Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Lover of Truth on October 05, 2009, 11:38:58 AM
-
-
-
It does sounds really bad Belloc, and even I would be willing to slog through the ten pages to see if there was any hope.
(Not that it looks very hopeful.) It can't be worse than Crosssing the Threshold of Hope which was simply unreadable.
-
I remember reading the book Elizabeth mentions while being a great admirer of JPII and wondering what in the heck he was talking about.
I have also read all his encyclicals and figured I did not understand them because I was not smart enough. I eventually came to realize that I did not understand them because he was not Catholic enough.
JPII writes like a Mason who believes in a one world religion where people who disagree on the essentials can be members. He was a phenomoligist which renders the validity of a thing on pure emotion. He was an incredibly intelligent fool or evil incarnate if he intended to lead as many souls astray as he did.
-
Nah, don't confuse incoherant nonsense with intelligence-at least Godly intelligence. The book had a pretty cover, and it was unreadable. What was it about? Nobody knows. It was not a nuclear physics manual or insrtuctions for a computer program.
Whatever a phenomenologist is, it might be a cousin to Voodoo, considering the author's participation in the ceremonies.
-
Well, he was "intelligent" enough to learn 10? languages. I'm not sure if that is intelligence or a good memory.
He knew big words but I'm not sure if that is intelligent or not either. He probably got good grades. But he did not seem to have the Catholic gifts of Wisdom, Knowledge or Understanding. I think you made a good point Elizabeth. But I'm not sure. I still think he was pretty smart as is Ratzinger.
But your last post makes me wonder if I am correct. Anybody else have an opinion on this?
-
Since coming to this board, I drifting towards sedevacantism. Another nail in the coffin. If Rome ever returns to Tradition, I think that one of us will be housing the future Pope in our basement.
-
ALL RIGHT JEHANNE!!!
You've just made me feel that perhaps my work, and that of the other sedes here, has not been entirely in vain.
:cry:
These are tears of joy.
-
ALL RIGHT JEHANNE!!!
You've just made me feel that perhaps my work, and that of the other sedes here, has not been entirely in vain.
:cry:
These are tears of joy.
Better get that bedroom ready!
-
:smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile:
:smile: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :boxer: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :smile:
:smile: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :boxer: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :smile:
:smile: :boxer: :boxer: :boxer: :boxer: :boxer: :boxer: :boxer:
:smile: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :boxer: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :smile:
:smile: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :boxer: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :smile:
:smile: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :boxer: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :smile:
:smile: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :boxer: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :smile:
:smile: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :boxer: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :smile:
:smile: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :boxer: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :smile:
:smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile:
-
If Rome ever returns to Tradition, I think that one of us will be housing the future Pope in our basement.
NY Eire has an extra room in his basement! :laugh2:
-
ALL RIGHT JEHANNE!!!
You've just made me feel that perhaps my work, and that of the other sedes here, has not been entirely in vain.
:cry:
These are tears of joy.
Are you crazy? Another confused irrational zealot?
-
Making a move from the antipopes to sede vacante can only increase the chances of receiving grace.
-
Well, he was "intelligent" enough to learn 10? languages. I'm not sure if that is intelligence or a good memory.
He knew big words but I'm not sure if that is intelligent or not either. He probably got good grades. But he did not seem to have the Catholic gifts of Wisdom, Knowledge or Understanding. I think you made a good point Elizabeth. But I'm not sure. I still think he was pretty smart as is Ratzinger.
But your last post makes me wonder if I am correct. Anybody else have an opinion on this?
What is phenomenology?
First cousin to VooDoo?
-
What is phenomenology?
Insanity disguised as philosophy.
-
-
There you go!
Was any hopeful JP2 fan able to squeeze the fruits of the Holy Ghost out of that book?
And really, can there be any doubt that Card. Ratzinger was dis-obeying the Mother of God when he spoke of the Third Secret of Fatima?
-
And, as far as the ressurection of the body....oh dear.
-
Too bad we can't edit! I was responding to G_V at first.
So Stevus, this means that the OP is wrong??? :confused1:
-
Of course the OP is wrong. Read my previous post. As recently as Spe Salvi, an Encyclical of the Pope, he affirmed the resurrection of the body.
-
:cheers:
-
:cheers:
I guess he's off the hook for saying that the 'Orthodox' are not bound to profess subjection to the See of Saint Peter, praying with Muslims, saying that Jєωιѕн Messianic expectation is not in vain (http://www.revisionisthistory.org/revisionist15.html), that Christians can and ought to admit that the Jєωιѕн reading of the Bible is a possible one, etc.
-
CM,
Provide citations for these.
-
Right, like you've never heard this stuff before? Live under a rock?
-
There are threads about each one on Cathinfo already.
-
Modernist speak out of both sides of their mouth as Saint Pius X so clearly taught. Just because he says one thing that is correct does not take away from the heresies he teaches.
Sad state when you have scramble and search for something Catholic out of a purported popes mouth.
