Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Classiccom on July 30, 2010, 02:24:57 PM
-
--
-
I don't know if this is an attempt to promote extreme sedevacanism (or in the case of CM, just extremism) or not, as I don't know what your viewpoints are, but this is a rather interesting article. However, even if he was a freemason, it would not have had any affect on his papacy unless he was one while he was Pope. He eventually became a conservative, and condemned heresy and modernism. My guess is that if he DID become a freemason, he got out of it. So therefore, I don't think I would consider Pius IX an anti-pope at all. He would have had to have been a freemason while Pope to be declared an anti-pope.
-
The story is a fraud-- Pius IX was never a mason. Some people will believe anything.
-
Hopefully this information will do some good.
====================================
http://www.Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ.bcy.ca/biography/pius_ix/freemason.html
Pope Pius IX - freemason?
While the author of this article in 1922 was convinced that Pius IX was a freemason, and other reports are available, it should also be noted that this website is not privy to Italian masonic records and cannot testify to their veracity.
But, strange to say, there is no doubt that Pope Pius IX. was himself a Freemason. His signature still exists in the books of one of the Italian Lodges of Monte Video. Shortly after his ordination Mastai Ferretti (which was his secular name) was sent as Auditor to the Vicar-General of Chile, and at one time it was believed that he was initiated into Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ in that country. When, in later years, he was appointed Apostolic Delegate in Uruguay he appeared in the Lodges as a fully qualified Freemason, and a writer in the Libertad del Pensamiento, a Madrid journal, in 1870, said that there was in existence in the possession of one whose name he gave (Soussingeas) a portrait of the Pope in Masonic regalia.
Quite recently, however, any doubt that may have existed on the question was put on one side by the discovery of the initiation of Pope Pius IX. into Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ in the Lodge Eterna Catena of Palermo on 15th August 1839. The following is a translation from the Italian of the Bollettino Officiale del Grande Oriente nαzιonale Egiziano:—
"Orient of Nuremburg, Lodge of Germanic Loyalty, daughter of the Grand Lodge of Bavaria, working under constitutions emanating from the Grand Mother Lodge of the Three Globes of Berlin.
"Our archives contain, under No. 13,715, the following docuмent, certified and authenticated in regular and required form, written in Italian, and bearing the great seal of the Grand Lodge Luce Perpetua of Naples :
"'Masonic Lodge Eterna Catena of Palermo :
"'We, Master Masons, dignitaries and officials of the third degree of Masonry of St John, certify in the name of the Supreme Master, who directs all, that on this, the date given below, at the hour of twelve at night, we have received in this Lodge in the form prescribed by our rituals, and with entire conformity to our constitution, the Brother Giovanni Ferretti Mastai, a native of the Pontifical States, who, having assumed the oath in the presence of all of us, declared that he did not belong to any secret society hostile to this Lodge, and who has paid the charges demanded of him.
"'Wherefore we call upon all the Masonic Lodges of the world to recognise him and hold him as a genuine and true Mason, received in a just and perfect Lodge, and thus we regard and certify him, as a conscientious and honourable man.
"'In testimony of the entire truth of the present docuмent, we sign in Palermo, in the profane and civil year 1839, on the fifteenth day of the month of August.
"'Ne varietur : Giovanni Ferretti Mastai.
"'Matteo Chiava, Master of the Lodge.
"'Paolo Duplessi, Secretary of the Lodge.
"’sisto Calano, Grand Master of the Lodge of Naples.'
" I certify to the truth of the foregoing, and that our archives contain the above docuмent under the number indicated.
" Wilhelm von Wittelsburg, Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Bavaria, Prince of Bavaria."
In 1874 the Voice of Masonry published the following item of news :—
" At the semi-annual meeting of the Grand Lodge of Masons Scottish Rite of the Orient of Palermo, Italy, on 27th March last, Pope Pius IX. was excommunicated from the Order. The decree of expulsion was published in the official Masonic paper at Cologne, Germany, and is preceded by the minute of the Lodge in which he was initiated, and is as follows :
" ' A man named Mastai Ferretti, who received the baptism of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, and solemnly pledged his love and fellowship, and who afterwards was crowned Pope and King, under the title of Pio Nino, has now cursed his former Brethren and excommunicated all members of the Order of Freemasons. Therefore, said Mastai Ferretti is herewith, by decree of the Grand Lodge of the Orient, Palermo, expelled from the Order for perjury.'
" The charges against him were first prepared in his Lodge at Palermo in 1865, and notification and copy thereof sent to him, with a request to attend the Lodge for the purpose of answering the same. To this he made no reply, and for divers reasons the charges were not pressed until he urged the Bishops of Brazil to act aggressively towards the Freemasons. Then they were pressed, and, after a regular trial, a decree of expulsion was entered and published, the same being signed by Victor Emmanuel, King of Italy, and the Grand Master of the Orient of Italy." The king thus returned his compliments for the "major excommunication" which the Pope had sent him a few years previously with the Pope’s kind regards." "It is difficult," said the Pall Mall Gazette in October 1874, "to see what retort Pius IX. can make to this decree, unless, indeed, he has in reserve some still more formidable maledictory missile to launch at the Grand Lodge of the Orient. But in these days, unfortunately, a papal anathema is hardly as terrible as a Masonic decree."
Dudley Wright, Roman Catholicism and Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ. London : William Rider & Son, Limited, 1922. hc. 251 p. 5 3/4" x 8 3/4". pp. 172-175.
Are you one of David Landry's minions, Classic? I think this crap is blatant heresy and should not be allowed here! This trash is disinfo, and puts doubts into readers minds.. Who was the last valid pope according to your laypope Landry? Do we have to go back to Peter? God has abandoned the church for centuries, right? Just as we should not take poisons into our bodies, we should not read this stuff! It poisons the soul!
b] :heretic:
-
I see the world as a dogmatic Siritie and am not surprised that Admin allows this type of heretical scribling to be posted here.
-
http://www.muog89.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38:pope-pius-ix&catid=16:Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყarticles&Itemid=26
Pope Pius IX
Tuesday, 21 July 2009 13:29 Joel Porlares
E-mail Print PDF
Pope Pius IXPope Pius IX (Giuseppe Maria Ferrero Mastai Ferretti) joined Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ in Santiago, Chile, in 1832, while a young priest. He was the secretary of the Papal Nuncio at the time.
While the author of this article in 1922 was convinced that Pius IX was a freemason, and other reports are available, it should also be noted that this website is not privy to Italian masonic records and cannot testify to their veracity.
But, strange to say, there is no doubt that Pope Pius IX. was himself a Freemason. His signature still exists in the books of one of the Italian Lodges of Monte Video. Shortly after his ordination Mastai Ferretti (which was his secular name) was sent as Auditor to the Vicar-General of Chile, and at one time it was believed that he was initiated into Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ in that country. When, in later years, he was appointed Apostolic Delegate in Uruguay he appeared in the Lodges as a fully qualified Freemason, and a writer in the Libertad del Pensamiento, a Madrid journal, in 1870, said that there was in existence in the possession of one whose name he gave (Soussingeas) a portrait of the Pope in Masonic regalia.
Quite recently, however, any doubt that may have existed on the question was put on one side by the discovery of the initiation of Pope Pius IX. into Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ in the Lodge Eterna Catena of Palermo on 15th August 1839. The following is a translation from the Italian of the Bollettino Officiale del Grande Oriente nαzιonale Egiziano:— "Orient of Nuremburg, Lodge of Germanic Loyalty, daughter of the Grand Lodge of Bavaria, working under constitutions emanating from the Grand Mother Lodge of the Three Globes of Berlin."
Our archives contain, under No. 13,715, the following docuмent, certified and authenticated in regular and required form, written in Italian, and bearing the great seal of the Grand Lodge Luce Perpetua of Naples : " 'Masonic Lodge Eterna Catena of Palermo : " 'We, Master Masons, dignitaries and officials of the third degree of Masonry of St John, certify in the name of the Supreme Master, who directs all, that on this, the date given below, at the hour of twelve at night, we have received in this Lodge in the form prescribed by our rituals, and with entire conformity to our constitution, the Brother Giovanni Ferretti Mastai, a native of the Pontifical States, who, having assumed the oath in the presence of all of us, declared that he did not belong to any secret society hostile to this Lodge, and who has paid the charges demanded of him.
