don’t want to you rape the angels. So go rape my daughters because they are just women, and women are chattel, and it’s O.K. I doubt many Catholics actually believe—in fact, I would be amazed to find any, including priests, who believe that when a priest blesses a wafer it turns into the body of a first century Jєω. I was on a stage with several people from the Vatican—the Vatican astronomer and, and several colleagues of mine: religious Catholics—and I asked them if any of them believed in the virgin birth and not one of them would said they did.
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/life-the-universe-and-nothing-is-it-reasonable-to-believe-there-is-a-go
-
.
MORE NONSENSE
Here Jehanne is, providing two links for reference regarding the Pope's belief in the "Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ" when in fact neither website page contains any mention of the Virgin Birth or what Pope Francis has to say about it. They are about the Loaves and Fishes gospel miracle, unrelated to the birth of Christ.
Today, looking at the wasteland of the Church, it's hard to excuse Vatican II without some serious willful blindness.
Matthew,
Why is the SSPX trying so hard to reconcile with Churchmen who will not defend and profess the Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ? Consider Francis' double-talk:
http://catholicism.org/the-multiplication-of-the-loaves-and-fishes-was-real.html
Why would anyone want to have anything to do with such nonsense? Here's the original source, by the way:
http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/1943-does-pope-francis-really-believe-the-gospels
-
Then let Francis "come out of the closet" and state, clearly, that he believes that the Loaves & Fishes account in the Gospels was, in fact, a true miracle. Consider this:
https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=525
The late Father Raymond Brown was praised widely by the post-Vatican II Popes. This is whom the SSPX is trying to "reconcile" with.