As someone long guilty of chronic forum use, I feel qualified to spot someone who is posting just to hear their own ideas. That was Ladislaus. …
[...] And people of good judgment and discernment know not to spend most of their time casting pearls before swine Day after day, week after week, year after year. [...].
In all seriousness, I don’t view the departure of Ladislaus without some regret. Whoever you are, regardless of what you thought about him or his beliefs, you have to admit he did make CathInfo more interesting. I do love a good bit of chaos haha 😂Hmmm. Brand new poster; this is his 17th post.
Nominated for consideration as The Wisest Thing Ever Said on CathInfo.
[...] And people of good judgment and discernment know not to spend most of their time casting pearls before swine Day after day, week after week, year after year. [...].
Agreed, his posts were logical and informative. I'm surprised he had as much patience as he did with those two shills (josh123 and markm) who torpedoed this forum. The election theatre showed how hood winked anyone who didn't fall for the shamdemic still was.Hmmm. Newbie with 26 posts.
Lad leaving is a big loss for cathinfo. I learned a lot from him. Looking forward to his viewpoints were the main reason I stuck around Cathinfo for this long. Thank you Ladislaus.Hmmm. Newbie with 4 posts.
What was the wisest thing ever said on CathInfo?:Hmmm. Johannes also a newbie who joined Nov. 12.
Hmmm. Newbie with 4 posts.
Hmmm. Johannes also a newbie who joined Nov. 12.Yes. To a moral certainty Johannes is a provocateur troll, probably the reincarnation of someone previously banned.
Vincancino: registered September 2023I also "lurked" for many years. Unqualified to enter into R&R / Sede debates, or discussions in BOD, I learn a lot from reading others and looking up their references. Nothing wrong with staying silent on a forum.
Martius: registered July 2021
HeidtXtreme: registered September 2023
The above three are "newbies" only if we go by their post count. (Not to put you guys on the spot, but rather to get you out from under the microscope.)
Some of the more active people here have expressed concerns for all of the quiet members supposedly intimidated from participating in some of the more volatile recent discussions. But it would seem that the example of the above three sort of contradicts that concern. Not a representative sample, of course, but voluntary participation, whether in posts or polls, never is.
What was the wisest thing ever said on CathInfo?:.
(https://i.imgur.com/ZzPNObh.jpeg)
Cera, you labeled me a newbie. This forum is begining to turn into a closed forum for only those that have been members from the begining and post constantly on cathinfo. Some members are quiet and reserved. It's unfair to expect everyone to be like you. Some threads I find very interesting and highly intelligent, that I rather just read and learn. I do feel that some members feel very brave and confrontational behind a keyboard. But I wonder how they would behave in person.Hi Vinancino, just to clarify, I did not "label" you anything. If you look under your name on this website, it says "Newbie." I just found it odd that after Lad leaves, 3 Newbies give him great praise. It may be a total conincidence. Or not. Or maybe what Mark said -- "Maybe conflict on CI has come to such a peak that lurkers are coming out of the woodwork." Hope you have a wonderful Thanksgiving!
Cera, I just checked your profile. You have been a member since 2020, just 3 years more than me. Compared to others, you are also a newbie. You complain about not having enough posts. Maybe it's also bad to have excessive posts.Actually I've been a member since February 12, 2010, so I don't think we can call that "excessive posts."
Hmmm. Brand new poster; this is his 17th post.I’ve been a member since September 2023, I’m just a young Catholic and recognize that I am not as wise as a vast majority of the members here. And I’m certainly not yet qualified to speak on any of the major discussion points compared to those who have been on CathInfo longer than me.
.Nearly all traditional priests also believe in exceptions to infallible dogma (EENS) which is at the very least material heresy. Many Trad priests also believe the new rites for ordination and consecration are fine. Many are also ignorant when it comes to Fr Feeney, choosing to believe in judaeo-masonic propaganda that their superiors taught them. Many also believe that someone outside the Body of Christ can also somehow be a member of the Church through the soul of the Church even though this is contrary to Catholic teaching.
This is absolutely not the wisest thing ever said on here. On the contrary, you could make an argument that it's the dumbest thing ever said on here, considering the person and the content. This is pure Trump Derangement Syndrome that he is trying to pretend is Catholic theology. No Catholic principle can be cited to say it's a sin to vote for Trump, which is why basically all traditional Catholic priests (the people who are actually trained in this sort of thing) didn't say it was a sin.
As someone long guilty of chronic forum use, I feel qualified to spot someone who is posting just to hear their own ideas. That was Ladislaus. This is a guy who literally named ideas after himself.Agreed. I'm not sure why anyone (old or new poster) is worried that he's "gone". He'll be back.
He passed as smart before those who didn't know any better, and the way neophyte trads sat at his feet turned him into an egomaniac, or unleashed an egomania already there. Look through his posting history, he found disagreement almost altogether intolerable. He was incapable of telling someone they were wrong, he had to call them "stupid", "liar", etc.
The usual Ladislaus posting format was: "False. You are an idiot. [Two paragraphs of pseudo-intellectualism]. I can't believe you're so stupid."
That's the format of someone who is deeply insecure about their ideas. Genuine philosophers and theologians don't write like that. And people of good judgment and discernment know not to spend most of their time casting pearls before swine Day after day, week after week, year after year.
Several times over the years when we've butted heads, I've attempted private communications with him, without ever any reply or acknowledgement. He's not the only one, but that's a major red flag in my book. Suggests someone who doesn't understand, care, or want to understand/care that they're interacting with real people. Everyone on CI is just an audience member to the celebrity of Lad.
But who are we kidding-- I'd be shocked if he's actually done posting.
Several times over the years when we've butted heads, I've attempted private communications with him, without ever any reply or acknowledgement.
Nearly all traditional priests also believe in exceptions to infallible dogma (EENS) which is at the very least material heresy. Many Trad priests also believe the new rites for ordination and consecration are fine. Many are also ignorant when it comes to Fr Feeney, choosing to believe in judaeo-masonic propaganda that their superiors taught them. Many also believe that someone outside the Body of Christ can also somehow be a member of the Church through the soul of the Church even though this is contrary to Catholic teaching.Bravo. I agree with everything you write.
Lad was not deranged on Trump. Trump is exceedingly pro Jєωιѕн, passed noahide laws last time he was in office, and loves taking credit for operation warp speed.
It seems crazy to me that you can 'support' someone who is evil simply because the other options are more evil. Personally I wouldn't, similar to how I didn't take the covid gene therapy, I just didn't take it.
Does the number 153 have any significance or did you randomly pick that number? Just curious.153 Hail Marys in a Rosary. 153 Psalms and 153 fish in the miraculous catch of fish
153 Hail Marys in a Rosary. 153 Psalms and 153 fish in the miraculous catch of fish:confused: Since when are there 153 Psalms?
I see what you mean, I guess I am a newbie. I'm not familiar with the membership levels. I'm sure you're busy in the kitchen today, so I appreciate the attention your giving me. So get back in there. Happy Thanksgiving.Thank you for being so gracious Vincancino. Yes, I was in the kitchen up to my elbows in turkey stuffing etc. with many grandchilden underfoot. Hope your day was wondeful also.
.Unless you define TDS as being any opposition to Trump, I don't think it applies to Lad. All he was trying to do was get people to justify their vote for Trump using the Catholic moral principle of double effect. He explicitly stated that if you could successfully do that, then he would concede his argument. I think only one person even made an attempt at using double effect to justify a vote for Trump, and Lad praised them for trying.
This is absolutely not the wisest thing ever said on here. On the contrary, you could make an argument that it's the dumbest thing ever said on here, considering the person and the content. This is pure Trump Derangement Syndrome that he is trying to pretend is Catholic theology. No Catholic principle can be cited to say it's a sin to vote for Trump, which is why basically all traditional Catholic priests (the people who are actually trained in this sort of thing) didn't say it was a sin.
