Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: PetrusPrimus on October 28, 2011, 06:48:43 PM
-
I remember seeing a video with one of the antipopes venerating the тαℓмυd, which calls the Mother of God a whore and Christ a worlock, among other blasphemies. Could I be remembering this wrong, or maybe he just bowed to it there in the Jєωιѕн ѕуηαgσgυє? What the source and point in the source this was would be helpful. Thanks.
-
Mr. Primus, are you Infallible?
How dare you call Blessed John Paul II an antipope.
I'll pray for you.
Primus, what CMRI Chapel you attend? DO they have a Pope? But they sure as heck make bishops ...no pope awwwwwww.....
-
Anyone who kisses a Quran is an infidel.
Anyone who claims to be 'catholic' and does so is a heretic.
Anyone who has been elected Pope and does so incurs excommunication due to said heresy.
Anyone SINCE Wojtyla who calls him 'blessed' or anything of the sort is all of the above.
I do not speak of my own authority... Holy Scripture calls A-lah and all other false gods devils, so praying to them or venerating their books makes one an enemy of God.
The Authority of Holy Church Herself says that one who prays with heretics and/or for heretics IS a heretic, the material heresy of kissing a disgusting book like the Quran notwithstanding.
St. Anthony of Padua, hammer of heretics, terror of Hell, pray for us.
Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon.
Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us.
-
Mr. Primus, are you Infallible?
How dare you call Blessed John Paul II an antipope.
I'll pray for you.
Primus, what CMRI Chapel you attend? DO they have a Pope? But they sure as heck make bishops ...no pope awwwwwww.....
How dare you call a Heretic blessed? If he never repented from his heresies he is in hell. If he did repent he is in purgatory burning for eons.
Ecuмanism is heresy in and of itself, as per the Third Council of Constantinople any Pope who ecuмanises with heretics is guilty of heresy and condemned to hell for not defending the faith against heretics.
Also you have commited heresy by denying the Dogma of Infallibility.
If you believe that the Pope is always infallible no matter what you are a heretic.
It is a defined Dogma that the Pope is infallible ONLY when speaking on matters of faith on morals AND binding it on the WHOLE church(that is every Catholic of every rite) on pain of not being Catholic. AND When speaking in his role as Pastor of the Whole church. IE: When Speaking Ex Cathedra. If you deny this definition you are anathemized from the church by the First Vatican Council.
Good day.
-
I should also point out that after JPII messed with the Code of Canon Law in 1983 Canonizations and Beatifications done afterwards were no longer protected by Infallibility as per the definitions of the First Vatican Council.
-
Muslims i the middle east sometimes kiss their friends Bilbes to show respect for Christians. JPII was just showing respect for Muslims. The fathers at Trent put the Bible side by side with the Summa. Protestants could say "see they are equal in Catholic eyes!" It depends on how you look at it
So by your logic, if the infidels were engaging in public fornication as a "sign of respect" to Christians, we should do the same in the name of ecuмenism?
You are incredibly misguided and in possession of a warped mind.
-
Mr. Primus, are you Infallible?
Ecuмanism is heresy in and of itself, as per the Third Council of Constantinople any Pope who ecuмanises with heretics is guilty of heresy and condemned to hell for not defending the faith against heretics.
Source please
A 20 second search got me this:
it is not allowable for anyone to produce another faith, that is, to write or to compose or to consider or to teach others; those who dare to compose another faith, or to support or to teach or to hand on another creed to those who wish to turn to knowledge of the truth, whether from Hellenism or Judaism or indeed from any heresy whatsoever, or to introduce novelty of speech, that is, invention of terms, so as to overturn what has now been defined by us, such persons, if they are bishops or clerics, are deprived of their episcopacy or clerical rank, and if they are monks or layfolk they are excommunicated.
http://www.dailycatholic.org/history/6ecuмen.htm (http://www.dailycatholic.org/history/6ecuмen.htm)
Do your homework next time, please, kindly sir.
-
Ecuмanism is heresy in and of itself, as per the Third Council of Constantinople any Pope who ecuмanises with heretics is guilty of heresy and condemned to hell for not defending the faith against heretics.
Source please
A 20 second search got me this:
it is not allowable for anyone to produce another faith, that is, to write or to compose or to consider or to teach others; those who dare to compose another faith, or to support or to teach or to hand on another creed to those who wish to turn to knowledge of the truth, whether from Hellenism or Judaism or indeed from any heresy whatsoever, or to introduce novelty of speech, that is, invention of terms, so as to overturn what has now been defined by us, such persons, if they are bishops or clerics, are deprived of their episcopacy or clerical rank, and if they are monks or layfolk they are excommunicated.
http://www.dailycatholic.org/history/6ecuмen.htm (http://www.dailycatholic.org/history/6ecuмen.htm)
Do your homework next time, please, kindly sir.
