Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Catholic Living in the Modern World => Topic started by: Viva Cristo Rey on January 01, 2023, 04:34:34 PM
-
Obelisk should have been destroyed like the golden calf. Such waste of time of money for a pagan monument. Look at the pagan statue in USA (DC). Symbols of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ. God’s first Commandment tells you that the obelisk needs to be destroyed. Worship God;not satan. Most of the novus Ordo are pagans.
(https://i.imgur.com/wNGofK6.png)
-
You sound like an uncultured Philistine. Not every obelisk is inscribed with a call to worship pagan gods.
They are more similar to Trajan's column in Rome, which simply gives a pictorial account of his military
victories.
I don't think our youth have ever been swayed to start worshipping Anubis because they passed
an obelisk while out for a stroll. Same goes for visiting any museum where pagan artifacts are on display.
Those gods have long since been replaced by a host of vulgar celebrities
-
Obelisk should have been destroyed like the golden calf. Such waste of time of money for a pagan monument. Look at the pagan statue in USA (DC). Symbols of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ. God’s first Commandment tells you that the obelisk needs to be destroyed. Worship God;not satan. Most of the novus Ordo are pagans.
(https://i.imgur.com/wNGofK6.png)
Seriously, you need to stop posting this garbage. You’re sounding more and more like a puritanical Protestant. Those obelisks are capped with a cross to signify Christianity’s dominance over paganism. Tell it to all of the popes and saints who allowed them to stand for nearly two centuries unmolested. They didn’t want to destroy those historical monuments. :facepalm:
-
How do you think we ended up with Bergolio and Biden?? Pagans. People have lost the faith.
Look at Notre Dame …. It’s now Notre Shame. Pagans.
We don’t need any pagan monuments period. Catholics need to pray, fast and take action. Who cares about pagan Egyptian statues and art work. We have people in the world who don’t know Jesus or they were poorly catechized.
You need to stop defending this pagan garbage.
The most important thing for Catholics is God and our blessed Mother. Our faith. Everything else is materialistic.
Our VIctory is in heaven.
Jesus chased out the money changers.
-
Another thing much stuff in museums especially from Egypt are cursed. Vatican museums are being used to cater parties of the rich and famous pagans. I guess you love the artwork of golden buda statue and other unholy art that was gifted as the Vatican gives away our holy relics. Our God is a jealous God. He will not be mocked.
-
You sound like an uncultured Philistine. Not every obelisk is inscribed with a call to worship pagan gods.
They are more similar to Trajan's column in Rome, which simply gives a pictorial account of his military
victories.
I don't think our youth have ever been swayed to start worshipping Anubis because they passed
an obelisk while out for a stroll. Same goes for visiting any museum where pagan artifacts are on display.
Those gods have long since been replaced by a host of vulgar celebrities
Oh. Really? Then why are so many Catholic Churches and Catholic schools are closing? Many Catholic youth have left the Catholic to worship false gods like Anubis. Bergolio worships statues of naked fertility goddess. And many youth left the Catholic Church for satanism and witchcraft. These celebrities are worshipping demon pagan gods and goddesses. They mock our God and most Catholics condone it.
Visit holy shrines instead of secular museums full of pagan shrines and unholy cursed objects.
-
Why is there an Egyptian obelisk erected at St. Peter's Square?
Review of Obelisco Vaticano (https://www.tripadvisor.com/Attraction_Review-g187793-d5966969-Reviews-Obelisco_Vaticano-Vatican_City_Lazio.html)
Reviewed October 5, 2014
Almost everybody has seen the famous Egyptian obelisk at the center of the St. Peter's Square in Vatican City. Either you visited Rome, or you watched it on television when a new pope is elected or for example during Easter. But what is the story? Why has this particular obelisk been erected here and what is the connection with the Vatican?
First I want to point out that there are many kinds of obelisks. Some have been quarried in Egypt, but many have been self made. Currently there are only 28 Egyptian obelisks standing in the world. Only 6 are standing in Egypt, 13 in Rome and the rest is located around the world in cities like New York, London, Paris and Istanbul. The Egyptian obelisk which is now located at St. Peter's Square is often called Vatican Obelisk. It is not known which Pharaoh has constructed it, but it is assumed that it was erected at Heliopolis around 2500 BC. Around 30 BC the obelisk was moved to Alexandria by Emperor Augustus and erected at the Julian Forum. In 37 AD Emperor Caligula ordered the destruction of the Forum and the obelisk was shipped to Rome. It was placed on the central Spina of Caligula’s circus, later called the Circus of Nero. Much of the circus is under the basilica and square, the original spot for the obelisk is near the present-day sacristy, south of the basilica. The Circus of Nero was not only used for chariot racing, but also for countless brutal public executions of Christians, who were blamed for the big fires in Rome in 64 AD. It is believed that the apostles Saint Peter and Saint Paul were crucified in the Circus. The obelisk remained there for 1.500 years. Then in 1586 Pope Sixtus V decided to have the obelisk moved a few hundred meters to its present location, in front of the construction site of the (new) St. Peter Basilica. The question is what motivated Pope Sixtus V to erect the 25 meters (82 ft) high phallic pillar on the center of St. Peter's Square?
Actually the idea of moving the obelisk came from Pope Nicholas V, but was never succeeded. Sixtus V, who desired to recover and restore statues and obelisks in the neglected city of Rome, was challenged by the idea of Nicholas V. At that time many believed that those who would adore and pray to an image were likely to believe the god represented by it was alive in the stone and watching their behavior. Probably Pope Sixtus V also believed this and that is why, after the obelisk was moved and before the cross was placed on top, he conducted the ancient rite of exorcism against the obelisk. After that he casted sanctified water upon the pillar in the form of a cross and spoke, “In nomine Patris, et Filij, et Spiritus sancti. Amen” (“In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Amen”). The text of the exorcism is carved in Latin into the western and eastern sides of the base of the obelisk.
The obelisk was moved by engineer and architect Domenico Fontana. It took over 900 men and 140 horses more than 5 months to move the obelisk and pull it upright. Fontana did a good job and the obelisk still stands, in fact it is the only ancient Egyptian obelisk in Rome which remained standing since Roman times. It remains a mystery why the obelisk has no hieroglyphic inscriptions.
Nowadays three different coats-of-arms can be found on the obelisk. Its base is adorned with four lions and some bronze eagles while at the top hills and stars can be seen. The lions refer to Sixtus V, the eagles (only added in 1713) to the Conti family of Pope Innocence XIII and the hills and stars belong to Pope Alexander VII‘s Chigi family. Recently Pope Benedict XVI revealed that the obelisk is in fact al huge sundial and that can accurately indicate midday thanks to a granite meridian and marble markers embedded in the square.
Not everybody likes the obelisk, but we all agree that it has great history.
https://www.tripadvisor.com/ShowUserReviews-g187793-d5966969-r232724561-Obelisco_Vaticano-Vatican_City_Lazio.html
-
Oh. Really? Then why are so many Catholic Churches and Catholic schools are closing? Many Catholic youth have left the Catholic to worship false gods like Anubis. Bergolio worships statues of naked fertility goddess. And many youth left the Catholic Church for satanism and witchcraft. These celebrities are worshipping demon pagan gods and goddesses. They mock our God and most Catholics condone it.
Visit holy shrines instead of secular museums full of pagan shrines and unholy cursed objects.
Those are novus ordo buildings that are closing, mostly to sell the real estate in order to cover the enormous settlements for all the kid touching priests.
Bergoglio doesn't worship pachamama, he allows the profanation of the Vatican as way of elevating his true lord and master, Lucifer.
The fact is Raphael, Michelangelo and other masters decorated the papal apartments with statues and paintings of many Greco/Roman deities, not for the purpose of worship but because the ancients prior to Christ possessed a
certain ideals, particularly with respect to aesthetics/beauty that hinted at the divine. St. Peter's itself is
an adaptation of classical architecture.
Every decorative element in every church you have ever seen didn't just spring out of a void.
Even Aquinas understood this, because he is constantly referencing Aristotle.
Furthermore, the Pantheon in Rome was a major pagan temple that was converted to a Catholic church.
-
Obelisk should have been destroyed like the golden calf. Such waste of time of money for a pagan monument.
.
This obelisk was put in St. Peter's Square by a good and holy pope many centuries ago. You should have more respect when you talk about things like this, especially if it's something you don't know much about. Shame on you.
-
You seem to like throwing buzzwords around
-
Those are novus ordo buildings that are closing, mostly to sell the real estate in order to cover the enormous settlements for all the kid touching priests.
Bergoglio doesn't worship pachamama, he allows the profanation of the Vatican as way of elevating his true lord and master, Lucifer.
The fact is Raphael, Michelangelo and other masters decorated the papal apartments with statues and paintings of many Greco/Roman deities, not for the purpose of worship but because the ancients prior to Christ possessed a
certain ideals, particularly with respect to aesthetics/beauty that hinted at the divine. St. Peter's itself is
an adaptation of classical architecture.