The worst part of it all is that "Trumptards" and "TDSers" and "in-betweeners" will all have to suffer and survive Trump's тαℓмυdic reign.… if indeed we do survive."Suffer and survive" is a perfect way of explaining it.
The worst part of it all is that "Trumptards" and "TDSers" and "in-betweeners" will all have to suffer and survive Trump's тαℓмυdic reign.… if indeed we do survive.I agree with what you are saying but do you think we would have survived if the other candidate had won?
I agree with what you are saying but do you think we would have survived if the other candidate had won?
Unless you define TDS as being any opposition to Trump, I don't think it applies to Lad. All he was trying to do was get people to justify their vote for Trump using the Catholic moral principle of double effect. He explicitly stated that if you could successfully do that, then he would concede his argument. I think only one person even made an attempt at using double effect to justify a vote for Trump, and Lad praised them for trying.
…When we look at what has been taught by the acknowledged authorities, …
These opinions, while not carrying the same sort of weight as magisterial teaching…
There was, however, no good reason for people to justify their vote for Trump using the principle of double effect. That is not how moral theology works. It is not a field in which one can simply work things out from basic principles as one does in math. We also look at what has been handed on from the past by recognized authoritative writers. These opinions, while not carrying the same sort of weight as magisterial teaching, are crucial to how we determine which actions are morally permissible. Ignoring this step is the moral theology equivalent to saying that we ought to receive Communion in the hand because that is what the early Christians did.GB deserves credit also for his research: https://www.cathinfo.com/politics-and-world-leaders/the-martyrs'-stand-choosing-christ-over-compromise-in-today's-political-land/msg957298/#msg957298 (https://www.cathinfo.com/politics-and-world-leaders/the-martyrs'-stand-choosing-christ-over-compromise-in-today's-political-land/msg957298/#msg957298)
We don't even need to understand the basic principles; we can just accept the conclusions of the moral theologians. And we don't even need to know what those are, if we have priests and bishops we trust to pass this on to us. The Church does not require average lay people to study moral theology. Lad had no right to demand something that is not required by the Church or to claim that people who can not do this are stupid.
When we look at what has been taught by the acknowledged authorities, we see that they have reached a consensus on the morality of voting. They say that it is permissible to vote for a bad candidate in order to prevent the election of a worse one. Voting for a bad candidate because one agrees with his sinful policies is formal cooperation with evil and therefore sinful. But voting for a bad candidate to prevent a worse is only material cooperation with evil and not sinful. Furthermore, some moral theologians use the expression "choosing the lesser evil" to describe this view, being careful to clarify that it is not a general principle and should not be universally applied.
In other words, Lad is opposed to the consensus view of traditional Catholic moral theologians. He had no right whatsoever to claim that those who follow that view have sinned mortally or even gravely. He did not even have a good case for saying they were wrong.
Posters like Emile and 2Vermont, who kept trying to discuss relevant views of the theologians, were the ones taking the traditional approach to moral theology. At one point, 2Vermont produced a couple of articles endorsed by Pius X which conclusively showed both the consensus opinion of moral theologians and the fact that they sometimes used the expression "choose the lesser evil". Ladislaus did not respond with "logic and Catholic principles". His exact words were "she [2Vermont] needs to be verbally slapped upside the head."
Lad was objectively wrong in his opinion and his behaviour was inappropriate. People should not be defending him.
Unless you define TDS as being any opposition to Trump, I don't think it applies to Lad. All he was trying to do was get people to justify their vote for Trump using the Catholic moral principle of double effect. He explicitly stated that if you could successfully do that, then he would concede his argument. I think only one person even made an attempt at using double effect to justify a vote for Trump, and Lad praised them for trying.(1) "Successfully"? Once again according to who? Like alaric said in another thread, the Gospel according to Ladislaus. :laugh1: Why should anyone here have to answer to him?
Perhaps attributing mortal sin to voting for Trump is a little strong considering that no one (I hope) on this forum who voted for Trump specifically voted for him because of his select evil promises, but given the gravity of what Trump has pledged to support, I understand why Lad argued so.
Name an authority of the stature of Sts. Thomas More or Thomas Aquinas who support your thesis.I am personally unaware of any living person that is of the stature of St. Thomas Aquinas or St. Thomas More to which we could turn. As it is, we're left to turn to trad clerics, prayer, and our own researches of Popes, Saints, and theologians of the past. It is therefore unavoidable that even sincere individuals will come to different conclusions.
....
GB deserves credit also for his research: https://www.cathinfo.com/politics-and-world-leaders/the-martyrs'-stand-choosing-christ-over-compromise-in-today's-political-land/msg957298/#msg957298 (https://www.cathinfo.com/politics-and-world-leaders/the-martyrs'-stand-choosing-christ-over-compromise-in-today's-political-land/msg957298/#msg957298)
Hmmmm… I've heard the simile as "like a fart in a skillet." :laugh1:Thanks, I hadn't heard that one. I'll add it to my repository! :laugh1:
Agree. GB adduced worthy authorities, opening the door to rational argumentation that a 94% abortionist/100% genocidalist (Trump) really fits the bill as "less unworthy" than a 100% abortionist/94% genocidalist (Kackles).
Have at it.
'splain how a 94% abortionist/100% genocidalist really fits the bill as "less unworthy" than a 100% abortionist/94% genocidalist.
:popcorn:
Unless you define TDS as being any opposition to Trump, I don't think it applies to Lad..
All he was trying to do was get people to justify their vote for Trump using the Catholic moral principle of double effect.
Agree. GB adduced worthy authorities, opening the door to rational argumentation that a 94% abortionist/100% genocidalist (Trump) really fits the bill as "less unworthy" than a 100% abortionist/94% genocidalist (Kackles).
Have at it.
'splain how a 94% abortionist/100% genocidalist really fits the bill as "less unworthy" than a 100% abortionist/94% genocidalist.
:popcorn:
Name an authority of the stature of Sts. Thomas More or Thomas Aquinas who support your thesis.
St. Thomas More was martyred because he opposed 1 divorce. Your faction struggles to exculpate yourselves for supporting a 94% abortionist and 100% genocidalist and the consequent death of millions.
To claim that the low-level clerical bloggers cited so far are "acknowledged authorities" is laughable, mere puffery. Your approbation is on the level of forged credentials.
Further, "the people" defending Lad have focused on the dishonesty, straw men, illogic, and emotionalism employed against him by PaxVobis and his ilk.
[a tremendous amount of repetitive non-responsive fluff]
explain how a 94% abortionist/100% genocidalist really fits the bill as "less unworthy" than a 100% abortionist/94% genocidalist.Repeating fake stats based on imagination does not magically make them turn into facts.
Lad is gone. Nishant is gone. Move on.Aren't there more issues on the table, than just those two? I am not politically inclined to name other issues. Here are some off the top of my head.
St. Thomas Aquinas's "less unworthy" has the floor.
Please explain how a 94% abortionist/100% genocidalist is "less unworthy" than a 100% abortionist/94% genocidalist.
Repeating fake stats based on imagination does not magically make them turn into facts.So… your opinion?
Aren't there more issues on the table, than just those two? I am not politically inclined to name other issues. Here are some off the top of my head.Trump's support of the genocidal looting Jєωs is certainly an important aid to their agenda and deepens our misery on every single one of the problems you mentioned.
Economy
Employment
Borders
Big Pharm
Taxes
???
Agree. GB adduced worthy authorities, opening the door to rational argumentation that a 94% abortionist/100% genocidalist (Trump) really fits the bill as "less unworthy" than a 100% abortionist/94% genocidalist (Kackles).Well, first I'm not sure how hαɾɾιs is only 94% genocidalist. They might allow some lip service and put on more of a show of reticence, but the weapons and $ will still flow.
