Author Topic: Pope Pius IX - Mason (Read 29190 times)

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #195 on:** September 24, 2010, 10:48:06 AM »

Quote from: Classiccom

Q" OCHA

"even the simple-minded uneducated can preach its tenets! "

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

Pope Pius IX - Invincible Ignorance

Singulari Quadem, December 9, 1854: "For it must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood; but, on the other hand, it is necessary to hold for certain that they who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is invincible, are not stained by any guilt in this matter in the eyes of God."

You see the ugly spirit of arrogance here. God's grace of spiritual wisdom and a prideful person don't mix. How about the Rheiming that was given over a lousy spelling mistake. Same spirit of pride and arrogance. Awareness of the letter of the law but not the spirit.

As far as the four part mini inquisition, I am not disputing any of that. I liked your question about the catechism and I hope to have one compiled ASAP. It will be called the Wilmington Catechism. (just north of Baltimore.) It will explain how popes can make mistakes and talk about the duty of Catholics to follow the words of Christ and re-establish all things in Christ.

What's so arrogant about Pius IX saying that nobody outside the Catholic Church can be saved? Or could it be that you are just offended because you are outside the Catholic Church? And I simply pointed out that you mispelled "Douay", which made it look like you didn't actually have a Douay Rheims Bible. How do you expect people to believe you have one if you can't even spell it right?

OHCA · « **Reply #196 on:** September 24, 2010, 11:23:29 AM »

Quote from: Classiccom

. . .

As far as the four part mini inquisition, I am not disputing any of that. I liked your question about the catechism and I hope to have one compiled ASAP. It will be called the Wilmington Catechism. (just north of Baltimore.) It will explain how popes can make mistakes and talk about the duty of Catholics to follow the words of Christ and re-establish all things in Christ.

The "Wilmington Catechism?" Surely you jest--you know that is much too subtle. I propose "The Return of Catholicism - Rethinking Everything & Correcting the Perpetual Flood of Doctrinal Errors of Popes and Councils Back to St. Peter: Including an Addendum of Suggestions of Points That Christ Should Rethink in Establishing Catholicism!" Of course, by Pope Classiccom I (The I and Only - The Great - The Alpha and Omega).

This shall certainly amount to a much needed glass of cool refreshing water for Luther, Henry VIII, Calvin, etc.; a step in the right direction for masons, protestants, liberal n.o. "catholics," etc.; and, if you can but transcend time, you will most certainly have a harem of groovy flower-child chicks from the 1960s following you around (no offense to reformed flower-children)!

Leisa · « **Reply #197 on:** September 24, 2010, 01:50:54 PM »

Hi,

It does call to mind the question of why would Pius IX muddy the waters on this topic, even if he is not going against the dogmatic teachings of the church. It seems like he was not very careful in what he said. He must have been trying to appease modernists who were growing in the ranks of the church not knowing how his words could be hijacked. Or did he know his words would be hijacked?

It really begs the question of why? Why even go down that confusing road? Why not just reinforce the dogmatic teachings? There is no salvation outside of the church. Why confused the issue with vague statements leaving yourself open to new interpretations!?

It is odd. But I can't know because I don't know enough about the topic except to say it does strike me as odd. It seems like a whole can of worms was opened and for what purpose? Was it an accident? Or was it deliberate. Did he deliberately open that can of worms?

It's certainly worth considering. I don't blame anyone for raising this topic as it is very confusing indeed.

Leisa

Pope Pius IX - Invincible Ignorance

Singulari Quadem, December 9, 1854: "For it must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood; but, on the other hand, it is necessary to hold for certain that they who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is invincible, are not stained by any guilt in this matter in the eyes of God."

edited...
[/quote]

Charles · « **Reply #198 on:** September 24, 2010, 10:52:19 PM »

This just in........ The Roman Catholic Church has been without a pope since Leo X. Leo X was the last legitimate pope, and was was kept drugged during his reign. This was done as a tactic in deception by the minions of Satan himself. They figured any pope that followed would look like a saint compared to the drugged up Leo X.

All further displays of piety were tactics in deception as well. We've been had !

(waiting for classiccon to exclaim "I knew it !")

OHCA · « **Reply #199 on:** September 24, 2010, 11:28:30 PM »

Charles,

I was about to tear into you and accuse you of being Classiccom's alter-ego until I got to the end!
:cheers:

Roman Catholic · « **Reply #200 on:** September 25, 2010, 12:38:00 AM »

Classicom,

You said you want to begin attending services at an Old Catholic Church in your area.

Who is head of that branch of Old Catholics?

Are you formally an Old Catholic? Have you already been attending Old Catholic services?

Classiccom · « **Reply #201 on:** September 25, 2010, 05:29:35 AM »

The priest has not started yet. No real info yet.

Probably better off going back to SSPX and just confessing that I still think Pius IX was a Mason and the apparitions are deceptions. If they throw me out, I 'll take it from there. (probably sell T shirts that say "Go and CINOC no more". )

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

http://hubpages.com/hub/JettatoreXY

Jettatore - Pope Pius IX

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

Pope Pius IX was Prophesied 200 Years Before His Reign

OUR LADY OF GOOD SUCCESS 1634 A.D.

http://www.piustheninth.com/chapter7.htm

(In the last days it was predicted that Satan would have good success with doctrines of demons , and even wear out the saints )

OHCA · « **Reply #202 on:** September 25, 2010, 07:05:04 AM »

Classiccom,

I have finally gotten past this point now, but I have had to confess my harsh words (oh, if there has ever been an understatement--not proud of it, merely emphasizing it was quite harsh as is your assessment of Pope Pius IX) and thoughts about Pope John XXIII, with multiple relapses and subsequent confessions. I have since resigned to not take the harsh approach that I fear may condemn my soul to hell (speaking as to myself--not passing judgment on you), but rather to pray fervently.