Every decorative element in every church you have ever seen didn't just spring out of a void.
Even Aquinas understood this, because he is constantly referencing Aristotle.
Furthermore, the Pantheon in Rome was a major pagan temple that was converted to a Catholic church.
.
This is very well said, my friend. Every word in this post is like solid rock. Nicely done.
-
We know Greek and Norse mythology because monks and priests kept them.
The same thing happened with art and architecture as Bernardo says.
Even in America, at least in Spanish America, native languages and culture were preserved while paganism was combated. Fray Bernardino de Sahagún, a Franciscan priest, learned Nahualt and translated many texts.
The same happened with the Incas, that is why there are works like "Hanacpachap cussicuinin" Hymn to the Virgin Mary and the first polyphonic work in America, written in Quechua.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGNCCSJBPIY
Pagan religions were fought, but their art and culture were preserved, then they knew how to differentiate one thing from the other. Why should it be different now?
Ancient Egypt, yes, they made great architectural works: temples, necropolis, pyramids, etc. You can affirm that and at the same time say that their religion was false, pagan and they worshiped demons. One thing doesn't negate the other.
-
We don’t need any pagan monuments period. Catholics need to pray, fast and take action. Who cares about pagan Egyptian statues and art work.
Okay, Tertullian.
-
Been reading Michael Hoffman lately, VCR?
-
.
This obelisk was put in St. Peter's Square by a good and holy pope many centuries ago. You should have more respect when you talk about things like this, especially if it's something you don't know much about. Shame on you.
How do you know if he was a good and holy pope? Only God knows. Our God is a jealous God who doesn’t like pagan statues. I do know it’s pagan. It seems many popes like to dabble with paganism. Shame on the Catholics for accepting such nonsense and distractions from the true faith. What is important artwork or spreading the Gospel of Jesus. I’m sure while Priests were dodging bullets and the poor Catholics were going to Mass rocks, they were thinking about pagan statues.
Jesus Christ now and forever.
-
How do you know if he was a good and holy pope? Only God knows. Our God is a jealous God who doesn’t like pagan statues. I do know it’s pagan. It seems many popes like to dabble with paganism. Shame on the Catholics for accepting such nonsense and distractions from the true faith. What is important artwork or spreading the Gospel of Jesus. I’m sure while Priests were dodging bullets and the poor Catholics were going to Mass rocks, they were thinking about pagan statues.
Jesus Christ now and forever.
Fake popes like to dabble with paganism. You are seriously messed up due to your lack of knowledge and understanding of the papacy. :facepalm:
-
Been reading Michael Hoffman lately, VCR?
No. I am not a follower of Michael Hoffman. I see most Of us don’t have our priorities in check when it comes to the Catholic Faith. I’m not perfect either.
There is a reason why most Catholics don’t know their faith because they are worshipping false idols and gods.
during penal days in Ireland, England and yes even in America, the people were persecuted for their faith. They had little contact or knowledge of the papacy. They didn’t have time to pursue worldly pleasures.
Only the rich were messing with such foolishness such as secular plays, secular art and books, music, etc. Time and place for everything but there is way too much immaturity and ignorance. Then there are those who view themselves as highly educated and know everything but are these people living the faith. Do they follow man or Jesus?
The breaking down and attacks on Catholicism didn’t start with Bergolio. It started long before him. And maybe It had to do with a “a good and holy pope” from the past who should have made sure the Gospel was spread through out the world instead of wasting time on pagan statues. What good is all this artwork when the majority of Catholics are going to hell because they are worshipping false gods and false idols.
Freemasons love these Egyptian obelisks. The devil created Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ.
Look at the current condition of the counter church of satan which is currently shutting down true Catholicism. A huge amount of Catholics reject The teachings of Jesus Christ and are leading the world to make mortal sins the laws of the land.
We have these bad Catholics even in traditional circles pushing a deadly vax which is global genocide and all you can do is worry about stupid materialistic stuff.
I’m worried about saving my soul. I’m trying to save other souls. Pray to our God for the papacy to convert back to Catholicism.
-
How do you know if he was a good and holy pope? Only God knows. Our God is a jealous God who doesn’t like pagan statues. I do know it’s pagan. It seems many popes like to dabble with paganism. Shame on the Catholics for accepting such nonsense and distractions from the true faith. What is important artwork or spreading the Gospel of Jesus. I’m sure while Priests were dodging bullets and the poor Catholics were going to Mass rocks, they were thinking about pagan statues.
Jesus Christ now and forever.
How are you even Catholic saying this stuff???
🤯
-
Pray to our God for the papacy to convert back to Catholicism.
Sede vacante. If the "pope" needs to convert *back* to Catholicism, then he isn't actually the pope.
-
I'm not a big fan of obelisks either, as they definitely have a phallic aspect to them. I know that at the Vatican there's a cross on top to symbolize that Christ has conquered paganism, but given the phallic backdrop ... it seems a bit strange.
Of course, from above, the Vatican square looks like a keyhole ... symbolizing the keys of St. Peter.
-
.
This obelisk was put in St. Peter's Square by a good and holy pope many centuries ago. You should have more respect when you talk about things like this, especially if it's something you don't know much about. Shame on you.
Ah, it's OK to have an opinion on such things. I for one would sand-blast Michaelangelo's homoerotic stuff out of the Sistine chapel :laugh1:
But if people can question things like whether various popes, some "good and holy", made mistakes in backing away from the Church's condemnation of heliocentrism, or usury, or in permitting the discussion of evolution, or NFP, or the 1950s Holy Week Rites, I think it's OK to (respectfully) question the appropriateness of some of this pagan art still floating around. So long as one doesn't cast aspersions on the Church per se, i think it's OK. Sometimes I think that SVism, in battling against the incredibly loose view of infallibility promoted by R&Rism, has overrreacted in the other direction. I've heard some SVs claim that we can't question anything that appears in any book that bears an imprimatur ... effectively extending the scope of infallibility to an asurd extreme that could lend itself to mockery by anti-Catholics. I think that a healthy balance is called for, similar to how Msgr. Fenton articulated it.
Many popes have made prudential mistakes, Pope Leo XIII in articulating a principle about Sacred Scripture that, while not wrong, was inopportune in that the Modernists pounced on it to justify their udermining Sacred Scripture, Pius XII in the Holy Week Rites, evolution, NFP, Pius XI with regard to the Cristeros, Benedict XV with regard to rolling back St. Pius X's battle against Modernism, Pius XII in many of his episcopal appointments, etc.
This is not the same thing as saying, with R&R, that the Pope can use his legitimate authority to thoroughly corrupt the Catholic religion.
-
How are you even Catholic saying this stuff???
🤯
I’m Catholic. I don’t get upset over obelisks and statues. You as a Catholic should be more concerned of the loss of souls. You should be more concerned that the Catholic Faith has been replaced with pagan demonic worship.
You should be upset at the recent Catholic Church burning’s.
Popes are men; not God. And one child raped is one child too many. Normal reaction should have been of disgust. How are you even Catholic when getting over a stupid statue in Rome instead of being upset over the loss of souls.
-
Yeah, it's a bit extreme (borderline absurd) to question your Catholic faith simply because you don't like obelisks. That's to take the Church's inerrancy a bit too far.
-
I’m Catholic. I don’t get upset over obelisks and statues. You as a Catholic should be more concerned of the loss of souls. You should be more concerned that the Catholic Faith has been replaced with pagan demonic worship.
You should be upset at the recent Catholic Church burning’s.
Popes are men; not God. And one child raped is one child too many. Normal reaction should have been of disgust. How are you even Catholic when getting over a stupid statue in Rome instead of being upset over the loss of souls.
This is such cope and seethe.
1) you were saying that *many* popes were involved in paganism or dabbled in it. That's an extremely scandalous thing to say, especially without any actual proof or examples.
2) this thread is about obelisks and pagan art in general, not abuse or loss of souls.
3) I am not a priest. I have a hard enough time wrestling with myself, you expect me to clutch my pearls over what actual priests/bishops decided was ok hundreds of years ago? We literally have on demand porn now, tf you talking about??
4) bringing up child abuse is a manipulative tacit. You're just trying to make yourself feel morally superior. You're not. You're on the internet just like the rest of us. Don't see you crying over the people that were exploited to make the computer or phone you're using? Pretty sure being exploited and abused for economic reasons is just as destructive to souls as some dumb obelisk that is literally just a status symbol.
5) your accusatory tone is disrespectful and annoying.
-
This is such cope and seethe.
1) you were saying that *many* popes were involved in paganism or dabbled in it. That's an extremely scandalous thing to say, especially without any actual proof or examples.
2) this thread is about obelisks and pagan art in general, not abuse or loss of souls.
3) I am not a priest. I have a hard enough time wrestling with myself, you expect me to clutch my pearls over what actual priests/bishops decided was ok hundreds of years ago? We literally have on demand porn now, tf you talking about??