Have at it.
'splain how a 94% abortionist/100% genocidalist really fits the bill as "less unworthy" than a 100% abortionist/94% genocidalist.
:popcorn:
Lad is gone. Nishant is gone. Move on.
St. Thomas Aquinas's "less unworthy" has the floor.
Please explain how a 94% abortionist/100% genocidalist is "less unworthy" than a 100% abortionist/94% genocidalist.
He may be able to cut funding for Planned Parenthood which, even though more abortions are now committed using a pill, should reduce abortion availability to some. I would say, more effectively, such funding cuts may hamper PP "education" initiatives in Public Schools, which is definitely an improvement.
Moving on… https://web.archive.org/web/20230307105335/judaism.is/banksters.htmlBest response so far: https://gab.com/John_In_Connecticut/posts/113574322434319684
(https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/169/248/367/original/571fff0f48903011.png)
(https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/169/248/368/original/d14a99d5393c00ad.png)
(https://media.gab.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=1136,quality=100,fit=scale-down/system/media_attachments/files/169/249/321/original/ffcac36c36888027.png)
Lad is gone.No he's not. :fryingpan:
Trump was allowed to win by the powers that beYou contradict yourself.
. . .
arguing politics to the point of making it a divisive issue among Catholics is really problematic.
You contradict yourself.Really???
Trump was allowed to win by the powers that be
. . .
arguing politics to the point of making it a divisive issue among Catholics is really problematic.
You contradict yourself.
Even though the *ews have control over so many aspects of life in the U.S., there's one thing, maybe the most important thing, that they can't take away from us, and that's our Catholic Faith. They can take away the Mass, and the churches, but not our Faith. That's still ours.
They may appear to be more powerful than God, but they aren't.
Really??? The Jєωs can't take away the Faith of Catholics??? Where have you been???Isn't it really about how properly formed a Catholic is in the first place?
What is the "Novus Ordo" if not Jєωs taking away the Faith of Catholics???
Piety is fine. Pious platitudes are not. Stupid pious platitudes are deadly to body and soul.
Isn't it really about how properly formed a Catholic is in the first place?
I argue that people gave away their Faith, not that someone actually took it from them. We are able to stay Catholic if we want to.
So the question is were the Bishops and priests of Vatican 2 so ill formed in the faith, that they were able to just change from worshiping God to worshiping self so easily?
I guess this is why propaganda is such an effective tool.
Isn't it really about how properly formed a Catholic is in the first place?100% right on the money. Excellent post!
I argue that people gave away their Faith, not that someone actually took it from them. We are able to stay Catholic if we want to.
So the question is were the Bishops and priests of Vatican 2 so ill formed in the faith, that they were able to just change from worshiping God to worshiping self so easily?
I guess this is why propaganda is such an effective tool.
100% right on the money. Excellent post!
I was only a child when I witnessed people giving away their faith because they wanted to. I didn't realize that at the time of course, but I did later.
The NO bishops and priests of V2 who believed that all Councils are infallible and whatever the pope says can do no harm to the Church, stayed true to that belief, ergo, they went NO. The same excuse was often used by all of those who abandoned the true faith for the new faith, even though at the time, they knew better.
As you said, they could have stayed Catholic if they wanted to, but as is most often the case, it is just too easy to follow the wolves.
Nobody here is denies the significant roll the jews and Satan plays, we're just not obsessed with it like you are. I mean, if it weren't for us all being stained with Original Sin, we would not come into this world bent on evil, but as it is, God equips us all with whatever we need to resist evil no matter where it comes from as long we sincerely want to resist it.
Satan and his ѕуηαgσgυє have worked to subvert souls from the very beginning.
To pretend that subversion has played little, if any, role in the subversion of Catholics is tantamount to pretending there is no such thing as temptation.
Of course, your silly pious platitude is true—all sinners must address their own culpability… BUT…
Failing to address the significant role of Satan and his ѕуηαgσgυє is a path to certain destruction.
Nobody here is denies the significant roll the Jєωs and Satan plays, we're just not obsessed with it like you are. I mean, if it weren't for us all being stained with Original Sin, we would not come into this world bent on evil, but as it is, God equips us all with whatever we need to resist evil no matter where it comes from as long we sincerely want to resist it.
Both you and Gray2023 claimed that Catholics "gave away" their Faith.But I think the way you say it implies that it is not completely our fault. Do we know for certain that God will show more Mercy to our generation because evil has gotten such a strong foothold in our society?
That is a half-truth.
Catholics were seduced and browbeaten into "giving away" their Faith.
That is the whole truth.
Both you and Gray2023 claimed that Catholics "gave away" their Faith.Some may have been seduced and browbeaten, not the ones I remember. Most went willingly, some begrudgingly, others just completely gave up on religion. This revolution was probably the only one in history where the enemies took over without a single drop of innocent blood being shed.
That is a half-truth.
Catholics were seduced and browbeaten into "giving away" their Faith.
That is the whole truth.
But I think the way you say it implies that it is not completely our fault. Do we know for certain that God will show more Mercy to our generation because evil has gotten such a strong foothold in our society?
The way I say it? For years and in this very thread (!!!) I have explicitly and repeatedly stated our own culpability.
So does this mean that God is setting up most people for failure. Would God do that?
Re-read 2 Thess 2:10-11. GOD, not Satan or oneself, will send the operation of error to believe lies to those who do not love the truth.
…
I have learned that any attention good or bad given to demons fuels their power.
Then why does the Church say that one of Satan's greatest tricks is to make people think he doesn't exist.
As I read your advice, not paying attention to Satan is perilously close to believing he doesn't exist.
I am not naive in what power the demons have, I just choose not to participate with them and their lackeys. I focus on the things I can control, offering up my sufferings, prayer, penance, receiving the True Body of Christ, and doing my duty.
:facepalm: Your plan seems to me like you are driving on the wrong side of the road at night with a blindfold.
Some may have been seduced and browbeaten, not the ones I remember. Most went willingly, some begrudgingly, others just completely gave up on religion. This revolution was probably the only one in history where the enemies took over without a single drop of innocent blood being shed.I explicitly used two words, "seduced" and "browbeaten." What part of "seduced" don't you understand? In what way is "a gun at the head" seduction??? :facepalm:
Add to the Scripture you posted the words of Our Lord when he told us to Beware, which fell on deaf ears to all of those who left (and leave) the true religion for the new religion. No matter how you slice it, nobody held a gun to their head and made them lose their faith, yes they may have let themselves be deceived, but they all did it of their own free will, willingly.
I explicitly used two words, "seduced" and "browbeaten." What part of "seduced" don't you understand? In what way is "a gun at the head" seduction??? :facepalm:Matthew 7:15 "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves." Snip from a Fr. Wathen sermon on this verse. (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/beware-40324/)
I don't know what "Beware" verse you reference. If it is important, please quote the exact verse.
But I think the way you say it implies that it is not completely our fault. Do we know for certain that God will show more Mercy to our generation because evil has gotten such a strong foothold in our society?Good. Sorry I misunderstood it.
The way I say it? For years and in this very thread (!!!) I have explicitly and repeatedly stated our own culpability.
So does this mean that God is setting up most people for failure. Would God do that?
Re-read 2 Thess 2:10-11. GOD, not Satan or oneself, will send the operation of error to believe lies to those who do not love the truth.
I have learned that any attention good or bad given to demons fuels their power.The spiritual life is complicated for those who don't believe in evil then you are right the demons will leave them exactly where they are. For those who do believe in God, the demons will use every means to tempt them away.
Then why does the Church say that one of Satan's greatest tricks is to make people think he doesn't exist.
As I read your advice, not paying attention to Satan is perilously close to believing he doesn't exist.