"'Wherefore we call upon all the Masonic Lodges of the world to recognise him and hold him as a genuine and true Mason, received in a just and perfect Lodge, and thus we regard and certify him, as a conscientious and honourable man. "'In testimony of the entire truth of the present docuмent, we sign in Palermo, in the profane and civil year 1839, on the fifteenth day of the month of August.
"'Ne varietur : Giovanni Ferretti Mastai.
"'Matteo Chiava, Master of the Lodge.
"'Paolo Duplessi, Secretary of the Lodge.
"'sisto Calano, Grand Master of the Lodge of Naples.'
" I certify to the truth of the foregoing, and that our archives contain the above docuмent under the number indicated.
" Wilhelm von Wittelsburg, Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Bavaria, Prince of Bavaria."
In 1874 the Voice of Masonry published the following item of news :— "At the semi-annual meeting of the Grand Lodge of Masons Scottish
Rite of the Orient of Palermo, Italy, on 27th March last, Pope Pius IX. was excommunicated from the Order. The decree of expulsion was
published in the official Masonic paper at Cologne, Germany, and is preceded by the minute of the Lodge in which he was initiated, and is
as follows :
" ' A man named Mastai Ferretti, who received the baptism of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, and solemnly pledged his love and fellowship, and who
afterwards was crowned Pope and King, under the title of Pio Nino, has now cursed his former Brethren and excommunicated all members of the
Order of Freemasons. Therefore, said Mastai Ferretti is herewith, by decree of the Grand Lodge of the Orient, Palermo, expelled from the
Order for perjury.'
" The charges against him were first prepared in his Lodge at Palermo in 1865, and notification and copy thereof sent to him, with a request
to attend the Lodge for the purpose of answering the same. To this he made no reply, and for divers reasons the charges were not pressed
until he urged the Bishops of Brazil to act aggressively towards the Freemasons. Then they were pressed, and, after a regular trial, a decree of expulsion was entered and published, the same being signed by Victor Emmanuel, King of Italy, and the Grand Master of the Orient of Italy." The king thus returned his compliments for the "major excommunication" which the Pope had sent him a few years previously with the Pope's kind regards." "It is difficult," said the Pall Mall Gazette in October 1874, "to see what retort Pius IX. can make to this decree, unless, indeed, he has in reserve some still more formidable maledictory missile to launch at the Grand Lodge of the Orient. But in these days, unfortunately, a papal anathema is hardly as terrible as a Masonic decree."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dudley Wright, Roman Catholicism and Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ. London : William
Rider & Son, Limited, 1922. hc. 251 p. 5 3/4" x 8 3/4". pp. 172-175.
=================================================================
Giovanni Maria Mastai-Ferretti (b. May 13, 1792, Senigallia, Papal States - d. Feb. 7, 1878, Rome), head of the Roman Catholic Church whose pontificate (1846-78) was the longest in history and was marked by a transition from liberalism to conservatism.1
On 8 December 1864, Pius issued the encyclical Quanta Cura with the Syllabus listing eighty of the "principal errors of our times." The eightieth "error" was that "the Roman Pontif can or should reconcile himself to and agree with progress, liberalism, and modern civilization."
The first Vatican Council opened on 8 December, 1869. On 13 July, 1870 it was decided that the Pope was Infallable when he made pronouncements ex cathedra. "... the records of the Italian Grand Lodge show His infallible Holiness to have been expelled from the fraternity after his election as pope. Victor Emanuel, having been aided by Garibaldi, a 33° Mason, in overthrowing the temporal power of the papacy and establishing religious and constitutional liberty in Italy, was informed that the Pope, when a young man, had been Initiated, Passed and Raised in a Masonic lodge. He therefore caused him to be tried for repeated violations of his obligations to the Masonic brethren. Pius IX was found guilty, expelled, and the proclamation of his expulsion, signed by Victor Emanuel, then king of Italy and grand master of Masons in that country, was sent all over the Masonic world."2
Initiated : August 15, 1839
Expelled : March 27, 1873
Lodge Eterna Catena, Palermo
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. New Encyclopaedia Britannica. 1989. v.9, p. 485.
2. W. G. Sibley [William Giddings] (1860-1935), The Story of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ. Gallipolis, Ohio. The Lion's Paw Club, Gallipolis Daily Tribune Press: 1904. p. 23-24. [114p. 19cm.]. No citation noted. Also see Ars Quatuor Coronatorum. vol. xxvi (1913) pp. 218-19. vol. xxxii, "Notes and Queries" p. 174. See Dudley Wright, Roman Catholicism and Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ for source of initiation date. Cf.: 1832 initiation date, also "For years a copy of his 'petition' was circulated as proof of the event; but it has been denounced as a forgery." Alphonse Cerza, The Truth is Stranger than Fiction. Washington, D.C. ; The Masonic Service Association, 1980. p. 57.
-
:sleep:
"And now we return to our studios in New York...and our somewhat-less-than-competent yet truly-babe-a-licious and half-naked anchorette...where it has just come to our attention that birth is now considered the number one cause of death..."
-
Hopefully this information will do some good.
No, but this... :fryingpan: ...might do you some good :)
-
First of all, his name was GIOVANNI MARIA MASTAI-FERRETTI.
-
I still blame the destruction of the Church on Pius IX and more importantly , the Catholics who permitted his abuse of power. IF the antiChrist says "I am tradition", he will have to give Pope Pius IX the credit for that . I think the antiChrist playbook will be merely a rewrite of Pius IX's material , but given full Satanic power and the aid of technology and financial control. And since post 1870 Catholics are used to giving total unquestioning support to leadership no matter how unbiblical or unGodly, is should be a cakewalk for the antiChrist to have total control, especially after the latest round of sex scandals throughout the world that have completely delegitimised the authority structure of the Catholic Church.
Q&A--"I AM TRADITION"-Pope Pius IX and the Arrogance of the Papacy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QfHekOtD_4
-
Hey Classicom, did you ever think that the person who wrote the article you posted made the whole thing up? Any anti-Catholic can make a Pope look bad by making up an article full of "quotes" from certain people to make it look real. This is the first I have ever heard of Pius IX being a freemason. While it's true that he wasn't always Traditional, the chances of him being a freemason are slim to none.
-
I found this to be interesting :
http://reasonablechristian.blogspot.com/2010/07/what-do-we-mean-by-sola-scriptura_20.html
In fact, however, if you listen carefully, you will notice that the real authority for Rome is neither Scripture nor tradition, but the church. What is the Scripture, and what does it teach? Only the church can tell you. What is tradition, and what does it teach? Only the church can tell you. As the Roman theologian John Eck said, “The Scriptures are not authentic, except by the authority of the church.”6 As Pope Pius IX said at the time of the First Vatican Council in 1870, “I am tradition.”7 The overwhelming arrogance of such a statement is staggering. But it confirms our claim that, for Rome, the only real authority is the church: sola ecclesia.
===========
Let me offer as an illustration two examples from the work of Augustine, often quoted against the Protestant position on the question of the authority of the church. At one point in his debate with the Pelagians, a bishop of Rome sided with Augustine, and Augustine declared, “Rome has spoken, the matter is settled.” Later, however, another pope opposed Augustine on this subject, and Augustine responded by saying, “Christ has spoken, the matter is settled.” Augustine did not bow to the authority of the bishop of Rome, but turned to the word of Christ to evaluate the teaching of Rome.
=========
As early as the seventeenth century the Reformed theologian Francis Turretin noted the serious theological divisions in the Roman church and asked why the pope did not settle these disputes if his office was so effective.13 Such theological problems are certainly much greater today than in Turretin’s day and the question remains unanswered as to why the pope is so ineffective.13
We should not be surprised that there are divisions in the church. Christ and His apostles predicted that there would be. The Apostle Paul told us that such divisions are useful. He wrote: “No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval” (1 Corinthians 11:19). Differences should humble us and drive us back to the Scriptures to test all claims to truth. If we do not accept the Scriptures as our standard and judge, there is indeed no hope for unity.