4) bringing up child abuse is a manipulative tacit. You're just trying to make yourself feel morally superior. You're not. You're on the internet just like the rest of us. Don't see you crying over the people that were exploited to make the computer or phone you're using? Pretty sure being exploited and abused for economic reasons is just as destructive to souls as some dumb obelisk that is literally just a status symbol.
5) your accusatory tone is disrespectful and annoying.
Cornelius, you've met our resident puritan. I've been down this road with her on other issues. It isn't worth stressing over.
-
Obelisk should have been destroyed like the golden calf. Such waste of time of money for a pagan monument. Look at the pagan statue in USA (DC). Symbols of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ. God’s first Commandment tells you that the obelisk needs to be destroyed. Worship God;not satan. Most of the novus Ordo are pagans.
(https://i.imgur.com/wNGofK6.png)
What website is this from?
-
Obelisks indicate paganism? Some, yes, probably if dedicated to pagan idols and used as such. Someone else said they’re phallic symbols? Time to get your minds on better things!
In the early 1920’s a country road was built in my area that had approx. three foot high concrete obelisks as mile markers indicating the distance from northern and southern ends of the road carved into them. I’ve never once seen anyone worship one, nor do I think of a phallus as I drive by! (But now the thought is going to occur to me.)
There’s also am obelisk shaped monument in a town about 40 miles from my home. It has the names of those from the town who made the ultimate sacrifice in WWI. So if I stop to read it, that makes me a phallus worshipping pagan? Sorry, guys and gals, but that’s the last thing on my mind!
I also (gulp) own a short, squat obelisk shaped glass paper weight. It has some sort of gel liquid inside of it with various sea creature shaped sequins. When you shake it, the sea creatures move around until they slowly settle on the bottom. I’ve never worshipped it or had impure thoughts while idly playing with it!
Please stop the rash judgments. Viva, do you really think significant numbers of people on CI are into paganism and pornography? Look up the Epistle of St. Paul to Titus, chapter one, verse 15!
-
This is about as stupid and narrow-minded as those who think holding their hands in a specific gesture must ALWAYS mean they're a high-level Mason. :facepalm:
-
Been reading Michael Hoffman lately, VCR?
The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome is an eye opener for sure.
-
The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome is an eye opener for sure.
It can be, I overall was not impressed with it. But I think he takes far too many Protestant-esque angles on things to the point where he "un-saints" the likes of St. Alphonsus and St. Pius X. It reminds me of those "truther" compilations made by Bitchute users that mixes a lot of truths with falsehoods about the Church.
He also pushes this same exact stupid Prot talking point about the Roman obelisk as this thread.
-
Obelisks indicate paganism? Some, yes, probably if dedicated to pagan idols and used as such. Someone else said they’re phallic symbols? Time to get your minds on better things!
In the early 1920’s a country road was built in my area that had approx. three foot high concrete obelisks as mile markers indicating the distance from northern and southern ends of the road carved into them. I’ve never once seen anyone worship one, nor do I think of a phallus as I drive by! (But now the thought is going to occur to me.)
There’s also am obelisk shaped monument in a town about 40 miles from my home. It has the names of those from the town who made the ultimate sacrifice in WWI. So if I stop to read it, that makes me a phallus worshipping pagan? Sorry, guys and gals, but that’s the last thing on my mind!
I also (gulp) own a short, squat obelisk shaped glass paper weight. It has some sort of gel liquid inside of it with various sea creature shaped sequins. When you shake it, the sea creatures move around until they slowly settle on the bottom. I’ve never worshipped it or had impure thoughts while idly playing with it!
Please stop the rash judgments. Viva, do you really think significant numbers of people on CI are into paganism and pornography? Look up the Epistle of St. Paul to Titus, chapter one, verse 15!
I see you only mention me. I’m not the one who mention phallus but it is true about construction of the obelisks. You seem to be twisting things. Rash. judgments?
I am not the one who travelled to Kentucky. Maybe something demonic travelled back home with you.
You have zero business accusing me of making rash judgements against me.
The novus Ordo is fully in a state of diabolical disorientation.
For the one calling me the resident puritan, you are making rash judgements against me because I don’t smoke pot, have tattoos and piercings.
satan can quote scripture. We see scripture everyday twisted by the demonic! Lol. Everyone goes along instead of fighting it.
There are “Catholics” who support abortion and sodomite marriage. There are “Catholics” who have Buddhism statues and yoga. Why do you think about obsession about King tut, Greek gods & goddesses, super heroes???
-
Actually, you side along with novus Ordo Catholics who defended the obelisk.
-
“Stay away from people who are not followers of the Lord! Can someone who is good get along with someone who is evil? Are light and darkness the same? Is Christ a friend of Satan? Can people who follow the Lord have anything in common with those who don't? Do idols belong in the temple of God? We are the temple of the living God.
-
Seraphina, your post against me was really mean and rotten. You are the one who visited the impure who was involved with demons and witchcraft.
-
Someone else said they’re phallic symbols?
Well, they are in their original pagan sense. As I said, you don't have to interpret them the pagan way, but I don't particularly care for obelisks myself. But then I don't care for Michaelangelo's stuff either.
-
Actually, you side along with novus Ordo Catholics who defended the obelisk.
I can see Traditional Catholics defending obelisks. Throughout history, the Church has appropriated various other pagan symbols (for which the Church has been excoriated by the Prots). I just don't care for putting a cross on top of something that used to be regarded in a phallic sense.
-
Why is it that nobody ever seems to agree on anything? People are always fighting, within the same nation, the same family, the same religion. People will always find faults and reasons for condemnations. I fall into it as well.
-
Actually, you side along with novus Ordo Catholics who defended the obelisk.
Where did you get the information in the OP from?
-
I'm not a big fan of obelisks … they definitely have a phallic aspect to them.
I for one would sand-blast Michelangelo’s homoerotic stuff out of the Sistine chapel.
The obelisk in St. Peter’s Square came after Pope St. Pius V (1566-1572), but it was defiantly there during the reign of Pope St. Pius X (1903-1914). It was moved to its current location in 1586 under the directive of Pope Sixtus V.
The Sistine Chapel was built between 1477 and 1480 by the directive of Pope Sixtus IV. The ceiling of the chapel was painted in fresco by Michelangelo between 1508 and 1512 at the commission of Pope Julius II. The Last Judgment fresco behind the chapel’s altar was painted by him between 1536 and 1541. The original commission was from Pope Clement VII (1523-1534) and was finished during the reign of Pope Paul III (1534-1549).
Therefore, the Sistine Chapel ceiling and altar wall fresco were there during the reigns of both Pope Saint Pius V and Pope Saint Pius X. Pope Saint Pius V may have been elected under its frescos (the conclave of December 20, 1565 – January 7, 1566, was held in the Apostolic Palace but I don’t know which rooms). The conclave of 1903, which elected Pope St. Pius X, was held in the Sistine Chapel.
As to the appropriateness of maintaining the obelisk, the Sistine Chapel frescos, and many other things along those lines, I’ll trust the judgement of SAINTS Pius V and Pius X over that of anyone on this forum.
I have seen the obelisk in St. Peter’s Square. I thought of neither a phallus nor of paganism, I thought of the Cross of Christ on top of it. I have been in the Sistine Chapel, and I have admired pictures of its frescos. I never experienced “homoerotic” thoughts. One source describes them as: “… the scenes show the creation of humanity, its fall from grace, and ultimate redemption”. Another source says: “The chapel’s decoration illustrates much of the doctrine of the Catholic Church”. I’m sorry if some have trouble keeping their minds “out of the gutter”, and I certainly have my own temptations and challenges to deal with.
The call to destroy the obelisk and to paint over Michelangelo’s frescos reminds me of certain extremist Muslim groups that go around destroying art they don’t approve of. I’ll trust the judgement of SAINTS Pius V and Pius X in these matters.
-
It can be, I overall was not impressed with it. But I think he takes far too many Protestant-esque angles on things to the point where he "un-saints" the likes of St. Alphonsus and St. Pius X. It reminds me of those "truther" compilations made by Bitchute users that mixes a lot of truths with falsehoods about the Church.
He also pushes this same exact stupid Prot talking point about the Roman obelisk as this thread.
I understand your point, DL. As for me, I have no hesitation in identifying him as a fellow Catholic, a brother in Christ. Not many are familiar with his work, but I think a healthy debate about that work would be good for those who are familiar with him. Maybe I'll start a thread for that purpose.
Many recognize there was substantial rot in the Church's hierarchy before V2, especially those favorable to Fr. Feeney. Some draw the lines at the pope; the popes before John XXIII are surrounded by a wall, though the wall is conceded to have some cracks around Pius XII. I think Hoffman has made a strong case about some of the pontiffs going back to the 15th century and the Renaissance, which, let us recall, happened when there was no Protestantism.
