Author Topic: The Wisest Thing Ever Said on CathInfo (Read 70463 times)

2Vermont · « **Reply #150 on:** December 06, 2024, 11:30:18 AM »

Quote from: Mark 79 on December 06, 2024, 10:45:15 AM

Too, His Excellency Williamson used the verbiage, "…albeit with exceptions," so no "universal Salvation" for the Jєωs on The Last Day.

Consistent with the pertinent Scripture:

"And Isaias crieth out concerning Israel: If the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved. (Romans 9:27)

"Even so then at this present time also, there is a remnant saved according to the election of grace." (Romans 11:5)

I don't think these verses (when taken in the context of the whole chapter and taking into account Catholic commentaries for those chapters), are speaking of those Jews at the end of the world. I think they speak of a remnant of Israel overall, not those specifically at world's end.

But I recognize that I still need to check out what your source says about these verses.

2Vermont · « **Reply #151 on:** December 06, 2024, 03:23:39 PM »

OK, so Mark's pdf is 157 pages long. Sorry, but I just can't read all of that. Those that know me know that reading is just not my thing, but I wanted to at least make some effort since I said I would do so, and the topic is interesting.

I tried to skim it using significant words like "Fathers", and it seems as if the general gist is that there were certain early Church Fathers that believed in a 1,000-year reign of Christ prior to the End and other later Church Fathers that did not. This 1,000 year reign, according to Sungenis, would allow for a mass conversion of the Jews, but because the Church ended up taking the latter view (that there would be no such millennial reign) there would be no time for a mass conversion to happen.

I did not see where Sungenis shows that it is definite Church teaching that there will be no such mass conversion. Maybe I missed it given I only skimmed. If so, perhaps someone can point me to it.

At one point, in refuting Fr Mawdsley, Sungenis writes that he could not call a letter by Pius IX "magisterial". Why? Because the letter is not listed on the Vatican site. He does realize that the Vatican site is run by a bunch of Modernists, correct?

Anyway, given various Church Fathers seem to have had different views on it (and the Church does not appear to have decided one way or another), I walk away from this topic thinking that a Catholic could take either view.

2Vermont · « **Reply #152 on:** December 06, 2024, 03:32:47 PM »

Quote from: Godefroy on December 06, 2024, 07:23:41 AM

Does this take into account who is an actual jew? There is a Jєωιѕн look, but this look creeps up on them as they get older, so it may be that a lifetime of avarice, paranoia, sense of entitlement and cunning causes certain facial features to develop, on just about anyone. Just as the eyes are very accurate window into the soul, there is no reason why other facial features shouldn't become more accentuated.

Are there any jews left?

Well, if there aren't that many "actual Jews", then a mass conversion of Jews won't be too difficult.

Godefroy · « **Reply #153 on:** December 06, 2024, 03:44:15 PM »

Quote from: 2Vermont on December 06, 2024, 03:23:39 PM

OK, so Mark's pdf is 157 pages long. Sorry, but I just can't read all of that. Those that know me know that reading is just not my thing, but I wanted to at least make some effort since I said I would do so, and the topic is interesting.

I tried to skim it using significant words like "Fathers", and it seems as if the general gist is that there were certain early Church Fathers that believed in a 1,000-year reign of Christ prior to the End and other later Church Fathers that did not. This 1,000 year reign, according to Sungenis, would allow for a mass conversion of the Jєωs, but because the Church ended up taking the latter view (that there would be no such millennial reign) there would be no time for a mass conversion to happen.

I did not see where Sungenis shows that it is definite Church teaching that there will be no such mass conversion. Maybe I missed it given I only skimmed. If so, perhaps someone can point me to it.

At one point, in refuting Fr Mawdsley, Sungenis writes that he could not call a letter by Pius IX "magisterial". Why? Because the letter is not listed on the Vatican site. He does realize that the Vatican site is run by a bunch of Modernists, correct?