============
We must listen to the Scriptures so that we will act as God’s Word teaches us to act. Consider the story of Paul in Berea, Acts 17:10-12. Paul preached there in the ѕуηαgσgυє and many Jєωs responded to his preaching with eagerness. We are told that after they listened to Paul each day they examined the Scriptures to see if what Paul said was true. How did Paul react? Did he say that the Scriptures were not clear, and that only he as an apostle or the rabbis or the Sanhedrin could tell them what the Scriptures really meant? Or did he say that they should not expect to find the truth in the Scriptures because they were incomplete and needed to be supplemented by tradition? Or did he say that they were insulting his apostolic authority, and that they should simply submit to him as the infallible interpreter of the Bible? Or did Paul say that they should defer to Peter as the only one who could interpret the Bible? No! He did not say any of these things. The practice of the Bereans is praised in the Bible. They are called noble because they evaluated everything on the basis of the written Word of God.
If we would be faithful children of God, if we would be noble, we must proceed as the Bereans did. We must follow the example of Moses and Paul and our Lord Jesus. Do not rest your confidence on the wisdom of men who claim infallibility. Stand rather with the Apostle Paul who wrote in 1 Corinthians 4:6, "Do not go beyond what is written.
===========================
Going beyond what is written? - That is the trademark of Pope Pius IX and his newchurch - Club Infallible. When Pope Pius IX castrated the statues in the Vatican, this was symbolic of the emasculation of the entire Catholic Church and his promotion to infallible class status.
http://www.travelblog.org/Europe/Vatican-City/blog-27869.html
A crime within the Vatican Museum wall: The Great Castration
-
I pray for the good of all of our souls that we put Classic......CON on hide. Hes David Landry under another skin, and Im willing to bet he has read that guy's false ideas, as my friend did. My friend has almost lost his faith now!
This Landry guy started out with Pope Pius X11, and discredited him along with Fatima. Then he moved down the line, even throwing saintly Pope Pius X under the bus. Now hes at Pope Pius IX!!!! Im sure he will keep going.
To read these ideas is very dangerous to the soul! Today anyone can say anything and get away woth it. Each of us has to guard our souls. Turn the TV show off.......close the book, and skip over this stuff. If no one reads or listens maybe these roaches will go away!
You truly are a CON.......a Classic one! :heretic:
-
Groan! I am so sad, I don't know what to say. I can't understand us fighting over whether there is a pope or not. I can't understand why we keep fighting, Catholics against Catholics. I made the strongest statement possible and it doesn't seem to have "taken".
Poor Classicom! Poor Raoul! And so many besides. You start out believing that so and so is bad because this book says so and it is easy to believe it of this person. And that makes it easier to believe it of another person, and another and another. You get so conditioned to believe that everyone is a rascal, that everyone becomes a rascal. Soon not even a canonized saint is safe. And you are surrounded by rascals and go completely round the twist.
Better---FAR BETTER---to believe good of everyone than to believe bad of everyone. Almost lost his faith? What did Jesus say about faith when He returns?
-
I pray for the good of all of our souls that we put Classic......CON on hide. Hes David Landry under another skin, and Im willing to bet he has read that guy's false ideas, as my friend did. My friend has almost lost his faith now!
This Landry guy started out with Pope Pius X11, and discredited him along with Fatima. Then he moved down the line, even throwing saintly Pope Pius X under the bus. Now hes at Pope Pius IX!!!! Im sure he will keep going.
To read these ideas is very dangerous to the soul! Today anyone can say anything and get away woth it. Each of us has to guard our souls. Turn the TV show off.......close the book, and skip over this stuff. If no one reads or listens maybe these roaches will go away!
You truly are a CON.......a Classic one! :heretic:
I don't know the history and I don't read posts by Ccom. Who is David Landry? Does Ccom purport to be a Catholic?
-
http://vitwilderness.blogspot.com/2007/06/pope-pius-ix.html
Pope Pius IX
Today is the anniversary of the election of Pope Pius IX to the Chair of St. Peter, as the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church.
Giovanni Maria Mastai-Ferretti was born in Senigallia among a noble family of Girolamo dei conti Ferretti on May 13, 1792.
He received his education at the Piarist College of Volterra and in Rome, where he studied philosophy and theology. He was ordained as a priest of the Roman Catholic Church on April 10, 1819. On May 21, 1827, Pope Leo XII made Fr. Ferretti the Archbishop of Spoleto and on February 17, 1832, Pope Gregory XVI had the Archbishop transferred to the Diocese of Imola, where he was made Cardinal priest on December 14, 1840.
Two weeks after Pope Gregory XVI passed away, June 14, 1846, the conclave for a new pope was assembled. Archbishop Ferretti was elected Pope on the fourth ballot, on June 16, 1846, and took the name of Pius IX in honor of his former benefactor, Pius VII, and was crowned on June 21, 1846.
His first political act, on July 16, was that of granting an amnesty of political prisoners, which was contested by some who now denounced the new pope as one working with the Freemasons.
================
"The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves."
— Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
-
I pray for the good of all of our souls that we put Classic......CON on hide. Hes David Landry under another skin, and Im willing to bet he has read that guy's false ideas, as my friend did. My friend has almost lost his faith now!
This Landry guy started out with Pope Pius X11, and discredited him along with Fatima. Then he moved down the line, even throwing saintly Pope Pius X under the bus. Now hes at Pope Pius IX!!!! Im sure he will keep going.
To read these ideas is very dangerous to the soul! Today anyone can say anything and get away woth it. Each of us has to guard our souls. Turn the TV show off.......close the book, and skip over this stuff. If no one reads or listens maybe these roaches will go away!
You truly are a CON.......a Classic one! :heretic:
I don't know the history and I don't read posts by Ccom. Who is David Landry? Does Ccom purport to be a Catholic?
I think David Landry is CM. In a recent thread CM posted in the Resistance Movement category, he says his email address has the word David Landry in it (or maybe he said D Landry, same thing though).
-
All popes being called masons one by one. If we continue this way we will soon reach St. Peter.
Now a lurker comes and sees:"wow! the church is collapsing, her viles are exposed after 2000 yrs. even her followers admit it!."
Please, you don't want to help our enemies, do you? If someone is damned as the result, will you answer for it?
-
:applause:
-
I don't believe for one minute that Pope Pius IX was a Freemason. One reason I don't believe this is because in his youth he had epilepsy and he would have fits all the time. When He was a young man, he went from Marian shrine to Marian shrine asking the Blessed Mother to cure him of epilepsy. He would ask the Blessed Mother to take that cross of epilepsy off his back and give him another cross instead. After many prayers at different places, when he was praying in front of the famous painting of Our Lady of Perpetual Help, he was miraculously cured of his epilepsy and he never had a fit again. So I don't think that after being miraculously cured like he was by the Blessed Mother, that he would become a Freemason and a sworn enemy of the Blessed Mother.
-
I pray for the good of all of our souls that we put Classic......CON on hide. Hes David Landry under another skin, and Im willing to bet he has read that guy's false ideas, as my friend did. My friend has almost lost his faith now!
This Landry guy started out with Pope Pius X11, and discredited him along with Fatima. Then he moved down the line, even throwing saintly Pope Pius X under the bus. Now hes at Pope Pius IX!!!! Im sure he will keep going.
To read these ideas is very dangerous to the soul! Today anyone can say anything and get away woth it. Each of us has to guard our souls. Turn the TV show off.......close the book, and skip over this stuff. If no one reads or listens maybe these roaches will go away!
You truly are a CON.......a Classic one! :heretic:
I don't know the history and I don't read posts by Ccom. Who is David Landry? Does Ccom purport to be a Catholic?
I think David Landry is CM. In a recent thread CM posted in the Resistance Movement category, he says his email address has the word David Landry in it (or maybe he said D Landry, same thing though).
Thanks. but who the heck is Landry? Iknow nothing about him?
-
I don't believe for one minute that Pope Pius IX was a Freemason. One reason I don't believe this is because in his youth he had epilepsy and he would have fits all the time. When He was a young man, he went from Marian shrine to Marian shrine asking the Blessed Mother to cure him of epilepsy. He would ask the Blessed Mother to take that cross of epilepsy off his back and give him another cross instead. After many prayers at different places, when he was praying in front of the famous painting of Our Lady of Perpetual Help, he was miraculously cured of his epilepsy and he never had a fit again. So I don't think that after being miraculously cured like he was by the Blessed Mother, that he would become a Freemason and a sworn enemy of the Blessed Mother.