Hoffman harkens back to a medieval Catholicism that is the apogee of the Church, for him and many others:
In the name of the expansion of knowledge the Renaissance contracted it. God’s light is all expansive, never ending and unlimited. The Renaissance spirit is the embodiment of fraud: the exploration of the bogus “freedom” the serpent offered in the Garden. The “freedom” of the serpent is not a limitless universe, but a hermetically sealed prison, the claustrophobia and blindness of human subjectivity, the theater of our mirrored ego mistaken for the cosmos. The enemies of this gnosis were Augustine and Aquinas, orthodox Catholic guides to the cosmic mind of God, and God’s unfettered Creation. “We see the things you created because they exist. But they exist only because you created them” (The Confessions of St. Augustine, XII). Reality exists within and is generated by the mind of God, the limitless expanse. During and after the Renaissance this reality was eclipsed and falsified by the doctrine of the Kabbalah: Man, the Measure of All Things. This found its expression in Pico della Mirandola’s On The Dignity of Man, a treatise which Pope “Saint” John Paul II regarded as blessed and seminal. The project of “liberation” was in actuality an occluding, self-referential construct which limited humanity to one severely crippled and warped corner of experience, giving rise to the techno-nihilist hell today, predicated upon, paradoxically, mystical superstitions tempting us to play god. Succuмbing to these temptations leads to the death of nature, not its enhancement. The great contest in our time is between medieval-Catholic fidelity to nature and Renaissance neo-Catholic consent for the god-man who will “improve” and “perfect” it.
Hoffman, Michael. The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome (pp. 41-42). Independent History and Research. Kindle Edition.
I think Hoffman makes a strong case in the book that some of the Renaissance popes opened themselves up to the spirit of the Renaissance, an opening that foreshadowed the aggiornamento of John XXIII I'm afraid.
I realize that's against the strict Trad Catholic line, but so be it.
-
As to the appropriateness of maintaining the obelisk, the Sistine Chapel frescos, and many other things along those lines, I’ll trust the judgement of SAINTS Pius V and Pius X over that of anyone on this forum.
There's no record of any judgment on their part, and their silence could just very well be due to the fact that they had much better things to do than to worry about an obelisk or some paintings. Of their top 1,000 priorities when they were pope, those were probably down in the 900s and were never addresssed. By the time of St. Pius X, most of the Sistine Chapel had been fig-leafed. This is the same type of faulty reasoning I see from some dogmatic SV types who claim that if something was not actively or explicitly condemned by the Church, then it must be considered acceptable.
Pope Julius II, who commissioned Michaelangelo in the first place, tried to make him cover up some of the nudity, and Popes Innocent X and Pius IX launched additional fig-leafing campaigns.
-
The call to destroy the obelisk and to paint over Michelangelo’s frescos reminds me of certain extremist Muslim groups that go around destroying art they don’t approve of. I’ll trust the judgement of SAINTS Pius V and Pius X in these matters.
Uhm, no. You exaggerate the case for nudity. Reportedly the Council of Trent commissioned fig-leafing campaigns. Some of Julius II's Cardinals were appalled, calling Michaelangelo's trash fit for a tavern but not for a chapel, at which pope Juilius was pressured into trying to force Michaelangelo to rework them. Innocent X not only fig-leafed stuff, but even had the genitalia of various statues chiseled off. Pius IX also commissioned some fig-leafing. Pope Paul IV also joined in.
It's not a "Muslim" thing to detest gross nudity, especially genital nudity, especially the obviously homoerotic garbage from Michaelangelo.
-
I understand your point, DL. As for me, I have no hesitation in identifying him as a fellow Catholic, a brother in Christ. Not many are familiar with his work, but I think a healthy debate about that work would be good for those who are familiar with him. Maybe I'll start a thread for that purpose.
Many recognize there was substantial rot in the Church's hierarchy before V2, especially those favorable to Fr. Feeney. Some draw the lines at the pope; the popes before John XXIII are surrounded by a wall, though the wall is conceded to have some cracks around Pius XII. I think Hoffman has made a strong case about some of the pontiffs going back to the 15th century and the Renaissance, which, let us recall, happened when there was no Protestantism.
Hoffman harkens back to a medieval Catholicism that is the apogee of the Church, for him and many others:
I think Hoffman makes a strong case in the book that some of the Renaissance popes opened themselves up to the spirit of the Renaissance, an opening that foreshadowed the aggiornamento of John XXIII I'm afraid.
I realize that's against the strict Trad Catholic line, but so be it.
I think that there's no doubt that there was a significant "corruption" since the Renaissance, but to apply this to a St. Pius X is beyond absurd. Nor is there any comparison between the moral depravity of many popes since the Renaissance and the direct corruption of the Magisterium and Church's public worship by the V2 papal claimants.
-
I understand your point, DL. As for me, I have no hesitation in identifying him as a fellow Catholic, a brother in Christ. Not many are familiar with his work, but I think a healthy debate about that work would be good for those who are familiar with him. Maybe I'll start a thread for that purpose.
Many recognize there was substantial rot in the Church's hierarchy before V2, especially those favorable to Fr. Feeney. Some draw the lines at the pope; the popes before John XXIII are surrounded by a wall, though the wall is conceded to have some cracks around Pius XII. I think Hoffman has made a strong case about some of the pontiffs going back to the 15th century and the Renaissance, which, let us recall, happened when there was no Protestantism.
Hoffman harkens back to a medieval Catholicism that is the apogee of the Church, for him and many others:
I think Hoffman makes a strong case in the book that some of the Renaissance popes opened themselves up to the spirit of the Renaissance, an opening that foreshadowed the aggiornamento of John XXIII I'm afraid.
I realize that's against the strict Trad Catholic line, but so be it.
But medieval Christianity also Christianized pagan things, for example the theatre, originally in honor to the god Dionysius and condemned by early christians, was recovered in the Middle Ages de-paganized.
-
I think that there's no doubt that there was a significant "corruption" since the Renaissance, but to apply this to a St. Pius X is beyond absurd. Nor is there any comparison between the moral depravity of many popes since the Renaissance and the direct corruption of the Magisterium and Church's public worship by the V2 papal claimants.
Exactly.
The difference between the bad pre-Vatican 2 Popes and the revolutionary Vatican 2 Popes is that some of the former led immoral lives, promoted immoral things, but left the faith untouched. The latter, sometimes led apparently moral lives, but did all they could to destroy the faith.
-
I think that there's no doubt that there was a significant "corruption" since the Renaissance, but to apply this to a St. Pius X is beyond absurd. Nor is there any comparison between the moral depravity of many popes since the Renaissance and the direct corruption of the Magisterium and Church's public worship by the V2 papal claimants.
You are right about moral depravity, except we're not talking only about moral depravity, but about administratively, in relaxations of discipline, opening the way to usury (which is a matter of the faith, there's a Biblical prohibition), and encouraging occult teaching, Jєωιѕн Kabbala and тαℓмυding influences, etc. These things directly relate to the faith and doctrine. The Conciliar popes, for that matter, don't make any doctrinal proclamations that affect Church dogma or doctrine when they pray at a Mosque or have ecuмenical gatherings like Asissi. But there's praxis or conduct that undermines and is contrary to the faith. Hoffman has docuмented extensively similar conduct of the popes in allowing the publication of occult and Jєωιѕн texts and promotion of associated ideas and of those that promoted them - praxis or executive action affecting the faith.
Btw, have you read Hoffman's book?
-
Exactly.
The difference between the bad pre-Vatican 2 Popes and the revolutionary Vatican 2 Popes is that some of the former led immoral lives, promoted immoral things, but left the faith untouched. The latter, sometimes led apparently moral lives, but did all they could to destroy the faith.
See my response to Lad.
Have you read Hoffman's book?
-
The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome is an eye opener for sure.
.
Catholics are forbidden to read anything treating of theology or the Church or sacred matters written by non-Catholics. These types of books fall under the general prohibitions of the Index of Forbidden Books.
-
See my response to Lad.
Have you read Hoffman's book?
I think that there's a good chance that Hoffman isn't Catholic at all. Just recalling research that I did quite a few years ago. I found a website where Hoffman admitted that he was a particular type of Protestant - a strange offshoot of the Baptists - which his ancestors supposedly belonged to, to be more precise. I haven't looked for that website for awhile - don't know if it still exists.
-
I think that there's a good chance that Hoffman isn't Catholic at all. Just recalling research that I did quite a few years ago. I found a website where Hoffman admitted that he was a particular type of Protestant - a strange offshoot of the Baptists - which his supposedly ancestors belonged to, to be more precise. I haven't looked for that website for awhile - don't know if it still exists.
I too recall that claim and tried to find the source again recently but was unable to. He's related to Melchior Hoffman of the anabaptists, and his entire premise gives at least implicit justification for the Protestant Revolt. He's written good works before but that's what makes it so insidious and creates credibility to then attack the Church.
-
I too recall that claim and tried to find the source again recently but was unable to. He's related to Melchior Hoffman of the anabaptists, and his entire premise gives at least implicit justification for the Protestant Revolt. He's written good works before but that's what makes it so insidious and creates credibility to then attack the Church.
Agreed.