I am not naive in what power the demons have, I just choose not to participate with them and their lackeys. I focus on the things I can control, offering up my sufferings, prayer, penance, receiving the True Body of Christ, and doing my duty.I think it is funny that you say my plan to focus on things I can control is wrong. What does understanding all the things that are against God do for my soul?
(https://www.cathinfo.com/Smileys/classic/facepalm.gif) Your plan seems to me like you are driving on the wrong side of the road at night with a blindfold.
Really??? The Jєωs can't take away the Faith of Catholics??? Where have you been???I have to disagree with your assessment. The jews did not take away the faith from anyone. Faith is a free gift from God to each individual soul and can be freely lost or given up. Our Lord gives sufficient grace to each and every soul created, this is Catholic teaching.
What is the "Novus Ordo" if not Jєωs taking away the Faith of Catholics???
Piety is fine. Pious platitudes are not. Stupid pious platitudes are deadly to body and soul.
To accuse me of contradicting myself. It’s pretty black and white to me. We need patriotism for wars and military enlistment. Open borders and female presidents are bad for military enlistment. Far from being a contradiction, it makes perfect logical sense to men who think rationally and think of conflicts and world conflicts.I'm not Cera, but I wonder whether her meaning of contradicting yourself was that in one sentence you argued your position regarding the election/politics, and then in the other sentence you said arguing politics can be divisive and problematic. I happen to agree with you (and the recent months here have shown you to be correct), but I can see how your comments may have seemed contradictory to her/others.
As others pointed out, there is no contradiction there. Contradictions are two opposing statements. Trump being allowed to win to feed the war machine does not contradict itself in anyway. So to simply state it as contradictory seems to be an illogical, emotional response launching an accusation and an opportunity to “bicker” online.
The Jєωs did not take away the faith from anyone. Faith is a free gift from God to each individual soul and can be freely lost or given up. Our Lord gives sufficient grace to each and every soul created, this is Catholic teaching.Correct. I've talked to many people from the pre-V2 generation and those that stayed with V2 admitted they "wanted the changes". They wanted an "updated, easier, more modernized" church. They may have put up a small protest, because they missed the "smells and bells" of the liturgy, but deep down, they went along because the "easier moral code" was worth the trade of changing the Traditional rite.
Correct. I've talked to many people from the pre-V2 generation and those that stayed with V2 admitted they "wanted the changes". They wanted an "updated, easier, more modernized" church. They may have put up a small protest, because they missed the "smells and bells" of the liturgy, but deep down, they went along because the "easier moral code" was worth the trade of changing the Traditional rite.Yep, this. Well stated.
Those that rejected V2, ended up building Traditionalism that we know today.
I'm not Cera, but I wonder whether her meaning of contradicting yourself was that in one sentence you argued your position regarding the election/politics, and then in the other sentence you said arguing politics can be divisive and problematic. I happen to agree with you (and the recent months here have shown you to be correct), but I can see how your comments may have seemed contradictory to her/others.
I have to disagree with your assessment. The Jєωs did not take away the faith from anyone. Faith is a free gift from God to each individual soul and can be freely lost or given up. Our Lord gives sufficient grace to each and every soul created, this is Catholic teaching.You are correct. I was too succinct in that early post and so elaborated thereafter: "seduced and browbeaten" and "apportioning the blame on our 'itching ears,' those 'lying teachers' of 'sects of perdition,' and failure to love the Truth." I have been quite clear that there is personal culpability for assenting to the subversion by Satan and his ѕуηαgσgυє. I even quoted Scripture testifying to both the personal and subversive blame.
On the other hand, the enemies of our Lord infiltrated and propagated a new religion using the Church structure but held no gun to anyone forcing them to embrace it.
My political argument.
”I’ve never voted and don’t really care about parties or any of it.”
Quote from: Gray2023 on Today at 09:53:48 AM (https://www.cathinfo.com/catholic-living-in-the-modern-world/the-wisest-thing-ever-said-on-cathinfo/msg964868/#msg964868)
Yes. He sends that to people who do not believe. God acts differently to those who do believe. We on CathInfo believe and should pray for the conversions of all those who are still living because they can still convert back to Truth.
Who is this "We on CathInfo" about whom you generalize. In this very thread we are dealing with someone who clearly denies the Faith as it has always been taught and even denies historical realities. I see no love of Truth in that.
…
Quote from: Gray2023 on Today at 09:53:48 AM (https://www.cathinfo.com/catholic-living-in-the-modern-world/the-wisest-thing-ever-said-on-cathinfo/msg964868/#msg964868)I think it is funny that you say my plan to focus on things I can control is wrong. What does understanding all the things that are against God do for my soul?
If you are aware of deceits and plots, does that not help you resist falling into the traps even if you cannot control them?
Anyone who doesn't vigilantly and ruthlessly employ the jw-test isn't productive. And that includes employing the test on oneself. I'm jdaized.:jester: I think you’re the only one who has any idea what this means. Good for you.
Surprise, surprise. Another effeminate hissy fit from Ladislaus. What a self-important twerp.You may imagine you’re more knowledgeable about politics than others, but Ladislaus’ pinky finger had more knowledge of doctrine, liturgy, and theology than you, any day. You know, the stuff the matters.
He's good when it doesn't count, and bad when it does count. A familiar type.
For those of you who don't know, mainly lurkers (the main forum members are pretty useless), JayneK was promoting trannies 10 years (or so) ago on Fisheaters and said, in so many words, "anti-Judaism has nothing in common with Catholicism." Her laughable defense has always been, "I was new to traditional Catholicism." Any half-wit heathen would spot red flags.
Quote from: Gray2023 on Today at 09:53:48 AM (https://www.cathinfo.com/catholic-living-in-the-modern-world/the-wisest-thing-ever-said-on-cathinfo/msg964868/#msg964868)Awareness is one thing, bitter zeal is another.
Yes. He sends that to people who do not believe. God acts differently to those who do believe. We on CathInfo believe and should pray for the conversions of all those who are still living because they can still convert back to Truth.
Who is this "We on CathInfo" about whom you generalize. In this very thread we are dealing with someone who clearly denies the Faith as it has always been taught and even denies historical realities. I see no love of Truth in that.
I assumed that those here on CathInfo are trying to be Catholic. My bad!!
Who do you think is denying the Faith?
Maybe some of us prefer to pray for the Salvation of souls than to worry so much about who exactly is our enemy.
…
Quote from: Gray2023 on Today at 09:53:48 AM (https://www.cathinfo.com/catholic-living-in-the-modern-world/the-wisest-thing-ever-said-on-cathinfo/msg964868/#msg964868)I think it is funny that you say my plan to focus on things I can control is wrong. What does understanding all the things that are against God do for my soul?
If you are aware of deceits and plots, does that not help you resist falling into the traps even if you cannot control them?
Who do you think is denying the Faith?
Awareness is one thing, bitter zeal is another.
Both Jєωιѕн subversion and personal culpability deserve blame. I might observe that the "kiss [Jєωιѕн] ass" faction emphasizes the personal culpabiliity and the "kick [Jєωιѕн] ass" faction emphasizes the subversion and threats from the ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan.Yes, both deserve blame, and all those who go along with the jew subversion will suffer the consequences of going along with the jew subversion.
I am still waiting for Stubborn to produce his "Beware" verse… but I wasn't and still am not holding my breath that he will ever put his verse on the table.How could your grace miss it? (https://www.cathinfo.com/catholic-living-in-the-modern-world/the-wisest-thing-ever-said-on-cathinfo/msg964876/#msg964876)
Question:
josh987654321 has insisted that in The End the Jєωs will convert en masse and that Catholics need "Jєωιѕн understanding of Scripture."
The Deposit of Faith teaches that only a remnant will be saved.
The Deposit of Faith teaches that Catholics need Catholic understanding.
Ergo, josh987654321 denies the Faith two-fold.