Somebody jump in here and scream liberal N.O. education at me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you are required to believe any apparition since the days original Apostles were still living. Talk to an SSPX priest about your struggles and ask for guidance about what you are obliged to believe in this regard. Again, pray fervently.

If the apparitions have soured you on Catholic devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary, please don't "throw the baby out with the bath water."

Please, out of caution for your soul, confess to an SSPX priest. Even if you have done so before (I did so in my situation many times before the relapses subsided), I strongly encourage you to return. All the more reason to give this a chance if you've not previously done so.

May God Bless

Classiccom · « **Reply #203 on:** September 25, 2010, 07:46:18 AM »

Quote

"If the apparitions have soured you on Catholic devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary, please don't "throw the baby out with the bath water."

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

All those images of a "baby Jesus" next to a big mother just remind me of a diminished impotent Jesus. If you had a business card, would you picture yourself in diapers being held by your mother ?

Roman Catholic · « **Reply #204 on:** September 25, 2010, 07:58:34 AM »

Quote from: Classiccom

The priest has not started yet. No real info yet.

Probably better off going back to SSPX and just confessing that I still think Pius IX was a Mason and the apparitions are deceptions. If they throw me out, I 'll take it from there. (probably sell T shirts that say "Go and CINOC no more". )

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

http://hubpages.com/hub/JettatoreXY

Jettatore - Pope Pius IX

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

Pope Pius IX was Prophesied 200 Years Before His Reign

OUR LADY OF GOOD SUCCESS 1634 A.D.

http://www.piustheninth.com/chapter7.htm

(In the last days it was predicted that Satan would have good success with doctrines of demons , and even wear out the saints )

You seem to think it is ok to attend an Old Catholic Mass or an SSPX Mass.

Do you think Old Catholics are part of the true Church?

Roman Catholic · « **Reply #205 on:** September 25, 2010, 08:00:06 AM »

Quote from: Classiccom

Quote

"If the apparitions have soured you on Catholic devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary, please don't "throw the baby out with the bath water."

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

All those images of a "baby Jesus" next to a big mother just remind me of a diminished impotent Jesus. If you had a business card, would you picture yourself in diapers being held by your mother ?

What do the images of the baby Jesus have to do with apparitions?

Roman Catholic · « **Reply #206 on:** September 25, 2010, 08:12:01 AM »

Quote from: OHCA

Somebody jump in here and scream liberal N.O. education at me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you are required to believe any apparition since the days original Apostles were still living.

There are some things that it would be rash and dangerous to deny.

For example before the Dogma of the Assumption was proclaimed, it would have been very rash to deny it.

Also, to believe in an apparition approved by the Church, one does not need to believe that all of the messages from the seers are entirely accurate.

But Catholics DO have to believe in papal infallibility. To deny papal infallibility is to be in heresy.

Trinity · « **Reply #207 on:** September 25, 2010, 09:03:51 AM »

Jesus in diapers is more potent than kings on thrones. It takes many trips to the confessional to heal some sins. Persevere!

Roman Catholic · « **Reply #208 on:** September 25, 2010, 09:19:49 AM »

The earliest such images date from the Early Christian Church and are found in the catacombs of Rome.

Mary in Western art by Timothy Verdon, Filippo Rossi 2005 ISBN 097129819X page 11

The earliest representation of the Madonna and Child may be the wall painting in the Catacomb of Priscilla, Rome, in which the seated Madonna suckles the Child, who turns his head to gaze at the spectator.

Victor Lasareff, "Studies in the Iconography of the Virgin" The Art Bulletin 20.1 (March 1938, pp. 26-65) p 27f.

OHCA · « **Reply #209 on:** September 25, 2010, 09:24:48 AM »

Quote from: Classiccom

Quote

"If the apparitions have soured you on Catholic devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary, please don't "throw the baby out with the bath water."

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

All those images of a "baby Jesus" next to a big mother just remind me of a diminished impotent Jesus. If you had a business card, would you picture yourself in diapers being held by your mother ?

Classiccom,

The human race could have been eternally damned by the fall of Adam. But our gracious God, out Mercy, did not let that stand. But He chose His plan to redeem us from the offense in Eden to be of significant magnitude to remind us of the gravity of sin.

He could have picked another way to have redeemed us. But He chose to send the second Person of the Holy Trinity to take on form of man in the womb of Our Lady; to be born a vulnerable-humble-"diminished" baby; to be a vulnerable-humble-"diminshed" child and adolescent obedient to His parents of the flesh, Joseph and Mary; to be crucified as a vulnerable-humble-"diminished" young man. This is certainly not to overlook the immeasurably STRENGTH in the Word Made Flesh, but part of His coming to be sacrified for our Redemption included vulnerability, humbleness, and diminishment.

What more perfect example to simultaneously remind us of this AND His complete INNOCENCE, than Him as an infant in His Mother's arms?