-
Disregard first post, it somehow got formatted wrong due to your poorly formatted post.
-
Ecuмenism, properly understood, is nothing more or less than the effort to bring all separated communities into corporate reunion with the Catholic Church. When there are prospects for the return of some 300 million souls, as among the Eastern schismatics, then an ecuмenism of return is a worthy prospect, and, if properly pursued is likely to be more fruitful than individual conversions alone. If the leaders of the Church act for zeal of souls, they could achieve great good. If they act out of human respect, they stand condemned in that matter, as St.Peter, Prince of the Apostles, was.
Now a cleric can resist such a Pope, to his face, as St.Paul did. But I do not think that applies straightaway to the laity.
Thus, St.Catherine, "Even if the Pope were Satan incarnate, we ought not to raise up our heads against him, but calmly lie down to rest on his bosom. He who rebels against our Father is condemned to death, for that which we do to him we do to Christ: we honor Christ if we honor the Pope; we dishonor Christ if we dishonor the Pope."
-
There was no effort made by Wojtyla or Ratzinger to bring the Mohammedan infidels into any sort of union with anyone except their Modernist, all-for-one, one-for-all baloney.
To say that equating the Quran and the Bible in terms of respect is the same thing as equating the Summa with the Bible is laughable. Simply absurd.
The Bible is a product OF THE CHURCH; the Church was not born FROM the Bible, the Bible was born FROM the Church. Likewise, SAINT (notice the emphasis?) Thomas Aquinas was and is considered the Angelic Doctor of the Church, and her greatest theologian after Our Lord and His Apostles. The Summa, then, may also be considered a product OF the Church and thus worth of incredible respect.
There is no sense in which the Summa is EQUAL to the Bible in terms of its content, because it does not contain, for instance, the Words of Our Lord, but in terms of its benefit to the Church, the Summa is far above many, many other works of the saints.
In other words, to honor the Summa as a great, praiseworthy and venerable gift of God to the Church in CONCORD with Holy Scripture is not out of the question.
To honor the Quran, which calls Christ Jesus Our Lord all sorts of blasphemous things, and calls Our Lady unprintable, disgusting things, is wrong on its own for any person. To VENERATE the Quran by kissing it or otherwise making obeisance to it IS HERESY. There is NO sense in which the Quran deserves to be honored AT ALL, let alone with the veneration of a (supposed) Pontiff of Holy Church.
If romantheology and his kind ever thought that Wojtyla was a faithful Catholic, that one instance of his veneration of that vile book of excrement should be enough to prove that he was a pertinacious heretic and NOT a valid Pope. Disgusting, to say the least.
@Nishant:
The quote from St. Catherine deals with the Pope's PERSONAL weaknesses or sins, not those against the Faith and certainly not public material heresy like was demonstrated by Wojtyla. I will be the first to admit that Popes, bishops and everyone else can be sinful, even terribly so, at times, but NOTHING excuses the abandonment of the Catholic Faith like that criminal did.
St. Francis of Assisi, preacher of the Faith to the infidel Sultan, pray for us.
Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon.
Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us.
-
Muslims i the middle east sometimes kiss their friends Bilbes to show respect for Christians. JPII was just showing respect for Muslims. The fathers at Trent put the Bible side by side with the Summa. Protestants could say "see they are equal in Catholic eyes!" It depends on how you look at it
It was JPII's duty as "Pope" to show respect to God, not the muslims. If you show respect to the muslims and their false god rather than try to convert them, something is seriously wrong.
-
Ecuмenism, properly understood, is nothing more or less than the effort to bring all separated communities into corporate reunion with the Catholic Church. When there are prospects for the return of some 300 million souls, as among the Eastern schismatics, then an ecuмenism of return is a worthy prospect, and, if properly pursued is likely to be more fruitful than individual conversions alone. If the leaders of the Church act for zeal of souls, they could achieve great good. If they act out of human respect, they stand condemned in that matter, as St.Peter, Prince of the Apostles, was.
The ecuмenism you're speaking of is totally different from the ecuмenism that is hapenning today. Ecuмenism of the return does contain charity and respect, but it also involves attempts at conversion.
The ecuмenism of today, the ecuмenism of the modernists, involves no conversion. Did you by any chance watch Assisi III two days ago? If you did, you would not have noticed the slightest attempt at conversion. Benedict actually went up to the microphone and said that all religions "lead to peace and justice". That is abosolute heresy, he needs to be preaching that the Catholic Church is the One True Church and that those outside it will not be saved. But oh, we wouldn't want to hurt anyone's feelings. Let's not worry about doctrine, let's all just prance around and pretend we're all fine and that we're all going to Heaven.