Many here treat their opinions as dogma.
I see inserting opinions into the Magisterium as a species of compromising the Faith, denying the Faith.
Surprise, surprise. Another effeminate hissy fit from Ladislaus. What a self-important twerp.St Paul persecuted the early Christians in the worst ways one could. Wonder what you would have thought about his conversion had you been around in those times?
He's good when it doesn't count, and bad when it does count. A familiar type.
Anyone who doesn't vigilantly and ruthlessly employ the jw-test isn't productive. And that includes employing the test on oneself. I'm jdaized.
Though I didn't care for Croix, I always got a kick out of his ruffling of Ladislaus' tender feathers.
For those of you who don't know, mainly lurkers (the main forum members are pretty useless), JayneK was promoting trannies 10 years (or so) ago on Fisheaters and said, in so many words, "anti-Judaism has nothing in common with Catholicism." Her laughable defense has always been, "I was new to traditional Catholicism." Any half-wit heathen would spot red flags.
2vermont attacked me for criticizing jws on the defunct TeDeum forum. Both are insincere jwess converts. They only will be critical of jws to save face and gain street cred, but with no real gusto. JayneK said she hasn't told her jwish family members that the holocost is a fraud, because there are more important things to tackle. Yeah, right. She could have just lied, which I wouldn't put past her, and say she did tell her jwish family members. But like a typical jw she prefers to test the waters and see what trad Caths will let her get away with.
Be careful about who you trust.
The jw-litmus reigns supreme!
Here is an article that talks about Jєωs and conversion. I didn't fact check it, so it may have errors.
https://catholicism.org/ad-rem-no-310.html
An impressive list of Fathers can be brought out who refer to this future conversion as a fact. Included are Tertullian, Origen, Saint Hilary, Saint Ambrose, Saint John Chrysostom, Saint Jerome, Saint Cyril of Alexandria, Saint Prosper of Aquitaine, Saint Gregory the Great, Saint Isidore, Saint Bede the Venerable, and Saint Anselm. Saint Cyril of Alexandria says this: “Towards the end of time, Our Lord Jesus Christ will effect the reconciliation of His former persecutor Israel with Himself. Everybody who knows Holy Scripture is aware that, in the course of time, this people will return to the love of Christ by the submission of faith…. Yes, one day, after the conversion of the Gentiles, Israel will be converted, and the Jews will be astonished at the treasure they will find in Christ” (Commentary on Genesis, Bk. 5).https://catholicism.org/ad-rem-no-310.html
Anyone who doesn't vigilantly and ruthlessly employ the jw-test isn't productive. And that includes employing the test on oneself. I'm jdaized.How would you know for sure that a Jєωιѕн convert was sincere? Would martyrdom even suffice for you? Because I could say any number of things here, but the reality is you would just say I lied. Afterall, that's what Joos do, right? And this is why it is futile for me to interact with you.
Though I didn't care for Croix, I always got a kick out of his ruffling of Ladislaus' tender feathers.
For those of you who don't know, mainly lurkers (the main forum members are pretty useless), JayneK was promoting trannies 10 years (or so) ago on Fisheaters and said, in so many words, "anti-Judaism has nothing in common with Catholicism." Her laughable defense has always been, "I was new to traditional Catholicism." Any half-wit heathen would spot red flags.
2vermont attacked me for criticizing jws on the defunct TeDeum forum. Both are insincere jwess converts. They only will be critical of jws to save face and gain street cred, but with no real gusto. JayneK said she hasn't told her jwish family members that the holocost is a fraud, because there are more important things to tackle. Yeah, right. She could have just lied, which I wouldn't put past her, and say she did tell her jwish family members. But like a typical jw she prefers to test the waters and see what trad Caths will let her get away with.
Be careful about who you trust.
The jw-litmus reigns supreme!
How could I miss it? You don't hang on my every word and don't stalk me. I don't hang on your every word or stalk you. That's how I missed it and thank you for calling it to my attention. I am pleasantly surprised that you brought the excellent verse to the table.
How could your grace miss it? (https://www.cathinfo.com/catholic-living-in-the-modern-world/the-wisest-thing-ever-said-on-cathinfo/msg964876/#msg964876)
Quote from: Stubborn 12/3/2024, 9:39:43 AM
Matthew 7:15 "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves." Snip from a Fr. Wathen sermon on this verse.
Seduced or browbeaten, they knew better and still went willingly. We know this because there were those few who did not go along at all - also of their own free will.
How would you know for sure that a Jєωιѕн convert was sincere?Obviously there is a traditional Catholic anti-Jєωιѕнness that is rooted in Scripture. But rum's hostility to converts is something else. There is something really unbalanced and disturbing about the way he joined a forum under an assumed identity for the purpose of entrapping a new Trad into a damaging comment. And, while some prudent caution might be understandable when first encountering a convert, there is no reason to continue making accusations after a decade of clearly Catholic content.
I actually think both Josh and Mark are correct. I think the Church teaches that overall there will only be a remnant of Jєωs that will convert; however, those that are left in the End Times will convert. I could be wrong, but that seems to make sense to me.Good Heavens. Please be precise.
Obviously there is a traditional Catholic anti-Jєωιѕнness that is rooted in Scripture. But rum's hostility to converts is something else. There is something really unbalanced and disturbing about the way he joined a forum under an assumed identity for the purpose of entrapping a new Trad into a damaging comment. And, while some prudent caution might be understandable when first encountering a convert, there is no reason to continue making accusations after a decade of clearly Catholic content.Since you were named, understandably you take rum's comments personally.
I'll add this. There is virtual unanimity among the Fathers that The Anti-Christ will be a Jєω and that he will be destroyed, not converted, on The Last Day.The day the antichrist is killed is not the last day of the world. After antichrist, there is a period of peace for the Church, where people will convert. Some saints say this period may be decades long. This is when the "jew conversion" prophecy will be fulfilled. This is when Christ will truly be King over all the world.
How would you know for sure that a Jєωιѕн convert was sincere? Would martyrdom even suffice for you? Because I could say any number of things here, but the reality is you would just say I lied. Afterall, that's what Joos do, right? And this is why it is futile for me to interact with you.
And as I have said to others on this site, it doesn't matter what YOU think of my conversion. The only one that it matters to is God. Which is why I will never explain myself to YOU.
The day the antichrist is killed is not the last day of the world. After antichrist, there is a period of peace for the Church, where people will convert. Some saints say this period may be decades long. This is when the "Jєω conversion" prophecy will be fulfilled. This is when Christ will truly be King over all the world.
Good Heavens. Please be precise.Id have to research further but Bishop Williamson says as much here:
Are you saying that in The End every single remaining Jєω is the "remnant" that will be saved?
I am reasonably knowledgeable about Jєωs and about The End. I have never seen anyone (except the heretic josh987654321), Magisterial or otherwise, claim that every single Jєω alive on The Last Day will convert. Everything Magisterial that I have read teaches that from Christ's Ministry until The Last Day a remnant will be saved—here and there, as it were, NOT here and there until The Last Day and then on the Last Day every single one will convert. I have never seen such a bizarre and qualified teaching from the Magisterium. If you have it, let's see it. Not speculation, but Magisterium!
If you have Magisterium saying that every single Jєω alive on The Last Day will convert, I would submit to authentic Magisterium and, if I have been wrong, I will abjure my error.
I'll add this. There is virtual unanimity among the Fathers that The Anti-Christ will be a Jєω and that he will be destroyed, not converted, on The Last Day. That would certainly be at least one Jєω of the remnant left alive on The Last Day who did not convert, but damned instead. To me, that one exception alone makes the "every single one on The Last Day" claim to be an absurd, untenable, and heretical claim.
Of course, a solid verse.I believe that verse places the responsibility on each of us regardless and in spite of everything else, the only variable is the degree of culpability, which may (or may not) be less for some than it is for others, the question below spells it out in short order......