Anyway, given various Church Fathers seem to have had different views on it (and the Church does not appear to have decided one way or another), I walk away from this topic thinking that a Catholic could take either view.

I also skimmed it and came to the same opinion as you.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #154 on:** December 06, 2024, 03:56:24 PM »

Quote from: 2Vermont on December 06, 2024, 03:23:39 PM

Anyway, given various Church Fathers seem to have had different views on it (and the Church does not appear to have decided one way or another), I walk away from this topic thinking that a Catholic could take either view.

Did anyone say otherwise? I think the topic was joined upon Pax's claims that a "mass conversion" of Jews was an "infallible" opinion, which would necessarily nix a contrary view.

2Vermont · « **Reply #155 on:** December 06, 2024, 04:00:41 PM »

Quote from: DecemRationis on December 06, 2024, 03:56:24 PM

Did anyone say otherwise? I think the topic was joined upon Pax's claims that a "mass conversion" of Jews was an "infallible" opinion, which would necessarily nix a contrary view.

I know you haven't been around lately, but I think we've had different folks pushing one or the other as the only view. I don't recall anyone saying it was infallible though.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #156 on:** December 06, 2024, 04:16:54 PM »

Quote from: 2Vermont on December 06, 2024, 04:00:41 PM

I know you haven't been around lately, but I think we've had different folks pushing one or the other as the only view. I don't recall anyone saying it was infallible though.

I'm pretty sure Pax has said it's "infallible," but not a big issue. I know I've had a few rows with him on this topic.

Perhaps it's just a phrasing issue, but "pushing" a view is different from saying you can't hold another view. If someone has a strong conviction about a view on such a matter, I would hope he or she pushes it (as in trying to convince others of its truth as understood by the promoter)- that's different from condemning an opposing view.

For me it has ramifications on other issues, Gospel issues, so I "push" my view.

Take care,

DR

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #157 on:** December 06, 2024, 04:31:51 PM »

Quote

I'm pretty sure Pax has said it's "infallible,

That the Jєωιѕн nation will convert, after antichrist and before the end of the world is infallible, or close to it. There are so many Church Fathers who quote St Paul and say "This is what St Paul means" that it leads one to believe in infallible.

The argument over "mass conversions" is all semantics. No saint has ever given a % or a number. They have all said "the nation" (meaning, Israelites, as a whole).

Here are a bunch of quotes.
https://www.salvationisfromthejews.com/endtimes.html

Mark 79 · « **Reply #158 on:** December 06, 2024, 05:40:21 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on December 06, 2024, 04:31:51 PM

That the Jєωιѕн nation will convert, after antichrist and before the end of the world is infallible, or close to it. There are so many Church Fathers who quote St Paul and say "This is what St Paul means" that it leads one to believe in infallible.

The argument over "mass conversions" is all semantics. No saint has ever given a % or a number. They have all said "the nation" (meaning, Israelites, as a whole).

Here are a bunch of quotes.
https://www.salvationisfromtheJєωs.com/endtimes.html

To imply that there will be no exceptions even on The Last Day is heresy.

Just as today's mostly-European тαℓмυdic Jєωs arrogate to themselves the carnal lineage of Abraham (as Christ threw in their faces in Matthew 3:9), they insist that the ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan's project in the Holy Land is "Israel."

That is NOT the Catholic understanding; that is the "Jєωιѕн understanding" bullshit heresy that Josh987654321 and now PV peddles here. It is a satanic lie.

The Catholic understanding, the Truth, is (1) that practicing Catholics are now the only true Jєωs today,(2) Catholics are the only Chosen People of God today, and (3) the one Church that Christ founded in Matthew 16:18 is today's only true Israel.

In only that Catholic sense will "all Israel" be saved.