There is zero chance of conversion with that type of ecuмenism. It is Freemasonic in origin, it puts all religions on the same level. If you were a non-Catholic and were told by the Pope that there is truth in your religion and that it also leads to "peace and justice", would you really feel the need to become Catholic? If all religions are equal, why convert? That is the fallacy in this new ecuмenism.
-
SS, do you imagine that I disagree? No, not at all. Religious indifferentism is a specious error. Ecuмenism must always involve speaking the truth in love, on our side, as the Apostle puts it, and a conversion of heart in the other. I also never meant to imply that we should not go all the way out to evangelize the single lost sheep either, for whom Christ died; only that corporate reunion offers better prospects in some cases. Both should be pursued with urgency and zeal for those who are perishing.
Bishop Fellay too had some positive things to say on the Ordinariates for Anglicans when some of them converted, embracing the Catholic faith both as individuals and communities. This is the only sort of ecuмenism that is worthy of the name.
As for the deplorable Assisi events, well, the less said the better. I had hoped this one might be different, but, if anything it was worse. Heaven forgive us.
-
I know, it just seemed to me that you were getting ecuмenism of the return a bit mixed up with the ecuмenism hapenning today.
No biggie.
-
Now a cleric can resist such a Pope, to his face, as St.Paul did. But I do not think that applies straightaway to the laity.
Thus, St.Catherine, "Even if the Pope were Satan incarnate, we ought not to raise up our heads against him, but calmly lie down to rest on his bosom. He who rebels against our Father is condemned to death, for that which we do to him we do to Christ: we honor Christ if we honor the Pope; we dishonor Christ if we dishonor the Pope."
And yet St. Catherine was not a cleric and also said this in a letter to Pope Gregory XI:
“Alas, Most Holy Father! At times, obedience to you leads to eternal damnation.”
-
SS, cool. :-)
Diego, yeah, I said I'm not sure about the role of the laity, but that is how I understood St.Catherine's statement. How would you understand it? Interesting that St.Catherine thought that obedience to a Pope could lead to damnation. But I'm not saying we should imitate what the Popes do, just that we should not rebel against those we recognize as Popes, on account of their seat. We can believe that their conduct is erroneous or scandalous or their non-binding opinions worthy of disobedience. This is what St.Catherine appears to have done, but respectfully.
-
SS, cool. :-)
Diego, yeah, I said I'm not sure about the role of the laity, but that is how I understood St.Catherine's statement. How would you understand it? Interesting that St.Catherine thought that obedience to a Pope could lead to damnation. But I'm not saying we should imitate what the Popes do, just that we should not rebel against those we recognize as Popes, on account of their seat. We can believe that their conduct is erroneous or scandalous or their non-binding opinions worthy of disobedience. This is what St.Catherine appears to have done, but respectfully.
In the general forum I posted the Summa on Obedience, you should read it. You must always obey God First and never anyone who contradicts God. You are required to disobey a superior if he is in error or contradicts God's laws in any way on pain of sin. That is the Catholic belief on true obedience.
-
In the general forum I posted the Summa on Obedience, you should read it. You must always obey God First and never anyone who contradicts God. You are required to disobey a superior if he is in error or contradicts God's laws in any way on pain of sin. That is the Catholic belief on true obedience.
Thanks, I'll do that just now. But, here's the thing - I know we can, and sometimes must, disobey the Pope's non-binding opinions that he may espouse as private person. But Pastor Aeternus seems to say that it is true obedience itself that requires us to be subject to the Roman Pontiff in issues concerning the government of the Church.
Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.
-
I remember seeing a video with one of the antipopes venerating the тαℓмυd, which calls the Mother of God a whore and Christ a worlock, among other blasphemies. Could I be remembering this wrong, or maybe he just bowed to it there in the Jєωιѕн ѕуηαgσgυє? What the source and point in the source this was would be helpful. Thanks.
Still wondering if someone can tell me where either of these men incensed or venerated the тαℓмυd.
Not that they didn't apostasize in 100 different ways even before they were pope (sic).
-
I'm not sure about VENERATING or incensing a copy of the filthy thing, but Wojtyla praised the тαℓмυd as "putting Sacred Scripture into practice".
Ratzinger quoted from the Babylonian тαℓмυd in a message before French (I think) rabbis.
Either way, these men lend credence to a collection of writings that are blasphemous and disgusting.
How on earth someone could claim to venerate the chaste St. Joseph and then refer to his spouse as (it's unprintable when it's in reference to Our Lady; I can't even bring myself to type it).
These men were heretics and not to be obeyed in the slightest. I wouldn't trust Ratzinger to tell me his name was Joseph.
Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon.
Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us.