========================================
http://www.themystica.com/mystica/articles/d/demonic_possession.htm
Demonic possession
A person thought to be demonically possessed is said to suffer from a complete behavior takeover by a demonic entity. The entity may dominate the victim so the person becomes the demonic entity.
Christian theology, in the Middle Ages, deemed the concept of demonic possession heretical, so anyone displaying unusual behavior or a strange personality was automatically suspect of being possessed by the Devil. (The Devil or his demons who did the possessing were called the 'energumenus,' and the possessed person was the 'energumen'). In this era people were closer to Christ and God, and therefore more fearful of the Devil. Also, they were more attuned to the belief that there was a constant war being waged between God and the Devil for their souls.
It was thought that there were two ways of becoming possessed by the Devil. Either, the Devil passes directly into the person, or someone, in collaboration with the Devil -- ususally said to be a witch or wizard -- sends a demon into the victim through bewilderment. In this way many medieval unfortunates found themselves in peril because they were old, ugly, or poor. This could very well work the other way too. Many widows lost their homes and property by being declared witches.
In medieval times people generally believed God allowed the Devil to test people with hardships. One basis of this belief is derived from the Biblical story of Job. The Devil or one of his demons with the assistance of a witch were said to lay such difficulities as childhood sickness or seizures -- which presently would be medically diagnoised as epilepsy -- or dead livestock or crop failures on people. Each time such events occurred the general population looked for a witch. Frequently if a witch was not found, an unfortunate person was declared a witch.
Often unfortunate persons having terrible bodily deformities especially of the face, such as the evil eye, were thought by the general population to suffer from the Devil's mark.(Pope Pius IX was feared by many as having Malocchio) Such prejudice was similar to the fear and mocking of the Elephant Man in nineteenth-century London.
Here it might be added that a carry over of medieval thought still persists among many Christians, especially the fundamentalists. Although they are firm in their belief of man's sinful nature, they hold God still permits the Devil to try man. Such trials are tests of man's faithfulness to God.
The Catholic Church still defines true signs of possession as displaying superhuman strength, often accompanied by fits and convulsions; changes in personality; having knowledge of the future or other secret information; and being able to understand and converse in languages not previously known to the victim, such as the phenomenon glossolalia.
Early Puritan ministers and later Protestant clergy agreed on the same symptoms for declaring a person demonically possessed. In many incidences there was a complete ignorance of the person's medical condition and behavior.
Included in the list of other signs or symptoms for declaring demonic possession are: the practice of lewd and obscene acts, or even sɛҳuąƖ thoughts; horrible smells of bodily ordors or of sulphur, associated with hell; distended stomachs; rapid weight loss where death seems inevitable; changes in the voice to a deep, rasping, menacing, guttural croak. Occasionally there may be signs of automatic writing or levitation.
Many of these signs or symptoms can be explained away by modern medical science. Seizures and convulsions are symptoms of epilepsy. Personality changes can indicate hysteria, or schizophrenia, or other psychological malfunctions. Lewd and obscene acts can indicate mental disorders. Having sɛҳuąƖ thoughts, if taken seriously as a sign of demonic possession, would indicate nearly all of the modern population is possessed, especially the men. Distended stomachs can indicate malnutrition and other medical disorders. Also, having knowledge of future events or information is known as clairvoyance by many occultists and Neo-pagan witches which they consider a special spiritual gift. In light of such evidence it seems the term demonic possession is hardly functional anymore.
Such advanced knowledge is the reason why the Catholic Church has cautioned their priests to investigate the medical and psychological aspects of the person before performing the rite of exorcism. At present, the one main basis for declaring a person possessed seems to be a violent revulsion toward sacred objects and texts.
Neo-pagan witches strongly deny any association with the Devil. While some do not believe in the essence of evil and hold that the belief in the Devil is a Christian creation; almost all hold a deep and abiding respect for the free will of all living creatures, and do not believe they should interfer with this freedom of will. This theory of thought is embodied in the Wiccan Rede, which simply states, do what you will, but harm no one.
Although some modern occultists do think some people can become possessed by toying with the supernatural by such devices as the ouija board, few are certain of it. However, many occultists, especially witches, think they have been unjustly blamed throughout history for causing demonic possession. A.G.H.
Source: 4.
-
Classicom, this is what I found on the homepage of the website you got your article from:
"The true nature of the gods is that of magical images shaped out of the astral plane by mankind's thought, and influenced by the mind."
Dion Fortune
What kinds of websites do you go to? Are we to take wiccans and pagan polytheists seriously, now? I do know that some people thought that Pope Pius IX was bad luck and that everything he blessed went bad. Are you suggesting that he was possessed by devils and that was why he had epilepsy? I know you don't like Pope Pius IX because you reject the First Vatican Council. Do you reject his proclamation of the Immaculate Conception and insultingly call the Church club immaculate as well, or did I miss that?
-
Dont waste your time.
-
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,53415,00.html
Not So Saintly?
Officially the rite is called Recognition. On April 4, a delegation of bishops and monsignors in full regalia arrived at Rome's Basilica of St. Lawrence Outside the Walls. They descended to the 6th century cathedral's crypt and were led to a white stone tomb. A casket was opened for them. At this point, wrote Monsignor Carlo Liberati of the Vatican's Congregation for the Causes of Saints, "there was a moment of profound and intense commotion." The body within, that of 19th century Pope Pius IX, was "almost perfectly conserved." Pius, known universally in Rome as Pio Nono, died in 1878. Yet here he was "in the beauty of his humanity, just as he is seen in the photographic docuмentation" of his deathbed, back when the entire city came "and admired the beautiful face of the Pontiff smiling in the sleep of death." Although Pius' face is now masked, Liberati's observations suggest that the old Pope is smiling still.
If so, he is in a minority. The April exhumation cleared the way for Pio Nono's beatification, scheduled for this Sunday. Beatification will confirm Pius' "heroic virtue," affirm a miracle (a nun's broken kneecap healed) and encourage Catholics to venerate his remains, which will be transferred to a clear crystal casket. The next step will be canonization, or sainthood.
Although the Vatican will not admit it, Pio Nono is a last-minute substitution for a controversial successor, Pius XII. The beatification of the later Pius was to have balanced that of Pope John XXIII, the liberal hero who called the Second Vatican Council. The past 40 years, however, have seen an unabating storm of complaint that Pius XII did not do enough to oppose the h0Ɩ0cαųst. Postponing Pius XII's "cause" and replacing it with that of Pio Nono--also a conservative favorite--must have seemed a good idea at the time.
But in actuality the Vatican has exhumed far more than just a venerable body. "I am appalled that the Catholic Church wants to make a saint out of a Pope who perpetuated...an act of unacceptable intolerance," declared a professor named Elena Mortara in Rome. Pio Nono, it turns out, had a Jєωιѕн problem of his own. Mortara is the great-grandniece of Edgardo Mortara, who was taken from his Jєωιѕн parents at age six in 1858 by the papal police and raised--in part by Pius himself--as a Catholic. The incident typified Pius' ham-fisted treatment of the Jєωs, and many feel his beatification contradicts Pope John Paul II's embrace of that people and his apologies for their treatment by church members. Israel's Ambassador to the Holy See, Aharon Lopez, while stressing that beatification is a church "internal matter," told TIME that Pius' might have "implications" for Israeli-Vatican cooperation in "bridging difficult periods" of history.
Pius, in fact, is one of the modern church's problematic giants. His papacy as a whole was far more controversial than Pius XII's. He was the longest-serving Pope since St. Peter, reigning 32 years from 1846 to his death. He lost the Papal States, the Vatican's worldly kingdom. He promulgated two of Catholicism's most triumphal doctrines--the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary and papal infallibility. He pioneered the papal personality movement that John Paul embodies so brilliantly. Many historians believe he created the modern papacy.
======
Classiccom note : just the opposite of John the Baptist (Jesus cited as a role model of the greatest of saints) Pius IX diminished the role of Christ and magnified himself and the Blessed Mother. Even Time Magazine understands that Pope Pius IX was a prototype of anti Pope John Paul II and the cult of self aggrandisement. What a complete discouragement that "traditional" Catholics remain mesmerised by Pope Pius IX and ignore the words of Christ.