I do not think you can make the "they knew better and still went willingly" leap in every case.
Many had Faith in their prelates and had also been processed by the alchemy of Jєωιѕн relativism for their entire lives. Just as cancer infiltrates and weakens the body, Jєωιѕн subjectivism/relativism/gradualism weakened the spiritual "immune system" of many. So, being taught by their trusted and traitorous prelates, many fell. They had not been taught to "know better" so were easily seduced. Many whose spiritual "immune systems" were not full "immune-compromised" fell because they were browbeaten into submission or "canceled."
Then, of course, there are the heresiarchs who you and I would agree are the willful wolves of whom the verse speaks.
All you say in the quoted post is true.Although i dont know the reason (perhaps both things), I admit that I can be subjective in matters not related to the Faith. However, I don't recall arguments about those sorts of things with you. The only one I can think of is the election and my position was supported by Catholic theologians and traditional clergy who are educated in the Catholic Faith. I wouldn't call that "subjective".
However, to put a fine point on it, in my disputes with you, you seem to display an above average amount of subjectivism. Perhaps that subjectivism is merely female, perhaps it is residual kosher baggage.
Just as I need to be on guard for the pernicious elements of the music of my youth (my baggage), perhaps you need to be on guard for Jєωιѕн subjectivism (perhaps your baggage).
I do not mean this as a personal attack, but only exploring rum's contention that we are all Judaized. Maybe because I am abrasive I am equipped to understand the contentions of someone who, like me, is abrasive :cowboy:
I do not think you can make the "they knew better and still went willingly" leap in every case.God does not tempt us beyond our strength. This is infallible. Those who chose to "go along" had the grace to resist. They did not. It's their own fault - not Gods, or anyone else's. At the last judgement, no one will be able to blame the devil for sin. So you certainly won't be able to blame the devil's minions.
Many had Faith in their prelates and had also been processed by the alchemy of Jєωιѕн relativism for their entire lives. Just as cancer infiltrates and weakens the body, Jєωιѕн subjectivism/relativism/gradualism weakened the spiritual "immune system" of many. So, being taught by their trusted and traitorous prelates, many fell. They had not been taught to "know better" so were easily seduced. Many whose spiritual "immune systems" were not full "immune-compromised" fell because they were browbeaten into submission or "canceled."
You need not do that, because rum's contention is that everyone is Judaized, even himself, even me.
Anyway, as for you personally, it is my opinion (recognizing that only God's opinion matters!) that you are a sincere convert. When we first "met" on CathInfo I think you displayed some of the baggage of Jєωιѕн "Chosen" conceits and attachments. As I have privately said to you, I believe you have successfully shed that Jєωιѕн baggage. That said, you and I must be on guard lest our baggage returns with a fatal vengeance. Te Deum laudamus! God is good!Thanks. I came to trad forums with a triple dose of it (at least): from my familly, from attending university, and from liberal Novus Ordo formation. It is an ongoing struggle to overcome it.
There's the age of peace, Our Lady's triumph, in the coming age. Then antichrist rises. Then antichrist is defeated. Then the final age of peace, where Christ is finally King and the Jєωs convert. Then the end of the world.Correct according to Father Sylvester Berry in The Apocalypse of Saint John.
This final age of peace is often referred to (incorrectly/heretically) as "millenialsim" by Protestants, who think that Christ will reign for 1,000 years after antichrist. The Church has said that this number of years is symbolic and not a literal 1,000 years. But the idea of an age of peace, post-antichrist, is a fact.
Id have to research further but Bishop Williamson says as much here:
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/eleison-comments-romans-xi/msg946510/#msg946510
Secondly, the infidelity of Jєωs is highly useful, because the Gentiles’ conversion is designed to provoke them to jealousy, and if their rejection of Christ opened the way for Gentiles to be saved in God’s Church, then their reversion to Christ at world’s end will be the resurrection of the Gentiles. Moreover, the basic Jєωιѕн vine-stock (e.g. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) is still holy, even if many Jєωs have broken off it, and so let Gentile Christians, who are mere grafts onto that vine-stock, remember that they too can break off it, even if they can be re-grafted onto it. In any case, all Gentiles depend, as Christians, on that vine-stock for their Christianity (11–24).
For if the first fruit be holy, so is the lump also: and if the root be holy, so are the branches. 17 And if some of the branches be broken, and thou, being a wild olive, art ingrafted in them, and art made partaker of the root, and of the fatness of the olive tree, 18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee. 19 Thou wilt say then: The branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in
And thirdly, the infidelity of the Jєωs to the Gospel of Christ and to the New Testament is only temporary, because at world’s end, when the Gospel has been preached to all the Gentiles, the remaining Jєωs will convert collectively, i.e. as a whole, albeit with exceptions.
I believe that verse places the responsibility on each of us regardless and in spite of everything else, the only variable is the degree of culpability, which may (or may not) be less for some than it is for others, the question below spells it out in short order......You are merely re-stating what I said. Both the false teachers and the people who fell for "false obedience" have blame. The apportionment of the blame is God's job.
Who is guilty? Is it the false prophet or is it those who listen?
If it is only the false prophet who is guilty, why is there any need to “beware?"
If God is not going to blame those who listen, those who are taken in by the falsehoods of the Jєωιѕн subjectivism/relativism/gradualism, then why did He tell us to beware?
He told us to beware precisely so that we would not be taken in by the falsehoods of the Jєωιѕн subjectivism/relativism/gradualism.
God does not tempt us beyond our strength. This is infallible. Those who chose to "go along" had the grace to resist. They did not. It's their own fault - not Gods, or anyone else's. At the last judgement, no one will be able to blame the devil for sin. So you certainly won't be able to blame the devil's minions.:facepalm: Far more wise and holy people than I have long discussed the role of "false obedience." Many were seduced and others were browbeaten.
I have no objection at all to anyone claiming that I am subconsciously judaized. I agree that it is practically inescapable in our society and that we should all examine ourselves for its effect in our lives, For rum to claim that 2Vermont and I are still Jєωιѕн and lying about being Catholic goes considerably beond that. He is caling us liars. He is saying that we are going to hell. He is not claiming anything like that about you or anyone else.God bless you and He certainly welcomes you. I can do no less. You remain in my prayers. I need and hope for yours.
Thanks. I came to trad forums with a triple dose of it (at least): from my familly, from attending university, and from liberal Novus Ordo formation. It is an ongoing struggle to overcome it.
Yes, this was the part to which I was referring. I missed that he mentioned exceptions when I first read it. Thanks for pointing that out.
His Excellency continued:
His acknowledgment of exceptions means "not every single Jєω" alive on The Last Day will convert to Christ.
That is exactly what I have said on this matter. Perhaps many will convert on The Last Day, but not all will convert. So Bp. Williamson exposes josh987654321's heresy that all will convert.
Q.E.D.
As I understand Catholic eschatology, you have misplaced the reign of peace in the chronology.
Luke 18
20 And being asked by the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come? he answered them, and said: The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:
21 Neither shall they say: Behold here, or behold there. For lo, the kingdom of God is within you. 22 And he said to his disciples: The days will come, when you shall desire to see one day of the Son of man; and you shall not see it. 23 And they will say to you: See here, and see there. Go ye not after, nor follow them: 24 For as the lightning that lighteneth from under heaven, shineth unto the parts that are under heaven, so shall the Son of man be in his day. 25 But first he must suffer many things, and be rejected by this generation.
26 And as it came to pass in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. 27 They did eat and drink, they married wives, and were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark: and the flood came and destroyed them all. 28 Likewise as it came to pass, in the days of Lot: they did eat and drink, they bought and sold, they planted and built. 29 And in the day that Lot went out of Sodom, it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. 30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man shall be revealed.