Equating the ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan, тαℓмυdic Jews, and even secular Jews with "all Israel" is one of the most pernicious heresies to invade the Church. Roy Schoeman, his Salvation is from the Jews book and website (one and tghe same website to which PV directed us!!!) is arguably the most pernicious and successfully subversive marrano alive today. In every venue Schoeman pushes his heretical misinterpretations of "all Israel." His heretical claims have been thoroughly debunked. I have attached three such exposés below.

There is a remnant of Jєωs who will be saved, some on The Last Day and some before The Last Day.

Mark 79 · « **Reply #159 on:** December 06, 2024, 07:17:58 PM »

For the record… If [Do you see the word "if"?] there ever is a mass conversion of every single Jєω to Christ, I would welcome it.

Unfortunately Catholics know that the anti-Christ will be Jєωιѕн and he will be killed by Christ on The Last Day without the Anti-Christ's conversion to Christ.

That is one exception, a Jєω not converted on The Last Day, hence it is prima facie absurd to claim there will be no exceptions. "Many Jєωs on The Last Day"? Possible. "Almost all the Jєωs on The Last Day"? Possible. "Every single one of the Jєωs on The Last Day"? No way, man.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #160 on:** December 06, 2024, 07:33:52 PM »

Quote

Roy Schoeman, his Salvation is from the Jєωs book and website (one and tghe same website to which PV directed us!!!)

The purpose of the post was to read the numerous quotes from the Church Fathers. Read what they said and ignore whatever the Roy guy says. It not difficult.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #161 on:** December 06, 2024, 07:38:09 PM »

Quote

the anti-Christ will be Jєωιѕн and he will be killed by Christ on The Last Day

The Antichrist does not die on the last day of the world. Why do you keep saying this?

If he did, then everyone would know when the world ends (ie exactly 3.5 years after Antichrist takes power, because his reign of terror is explicitly given in the Bible as 3.5 yrs).

But Christ said that no man knows when the world ends. And plenty of church fathers talk about a post-Antichrist period.

Mark 79 · « **Reply #162 on:** December 06, 2024, 07:53:39 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on December 06, 2024, 07:33:52 PM

The purpose of the post was to read the numerous quotes from the Church Fathers. Read what they said and ignore whatever the Roy guy says. It not difficult.

Sorry, I addressed the content in an attempted follow-up post, but when it "timed out" I lost all the work. So, here is the short version…

Yeah, the marrano offered dozens of quotes. All but one of the quotes generalized ambiguously, and danced around the "all Israel" problem I mentioned above. Interested readers can confirm that for themselves by going to your link.

The only quote that Schoeman offered stating "universally" was a misattributed quote of St. Aquinas. Because he cited a secondary source, I had to dig to find the original source and as I read the original source it was a hypothetical consideration from St. Thomas, not a conclusion.

If you want to chase that down, read the "St. Thomas Aquinas" chapter in Sungenis's debunking of Fr. Mawdsley.

As I expected, I wasted almost 2 hours chasing down 1 misattributed quote that was a hypothetical and wasn't even dispositive… and has some serious grammar problems. So (((stereotypical))).

There is nothing solid in the page you offered that unequivocally sates there will be no exceptions on The Last Day.

So, I am going with what His Excellency wrote to me, "exceptions" precisely the same as I have been catechized throughout my Catholic education and adult life.

Mark 79 · « **Reply #163 on:** December 06, 2024, 08:08:10 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on December 06, 2024, 07:38:09 PM

The Antichrist does not die on the last day of the world. Why do you keep saying this?

If he did, then everyone would know when the world ends (ie exactly 3.5 years after Antichrist takes power, because his reign of terror is explicitly given in the Bible as 3.5 yrs).

But Christ said that no man knows when the world ends. And plenty of church fathers talk about a post-Antichrist period.

We will certainly recognize The Last Day on that day. And, yes, "plenty of people say [lots of erroneous stuff]."

Let's stick with teachings upon which there is unanimous agreement. Wasn't it Origen who mused that the Anti-Christ would actually be a Pope?

