Author Topic: Modernist Madness at Trent Council ? (Read 6420 times)

Roman Catholic · « **Reply #15 on:** November 03, 2010, 08:21:34 PM »

Quote from: OHCA

RC,

Welcome to "Ratzi's rat pack," my friend!

[/quote]

Oh yes, anyone who reads my posts knows that I am a member of Ratzi's rat pack --- that is if they are reading them on a computer in their cell at a mental asylym!

Funny how sede-vacantists can serve a purpose for sede-plenists here -- they can be proof that if people do not swallow Classiccom's tales, that does not mean they are all card-carrying members of the Great Apostasy Club. (Not that I think for a moment that any traditional minded sede-plenists are)

Classiccom · « **Reply #16 on:** November 04, 2010, 12:42:10 PM »

Very rare interview with a Hermit It is Not Easy To Be Orthodox Christian You will be amazed

http://video.godlikeproductions.com/video/Very_rare_interview_with_a_Hermit_It_is_Not_Easy_To_Be_Orthodox_Christian_You_will_be_amased

==============================

Orthodox Hermit

"How does God bestow prayer upon one?

Humility, humility and again humility.

Exalting oneself, haughtiness has always been repulsive to God"

Belloc · « **Reply #17 on:** November 04, 2010, 12:53:02 PM »

Quote from: Roman Catholic

Quote from: Leisa
Thank you for the link. I went to an orthodox mass at a monastery and it was amazingly beautiful.

Classicom- are you thinking of joining the Orthodox church?

Leisa, are you a Catholic?

if so, may I suggest a Eastern Catholic Divine Liturgy, equally wonderful and in union with the Church...Ortohodox are schsimatics.....I was member for yrs of a Ruthenian EC Church....

Clsicom, saw your last comment, it is rather easy to be Orthodox, for you can reject the Pope, belevie yourself right and take no stand on contraception, remarriage for divorced,etc,etc....

Leisa · « **Reply #18 on:** November 04, 2010, 01:04:04 PM »

Yes I am Catholic. I did observe an Orthodox Mass (they don't call it a 'Mass'). It confirmed for me that a proper Mass still exists. I don't know why the Catholic Church couldn't hold on to the Mass. I suspect it was deliberately obliterated.

I also think Pius IX is dubious. I think he was unwise to declare himself and future popes "infallible", especially in the ordinary magisterium. That's quite wild if you ask me. He really had total faith in every Pope to come, considering most of the Popes following him were anti-popes, then it sortof makes you wonder how infallible Pius IX was doesn't it?

Regarding the split between the Orthodox and Rome, in one of the early councils it was defined that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. Then, later on, they added the filioque and the Orthodox did not accept the addition of the filioque because it was not mentioned in the early councils. The church maintained that it always believed (the filioque), it just hadn't made it a dogma yet, but it begs the question if all the Popes are infallible, then why was the filioque not added the first time? It could have prevented the schism.

Obviously the real reason the Orthodox split had to do with their rejection of the papacy. Which, is not a totally outlandish concern given all the anti-popes we have seen in recent history and their ever increasing need to define new dogmas that get the church further and further into heresy (and apostasy).

Leisa · « **Reply #19 on:** November 04, 2010, 01:16:45 PM »

Quote from: Classiccom

Very rare interview with a Hermit It is Not Easy To Be Orthodox Christian You will be amazed

http://video.godlikeproductions.com/video/Very_rare_interview_with_a_Hermit_It_is_Not_Easy_To_Be_Orthodox_Christian_You_will_be_amased

==============================

Orthodox Hermit

"How does God bestow prayer upon one?

Humility, humility and again humility.

Exalting oneself, haughtiness has always been repulsive to God"

Wow, that is an amazing video. thank you for sharing it with us.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #20 on:** November 04, 2010, 01:18:51 PM »

Quote from: Leisa

I think he was unwise to declare himself and future popes "infallible".../
Quote

He was confirming what Catholics already believed.

FWIW, if Sovereign Pontiffs are NOT infallible, WHY FOLLOW THEM AT ALL?

A Divine Church that can be WRONG is completely USELESS -- and not very divine.