-
:cheers:
I guess he's off the hook for saying that the 'Orthodox' are not bound to profess subjection to the See of Saint Peter, praying with Muslims, saying that Jєωιѕн Messianic expectation is not in vain (http://www.revisionisthistory.org/revisionist15.html), that Christians can and ought to admit that the Jєωιѕн reading of the Bible is a possible one, etc.
And, don't forget his denial of the absolute necessity of infant baptism.
-
Modernist speak out of both sides of their mouth as Saint Pius X so clearly taught. Just because he says one thing that is correct does not take away from the heresies he teaches.
Sad state when you have scramble and search for something Catholic out of a purported popes mouth.
True, true. But when claiming SV, one needs to be very careful about accuracy- not selective in order to bolster the theory.
The theory stands or fall on its own merit, whether we like it or not. What a vale of tears.
-
Modernist speak out of both sides of their mouth as Saint Pius X so clearly taught. Just because he says one thing that is correct does not take away from the heresies he teaches.
Sad state when you have scramble and search for something Catholic out of a purported popes mouth.
True, true. But when claiming SV, one needs to be very careful about accuracy- not selective in order to bolster the theory.
The theory stands or fall on its own merit, whether we like it or not. What a vale of tears.
"Careful about accuracy" Was it proven the Father Ratzinger did not write what he wrote in his books?
I am not being sarcastic but would really like to know if such is believed.
-
:cheers:
I guess he's off the hook for saying that the 'Orthodox' are not bound to profess subjection to the See of Saint Peter, praying with Muslims, saying that Jєωιѕн Messianic expectation is not in vain (http://www.revisionisthistory.org/revisionist15.html), that Christians can and ought to admit that the Jєωιѕн reading of the Bible is a possible one, etc.
I'm glad to see that at least you admit that the claim the Pope denies the resurrection of the body is false.
I'm not interested in scouring CathInfo for evidence to support the other claims you've made.
If you'd like to discuss these matters here, feel free to cite evidence.
-
-
Can anyone imagine a valid Pope saying these things?
-
-
-
-
I'm glad to see that at least you admit that the claim the Pope denies the resurrection of the body is false.
Indeed I cannot see him explicitly teaching it. A lot of his writings seem to be in the form of questions, which he leaves either half answered or hanging, though. Not very edifying.
In any case it is unjust to impute to a criminal a crime he did not commit. Such seems to be the case with ANTIpope Benedict XVI and the allegation that he explicitly denied the resurrection of the body, though he certainly did not teach the matter as a Catholic pope would.
-
He calls into question whether we rise with our own bodies. Not Catholic. Not Catholic at all. Can you imagine Pius X doing this?
-
"Careful about accuracy" Was it proven the Father Ratzinger did not write what he wrote in his books?
I am not being sarcastic but would really like to know if such is believed.
L.o.T. I am sorry! My writing was unclear! I took you at your word that Fr. Ratzinger had written this. I do not doubt your accuracy.
Did I understand correctly that he changed once he became B16?
Also, it is I who should be careful about accuracy and state plainly that I am no theologian, and I am a slow learner.
-
"Careful about accuracy" Was it proven the Father Ratzinger did not write what he wrote in his books?
I am not being sarcastic but would really like to know if such is believed.
L.o.T. I am sorry! My writing was unclear! I took you at your word that Fr. Ratzinger had written this. I do not doubt your accuracy.
Did I understand correctly that he changed once he became B16?
Also, it is I who should be careful about accuracy and state plainly that I am no theologian, and I am a slow learner.
Well,
Other people seem to agree with you so I have started to doubt myself on this point. I am more going by a sermon by Bishop Sanborn whose link I will have to find and share on this site than what was written.
I am very willing and will not be surprised if I stand corrected or at least partially corrected on this issue. I do hope if such is the case that it does not undermine the other things I have shared. I do pride myself in both honesty and sincerety.
I appreciate your humility.
-
But L.o.T. I personally would not ever use MHFM as the last word in accuracy. They are destructive, IMO.
-
Can you please tell me what IMO means?
The truth is the truth no matter who states it. Double check them to make sure they are not taking the quotes out of context.
I do agree that they are uncharitable liars but they are right on about most things apart from BOB/D.
I do not reccomend them however and see your point to be sure.
-
"IMO" = In My Opinion
I just read the first post regarding Christ as the Messiah.
I did not see any heresy in the quotations from Pope BXVI in that post.
The Dimonds have an uncanny ability to strip sentences out of context and then interpret them as heresy or else simply exclaim "what astonishing heresy!" and then explain the Catholic view of the matter, implying Benedict was stating the opposite of it, when he did no such thing.
-
-
Heretic.
-
Doesn't being called a heretic by a heretic mean I'm not a heretic?
It's sort of like a double negative. ;)
Just kidding.
By the way, Matthew, you need a wink emoticon!
-
I'm right.
Its called "Ratzinger and the Ressurection" under Traditional Catholic Sermons under Bishop Sandborn.
traditionalcatholicsermons.org/index_files/BishopSanbornSermonArchives.htm