31 In that hour, he that shall be on the housetop, and his goods in the house, let him not go down to take them away: and he that shall be in the field, in like manner, let him not return back. 32 Remember Lot's wife. 33 Whosoever shall seek to save his life, shall lose it: and whosoever shall lose it, shall preserve it. 34 I say to you: in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left. 35 Two women shall be grinding together: the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left: two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.
36 They answering, say to him: Where, Lord? 37 Who said to them: Wheresoever the body shall be, thither will the eagles also be gathered together.
Acts 1
6 They therefore who were come together, asked him, saying: Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? 7 But he said to them: It is not for you to know the times or moments, which the Father hath put in his own power: 8 But you shall receive the power of the Holy Ghost coming upon you, and you shall be witnesses unto me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and Samaria, and even to the uttermost part of the earth. 9 And when he had said these things, while they looked on, he was raised up: and a cloud received him out of their sight. 10 And while they were beholding him going up to heaven, behold two men stood by them in white garments.
11 Who also said: Ye men of Galilee, why stand you looking up to heaven? This Jesus who is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come, as you have seen him going into heaven.
Romans 11
25 For I would not have you ignorant, brethren, of this mystery, (lest you should be wise in your own conceits), that blindness in part has happened in Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles should come in. 26 And so all Israel should be saved, as it is written: There shall come out of Sion, he that shall deliver, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob
Catholic Public Domain Version
And in this way, all of Israel may be saved, just as it was written: “From Zion shall arrive he who delivers, and he shall turn impiety away from Jacob.
New American Bible
and thus all Israel will be saved, as it is written: “The deliverer will come out of Zion, he will turn away godlessness from Jacob;
New International Version
and in this way all Israel will be saved. As it is written: “The deliverer will come from Zion; he will turn godlessness away from Jacob.
English Standard Version
And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written, “The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob”;
Contemporary English Version
In this way all of Israel will be saved, as the Scriptures say, "From Zion someone will come to rescue us. Then Jacob's descendants will stop being evil.
Good News Translation
And this is how all Israel will be saved. As the scripture says, "The Savior will come from Zion and remove all wickedness from the descendants of Jacob.
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.
Acts 15
14 Simon hath related how God first visited to take of the Gentiles a people to his name. 15 And to this agree the words of the prophets, as it is written:
16 After these things I will return, and will rebuild the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and the ruins thereof I will rebuild, and I will set it up: 17 That the residue of men may seek after the Lord, and all nations upon whom my name is invoked, saith the Lord, who doth these things.
Good Heavens. Please be precise.I haven't followed the many posts between you and Josh very closely.
Are you saying that in The End every single remaining Jєω is the "remnant" that will be saved?
I am reasonably knowledgeable about Jєωs and about The End. I have never seen anyone (except the heretic josh987654321), Magisterial or otherwise, claim that every single Jєω alive on The Last Day will convert. Everything Magisterial that I have read teaches that from Christ's Ministry until The Last Day a remnant will be saved—here and there, as it were, NOT here and there until The Last Day and then on the Last Day every single one will convert. I have never seen such a bizarre and qualified teaching from the Magisterium. If you have it, let's see it. Not speculation, but Magisterium!
If you have Magisterium saying that every single Jєω alive on The Last Day will convert, I would submit to authentic Magisterium and, if I have been wrong, I will abjure my error.
I'll add this. There is virtual unanimity among the Fathers that The Anti-Christ will be a Jєω and that he will be destroyed, not converted, on The Last Day. That would certainly be at least one Jєω of the remnant left alive on The Last Day who did not convert, but damned instead. To me, that one exception alone makes the "every single one on The Last Day" claim to be an absurd, untenable, and heretical claim.
I see Pax is still peddling his nonsense (my opinion, of course; the Church hasn't condemned his "Jєωιѕн" dreams, and in fact has shown itself to be enamored of them) about mass conversions of Jєωs "according to the flesh"(Rom. 9:6-8 etc.), the Great Catholic Monarch/King who rules on this earth (where Christ's kingdom, ah hem, ISN"T - John 18:36) for a period of a thousand years or whatever of "world peace," etc.1. Your reading comprehension is very poor. I already said that "millenialism" is a heresy.
His acknowledgment of exceptions means "not every single Jєω" alive on The Last Day will convert to Christ.The Jєωιѕн nation will convert, generally speaking. This is the common opinion of the Church Fathers, as alluded to by St Paul in Scripture.
I haven't followed the many posts between you and Josh very closely.I am at a disadvantage because (1) as I said before, I make no claim of being expert on eschatology and (2) almost my entire Judaica library is boxed in preparation to move. All I have at hand is what is on my computer. What is there to misunderstand about "only a remnant will be saved"? Your claim of "interpretation" seems of the same species as Bill Clinton's "What is the meaning of 'is'?"
Admittedly, it's not a topic that I have researched (and I only posted Bishop Williamson's comments because that was recent in my mind), so I do not believe I can debate it properly.
Since you have researched it, can you provide the Magisterial teaching that you use to come to the conclusion that the Church teaches that not all Jєωs will convert at the end of the world?
It seems that most here are using Scripture and giving their own opinions on how to interpret it. I haven't seen any Magisterial teachings specifically on this topic (all vs some Jєωs). Even the Catholic bibles don't seem to have Catholic commentary on that part of Romans 11.
I am at a disadvantage because (1) as I said before, I make no claim of being expert on eschatology and (2) almost my entire Judaica library is boxed in preparation to move. All I have at hand is what is on my computer. What is there to misunderstand about "only a remnant will be saved"? Your claim of "interpretation" seems of the same species as Bill Clinton's "What is the meaning of 'is'?"Thank you for the info. I'm hoping I can open it without having to download the whole file.
I have attached the best compendium I have at hand. The screen shots of the Table of Contents show that almost every aspect of the mass conversion claim and the claimants is covered comprehensively. As the subtitle states, the compendium was prepared to rebut the claims of Fr. Mawdsley who has been quoted here.
For those who struggle to find any excuse to avoid reading or challenging the Magisterial evidence adduced, I am sure they will contrive some animus against the author (as when I introduced Hoffman's book) or complain that there is no imprimatur (as we have also seen recently). For that ilk, "Any excuse is better than no excuse," eh?
The file can be download below.
(https://m3.gab.com/media_attachments/48/ef/28/48ef282b639e47b12f414e81673806f2.png)
(https://m3.gab.com/media_attachments/24/f3/77/24f377aeb24305d271b749198073cfee.png)
Thank you for the info. I'm hoping I can open it without having to download the whole file.I am totally in favor of judicious skepticism.
No, what I meant by "interpretation" is that certain Bible verses have a very specific interpretation made/taught by the Church (ie. Magisterium). An example would be "This is my Body...". The Church interpretation is often explained/described in Catholic biblical commentaries or in catechisms, etc. In this case, I have not seen such explanation put forth for Romans 11:26. This leads me to believe that there isn't a specific Church/magisterial interpretation for it.
I'm not sure exactly what you are referring to, but I see you're not happy with those who have questioned some sources. As Catholics, shouldn't we? I would want to know that I am at least reading a pre-Vatican II source. Isn't this what Trads typically do when investigating any Church teaching?
I am at a disadvantage because (1) as I said before, I make no claim of being expert on eschatology and (2) almost my entire Judaica library is boxed in preparation to move. All I have at hand is what is on my computer. What is there to misunderstand about "only a remnant will be saved"? Your claim of "interpretation" seems of the same species as Bill Clinton's "What is the meaning of 'is'?"
I have attached the best compendium I have at hand. The screen shots of the Table of Contents show that almost every aspect of the mass conversion claim and the claimants is covered comprehensively. As the subtitle states, the compendium was prepared to rebut the claims of Fr. Mawdsley who has been quoted here.
