Author Topic: Modernist Madness at Trent Council ? (Read 6417 times)

Classiccom · « **Reply #30 on:** November 05, 2010, 10:49:45 PM »

I have to sympathize with the Orthodox way of thinking. There is just way too much emphasis on the papacy. Having your whole universe tied to one very flawed human being is not healthy. This is the guy they wanted to arrest when he visited Britain. I don't consider Ratzinger or even JPII to be Christian. It is the biggest crime of the Church not to have cleaned house and send these corrupt popes back home. To me Infallibility has been the fog of confusion that has prevented Catholics from standing up on their own two feet and make a decision. IF Catholics feared God more than human title and position, they would have given JPII a one way ticket to Warsaw back in 1986.

Ratzinger also supported Assisi is is therefore also a threat. We need Catholics to imitate Jesus and say "Get behind me Satan" . Prayer and fasting will be needed to remove all the demons that control the Vatican. SSPX on vacation?, time for someone else to step up to the plate.

Roman Catholic · « **Reply #31 on:** November 05, 2010, 11:00:50 PM »

Quote from: Classiccom

It is the biggest crime of the Church not to have cleaned house and send these corrupt popes back home.

The Church can't commit crimes. People commit crimes.

Who committed the crimes of not cleaning house and sending the corrupt "popes" back home?

Were they real popes? If so, they could not be sent back home.

Is the institution that Ratzinger presides over, the Catholic Church?

OHCA · « **Reply #32 on:** November 05, 2010, 11:53:41 PM »

Quote from: Classiccom

. . .

To me Infallibility has been the fog of confusion that has prevented Catholics from standing up on their own two feet and make a decision. IF Catholics feared God more than human title and position, they would have given JPII a one way ticket to Warsaw back in 1986.

. . .

Infallibility is our primary protection AGAINST the "fog of confusion." Without infallibility, where can any legitimate authority be found to keep the Church as ONE? The N.O. is a good example of where weakly adhering to infallible authority, or "cafeteria" style acceptance thereof, gets religion--priests fudging with Liturgy, "feel good" homilies from priests "light on their feet," etc. other bastardizations, irreverancies, mockeries, and/or abuses of God and His Catholic Church.

The 15 million protestant camps constantly getting pissed off at each other and splintering into additional heretical camps over idiotic concerns such as whether Mary had an umbilical cord or not is where denial of infallible authority gets religion!

And how do you interpret Matthew 16:19?

I am interested in your response, but as I ask this question, I am reminded that God did not author the chaos that inevitably gushes from the absence of infallible authority--chaos manifested in private Scriptural interpretation leading to 15 million protestant camps! We know they can't ALL be right, but where is the LEGITIMATE authority to say what is right and wrong if not Papal infallibility? Christ didn't give Peter the Keys to the Kingdom and the power to Bind and Loose restricted by language such as "only until the sheep can discern better than thee!"

Anyway, please consider Matthew 16:19. Also, please explain what makes Catholicism without infallibility preferable over other "faiths."

Classiccom · « **Reply #33 on:** November 06, 2010, 09:00:48 AM »

Quote from: Roman Catholic

Quote from: Classiccom

It is the biggest crime of the Church not to have cleaned house and send these corrupt popes back home.

The Church can't commit crimes. People commit crimes.

Who committed the crimes of not cleaning house and sending the corrupt "popes" back home?

Were they real popes? If so, they could not be sent back home.

Is the institution that Ratzinger presides over, the Catholic Church?

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

Well then , Catholics need to flee from evil . Would be nice if some one could pick up Lefebvre's baton that seems to have been dropped. I don't think the Good Lord will bless that unless various doctrines of demons have been removed, ditch the ruby slippers and opulence and get back to Christian '
reality. Until that happens, we have to remember that everyone that acknowledges Jesus Christ as the Only Lord and Savior is important. Time for the remnant of the one fold to start gathering the remnant not of this fold.

When everybody starts thinking like St. Vincent of Lerins, I think there will be a great revival of the true Faith.

Apocalypse 12:12

And the dragon was angry against the woman: and went to make war with the rest of her seed, who keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Leisa · « **Reply #34 on:** November 06, 2010, 10:29:03 AM »

I think if you look back at the first few centuries in the Church Bishops did err and were excommunicated for it. So I'm not sure where this notion comes from that a Bishop (Pope) cannot err. I think the schism with the Orthodox was the worst thing that happened to the Church because it alienated half of the Church by declaring the preeminence of the Bishop of Rome. And hence, the notion of an incorruptible papacy.

Either way it seems that the Catholic Church is reeping what it has sewn due mainly to the lukewarmness of Catholics today who remain in communion with heretics.

[15] I know thy works, that thou art neither cold, nor hot. I would thou wert cold, or hot.

[16] But because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold, not hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #35 on:** November 06, 2010, 10:39:44 AM »

If you are Catholic you must believe the Church cannot fall into heresy. Because at that point, it would cease to be the Church.

The primacy of Peter is an apostolic Tradition.