-
I think that there's a good chance that Hoffman isn't Catholic at all. Just recalling research that I did quite a few years ago. I found a website where Hoffman admitted that he was a particular type of Protestant - a strange offshoot of the Baptists - which his ancestors supposedly belonged to, to be more precise. I haven't looked for that website for awhile - don't know if it still exists.
The man says he is of the same Church of Aquinas, Dante and Augustine. Any Protestant can say the same thing, if they wanted to. He spends a good part of his Church of Rome book defending Prots against the claims of being "Judaizers" and instead points at the Church being guilty of it.
If the man is actually a Catholic, I'd be surprised.
-
I too recall that claim and tried to find the source again recently but was unable to. He's related to Melchior Hoffman of the anabaptists, and his entire premise gives at least implicit justification for the Protestant Revolt. He's written good works before but that's what makes it so insidious and creates credibility to then attack the Church.
I forgot to mention, he also lived among the Amish for a time, who along with the Mennonites descend from the Anabaptists, so it isn't just a distant relation.
-
I forgot to mention, he also lived among the Amish for a time, who along with the Mennonites descend from the Anabaptists, so it isn't just a distant relation.
Yes, he mentions that in his most recent book. A Catholic who did that would be an apostate, no?
-
If the man is actually a Catholic, I'd be surprised.
.
It sure doesn't sound like he's Catholic. In any case, does the book have an Imprimatur?
-
You are right about moral depravity, except we're not talking only about moral depravity, but about administratively, in relaxations of discipline, opening the way to usury (which is a matter of the faith, there's a Biblical prohibition), and encouraging occult teaching, Jєωιѕн Kabbala and тαℓмυding influences, etc. These things directly relate to the faith and doctrine. The Conciliar popes, for that matter, don't make any doctrinal proclamations that affect Church dogma or doctrine when they pray at a Mosque or have ecuмenical gatherings like Asissi. But there's praxis or conduct that undermines and is contrary to the faith. Hoffman has docuмented extensively similar conduct of the popes in allowing the publication of occult and Jєωιѕн texts and promotion of associated ideas and of those that promoted them - praxis or executive action affecting the faith.
Btw, have you read Hoffman's book?
No, I haven't read Hoffman's book.
See, most of these examples are passive, i.e. negligence and sins of omission. Where did any of these corrupt popes actively teach grave error to the Universal Church? And not just grave error, but replace the Catholic Church with an institution that lacks the Marks of the One True Church of Christ?
Agreed on usury, evolution (Pius XII), NFP (Pius XII ... opining in front of a group of midwives, not teaching Universal Church), laxity about this, that, or the other thing.
But the Conciliar papal claimants have absolutely actively taught the same errors that they articulated and put into practice at Assisi, and they replaced the Catholic Mass, and have canonized bogus saints.
I just see no comparison between what some/many of these others Popes did (or, rather, didn't do) and what the Conciliar papal claimants have taught and imposed on the Church ... I don't see how they're even in the same category.
This is no difference of degree, but a difference in kind.
If Pope St. Pius V timewarped forward to the time of Pope Pius XII, he would still most certainly have recognized clearly the True Church of Christ, as essentially the same as what it was in his day. If he timewarped to the Bergoglian era, he would most certainly think it some bizarre Protestant sect. In fact, Luther would be appalled by what the Conciliar Church has become.
-
.
It sure doesn't sound like he's Catholic. In any case, does the book have an Imprimatur?
Nope. It is an independently published work.
https://www.amazon.com/Occult-Renaissance-Church-Rome-ebook/dp/B07N2YBML9/ref=sr_1_1?crid=4FNQP1R6CSOC&keywords=the+occult+renaissance+church+of+rome&qid=1672868543&sprefix=the+occult+renaissance+church+of+rome%2Caps%2C86&sr=8-1
In fact, Luther would be appalled by what the Conciliar Church has become.
That's the remarkable thing, isn't it? He not only wouldn't recognize the sect that uses his name, but not even what is going around as the Catholic Church either.
-
NFP (Pius XII ... opining in front of a group of midwives, not teaching Universal Church)
.
But wasn't this published in the Acta? And isn't everything in the AAS addressed to the universal Church?
-
.
But wasn't this published in the Acta? And isn't everything in the AAS addressed to the universal Church?
Yes it was on published in the Acta which is explicitly for reference by the universal Church.
That fact about that allocution is what changed my mind on the whole BoD contention as put forth by the Dimonds/MHFM. Pius XII explicitly mentions BoD for adults and not children.
The cope about it "not being infallible" is just that, cope.
-
But wasn't this published in the Acta? And isn't everything in the AAS addressed to the universal Church?
No, there was no teaching addressed to the Universal Church. It's very obvious from the tone of the docuмent that he's speculating, referring numerous times to various "theories" and was ... almost in Wojtyla-esque fashion ... asking the Midwives to help the Chuch work it out about the issues he discussed.
This is nowhere close to having even the tone of a Papal Encyclical. It's a long, rambling, speculative speech delivered to a group of Midwives. Simply because it's put out there in a book doesn't change the authority of the teaching.
-
Yes it was on published in the Acta which is explicitly for reference by the universal Church.
That fact about that allocution is what changed my mind on the whole BoD contention as put forth by the Dimonds/MHFM. Pius XII explicitly mentions BoD for adults and not children.
The cope about it "not being infallible" is just that, cope.
There's no "cope". SV exaggeration of both infallibility and the overall authortiy of the different modes of papal teaching are utterly absurd, an overreaction to R&R that have thrown thoser under the bus. I urge you to Google and read the balanced work of Msgr. Fenton regarding the "Authority of Papal Encyclicals." Extending the plenitutde of papal authority to Pacelli (or any other Pope) every time he passes wind (through his lips, and for some SVs even elsewhere) turns the Church's doctrine into a source of ridicule to non-Catholics, elevating the Pope to some divine oracle.
Pius XII was an unmitigated disaster for the Church, and his was the watershed papacy that led directly to Vatican II.
-
There's no "cope". SV exaggeration of both infallibility and the overall authortiy of the different modes of papal teaching are utterly absurd, an overreaction to R&R that have thrown thoser under the bus. I urge you to Google and read the balanced work of Msgr. Fenton regarding the "Authority of Papal Encyclicals." Extending the plenitutde of papal authority to Pacelli (or any other Pope) every time he passes wind (through his lips, and for some SVs even elsewhere) turns the Church's doctrine into a source of ridicule to non-Catholics, elevating the Pope to some divine oracle.
Pius XII was an unmitigated disaster for the Church, and his was the watershed papacy that led directly to Vatican II.
Well where I'm coming from is the BoD-Dimond brothers rabbit hole.
If Pius XII taught BoD in an allocution that is meant for the whole Church, then according to the Dimonds logic, Pius wouldn't be pope. Of course they say that it's not infallible so it doesn't count, but it has literally been infallibly defined that Catholics cannot only believe those things that are extraordinarily defined.
Things consistently taught in the ordinary magisterium must also be believed. It's not an "option."
-
If Pius XII taught BoD in an allocution that is meant for the whole Church, then according to the Dimonds logic, Pius wouldn't be pope.
OK, but one does't have to accept the Dimonds' premises to make an objective assessment of the situation. BoD per se is certainly not heresy, and it's an opinion that's long been tolerated by the Church, but that also doesn't make it true. I've long disagreed with the Dimonds' exaggeration of the theological note regarding BoD. BoD has always been speculation and theory. There's no evidence of its having been divinely revealed, as the majority of Church Fathers rejected it, and I've never seen a single argument made that indicates BoD was implicitly revealed, i.e. that it proceeds implicitly and necessarily from premises that were revealed ... the only two ways we have to determine the contents of the Deposit of Revelation (unless you're a Modernist who believes that the Church can come to an "awareness" of new revealed truths over time). In fact, the only even quasi-theological argument I've seen for BoD is from St. Thomas, and the others simply have a house of cards of "authority" leading back to St. Augustine (who later rejected BoD and issued some of the most anti-BoD statements in existence). St. Thomas stated that Sacraments have a visible aspect and an invisible, but did not prove that the two were separable in the case of Baptism. They most certainly are not in Holy Orders or Confirmation ... ironically, the other two Sacraments that confer a character.
So the mistake made by the Dimonds is in believing that if they can put together a formally valid syllogism that consists of even a single Revealed Premise, that makes the conclusion tantamount to being revealed. First of all, both premises must be revealed, as the strength of a conclusion can only be as strong as its weakest premise peiorem partem sequitur conclusio, but even if both presmies are revealed, the construction of the argument itself is subject to human error. Just because it's formally valid doesn't mean that some distinction wasn't missed.
By way of example:
MAJOR: the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation, de fide, taught solemnly by Trent.
MINOR: BoD means that the Sacrament of Baptism is not necessary for salvation [their assertion].
CONCLUSION: BoD is heretical because it rejects the dogma in the MAJOR.