Belloc · « **Reply #21 on:** November 04, 2010, 01:23:36 PM »

Quote from: Leisa

Yes I am Catholic. I did observe an Orthodox Mass (they don't call it a 'Mass'). It confirmed for me that a proper Mass still exists. I don't know why the Catholic Church couldn't hold on to the Mass..

not sure what you mean, there is still the TLM held onto by SSPX, independants, Sedes and the Eastern Catholic rites-their DL is ancient with few add-ons (except for prayer for Pope and "travel by sea, air, land" comment, obviosly not a n isuses -air travel-in odler days)

As far as propr mass, orthodox are viewed to have true orders and valid Apostaolic line and sacrements are still valid (ie, bread/wine does indeed become Body,etc)...that said, though, schismatics are still schismatics.....unless necessity demands-travel and cannot get to a Catholic Mass or pending death, we really cannot particpate in their Liturgies......

heard the story that a Orthodox bishop convereted to RC and went to Rome to look into possible Catholic priesthood, was told by a panicked Vaticanista official that he should stay Orthodox and not disrupt "ecuмenism"....story told to Fr. McLucas by a Greek Orthodox clergyman,I hear....

they rejected Papcy centuries ago, so no, not "not outlandish" at all......as no one can call a full, binding ecuмenical council in their ranks, they have no firm teaching on contraception, remarriage,etc...some allow, some do not, etc...they are increasingly divided.

You seem to imply that the split is the Catholic CHurches fault alone (filoque statements)....is it??

your comments in Pius IX as dubious,doubting infallibility,etc sound more like Classicom and CM, and are not Catholic at all....sorry, no matter what you think of your self, it is not!!! Yesm he had faith in Popes, as true Popes are infallible in a defiend and narrow way.....he trusted Mt16, dont you?? and hte Holy Ghost's guidance-dont you???

so, in short, the Church did hold onto Mass, often underground and in homes, etc......Leisa MO is to blame the Church....sounds to me like she IS Orthodox, if not in name or official practice....yet.........

Belloc · « **Reply #22 on:** November 04, 2010, 01:24:49 PM »

Quote from: gladius_veritatis

Quote from: Leisa

I think he was unwise to declare himself and future popes "infallible".../
Quote

He was confirming what Catholics already believed.

FWIW, if Sovereign Pontiffs are NOT infallible, WHY FOLLOW THEM AT ALL?

A Divine Church that can be WRONG is completely USELESS -- and not very divine.

true, like the Church has belevied in the Assumption, centuries before it was "official", though, I guess if we follow Leisa, then it was not defined, because no Pope could define then.....

Classiccom · « **Reply #23 on:** November 05, 2010, 07:51:59 AM »

Belloc

"FWIW, if Sovereign Pontiffs are NOT infallible, WHY FOLLOW THEM AT ALL? "

=================================

Because we are bound to listen to our appointed papal leadership. But not to challenge error is another matter. By your rules of the game Christ would never have been permitted to correct the errors of the OT church of His time. You are a spiritual victim of Pius IX's "I am everything, everybody else in the Church is useless" mindset. That is probably what makes you so cranky.

I think a good analogy is when Americans have to suffer a bad president. The president can commit immoral acts in the oval office, he can lie about it, but nevertheless Americans are bound under his leadership. Slick Willie, JPII, Ratzinger have a common bond - very flawed but they all held power.

======================================

Belloc

"A Divine Church that can be WRONG is completely USELESS -- and not very divine"

Scripture tells us that Christ told Peter to "get behind me Satan". It is also recorded that St. Paul once corrected St. Peter. So you are saying we should have called it quits 2000 years ago ? Christ is divine, not human beings. Just buy a bottle of that DOM inscribed Benedictine so you don't forget.

DOMINO OPTIMO MAXIMO

"THIS PHRASE meaning "To the Lord God, supreme ruler of the world", is the motto of the Benedictine Order. Most of us will know this phrase by its abbreviation DOM found either on a bottle of Benedictine,...

========================

http://www.benedictinedom.com

MyrnaM · « **Reply #24 on:** November 05, 2010, 08:15:55 AM »

Quote from: Leisa

Yes I am Catholic. I did observe an Orthodox Mass (they don't call it a 'Mass'). It confirmed for me that a proper Mass still exists. I don't know why the Catholic Church couldn't hold on to the Mass. I suspect it was deliberately obliterated.

I also think Pius IX is dubious. I think he was unwise to declare himself and future popes "infallible", especially in the ordinary magisterium. That's quite wild if you ask me. He really had total faith in every Pope to come, considering most of the Popes following him were anti-popes, then it sortof makes you wonder how infallible Pius IX was doesn't it?