===========
Yet some also think his narrowness crippled his church. Pius reigned just as the old order in the West was giving way to new notions of God, the state and the citizen. His response--a wholesale rejection of modernity--dominated Catholicism for almost a century after his death and continues to color its present. A true reactionary who saw the secular state, and indeed civil rights, as satanic manifestations, he made it difficult for generations of believers to claim intellectual independence or integrity. Says journalist-historian Garry Wills, who savages Pius in his best seller Papal Sins: "He was a disaster, and his influence has been bad ever since. If you beatify him now, there will be a whitewashing of him, which will involve the church in more dishonesty." Pius is the heavy in the well-reviewed The Kidnapping of Edgardo Mortara, by Brown University historian David Kertzer, which is being adapted for Broadway by playwright Alfred Uhry (Driving Miss Daisy). Even the author of the definitive, three-volume Pius biography, Jesuit historian Giacomo Martina, does not favor his subject for sainthood.
The Vatican has long been aware of Pius' explosiveness as a candidate for canonization. As Kenneth Woodward reports in his book Making Saints, the first time Pius' cause was formally addressed, every firsthand witness criticized his papacy's conduct. His beatification was repeatedly postponed, most recently in the 1980s, when churchmen apparently deemed it not to be "opportune." That seems to have changed. It will be interesting to see whether the upcoming ceremony will end the debate or spark an even more thorough public airing of this larger-than-life Pope's remarkable career.
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,53415,00.html#ixzz0vPi3ElDT
-
Notice how the Classic CON never responds to anything that is asked. He just keeps posting and posting his satanic articles! Lets just STOP responding to him at all and all of us put him on hide.
Im sure Matthew reads all the posts on this forum. Lets pray he bans these others, as he banned CM :heretic:.
-
Pope Puis (with any number) could be anything he wanted. Go prove he was an atheist, deist, moslem, Jєω, a woman, child, a ghost, a myth etc. We will still stay catholic.
He was this or that=his choice.
We will be catholic and love him=our choice.
We are not catholic because of him, to lose the faith because of him. "who am I? or who is Apolos?" says St. Paul.
Any objection whatsoever?
-
Groan! I am so sad, I don't know what to say. I can't understand us fighting over whether there is a pope or not. I can't understand why we keep fighting, Catholics against Catholics. I made the strongest statement possible and it doesn't seem to have "taken".
Poor Classicom! Poor Raoul! And so many besides. You start out believing that so and so is bad because this book says so and it is easy to believe it of this person. And that makes it easier to believe it of another person, and another and another. You get so conditioned to believe that everyone is a rascal, that everyone becomes a rascal. Soon not even a canonized saint is safe. And you are surrounded by rascals and go completely round the twist.
[size=5]Better---FAR BETTER---to believe good of everyone than to believe bad of everyone. [/size]Almost lost his faith? What did Jesus say about faith when He returns?
=========================
Wrong - when it comes to Faith you follow scripture , tradition and the Church - not the cult of personality as even described in that Time magazine article .
2 Thessalonians 2 >>
Douay-Rheims Bible
Let no man deceive you by any means, for unless there come a revolt first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition, 4 Who opposeth, and is lifted up above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, so that he sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself as if he were God.
What I see here is that scripture and tradition are meaningless to "faithful Catholics". Anyone with an ounce of integrity would know that you don't lift up any man above the words of Jesus Christ. True Roman Catholics left in the world do not support apostasy or go along to get along as suggested by those who only see the "good" side of these spiritual mass murderers.
Even Adolph had a "good" side.
-
Classicom-you are an Old Catholic-hence a heretic-and try to find any excuse to attack Pius IX, a saint and something that you are not...
this is what I a mean, Matthew, calumny against Catholics and saints to boot.....Classicom stays, but Uriel is (justly) booted.
classicom, investment tip, flame retardant suits...... :devil2:
Trinity, nice attempt at humility and playing the "groan" exasperated Catholic-many see through that!!! Nice try, though and gotta-somewhat-root for you against the Old Catholic heretic Classicom....
-
Hopefully this information will do some good.
No, but this... :fryingpan: ...might do you some good :)
:cheers: :applause: :applause: :applause: GV is :nunchaku: :light-saber:
-
I agree this is too much and should not be allowed.
-
Before you start shooting darts, I do not support female clergy. That is against scripture and tradition.
=====================================
Its a good thing that everyone here only judges by what is true rather than guilt by association. With that thought in mind, check this out. (this is another reason why scripture and tradition are important)
==========================
http://www.womenpriests.org/teaching/piusix.asp
The Errors of Pope Pius IX
The erroneous beliefs which Pope Pius IX (1848 - 1878 AD) tried to impose on the Church:
1. No Freedom of Conscience
2. No Salvation outside the Church
3. No Rights for Non-Christian Religions
4. No Respect for Other Christian Churches
5. No Socialism
6. Slavery
Teachings of Pope Pius IX Teachings of the Second Vatican Council
1. Freedom of Conscience
“[It is an error to say that] every human being is free to embrace and profess that religion which, led by the light of reason he/she believes to be true”.
Pius IX Syllabus of Errors (1864 AD), Denz. 1715. “This Vatican Synod declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all people are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that in matters religious no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his/her own beliefs.”
Vatican II, Dignitatis Humanae (1965 AD) § 2
“Catholics may not promote this erroneous opinion which is also disastrous to the salvation of souls . . . , namely that freedom of conscience and worship is a right which each person possesses, a right which may be laid down and affirmed by law in every properly constituted State;
and that citizens possess the right in all freedom - a freedom not to be limited by any ecclesial or civil authority, of openly and publicly manifesting and proclaiming their ideas either by word of mouth, or in written text or in any other way.”
Pius IX Quanta Cura (1864 AD), Denz. 1690. “The Synod [= Vatican Council II] further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person, as this dignity is known through the revealed Word of God and be reason itself.
This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognised in the constitutional law whereby society is governed. Thus it is to become a civil right. . .
The exercise of this right is not to be impeded . . . The inquiry after truth is to be free, carried on with the aid of teaching or instruction, communication and dialogue.”
Vatican II, Dignitatis Humanae (1965 AD) § 1 and 2.
2. Salvation outside the Church
“[It is an error to say that] adherents of any religion can find the way of eternal salvation and obtain eternal salvation.”
Pius IX Syllabus of Errors (1864 AD), Denz. 1716.
“[It is an error to say that] at least we may hope that all those who have never been involved in the true Church of Christ will find eternal salvation.”
Pius IX Syllabus of Errors (1864 AD), Denz. 1717. “Those also can attain to everlasting salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, yet sincerely seek God and, moved by grace, strive by their deeds to do his will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.”
Vatican II, Lumen Gentium (AD 1964) § 16.
3. Status of non-Christian Religions
“[It is an error to say that] the Church does not have the power to define as a dogma that the Catholic Church is the only true religion.”
Pius IX Syllabus of Errors (1864 AD), Denz. 1721. “The Catholic Church rejects nothing which is true and holy in other religions. She looks with sincere respect upon those ways of conduct and of life, those rules and teachings which, though differing in many particulars from what she holds and sets forth, nevertheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all people.”
Vatican II, Nostra Aetate (1965 AD) § 2.
“[It is an error to say that] in our time it is no longer convenient to have the Catholic religion as the only religion to the exclusion of any other religion.”
Pius IX Syllabus of Errors (1864 AD), Denz. 1777. “A wrong is done when government imposes upon its people, by force or fear or other means, the profession or repudiation of any one religion, or when it hinders people from joining or leaving a religious body.”
Vatican II, Dignitatis Humanae (1965 AD) § 6.
“[It is an error to say that] it is praiseworthy that in certain Catholic countries it is provided for by law that people who immigrate from outside may publicly exercise their own form of worship.”
Pius IX Syllabus of Errors (1864 AD), Denz. 1778. “Religious bodies rightfully claim freedom to govern themselves according to their own norms, honour the Supreme Being in public worship, assist their members in the practice of the religious life, strengthen them by instruction and promote institutions by which they may join together for the purpose of ordering their own lives in accordance with their own religious principles.”