For those who struggle to find any excuse to avoid reading or challenging the Magisterial evidence adduced, I am sure they will contrive some animus against the author (as when I introduced Hoffman's book) or complain that there is no imprimatur (as we have also seen recently). For that ilk, "Any excuse is better than no excuse," eh?
The file can be download below.
(https://m3.gab.com/media_attachments/48/ef/28/48ef282b639e47b12f414e81673806f2.png)
(https://m3.gab.com/media_attachments/24/f3/77/24f377aeb24305d271b749198073cfee.png)
Sungenis denies article one of Copernican Doctrine--that E Rev around S. :popcorn:Roscoe smoked a doobie and has his shit-stirring stick in hand. :popcorn:
4. The Church Fathers are the ones who, taking St Paul's words in Scripture, taught that the Jєωιѕн Nation will convert before the Last Day.It is interesting that the St Benedict Center's article linked above starts out by saying this:
An impressive list of Fathers can be brought out who refer to this future conversion as a fact. Included are Tertullian, Origen, Saint Hilary, Saint Ambrose, Saint John Chrysostom, Saint Jerome, Saint Cyril of Alexandria, Saint Prosper of Aquitaine, Saint Gregory the Great, Saint Isidore, Saint Bede the Venerable, and Saint Anselm. Saint Cyril of Alexandria says this: “Towards the end of time, Our Lord Jesus Christ will effect the reconciliation of His former persecutor Israel with Himself. Everybody who knows Holy Scripture is aware that, in the course of time, this people will return to the love of Christ by the submission of faith…. Yes, one day, after the conversion of the Gentiles, Israel will be converted, and the Jews will be astonished at the treasure they will find in Christ” (Commentary on Genesis, Bk. 5).
https://catholicism.org/ad-rem-no-310.html
It is interesting that the St Benedict Center's article linked above starts out by saying this: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.
Though it is not a defined dogma, the future conversion of the Jєωιѕн nation to the Faith is a common teaching of the Fathers and Doctors, inferred directly from Holy Scripture. This mass conversion (which need not be absolutely total) will be a sign of the imminent approach of the General Judgment.
Two things:
(1) it makes it clear that the mass conversion is not defined dogma but that it is the common teaching of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church; and
(2) it points out that the mass conversion "need" not be absolutely total. This wording seems to suggest that it is possible for the mass conversion to be absolutely total or not absolutely total and leaves that point open.
This was a shorter read, but I will take a look at the source Mark posted to see how this is handled.
"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)
Too, His Excellency Williamson used the verbiage, "…albeit with exceptions," so no "universal Salvation" for the Jєωs on The Last Day.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.
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)
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.Well, if there aren't that many "actual Jews", then a mass conversion of Jews won't be too difficult. ;)
Are there any jews left?
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 also skimmed it and came to the same opinion as you.
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.
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.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 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,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.
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
Roy Schoeman, his Salvation is from the Jєωs book and website (one and tghe same website to which PV directed us!!!):facepalm: 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.
the anti-Christ will be Jєωιѕн and he will be killed by Christ on The Last DayThe Antichrist does not die on the last day of the world. Why do you keep saying this?
:facepalm: 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…
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.
The Antichrist does not die on the last day of the world. Why do you keep saying this?
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,
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.
“And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham for our father. For I tell you that God is able of these stones to raise up children to Abraham.” Matthew 3:9
And God said to him: I AM, and my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations Neither shall thy name be called any more Abram: but thou shalt be called Abraham: because I have made thee a father of many nations.
“As it is written: Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him unto justice. Know ye therefore, that they who are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. And the scripture, foreseeing, that God justifieth the Gentiles by faith, told unto Abraham before: In thee shall all nations be blessed.”
But you [speaking to the Christians] are a chosen generation, a kingly priesthood, a holy nation, a purchased people: that you may declare his virtues, who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light: Who in time past were not a people: but are now the people of God. Who had not obtained mercy; but now have obtained mercy. 1 Peter 2:9-10
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.OK, he does seem to do so. But we also have Mark79 saying it's heresy to believe that there will be a mass conversion without exceptions.
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
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.I would be interested in hearing what he says on this topic in more detail given I tend to give credence to what our Traditional Catholic clergy teaches on Faith and Morals (although I still think this topic is not settled Church teaching).
I would be interested in hearing what he says on this topic in more detail given I tend to give credence to what our Traditional Catholic clergy teaches on Faith and Morals (although I still think this topic is not settled Church teaching).
It would be interesting to see how he comes to his conclusion. Because even though he does mention "exceptions" the whole phrase he used was "the remaining Jєωs will convert collectively, i.e. as a whole, albeit with exceptions." Yes, that doesn't mean 100% conversion, but it also gives me the impression that he's not talking about a large number of exceptions. If anything, he seems to be suggesting something very close to a mass conversion.
Since you seem to have contact with him, perhaps you could ask him to speak more to this part of his prior EC too (and post it with his permission)? Maybe he could also speak to whether this is settled Church teaching.
Sorry, I addressed the content in an attempted follow-up post, but when it "timed out" I lost all the work.I hear your pain. I hate when that happens.
I hear your pain. I hate when that happens.Usually I can just click "back" and recover what was composed, but sometimes I just get a blank. Aiiieee! Lately I have been trying to remember to copy the content before clicking "post," but it is not yet an ingrained habit.
… infallible, or close to it.…
:facepalm: When speaking of the Church Fathers, there’s unanimous (ie infallible) and also “nearly unanimous”. And then simply “common opinion”. These are common distinctions; not something I made up.Well… then let your posts reflect more of the "nearly" and "almost" and less of the "infallible."
But you just like to argue.
Usually I can just click "back" and recover what was composed, but sometimes I just get a blank. Aiiieee! Lately I have been trying to remember to copy the content before clicking "post," but it is not yet an ingrained habit.Yes, and another option would be to compose on a clipboard or Word or even an email.
Yes, and another option would be to compose on a clipboard or Word or even an email.The CathInfo software often butchers such pastes, inserting html codes with a nearly unreadable result.
Well… then let your posts reflect more of the "nearly" and "almost" and less of the "infallible."How about you don't go OCD when people use a word you don't like, or isn't 100% precise? :jester: Relax man, this isn't a courtroom.
The CathInfo software often butchers such pastes, inserting html codes with a nearly unreadable result.Thanks, I didn't know why that happened.
The CathInfo software often butchers such pastes, inserting html codes with a nearly unreadable result.Whenever copying from a Word docuмent and also some websites with linked articles in the text (like New Advent does), remember to click on the upper left icon before pasting. Then you can unclick it after pasting if you want to see how it pasted.
Whenever copying from a Word docuмent and also some websites with linked articles in the text (like New Advent does), remember to click on the upper left icon before pasting. Then you can unclick it after pasting if you want to see how it pasted.Thanks for the tip. I'll try it.
(https://i.imgur.com/arshRG8.png)
Whenever copying from a Word docuмent and also some websites with linked articles in the text (like New Advent does), remember to click on the upper left icon before pasting. Then you can unclick it after pasting if you want to see how it pasted.Thank you Stubborn.
(https://i.imgur.com/arshRG8.png)
Anyway, as for you [Jaynek] personally, it is my opinion (recognizing that only God's opinion matters!) that you are a sincere convert. When we first "met" on CathInfo I think you displayed some of the baggage of Jєωιѕн "Chosen" conceits and attachments. As I have privately said to you, I believe you have successfully shed that Jєωιѕн baggage. That said, you and I must be on guard lest our baggage returns with a fatal vengeance. Te Deum laudamus! God is good!Don't be fooled. Jaynek is definitely a back-stabbing jew.
What was the wisest thing ever said on CathInfo?:Most people already "knew" this was nonsense and that he could not "keep away."
(https://i.imgur.com/ZzPNObh.jpeg)