This was accepted when Christianity became the religion of the Roman Empire:

Quote

It is our desire that all the various nation which are subject to our clemency and moderation, should continue to the profession of that religion which was delivered to the Romans by the divine Apostle Peter, as it has been preserved by faithful tradition and which is now professed by the Pontiff Damasus and by Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, a man of apostolic holiness.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/theodcodeXVI.html

Roman Catholic · « **Reply #36 on:** November 06, 2010, 08:13:34 PM »

Quote from: Leisa

I think the schism with the Orthodox was the worst thing that happened to the Church because it alienated half of the Church by declaring the preeminence of the Bishop of Rome. And hence, the notion of an incorruptible papacy.

You blame the Catholic Church for the Orthodox lapsing into schism?

What do you mean by "an incorruptible papacy"?

Leisa · « **Reply #37 on:** November 06, 2010, 10:30:54 PM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

If you are Catholic you must believe the Church cannot fall into heresy. Because at that point, it would cease to be the Church.

The primacy of Peter is an apostolic Tradition.

This was accepted when Christianity became the religion of the Roman Empire:

Quote
It is our desire that all the various nation which are subject to our clemency and moderation, should continue to the profession of that religion which was delivered to the Romans by the divine Apostle Peter, as it has been preserved by faithful tradition and which is now professed by the Pontiff Damasus and by Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, a man of apostolic holiness.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/theodcodeXVI.html

Thank you for the link. According to the links Classicom provided and your link above, it shows that prior to the 300's ? the term pope was applied to several Bishops as it was a name meaning father or papa.
So even that link you provided shows that at that time there was a Pope of Alexandria, St. Peter or Pope Peter, and Pope Damasus of Rome.

So my point was that they were equal in terms of power and authority until some point when Rome started to make decisions without consulting the other Bishops.

Telesphorus- the church has fallen into heresy.

OHCA · « **Reply #38 on:** November 06, 2010, 10:43:38 PM »

Quote from: Leisa

Thank you for the link. According to the links Classicom provided and your link above, it shows that prior to the 300's ? the term pope was applied to several Bishops as it was a name meaning father or papa.
So even that link you provided shows that at that time there was a Pope of Alexandria, St. Peter or Pope Peter, and Pope Damasus of Rome.

So my point was that they were equal in terms of power and authority until some point when Rome started to make decisions without consulting the other Bishops.

Telesphorus- the church has fallen into heresy.

What is the approximate century since which you assert the Church has been heretical?

Without reference to the crisis of Vatican II, the N.O., and other resulting problems, do you discern "heresies" pre-dating the 1950s, other than your position on the role of the Pope?

Roman Catholic · « **Reply #39 on:** November 07, 2010, 01:35:27 AM »

Quote from: Leisa

So my point was that they were equal in terms of power and authority until some point when Rome started to make decisions without consulting the other Bishops.

So do you think that the Church Histories and Catechisms approved by the Catholic Church, which teach that the Primacy of the Pope began with Peter, are all untruthful?

Classiccom · « **Reply #40 on:** November 07, 2010, 06:55:12 AM »

Quote from: Roman Catholic

Quote from: Leisa

So my point was that they were equal in terms of power and authority until some point when Rome started to make decisions without consulting the other Bishops.

So do you think that the Church Histories and Catechisms approved by the Catholic Church, which teach that the Primacy of the Pope began with Peter, are all untruthful?

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

There we go again , putting words in peoples mouths that they never said. I think everybody here does care about the Church and wants a faithfully functioniong Christ centered papacy.

Save the criminal lawyer tactics for Ratzinger. He's going to need them pretty soon.

Roman Catholic · « **Reply #41 on:** November 07, 2010, 07:52:41 AM »

Quote from: Classiccom

Quote from: Roman Catholic
Quote from: Leisa

So my point was that they were equal in terms of power and authority until some point when Rome started to make decisions without consulting the other Bishops.

So do you think that the Church Histories and Catechisms approved by the Catholic Church, which teach that the Primacy of the Pope began with Peter, are all untruthful?

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

There we go again , putting words in peoples mouths that they never said. I think everybody here does care about the Church and wants a faithfully functioniong Christ centered papacy.

Save the criminal lawyer tactics for Ratzinger. He's going to need them pretty soon.

Don't be an idiot. I asked a question. I did not put words in anyone's mouth. Why don't you bug off and let her answer for herself?

Classiccom · « **Reply #42 on:** November 07, 2010, 09:29:30 AM »

" Keenan’s Catechism, published with the imprimatur of Scotch Roman Catholic bishops, contained the following question and answer—" Q. Must not Catholics believe the Pope in himself to be infallible?" "A. This is a Protestant invention: it is no article of the Catholic faith: no decision of his can oblige, under pain of heresy, unless it be received and enforced by the teaching body; that is, by the bishops of the Church."

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

From KEENAN'S CATECHISM, 1869 edition. "Q. Must not Catholics believe the pope in himself to be infallible? A: This is a Protestant invention; it is no article of Catholic faith." After 1870, the question was omitted, but in 1896, the following was added:

"Q: Is the Pope infallible? A: Yes, the Pope is infallible. Q: But some Catholics, before the Vatican Council, denied the infallibility of the Pope, which was impugned by this very Catechism. A: Yes, they did so under the usual reservation, insofar as they then could grasp the mind of the Church, and subject to her future definitions, thus implicitly accepting the dogma."