Vatican II, Dignitatis Humanae (1965 AD) § 5.
4. Other Christian Churches
“[It is an error to say that] Protestantism is nothing else than another form of the true Christian religion through which one can please God as much as through the Catholic Church.”
Pius IX Syllabus of Errors (1864 AD), Denz. 1718. “Some, even very many, of the most significant elements or endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church herself can exist outside the boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, along with other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit and visible elements . . . It follows that these separated Churches and communities . . . have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation.”
Vatican II, Unitatis Redintegratio (AD 1964) § 3.
5. Modern Society
“Socialism is a pest”.
Pius IX Qui pluribus (1846 AD); Singulari quadam (1854 AD); Syllabus of Errors § IV. “It is in full accord with human nature that juridical-political structures should afford all their citizens the chance to participate freely and actively in establising the constitutional bases of a political community, governing the state, determining the scope and purpose of various institutions, and choosing leaders.”
Vatican II, Gaudium et Spes (AD 1965) § 75.
6. Slavery
“Slavery itself, considered as such in its essential nature, is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law, and there can be several just titles of slavery and these are referred to by approved theologians and commentators of the sacred canons.... It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given”.
Pius IX (Instruction 20 June 1866 AD). J.F.MAXWELL, ‘The Development of Catholic Doctrine Concerning Slavery’, World Jurist 11 (1969-70) pp.306-307.. “Whatever is opposed to life itself, such as . . . arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, prostitution, the selling of women and children, and slavery . . . all these things and others of their like are infamies indeed. They poison human society and are a supreme dishonour to the Creator . .
Human institutions, both private and public, must labour to minister to the dignity and purpose of the human person. Let them put up a stubborn fight against any form of slavery and safeguard the basic human rights under any political system.”
Vatican II, Gaudium et Spes (AD 1965) § 27, 29.
-
What is your point in posting this? Pope Pius IX was right about all of those things. Are you a big fan of Vatican II?
The only one that might be controversial is slavery, but it is true that there is nothing wrong with slavery, just as there is nothing wrong with people being subject to their governments. If slavery were wrong, God would have said it was in the Old Testament or the New Testament, but he did not. He approves of slavery as long as the master treats his slaves well and lets them worship God. I know all of us love freedom now and don't like the idea of slavery, but I don't like it when people go back and say that Jesus would have been an abolitionist if it would not have caused so many social problems. This is not true, God has always approved of slavery as long as the slaves are treated well. There is no sin in owning slaves. Masters are told to treat their slaves kindly and let them practice their faith, and slaves are told to obey their masters in all things except for sin. God is not an abolitionist.
-
Well said again Matto.
-
What is your point in posting this? Pope Pius IX was right about all of those things. Are you a big fan of Vatican II?
The only one that might be controversial is slavery, but it is true that there is nothing wrong with slavery, just as there is nothing wrong with people being subject to their governments. If slavery were wrong, God would have said it was in the Old Testament or the New Testament, but he did not. He approves of slavery as long as the master treats his slaves well and lets them worship God. I know all of us love freedom now and don't like the idea of slavery, but I don't like it when people go back and say that Jesus would have been an abolitionist if it would not have caused so many social problems. This is not true, God has always approved of slavery as long as the slaves are treated well. There is no sin in owning slaves. Masters are told to treat their slaves kindly and let them practice their faith, and slaves are told to obey their masters in all things except for sin. God is not an abolitionist.
=============================
I describe the Roman Catholic Church as being based on the rock of truth which does not change. Your church is based on Pope Pius IX. Most Catholics today base their faith on the ever changing variations of the theme of Vatican II.
-
I have a question for you, Classicom. Where do you go to Church? Are you actually an Old Catholic who goes to an Old Catholic Mass? Do you stay home and pray from your missal because you have nowhere to go to Mass where the priest agrees with you?
I agree that: "Most Catholics today base their faith on the ever changing variations of the theme of Vatican II."
-
I have a question for you, Classicom. Where do you go to Church? Are you actually an Old Catholic who goes to an Old Catholic Mass? Do you stay home and pray from your missal because you have nowhere to go to Mass where the priest agrees with you?
I agree that: "Most Catholics today base their faith on the ever changing variations of the theme of Vatican II."
================
SSPX and Indult are the best we have around here. I don't like seeing two altars at the indult mass. Besides just physical churches and labels, the spiritual Church that honors the truth in Christ - to me that's the real deal. Like Luke 18:8 indicates, I don't think there are many people in that True Chruch that is in my mind.
-
Wow, and to think I fell for this when I first read his post. Maybe I need a :fryingpan: Then again, I didn't know Classicom was an extremist like CM.
Classicom, your links aren't convincing. Pius IX was no freemason.
-
I describe the Roman Catholic Church as being based on the rock of truth which does not change. Your church is based on Pope Pius IX. Most Catholics today base their faith on the ever changing variations of the theme of Vatican II.
A Pope just declares the already existing dogma, he cannot manufactor a new one out of blue.
It is because of the church and her dogmas that trads oppose VII. If there were no bible, no Tradition,no Trent, no Lateran, no Vatican I, then V2 could be accepted.
-
I have a book about the life of Pope Pius IX called Cross Upon Cross by a Rev. Francis B. Thornton. In it the author says that soon after the Pope's death there were many miracles attributed to him it gives a few examples of some of the miracles. I would quote from the book, but it is under copyright so I will just describe them.
While Pope Pius IX was dying, there was a boy in Belgium who was also dying. The boy told his mother that he had a vision of Pope Pius IX being crowned by the Blessed Mother in Heaven. After seeing this vision, the boy was instantly cured. They found out that the boy was cured at the very moment of the Pope's death.
A nun was dying of typhus and the doctor said there was no chance of recovery. The other nuns prayed a novena to Pope Pius IX and on the last day of the novena the ill nun felt a tingling sensation all over her body and was cured. The doctor said it was a miracle.
A man had a tumor on his liver. The doctors said immediate surgery was necessary to save the man's life. His family prayed to Pope Pius IX and took a relic of the Pope and touched it to the part of his body where the tumor was. The man fell asleep and the tumor disappeared within two hours and the man was cured. This man later became a priest and always had a devotion to the pope who cured him.
A man cut his arm with a knife and the wound was infected. His arm swelled up and at the hospital the doctor said there was no hope of recovery. The nurse was a nun and she urged the man to pray to Pius IX. She also applied a relic of him to the swollen arm. The man went to sleep and was cured by the morning.
There was another man dying of liver cancer who the doctor said could not possibly live. His family prayed to the recently deceased Pope Pius IX and his neighbor found a picture of the pope and applied it to the diseased part of his body. The man was cured within a few hours.
The book claims that there were many other docuмented miracles too numerous to mention that happened soon after the death of Pius IX.
The book also mentions that the Pope was temporarily entombed in St. Peter's, but then moved to another Church a few years later. When they moved the body a violent mob of revolutionaries armed with stones, clubs, and knives, attacked the procession carrying the coffin with the goal of throwing the Pope's body into the Tiber. They were unsuccessful.
-
Interesting title "Cross upon Cross" . That is the tag description of Pius IX used by St. Malachi ?
That makes sense to me. When you distort the Faith, you are adding the heavy burden of carrying man made fabrications which poison everything. Only a crazed religious zealot would tear apart a relationship between a child and his family by force. No when the NWO takes children away from home schooling parents, they have Pius IX to thank for the precedent. Like I said before, the antiChrist will be using a playbook that was pioneered by Pius IX. A Christianity that is maintained by the force of mankind is totally different than a Christianity nourished by the grace of God through each individual.
-
No when the NWO takes children away from home schooling parents, they have Pius IX to thank for the precedent.
Did the pope take any children and have them raised to burn in hell like the NWO would?
-
I think David Landry is CM. In a recent thread CM posted in the Resistance Movement category, he says his email address has the word David Landry in it (or maybe he said D Landry, same thing though).
Good deduction.
Now on to Pius IX:
First off - I do not believe he was a Mason. Not at all.
HOWEVER:
The thing about membership in a secret society is that it cannot be PROVEN ABSOLUTELY, unless the suspected party has either been caught in the act and publicly been exposed and has no excuse or alibi, or has publicly admitted to this. These are the only ways that an excommunication could take effect in the external forum, so as to bind Catholics to the duty to reject such a one.