While the MAJOR is most certainly dogma and denying it would be heresy, the issue is with their Minor, their assertion that BoD means the Sacrament of Baptism is not necessary for salvation. I doubt that St. Robert Bellarmine would have been so obtuse as to not see such a glaring contradiction of dogma.
No, people could reject the CONCLUSION because they dispute the MINOR, since they assert that even in the case of BoD, the Sacrament remains necessary, and the "necessity" taught by Trent doesn't mean the necessity of actual reception, but that in BoD, the Sacrament remained the instrumental cause of justification, i.e. there could be no BAPTISM of Desire without a Sacrament of Baptism TO Desire. I think it's weak, but it's NOT heresy to reject their MINOR.
Now, for all intents and purposes, the vast majority of those who hold BoD DO in fact reject the necessity of the Sacrament. You'll notice that St. Robert Bellarmine was very careful to avoid stating that the catechumen could be saved WITHOUT the Sacrament, which he knew would be heretical. Instead, he says that those saved by so-called "BoD" receive the Sacrament in voto, i.e. holds that BoD is an alternative mode of receiving the Sacrament apart from having water poured on your head. Again, there's no proof for this. For every argument in its favor, I find dozens of arguments against it.
-
OK, but one does't have to accept the Dimonds' premises to make an objective assessment of the situation. BoD per se is certainly not heresy, and it's an opinion that's long been tolerated by the Church, but that also doesn't make it true. I've long disagreed with the Dimonds' exaggeration of the theological note regarding BoD. BoD has always been speculation and theory. There's no evidence of its having been divinely revealed, as the majority of Church Fathers rejected it, and I've never seen a single argument made that indicates BoD was implicitly revealed, i.e. that it proceeds implicitly and necessarily from premises that were revealed ... the only two ways we have to determine the contents of the Deposit of Revelation (unless you're a Modernist who believes that the Church can come to an "awareness" of new revealed truths over time). In fact, the only even quasi-theological argument I've seen for BoD is from St. Thomas, and the others simply have a house of cards of "authority" leading back to St. Augustine (who later rejected BoD and issued some of the most anti-BoD statements in existence). St. Thomas stated that Sacraments have a visible aspect and an invisible, but did not prove that the two were separable in the case of Baptism. They most certainly are not in Holy Orders or Confirmation ... ironically, the other two Sacraments that confer a character.
So the mistake made by the Dimonds is in believing that if they can put together a formally valid syllogism that consists of even a single Revealed Premise, that makes the conclusion tantamount to being revealed. First of all, both premises must be revealed, as the strength of a conclusion can only be as strong as its weakest premise peiorem partem sequitur conclusio, but even if both presmies are revealed, the construction of the argument itself is subject to human error. Just because it's formally valid doesn't mean that some distinction wasn't missed.
By way of example:
MAJOR: the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation, de fide, taught solemnly by Trent.
MINOR: BoD means that the Sacrament of Baptism is not necessary for salvation [their assertion].
CONCLUSION: BoD is heretical because it rejects the dogma in the MAJOR.
While the MAJOR is most certainly dogma and denying it would be heresy, the issue is with their Minor, their assertion that BoD means the Sacrament of Baptism is not necessary for salvation. I doubt that St. Robert Bellarmine would have been so obtuse as to not see such a glaring contradiction of dogma.
No, people could reject the CONCLUSION because they dispute the MINOR, since they assert that even in the case of BoD, the Sacrament remains necessary, and the "necessity" taught by Trent doesn't mean the necessity of actual reception, but that in BoD, the Sacrament remained the instrumental cause of justification, i.e. there could be no BAPTISM of Desire without a Sacrament of Baptism TO Desire. I think it's weak, but it's NOT heresy to reject their MINOR.
Now, for all intents and purposes, the vast majority of those who hold BoD DO in fact reject the necessity of the Sacrament. You'll notice that St. Robert Bellarmine was very careful to avoid stating that the catechumen could be saved WITHOUT the Sacrament, which he knew would be heretical. Instead, he says that those saved by so-called "BoD" receive the Sacrament in voto, i.e. holds that BoD is an alternative mode of receiving the Sacrament apart from having water poured on your head. Again, there's no proof for this. For every argument in its favor, I find dozens of arguments against it.
Honestly, I don't have any confidence about either position at this point.
The more I study, the more I look for answers, the deeper and deeper the rabbit hole goes.
I have fronted like I am actually confident about anything, but I'm not. I just want God to have mercy on me. idk wtf is going on anymore tbh.
-
Honestly, I don't have any confidence about either position at this point.
The more I study, the more I look for answers, the deeper and deeper the rabbit hole goes.
I have fronted like I am actually confident about anything, but I'm not. I just want God to have mercy on me. idk wtf is going on anymore tbh.
You and me both. I went down the Dimond rabbit-hole recently and came out questioning a lot of things to the point that I don't care to get caught up in any of the various trad group politics anymore. I want to be a Catholic who follows Catholicism, not the Catholicism interpreted by [insert trad group here]. But, unfortunately, someone's post-Conciliar interpretation of Catholicism is going to creep in there somewhere eventually.
My thoughts on the situation from a recent Gab post of mine are attached, if interested. (And NO, I am absolutely NOT advocating for the "Orthodox" by quoting him)
I still think the See is vacant, but the jist of it is, just do what you can to be a good traditional Catholic in these times. Don't get hung up on the novelties or puritanism of other trads or trad groups.
-
No, there was no teaching addressed to the Universal Church. It's very obvious from the tone of the docuмent that he's speculating, referring numerous times to various "theories" and was ... almost in Wojtyla-esque fashion ... asking the Midwives to help the Chuch work it out about the issues he discussed.
This is nowhere close to having even the tone of a Papal Encyclical. It's a long, rambling, speculative speech delivered to a group of Midwives. Simply because it's put out there in a book doesn't change the authority of the teaching.
.
I think it may be helpful to quote Cartechini's foundational work, Must I Believe It? He teaches a rather different set of principles (http://strobertbellarmine.net/believe.html) than what you seem to follow on questions like this, when the pope or his congregations teach without the note of infallibility:
On what intellectual ground, therefore, do the faithful base the assent which they are obliged to render to these non-infallible decisions of authority? On what Cardinal Franzelin10 somewhat cuмbrously but accurately describes as auctoritas universalis providentiae ecclesiasticae. The faithful rightly consider that, even where there is no exercise of the infallible magisterium, divine Providence has a special care for the Church of Christ; that therefore the Sovereign Pontiff in view of his sacred office is endowed by God with the graces necessary for the proper fulfilment of it; that therefore his doctrinal utterances, even when not guaranteed by infallibility, enjoy the highest competence; that in a proportionate degree this is true also of the Roman Congregations and of the Biblical Commission, composed of men of great learning and experience, who are fully alive to the needs and doctrinal tendencies of the day, and who, in view of the care and the (proverbial) caution with which they carry out the duties committed to them by the Sovereign Pontiff, inspire full confidence in the wisdom and prudence of their decisions. Based as it is upon these considerations of a religious order, the assent in question is called a "religious assent."
But these decisions are not infallible, and therefore religious assent lacks that perfect certainty which belongs to divine Catholic faith and ecclesiastical faith. On the other hand belief in the Providence which governs the Church in all its activities, and especially in all the manifestations of the supreme ecclesiastical authority, forbids us to doubt or to suspend assent. The Catholic will not allow his thought to wander into channels where he is assured by authority that danger threatens his faith; he will - indeed he must - suffer it to be guided by what he is bound to regard as the competent custodian of revealed truth. In the cases which we are now contemplating, he is not told how to adhere with the fullness of certainty to a doctrine which is divinely guaranteed by infallibility; but he is told that this particular proposition may be maintained with perfect safety, while its contradictory is fraught with danger to the faith; that in the circuмstances and in the present state of our knowledge this or that interpretation of Scripture may not safely be forsaken; that a particular philosophical tenet may lead to serious errors in a matter of faith. And the Catholic must shun the danger of which he is authoritatively warned by bowing to the judgment of authority. He must not doubt, he must assent.
.
Although his explanation is rather complex, the idea is very simple. The pope is endowed with special graces and protection by God to exercise his authority in teaching the Church, and therefore the faithful must assent to his teachings even when they are given without the note of infallibility.
-
You and me both. I went down the Dimond rabbit-hole recently and came out questioning a lot of things to the point that I don't care to get caught up in any of the various trad group politics anymore. I want to be a Catholic who follows Catholicism, not the Catholicism interpreted by [insert trad group here]. But, unfortunately, someone's post-Conciliar interpretation of Catholicism is going to creep in there somewhere eventually.
My thoughts on the situation from a recent Gab post of mine are attached, if interested. (And NO, I am absolutely NOT advocating for the "Orthodox" by quoting him)
I still think the See is vacant, but the jist of it is, just do what you can to be a good traditional Catholic in these times. Don't get hung up on the novelties or puritanism of other trads or trad groups.
Hard pill to swallow but I can't say it's not on point...
What does this mean in practical terms? We can no longer tell others they must submit to the pope, but to accept the reality of the papacy as an office, and that that office will likely remain vacant for the rest of our lives.