Life is tough enough dealing with known truths. Who wants to navigate around a bunch of speculation… especially about an issue that you yourself admitted "no man knows"?

If it was settled Magisterium that every single baby-fellating Jєω will convert on The Last Day, there would be mountains of Magisterium instead of 1 misattributed hypothetical and a load of smarmy ambiguous generalities.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #164 on:** December 06, 2024, 10:25:56 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on December 06, 2024, 07:38:09 PM

The Antichrist does not die on the last day of the world. Why do you keep saying this?

There's a very good basis for saying so:

Quote

2 Thessalonians 2

8 And then that wicked one shall be revealed whom the Lord Jesus shall kill with the spirit of his mouth; and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming, him,

But, ah, no, we gotta jump down a rabbit hole looking for that ever elusive "consent of the Fathers." And nod our heads when a bunch of admittedly smart and sometimes holy guys, not the Church speaking authoritatively, tell us such and such is such consent. A smart and holy guy is still that, just a guy.

So sorry, not buying.

And there's a bit of a pattern here - the rejection of direct testimony of Scripture. As in the insistence that God recognizes some group of men "according to the flesh," and will save "all" of this tribe sometime in the future, when Scripture says, again plainly, that God no longer (and really never did, salvifically speaking) recognize as His a distinct racial or national people according to the "flesh":

Quote

Romans 9

6 Not as though the word of God hath miscarried. For all are not Israelites that are of Israel: 7 Neither are all they that are the seed of Abraham, children; but in Isaac shall thy seed be called: 8 That is to say, not they that are the children of the flesh, are the children of God; but they, that are the children of the promise, are accounted for the seed.

Galatians 3

28 There is neither Jєω nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you be Christ's, then are you the seed of Abraham, heirs according to the promise.

Galatians 4

21 Tell me, you that desire to be under the law, have you not read the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, and the other by a free woman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman, was born according to the flesh: but he of the free woman, was by promise. 24 Which things are said by an allegory. For these are the two testaments. The one from mount Sina, engendering unto bondage; which is Agar: 25 For Sina is a mountain in Arabia, which hath affinity to that Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.

26 But that Jerusalem, which is above, is free: which is our mother. 27 For it is written: Rejoice, thou barren, that bearest not: break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for many are the children of the desolate, more than of her that hath a husband. 28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. 29 But as then he, that was born according to the flesh, persecuted him that was after the spirit; so also it is now. 30 But what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son; for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the free woman.

31 So then, brethren, we are not the children of the bondwoman, but of the free: by the freedom wherewith Christ has made us free.

But, but . . . the Fathers.

If the Church Magisterially doesn't tell us what the Fathers agree to so as to raise something to divine revelation . . . . rabbit hole, with some real dangers lurking down there.

Author Topic: The Wisest Thing Ever Said on CathInfo (Read 70463 times)

2Vermont

Re: The Wisest Thing Ever Said on CathInfo

2Vermont

Re: The Wisest Thing Ever Said on CathInfo

2Vermont

Re: The Wisest Thing Ever Said on CathInfo

Godefroy

Re: The Wisest Thing Ever Said on CathInfo

DecemRationis

Re: The Wisest Thing Ever Said on CathInfo

2Vermont

Re: The Wisest Thing Ever Said on CathInfo

DecemRationis

Re: The Wisest Thing Ever Said on CathInfo

Pax Vobis

Re: The Wisest Thing Ever Said on CathInfo

Mark 79

Re: The Wisest Thing Ever Said on CathInfo

Mark 79

Re: The Wisest Thing Ever Said on CathInfo

Pax Vobis

Re: The Wisest Thing Ever Said on CathInfo

Pax Vobis

Re: The Wisest Thing Ever Said on CathInfo

Mark 79

Re: The Wisest Thing Ever Said on CathInfo

Mark 79

Re: The Wisest Thing Ever Said on CathInfo

DecemRationis

Re: The Wisest Thing Ever Said on CathInfo