WHY?
Membership in a secret society is just that: secret. The only way that a person could lose an ecclesiastical office in the EXTERNAL FORUM is if he was publicly known as a Mason. A secret Mason, although he would already have lost his internal union with Christ, would nevertheless be unknowable as such to "his" flock, unless he were to give himself away somehow. He would in effect be an occult heretic.
As such, "his" flock would be invincibly ignorant, as per the definition of St. Thomas Aquinas.
Now it is evident that whoever neglects to have or do what he ought to have or do, commits a sin of omission. Wherefore through negligence, ignorance of what one is bound to know, is a sin; whereas it is not imputed as a sin to man, if he fails to know what he is unable to know. Consequently ignorance of such like things is called "invincible," because it cannot be overcome by study. For this reason such like ignorance, not being voluntary, since it is not in our power to be rid of it, is not a sin: Wherefore it is evident that no invincible ignorance is a sin. On the other hand, vincible ignorance is a sin, if it be about matters one is bound to know; but not, if it be about things one is not bound to know.
Since the Church, additionally to being spiritually united as the body of Christ, is a social body externally united. For this reason, it seems impossible that a man who cannot be known to have internally apostatized could create a schism, unless he were to openly manifest or profess his apostasy.
Therefore, if he kept it secret, "his" flock would be following a heretic, but guess what: Invincible ignorance. So if they had alkready been baptized and were otherwise professing the Catholic faith whole and inviolate, then they do not lose their Catholicity, they have not committed schism, because they CANNOT KNOW that their prelate is a Mason, whereas if they could have known, they should have known and their ignorance is no longer invincible; they are culpable.
It is the difference between following a heretic and an occult heretic.
But this is where conjecture comes in. A person can guess that a man was a Mason because of his outward actions. We can even possess what is known as MORAL CERTAINTY, which is not the same thing as absolute certainty.
Moral certainty is "a very high degree of probability, sufficient for action, but short of absolute or mathematical"
Such is the case with certain papal claimants, since they are on PUBLIC RECORD as using the popular Masonic hand signal (something that just doesn't happen by accident - try it and see - to make the hand signal you have to deliberately PURPOSE to make the hand symbol). Therefore this, in addition to their very Masonic sounding words and doctrines (eugenics, birth control, nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr) provide evidence and establish a moral certainty of their Masonic membership.
But even this, I believe, would not be enough to denounce them, unless they had publicly professed heresy. And of course I believe many did.
-
You made some good points, CM. How many people are being accused of being in a secret society? Why does the mere accusation ruin them?
-
Exactly. The mere accusation, short of proof that it was public knowledge at the time, is nothing but air.
-
And yet....and yet....they are destroyed by that air. Do you happen to know what the founding fathers stand accused of?
-
If they can pass John Paul II off as a CONservative pope that is being overwhelmed by faithless liberals, the Catholic public will buy anything. People still can't figure out Malachi Martin. Martin was another big rosary guy, paid off by NWO.
I guess I am being accused of intentional deception (quote "falling for Classicom's article") . No , I am just sick and tired of Catholics being shafted by their end times clergy. They asked Jesus questions, and we are not supposed to ask the hard questions of why the Church is in such miserable shape ?
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/I-was-wrong
Some info there on P9 -
http://www.tanbooks.com/doct/destroy_church.htm
The Authenticity of the Alta Vendita Docuмents
The secret papers of the Alta Vendita that fell into the hands of Pope Gregory XVI embrace a period that goes from 1820 to 1846. They were published at the request of Pope Pius IX by Cretineau-Joly in his work The Roman Church and Revolution. With the brief of approbation of February 25, 1861, which he addressed to the author, Pope Pius IX guaranteed the authenticity of these docuмents, but he did not allow anyone to divulge the true members of the Alta Vendita implicated in this correspondence.
===============================
That triangle pointing to hell Masonic hand sign is probably just an innocent belt buckle adjustment.
Some things never change. We know the names of criminal banksters that steal billions of dollars, but they never get in trouble either.
-
Just to continue this torqued off rant, Malachi Martin was another SOB that knew names but never told on anybody. ( Masonic code ?) I haven't read Rite of Sodomy, but hopefully Catholics will start cleaning house with the information that has been provided.
Catholics are supposed to shout the truth from the rooftops, not keep suppressed lists of names of the guilty parties. Third Secret of Fatima ? Only post Pius IX Catholics would buy that . That's Pius IX's legacy - people completely detached from reality that will buy anything. (Assisi 1986 etc.)
-
Classicom
You have made some very good points in your last two posts.
I'll do you one better than this
If they can pass John Paul II off as a CONservative pope that is being overwhelmed by faithless liberals, the Catholic public will buy anything. People still can't figure out Malachi Martin. Martin was another big rosary guy, paid off by NWO.
If a diocese, that needs money to pay off the victims of their sodomite priests, can get the people in the pews to refinance their homes to help bail them out, they know that they can get away with anything.
people completely detached from reality that will buy anything. (Assisi 1986 etc.)
That about says it for most of the Catholics I know.
-
We are, in general, mindless and spineless...
We have been so processed by the system that we are, in a way, like 'processed cheese food' -- we look like men, but, upon closer examination, it is clear that something isn't quite right.
-
The reason that Pius IX would not allow the names of the AV perps to be published is because he is embarrassed to find that he has been doing business with the head of AV-- Rothschild. It has nothing to do with protecting them.
Greg XVI and Pius IX were forced to borrow from the Judaics after the bank set up to service the Pope was forced out of the European banking cartel.
There is no banking business between the Pope and Rothschild after 1860 and in fact the Pope stiffs Rothschild out of the $ he owes when he discovers that the Judaics are behind the plot that stole his Papal States.
Victor Emmanuel offers to pay off the loan if the Pope will recognise the Risagiormento but the Pope declines.
Classicoms amatuer attempt to make the Pope complicit in AV does not work-- what else is new?
-
The Infallibility of 1870 is simply a result of the Revolution and would not have been proclaimed but for being forced on the Pope-- there is really nothing new in it anyway.
-
We are, in general, mindless and spineless...
We have been so processed by the system that we are, in a way, like 'processed cheese food' -- we look like men, but, upon closer examination, it is clear that something isn't quite right.
One quick look around at the current condition of Holy Mother Church (in all Her facets) will convince anyone of the truth of your statement.
We are salt that has lost its savor.
-
The Infallibility of 1870 is simply a result of the Revolution and would not have been proclaimed but for being forced on the Pope-- there is really nothing new in it anyway.
The allegation that the Pope is complicit in protecting AV falls apart with Infallibility-- something abhored by AV. I would not be surprised if classicom is a member of AV and it figures that he is allowed to post his crap here on this site which acknowleges the v2 anti-popes.
-
I think David Landry is CM. In a recent thread CM posted in the Resistance Movement category, he says his email address has the word David Landry in it (or maybe he said D Landry, same thing though).
Good deduction.
Now on to Pius IX:
First off - I do not believe he was a Mason. Not at all.
HOWEVER:
The thing about membership in a secret society is that it cannot be PROVEN ABSOLUTELY, unless the suspected party has either been caught in the act and publicly been exposed and has no excuse or alibi, or has publicly admitted to this. These are the only ways that an excommunication could take effect in the external forum, so as to bind Catholics to the duty to reject such a one.
WHY?
Membership in a secret society is just that: secret. The only way that a person could lose an ecclesiastical office in the EXTERNAL FORUM is if he was publicly known as a Mason. A secret Mason, although he would already have lost his internal union with Christ, would nevertheless be unknowable as such to "his" flock, unless he were to give himself away somehow. He would in effect be an occult heretic.
As such, "his" flock would be invincibly ignorant, as per the definition of St. Thomas Aquinas.
Now it is evident that whoever neglects to have or do what he ought to have or do, commits a sin of omission. Wherefore through negligence, ignorance of what one is bound to know, is a sin; whereas it is not imputed as a sin to man, if he fails to know what he is unable to know. Consequently ignorance of such like things is called "invincible," because it cannot be overcome by study. For this reason such like ignorance, not being voluntary, since it is not in our power to be rid of it, is not a sin: Wherefore it is evident that no invincible ignorance is a sin. On the other hand, vincible ignorance is a sin, if it be about matters one is bound to know; but not, if it be about things one is not bound to know.