Given the drama between all the different trad groups, we seem to be about as unified as the Greeks.
-
Where did you get the information in the OP from?
Podcast. Jesus 911. The show is good but I disagreed about the Obelisk part of the show.
-
Cornelius is right. We need to be unified just like the 4 Marks of the Catholic Church.
-
.
I think it may be helpful to quote Cartechini's foundational work, Must I Believe It? He teaches a rather different set of principles (http://strobertbellarmine.net/believe.html) than what you seem to follow on questions like this, when the pope or his congregations teach without the note of infallibility:
.
Although his explanation is rather complex, the idea is very simple. The pope is endowed with special graces and protection by God to exercise his authority in teaching the Church, and therefore the faithful must assent to his teachings even when they are given without the note of infallibility.
Although I agree with what you’ve written here, it was Canon Smith’s work, not Cartechini.
-
No, I haven't read Hoffman's book.
See, most of these examples are passive, i.e. negligence and sins of omission. Where did any of these corrupt popes actively teach grave error to the Universal Church? And not just grave error, but replace the Catholic Church with an institution that lacks the Marks of the One True Church of Christ?
Agreed on usury, evolution (Pius XII), NFP (Pius XII ... opining in front of a group of midwives, not teaching Universal Church), laxity about this, that, or the other thing.
But the Conciliar papal claimants have absolutely actively taught the same errors that they articulated and put into practice at Assisi, and they replaced the Catholic Mass, and have canonized bogus saints.
I just see no comparison between what some/many of these others Popes did (or, rather, didn't do) and what the Conciliar papal claimants have taught and imposed on the Church ... I don't see how they're even in the same category.
This is no difference of degree, but a difference in kind.
If Pope St. Pius V timewarped forward to the time of Pope Pius XII, he would still most certainly have recognized clearly the True Church of Christ, as essentially the same as what it was in his day. If he timewarped to the Bergoglian era, he would most certainly think it some bizarre Protestant sect. In fact, Luther would be appalled by what the Conciliar Church has become.
Lad,
Where did that come from? I never argued for a moral (or immoral) equivalency between the Conciliar Church and the Church of the Renaissance. The issue was simply whether the Renaissance popes let in elements of the occult, Kabbalah and тαℓмυdic through as it were the back door by taking token, public actions against such spiritual corruption while fostering the promoters, purveyors and publishers (artists and scholars) of it, and Hoffman makes a very solid case that they did. There's a "head in the sand" and do not wrong element about the treatment of the papacy and popes that simply doesn't square with the historical record. And we haven't even mentioned the "modernist" cave on geocentrism.
We both have expressed that the Conciliar Church presents marks that are indicative of the Great Apostasy forecast in Scripture, which shows radical signs of innovation, including revolutionary tampering with the worship of God (the liturgy, sacraments) - Daniels account of a "chang[ing of] times and laws (7:25) - that are clearly not something you see in the Renaissance.
I am not making any such claim as you appear to be addressing.
DR
-
Lad,
Where did that come from? I never argued for a moral (or immoral) equivalency between the Conciliar Church and the Church of the Renaissance. The issue was simply whether the Renaissance popes let in elements of the occult, Kabbalah and тαℓмυdic through as it were the back door by taking token, public actions against such spiritual corruption while fostering the promoters, purveyors and publishers (artists and scholars) of it, and Hoffman makes a very solid case that they did. There's a "head in the sand" and do not wrong element about the treatment of the papacy and popes that simply doesn't square with the historical record. And we haven't even mentioned the "modernist" cave on geocentrism.
We both have expressed that the Conciliar Church presents marks that are indicative of the Great Apostasy forecast in Scripture, which shows radical signs of innovation, including revolutionary tampering with the worship of God (the liturgy, sacraments) - Daniels account of a "chang[ing of] times and laws (7:25) - that are clearly not something you see in the Renaissance.
I am not making any such claim as you appear to be addressing.
DR
I have read the Hoffman book and come to the same conclusions as you. The book would certainly come under the index of the Church because of grave accusations against Saint Alphonse Ligouri and a whole chapters in support of Martin Luther but much there needs to be adressed and debated by qualified church historians.
I suspect that since the Renaissance, and the election of popes in the monstrously decorated sistine chapel, something is not quite right. There are to be no more encyclicals about the jews, and Jєωιѕн converts such as Johannes Pfefferkorn who exposed the тαℓмυd, really struggled to find support in Rome in his battle against the cabalist humanism of Johannes Reuchlin.
All that seemed clear cut and obvious in the middle ages seems up for debate after the renaissance and politics and science became relatively unimportant to the Church. Jews then stepped in to do the thinking for us in these domains.
Would a medieval Pope have let Henry VIII get away with the destruction of the English Church without calling for a crusade?
-
I have read the Hoffman book and come to the same conclusions as you. The book would certainly come under the index of the Church because of grave accusations against Saint Alphonse Ligouri and a whole chapters in support of Martin Luther but much there needs to be adressed and debated by qualified church historians.
I suspect that since the Renaissance, and the election of popes in the monstrously decorated sistine chapel, something is not quite right. There are to be no more encyclicals about the Jєωs, and Jєωιѕн converts such as Johannes Pfefferkorn who exposed the тαℓмυd, really struggled to find support in Rome in his battle against the cabalist humanism of Johannes Reuchlin.
All that seemed clear cut and obvious in the middle ages seems up for debate after the renaissance and politics and science became relatively unimportant to the Church. Jєωs then stepped in to do the thinking for us in these domains.
Would a medieval Pope have let Henry VIII get away with the destruction of the English Church without calling for a crusade?
I don't think it was a matter of "let." Loyal Catholics were already spread thin. Besides, the Spanish did move against Elizabeth, but failed. If they had succeeded, there is no doubt that the Spanish would have restored the Church in England.
-
You and me both. I went down the Dimond rabbit-hole recently and came out questioning a lot of things to the point that I don't care to get caught up in any of the various trad group politics anymore. I want to be a Catholic who follows Catholicism, not the Catholicism interpreted by [insert trad group here]. But, unfortunately, someone's post-Conciliar interpretation of Catholicism is going to creep in there somewhere eventually.
My thoughts on the situation from a recent Gab post of mine are attached, if interested. (And NO, I am absolutely NOT advocating for the "Orthodox" by quoting him)
I still think the See is vacant, but the jist of it is, just do what you can to be a good traditional Catholic in these times. Don't get hung up on the novelties or puritanism of other trads or trad groups.
Regarding your last Gab upload, the Greeks kept their liturgical traditions and never broke from the faith that they held 1,000 years ago. Nothing changed wih them, despite not having a pope. But the Catholic Church became so reduced after the Seat becoming vacant and changing its beliefs, thus, producing a entity that's not Catholic and eclipses the true Catholic Church. So the former has nobody to blame but themselves, yet they kept their traditions and faith, but the latter isn't to blame, except those at the top for their conspiracy against the Church, and most of them lose the faith and traditions. Explain that one.
-
Regarding your last Gab upload, the Greeks kept their liturgical traditions and never broke from the faith that they held 1,000 years ago. Nothing changed wih them, despite not having a pope. But the Catholic Church became so reduced after the Seat becoming vacant and changing its beliefs, thus, producing a entity that's not Catholic and eclipses the true Catholic Church. So the former has nobody to blame but themselves, yet they kept their traditions and faith, but the latter isn't to blame, except those at the top for their conspiracy against the Church, and most of them lose the faith and traditions. Explain that one.
They kept their traditions, sure, but look at the mess that is their doctrine. You have Greek bishops promoting sodomy, contraception and divorce while Russians reject it. You have various national churches warring with other national churches and a bunch of little schisms. Sure, they may have the same liturgy from apostolic times but that doesn't mean much when they don't actually have the Faith (despite your claim that they do). It's basically the Novus Ordo sect with traditional Eastern accidents. They claim there's some mystical thing called "orthodoxy" binding them together, but that "orthodoxy" changes between each See. That is all the result of the choices of these Bishops and Metropolitans rejecting papal supremacy and refusing to reconcile with, and submit to, Rome.
The Catholic Church hasn't had that problem right up until Pius XII. It was only after when the hierarchy was effectively usurped that the problems arose, forcing a sort of "traditionalist reconstruction" of the Catholic faith with the demolition of the Church after the Council. We find ourselves in a similar predicament as the EO in practice, but this is not due to a refusal to be subject to Rome; it is due to there being no Pope, or a "heretical Pope" (to throw R&R's a bone), to create that unity necessary for papal subjection. Our problem came about through internal subversion, not rejection. So yes, comparing the two, we cannot say that Catholics are to blame for what occurred in the same way as the EO. Sure, we could point to lukewarmness of laity or Modernist infiltrators, but these are symptoms of a different nature rather than an explicit choice to defect from Catholic principles.
-
DECEM: I think Hoffman makes a strong case in the book that some of the Renaissance popes opened themselves up to the spirit of the Renaissance, an opening that foreshadowed the aggiornamento of John XXIII I'm afraid.