Regarding the split between the Orthodox and Rome, in one of the early councils it was defined that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. Then, later on, they added the filioque and the Orthodox did not accept the addition of the filioque because it was not mentioned in the early councils. The church maintained that it always believed (the filioque), it just hadn't made it a dogma yet, but it begs the question if all the Popes are infallible, then why was the filioque not added the first time? It could have prevented the schism.

Obviously the real reason the Orthodox split had to do with their rejection of the papacy. Which, is not a totally outlandish concern given all the anti-popes we have seen in recent history and their ever increasing need to define new dogmas that get the church further and further into heresy (and apostasy).

You don't seem very Catholic, with what you post here.

Of course the Church is infallible in matters of Faith and Morals. I wonder now, do you believe that God too, can err?

Classiccom · « **Reply #25 on:** November 05, 2010, 10:07:59 AM »

You don't seem very Catholic, with what you post here.

Of course the Church is infallible in matters of Faith and Morals. I wonder now, do you believe that God too, can err?[/quote]

=====================

Myrna, that was a cheap shot and uncharacteristic of you. Leisa never said anything to indicate blasphemy. I have had this happen repeatedly, people putting pejorative descriptions of what I supposedly said. The last pack of lies included that I believed in Protestant Sola Scriptura .

You have stumbled upon something. The Tamudic Jєωιѕн Rabbis did claim to have arguments with God and actually could win the argument. You consider yourself as one of the chief priestesses of the Catholic Universe and are telling us that popes can't be guilty of the spiritual sin of pride ? Pope Pius IX did not act like these Rabbis and by pride, damage the cause of Christendom ?

MyrnaM · « **Reply #26 on:** November 05, 2010, 10:28:17 AM »

Classi, you are just overjoyed you finally found a fan.

Quote

You consider yourself as one of the chief priestesses of the Catholic Universe and are telling us that popes can't be guilty of the spiritual sin of pride ?

I consider myself a member of the Mystical Body of Christ, fighting for my salvation. The popes can be guilty of personal sins of pride. A true pope is infallible when it comes to Faith and Morals ONLY.

Classiccom · « **Reply #27 on:** November 05, 2010, 10:55:10 AM »

Well at least we agree on that one item . I didn't mean to call you a priestess, just thew that in for theatrics.

I knew you were not part of the mstical body of ???

OHCA · « **Reply #28 on:** November 05, 2010, 02:34:00 PM »

Quote from: Classiccom

...

I think a good analogy is when Americans have to suffer a bad president. The president can commit immoral acts in the oval office, he can lie about it, but nevertheless Americans are bound under his leadership. Slick Willie, JPII, Ratzinger have a common bond - very flawed but they all held power.

...

The difference is our Lord never promised political leaders that he would be with them until the consummation of the world as he did the Apostles. Keep in mind, that infallibility is very restricted, as others have pointed out. But in those critical matters infallibility covers, lacking infallibility, how are we any different than than the myriad of protestant sects constantly splintering and multiplying due to disagreements over such matters. And how is the Catholic Church to remain ONE without infallibility.

If such matters are subject to errors, and the laity is free to indepently discern those errors and act accordingly, then wouldn't we have as many variation of "catholic" churches as there are of baptist churches. And wouldn't the Church cease to be ONE and not be the true Church? If the inerrancy of the Apostolic chain under the guidance of the Holy Ghost is a farce, then there goes a significant chunk of why I am Catholic.

Classiccom, please explain why you are Catholic--what does the Catholic Church have that makes you think you or anyone else should be Catholic--if the Church does not have the inerrancy of the Apostolic chain under the guidance of the Holy Ghost?

Bad Papacies, though painful for numerous reasons, are ultimately the most clear demonstration of the manifestation of Christ's statement to the Aposltes that He would be with them until the consummation of the world. Without God's presence through bad Papacies, the Church would be in NUMEROUS splinters and probably would have succuмbed to the gates of hell by now!

OHCA · « **Reply #29 on:** November 05, 2010, 02:55:35 PM »

Quote from: Classiccom

. . .

Scripture tells us that Christ told Peter to "get behind me Satan". It is also recorded that St. Paul once corrected St. Peter. So you are saying we should have called it quits 2000 years ago ? Christ is divine, not human beings. Just buy a bottle of that DOM inscribed Benedictine so you don't forget.

. . .

Peter was not the Pope while Christ was still on earth. See Matthew 16:18 (I WILL build my Church).

The exchange with St. Paul would not fall under what is covered by infallibility. If you define what is covered by infallibility broader than what actually is, then certainly you will be able to point to errors. But please point to things that we can ALL agree are covered by infallibility and show us error.