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

http://www.biblelight.net/keenan.htm

Classiccom · « **Reply #43 on:** November 07, 2010, 09:34:15 AM »

http://www.angelfire.com/ky/dodone/0616JN.html

June 16, 2001

ANOTHER PAPAL APOLOGY

Pontiff makes apology to Orthodox, calls for healing wounds of division

(From Louisville, KY The Record, 5/10/01)

By JOHN THAVIS Catholic News Service

In his 24-hour pilgrimage to Greece, Pope John Paul II aimed to break a cycle of ecuмenical antagonism that has lasted nearly 1,000 years.

He did so with a dramatic apology for the past treatment of Orthodox Christians and a call to "heal the wounds" that still divide Western and Eastern churches. He termed the 13th-century sack of Constantinople a "tragic" moral failure by Latin-rite Christians.

'For the occasions, past and present, when sons and daughters of the Catholic Church have sinned by action or omission against their Orthodox brothers and sisters, may the Lord grant us the forgiveness we beg of him," the pope said May 4 at the residence of the head of the Orthodox Church in Greece, Archbishop Christodoulos of Athens.

It was the first visit to Greece by a Roman pontiff since the eighth century.

Surrounded by a few top officials of both churches, the pope addressed head-on the ecuмenical divisions of past centuries, offering a unilateral apology on behalf of Catholics.

"Some memories are especially painful, and some events 'of 'the distant past have left wounds in the minds and hearts of people to this day. I am thinking of the disastrous sack of the imperial city of Constantinople, which was so long the bastion of Christianity in the East," he said.

"It is tragic that the assailants, who had set out to secure free access for Christians to the Holy Land, turned against their own brothers in the faith. The fact that they were Latin Christians fills Catholics with deep regret," he said.

The 1204 destruction of Constantinople - the former center of the Eastern church and now the city of Istanbul in Turkey - by pillaging Crusaders has not been forgotten by modern Christians of Greece and is often listed at the top of Orthodox complaints against Rome.

The pope followed his strong "mea culpa" statement with a call to turn the page, saying the time had come for Christians to put aside rancor over past injustices and "walk together."

"Division between Christians is a sin before God and a scandal before the world. It is a hindrance to the spread of the Gospel, because it makes our proclamation less credible," he said.

Archbishop Christodoulos, who faced opposition within his own church on the papal visit, greeted the pope wit a warm embrace and appeared to appreciate the pontiffs words.

"I am happy. The pope was very kind to us. But there is still work to be done on problems facing our churches," the archbishop said after the ceremony.

OHCA · « **Reply #44 on:** November 07, 2010, 05:28:04 PM »

Quote from: Classiccom

Quote from: Roman Catholic
Quote from: Classiccom

It is the biggest crime of the Church not to have cleaned house and send these corrupt popes back home.

The Church can't commit crimes. People commit crimes.

Who committed the crimes of not cleaning house and sending the corrupt "popes" back home?

Were they real popes? If so, they could not be sent back home.

Is the institution that Ratzinger presides over, the Catholic Church?

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

Well then , Catholics need to flee from evil . Would be nice if some one could pick up Lefebvre's baton that seems to have been dropped. I don't think the Good Lord will bless that unless various doctrines of demons have been removed, ditch the ruby slippers and opulence and get back to Christian '
reality. Until that happens, we have to remember that everyone that acknowledges Jesus Christ as the Only Lord and Savior is important. Time for the remnant of the one fold to start gathering the remnant not of this fold.

When everybody starts thinking like St. Vincent of Lerins, I think there will be a great revival of the true Faith.

Apocalypse 12:12

And the dragon was angry against the woman: and went to make war with the rest of her seed, who keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

". . . get back to Christian reality."

Classiccom,

Besides ditching Papal infallibility, what else must we do to get back to Christian reality?

". . . we have to remember that everyone that acknowledges Jesus Christ as the Only Lord and Savior is important."

Please explain the context of this statement. I agree that the souls of all who acknowledge Jesus Christ as the Only Lord and Savior are important. But I do not agree that the beliefs and arguments of all who acknowledge Jesus Christ as the Only Lord and Savior are important in the context of being valid. Depending on the context of your statement, I may or may not agree--so please clarify the context.

Also, absent Papal infallibility and the foundation thereof that the Catholic Church lays claim to, I do not see where there is any authority for any definite unequivocal guidance in terms of faith, doctrine, morals, or teachings, nor do I see why the Catholic Church is preferable to any other camp that "acknowledges Jesus Christ as the Only Lord and Savior."

I believe the Catholic Church has the Real Presence, but even that I accept based on Faith, the teachings of the Catholic Church, and the interpretation of Scripture of the Catholic Church. Same thing with other Sacraments, too.

So if you do not believe the Catholic Church has the inerrancy of the Apostolic chain as supremely manifested in Papal infallibility, then what does the Catholic Church have that is so grand in your eyes, that after ridding it of these "heresies" you perceive, it will be superior to other camps and will have been worth the fight to get there?