The problem is the copernican revolution that seeped into, and flowed out from, the magisterial offices of the Church, like a slow poison. Our Cassini oft writes about the U-turn of the popes, when they took Galileo off the Index and allowed copernicanism to be taught, comparatively, in seminaries and universities.
This is absolutely the beginning of the rot.
Hoffman insists the problem is usury. I insist the problem is copernicanism.
The hierarchy doesn't have to explicitly teach heresy to weaken, over time, the Faith of Catholics. Mere neglect, omission, and giving, as it were, a certain place to error is sufficient to set a black fire in the bones of the Militant Church.
-
... the Greeks kept their liturgical traditions and never broke from the faith that they held 1,000 years ago.
There are a fair number of Modernists among the Easter Catholics as well, but, yes, for the MOST part, they've basically kept to the "dogma of the faith".
-
You and me both. I went down the Dimond rabbit-hole recently and came out questioning a lot of things to the point that I don't care to get caught up in any of the various trad group politics anymore. I want to be a Catholic who follows Catholicism, not the Catholicism interpreted by [insert trad group here].
It took me somewhere around 16 years to learn this lesson. I've never been so peaceful as the day I finally stopped caring about trad positions. It's the exact same thing as the alt media - claiming to be unvarnished truth but actually in the business of disseminating manifold contradiction.
-
Hard pill to swallow but I can't say it's not on point...
What does this mean in practical terms? We can no longer tell others they must submit to the pope, but to accept the reality of the papacy as an office, and that that office will likely remain vacant for the rest of our lives.
Given the drama between all the different trad groups, we seem to be about as unified as the Greeks.
DL pegged the practicality. What he says is eminently sufficient: "The See is vacant, but the jist of it is, just do what you can to be a good traditional Catholic in these times. Don't get hung up on the novelties or puritanism of other trads or trad groups."
That being said, my many years of research has given me an understanding of how to be a faithful Catholic that avoids unnecessary distractions and positions. Had I not looked into matters so diligently, I may never have arrived at the same conclusion as DL. We live and we learn. It's not easy being a Catholic right now. It's a heavy Cross.
-
DECEM: I think Hoffman makes a strong case in the book that some of the Renaissance popes opened themselves up to the spirit of the Renaissance, an opening that foreshadowed the aggiornamento of John XXIII I'm afraid.
The problem is the copernican revolution that seeped into, and flowed out from, the magisterial offices of the Church, like a slow poison. Our Cassini oft writes about the U-turn of the popes, when they took Galileo off the Index and allowed copernicanism to be taught, comparatively, in seminaries and universities.
This is absolutely the beginning of the rot.
Hoffman insists the problem is usury. I insist the problem is copernicanism.
The hierarchy doesn't have to explicitly teach heresy to weaken, over time, the Faith of Catholics. Mere neglect, omission, and giving, as it were, a certain place to error is sufficient to set a black fire in the bones of the Militant Church.
Hi, Simeon. Copernicanism perhaps for the intellectual corruption, but certainly usury for the moral. It's not for small reason that Scripture tells us, "the desire of money is the root of all evils; which some coveting have erred from the faith, and have entangled themselves in many sorrows."
-
There are a fair number of Modernists among the Easter Catholics as well, but, yes, for the MOST part, they've basically kept to the "dogma of the faith".
If that's the case, then there isn't really a problem, then.
-
DL pegged the practicality. What he says is eminently sufficient: "The See is vacant, but the jist of it is, just do what you can to be a good traditional Catholic in these times. Don't get hung up on the novelties or puritanism of other trads or trad groups."
That being said, my many years of research has given me an understanding of how to be a faithful Catholic that avoids unnecessary distractions and positions. Had I not looked into matters so diligently, I may never have arrived at the same conclusion as DL. We live and we learn. It's not easy being a Catholic right now. It's a heavy Cross.
But then where is the Truth?
Must now everyone become an amateur historian-theologian themselves?
Are there no priests that can be trusted? How can the Church teach if nobody actually has it right 100%?
-
What does this mean in practical terms? We can no longer tell others they must submit to the pope, but to accept the reality of the papacy as an office, and that that office will likely remain vacant for the rest of our lives.
Of course we should tell others that we must be in submission to the Pope, but clarify that we do not submit to Jorge Bergoglio because we have serious reasons to believe that he's not the actual pope. I give the vacancy about another 7-10 years or so, but it could go on longer.
Canon Lawyers teach clearly that one is not a schismatic if a refusal of submission is due to reasonable and well-founded doubts about the legitimacy of a papal claimant. If the Catholic faithful of today do not have such reason, then there's no such thing.
-
Are there no priests that can be trusted? How can the Church teach if nobody actually has it right 100%?
That's not what I meant. You can still trust the judgment of these priests, it's just that you need to have enough of a sensus catholicus that when they go off in the weeds and try to impose certain things as dogmas, when they aren't, then we start falling into their interpretation of Catholicism.
Lad has spoken a bit on logical distinctions, which kind of inspired this outlook I have now. Basically, many of these groups will come up with a pet theory that may or may not be theologically certain, but has never been pronounced dogmatically by the Church herself, which they then attempt to bind consciences on. He takes the example of BoD, which you saw earlier (I believe in this thread). But it also applies to the dogmatic non-una cuм crowd, or the anti-sedevacantists, etc. None of these issues have been ruled on by the Church. So while each proponent may have a strong argument for their position, they have no grounds to enforce it as dogmatic. This constitutes the "weeds" and where it turns into some auxiliary priest or bishop's interpretation of Catholicism versus actually traditional Catholicism.
The only person who "has it right" 100% of the time is the Pope when he speaks infallibly. If there isn't a standing Pope, or a "heretical Pope", then we don't have this point of unity to bind us. That's why trad Catholicism is an infighting mess and why the Novus Ordo is a total doctrinal mess.
-
That's not what I meant. You can still trust the judgment of these priests, it's just that you need to have enough of a sensus catholicus that when they go off in the weeds and try to impose certain things as dogmas, when they aren't, then we start falling into their interpretation of Catholicism.
Lad has spoken a bit on logical distinctions, which kind of inspired this outlook I have now. Basically, many of these groups will come up with a pet theory that may or may not be theologically certain, but has never been pronounced dogmatically by the Church herself, which they then attempt to bind consciences on. He takes the example of BoD, which you saw earlier (I believe in this thread). But it also applies to the dogmatic non-una cuм crowd, or the anti-sedevacantists, etc. None of these issues have been ruled on by the Church. So while each proponent may have a strong argument for their position, they have no grounds to enforce it as dogmatic. This constitutes the "weeds" and where it turns into some auxiliary priest or bishop's interpretation of Catholicism versus actually traditional Catholicism.
The only person who "has it right" 100% of the time is the Pope when he speaks infallibly. If there isn't a standing Pope, or a "heretical Pope", then we don't have this point of unity to bind us. That's why trad Catholicism is an infighting mess and why the Novus Ordo is a total doctrinal mess.
So then where is the actual unity of the Church, right now, today, then?
-
So then where is the actual unity of the Church, right now, today, then?
For it is written: I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be dispersed." [Matthew 26:31]
Those who agree that traditional Catholicism is the way; take this forum as an example. We disagree on a lot of things, but we all agree that the Novus Ordo is not the Catholic Church and we all believe the same fundamentals of Catholic doctrine. While traditional Catholics have been dispersed, we still constitute the unity of the Church.
-
So then where is the actual unity of the Church, right now, today, then?
.
The unity of the Church consists in three things: unity in faith, in law, and in liturgy. Traditional Catholics all have exactly the same Faith, have the same sacraments and Mass (the differences between the John 23 Mass and the Pius V Mass are minimal), and we all follow the law of the Church and have the intention to submit ourselves to its lawful authority insofar as we can (there are different interpretations about how or whether that is possible, but the intention is exactly the same in all of us).
I think people make far too much of the differences among traditional Catholics and not nearly enough of what we have in common, and not nearly enough of what separates us from the modernist Vatican 2 sect.
-
.
The unity of the Church consists in three things: unity in faith, in law, and in liturgy. Traditional Catholics all have exactly the same Faith, have the same sacraments and Mass (the differences between the John 23 Mass and the Pius V Mass are minimal), and we all follow the law of the Church and have the intention to submit ourselves to its lawful authority insofar as we can (there are different interpretations about how or whether that is possible, but the intention is exactly the same in all of us).
I think people make far too much of the differences among traditional Catholics and not nearly enough of what we have in common, and not nearly enough of what separates us from the modernist Vatican 2 sect.
Some trads find reason to reject or refuse communion to other trads. Even with all else in common, is that not schismatic?
If the see is vacant and there aren't any ordinary bishops, we may have law, but who enforces what? Who submits to whom?
In regards to Pope Pius XII for example, trads that are more realistic commonly "judge" him. But where is the line? Will such a person not end up "judging" all the popes for this or that reason?