Since the Church, additionally to being spiritually united as the body of Christ, is a social body externally united. For this reason, it seems impossible that a man who cannot be known to have internally apostatized could create a schism, unless he were to openly manifest or profess his apostasy.
Therefore, if he kept it secret, "his" flock would be following a heretic, but guess what: Invincible ignorance. So if they had alkready been baptized and were otherwise professing the Catholic faith whole and inviolate, then they do not lose their Catholicity, they have not committed schism, because they CANNOT KNOW that their prelate is a Mason, whereas if they could have known, they should have known and their ignorance is no longer invincible; they are culpable.
It is the difference between following a heretic and an occult heretic.
But this is where conjecture comes in. A person can guess that a man was a Mason because of his outward actions. We can even possess what is known as MORAL CERTAINTY, which is not the same thing as absolute certainty.
Moral certainty is "a very high degree of probability, sufficient for action, but short of absolute or mathematical"
Such is the case with certain papal claimants, since they are on PUBLIC RECORD as using the popular Masonic hand signal (something that just doesn't happen by accident - try it and see - to make the hand signal you have to deliberately PURPOSE to make the hand symbol). Therefore this, in addition to their very Masonic sounding words and doctrines (eugenics, birth control, nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr) provide evidence and establish a moral certainty of their Masonic membership.
But even this, I believe, would not be enough to denounce them, unless they had publicly professed heresy. And of course I believe many did.
Now that you have a sounding board, CM, you will work and work C to spout your rediculous heretical ideas. I pray no one in this forum will read them.
Who gave you the authority to declare the popes of the church antipopes? There is no authority in the church at present to declare even the last four occupants to the throne antipopes! Somehow you think you have this authority! The devils work for sure! :heretic:
-
I wouldn't be so quick to proclaim that there is no authority in the Church at this time that is capable of formally declaring the v2 anti-popes.
-
No when the NWO takes children away from home schooling parents, they have Pius IX to thank for the precedent.
Did the pope take any children and have them raised to burn in hell like the NWO would?
Acc to Classicom, it is the fault of Pius IX that grey hair appears on middle aged people.
-
I wouldn't be so quick to proclaim that there is no authority in the Church at this time that is capable of formally declaring the v2 anti-popes.
Who do you think has the authority at this time to make an official proclamation?
-
I do not know.
-
Now that you have a sounding board, CM, you will work and work C to spout your rediculous heretical ideas. I pray no one in this forum will read them.
Please refrain from soothsaying.
Who gave you the authority to declare the popes of the church antipopes?
I have no authority, and never claimed any.
There is no authority in the church at present to declare even the last four occupants to the throne antipopes!
What do you mean? That there is no authority at all in the Church? Or that if sede vacante were true that everyone would be bound to follow the antipopes because even if they are truly antipopes nobody can denounce them until they denounce themselves?
Somehow you think you have this authority!
That's negative, see above. Also, please note the difference between epistemological judgment and juridical (http://willingcatholicmartyr.blogspot.com/2009/09/pope-cannot-be-heretic-heretic-cannot.html).
The devils work for sure! :heretic:
You sure are a sensationalist. :cowboy:
-
I think David Landry is CM. In a recent thread CM posted in the Resistance Movement category, he says his email address has the word David Landry in it (or maybe he said D Landry, same thing though).
Good deduction.
Now on to Pius IX:
First off - I do not believe he was a Mason. Not at all.
HOWEVER:
The thing about membership in a secret society is that it cannot be PROVEN ABSOLUTELY, unless the suspected party has either been caught in the act and publicly been exposed and has no excuse or alibi, or has publicly admitted to this. These are the only ways that an excommunication could take effect in the external forum, so as to bind Catholics to the duty to reject such a one.
WHY?
Membership in a secret society is just that: secret. The only way that a person could lose an ecclesiastical office in the EXTERNAL FORUM is if he was publicly known as a Mason. A secret Mason, although he would already have lost his internal union with Christ, would nevertheless be unknowable as such to "his" flock, unless he were to give himself away somehow. He would in effect be an occult heretic.
As such, "his" flock would be invincibly ignorant, as per the definition of St. Thomas Aquinas.
Now it is evident that whoever neglects to have or do what he ought to have or do, commits a sin of omission. Wherefore through negligence, ignorance of what one is bound to know, is a sin; whereas it is not imputed as a sin to man, if he fails to know what he is unable to know. Consequently ignorance of such like things is called "invincible," because it cannot be overcome by study. For this reason such like ignorance, not being voluntary, since it is not in our power to be rid of it, is not a sin: Wherefore it is evident that no invincible ignorance is a sin. On the other hand, vincible ignorance is a sin, if it be about matters one is bound to know; but not, if it be about things one is not bound to know.
Since the Church, additionally to being spiritually united as the body of Christ, is a social body externally united. For this reason, it seems impossible that a man who cannot be known to have internally apostatized could create a schism, unless he were to openly manifest or profess his apostasy.
Therefore, if he kept it secret, "his" flock would be following a heretic, but guess what: Invincible ignorance. So if they had alkready been baptized and were otherwise professing the Catholic faith whole and inviolate, then they do not lose their Catholicity, they have not committed schism, because they CANNOT KNOW that their prelate is a Mason, whereas if they could have known, they should have known and their ignorance is no longer invincible; they are culpable.
It is the difference between following a heretic and an occult heretic.
But this is where conjecture comes in. A person can guess that a man was a Mason because of his outward actions. We can even possess what is known as MORAL CERTAINTY, which is not the same thing as absolute certainty.
Moral certainty is "a very high degree of probability, sufficient for action, but short of absolute or mathematical"
Such is the case with certain papal claimants, since they are on PUBLIC RECORD as using the popular Masonic hand signal (something that just doesn't happen by accident - try it and see - to make the hand signal you have to deliberately PURPOSE to make the hand symbol). Therefore this, in addition to their very Masonic sounding words and doctrines (eugenics, birth control, nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr) provide evidence and establish a moral certainty of their Masonic membership.
But even this, I believe, would not be enough to denounce them, unless they had publicly professed heresy. And of course I believe many did.
Now that you have a sounding board, CM, you will work and work C to spout your rediculous heretical ideas. I pray no one in this forum will read them.
Who gave you the authority to declare the popes of the church antipopes? There is no authority in the church at present to declare even the last four occupants to the throne antipopes! Somehow you think you have this authority! The devils work for sure! :heretic:
:applause:
-
roscoe said:
I wouldn't be so quick to proclaim that there is no authority in the Church at this time that is capable of formally declaring the v2 anti-popes.
RC said:
Who do you think has the authority at this time to make an official proclamation?
roscoe said:
I do not know.
I would not be too quick to aver that there is a pope with authority at this time unless you can tell us who he is.
-
TheD, you have made yourself an accomplice to slander. I hold to no heretical positions. Unpopular, yes. Heretical, sinful? No.
-
Classicom I found the source of your first post which I put on the thread, CM and his minions. In that we are given the word of those spawns of satan, that old liar, that Pius IX was a mason. I don't know what the bit about witches and demon possession was all about. But in the next one we have the word of a guy named Garry Wills. Here is what is said about him:
Gary Wills, Papal Sin: Structures of Deceit
New York, Toronto, Doubleday Publishers, 2000, 326 pages, $37.95 (Cdn.)
NOT EXACTLY A PRISTINE SOURCE!!!!
Part I: Review by Fr. Leonard Kennedy, C.S.B.
This book is a chronicle of alleged papal sins of deceit, an account of popes who are said to have deliberately used arguments which they knew to be specious, or have otherwise sinned, often in order to cling to past tradition. Some of the topics at issue are the relation of the Church to the Jєωs, contraception, the ordination of women to the priesthood, clerical celibacy, episcopal control of who can be ordained a priest, auricular confession, clerical sɛҳuąƖ sins, clerical ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, the Blessed Virgin, abortion, in vitro fertilization, and papal infallibility. Wills also claims that the Catholic clergy on the whole are aware of what has happened, and are secretly ashamed of their Church's doctrines. And he states, tongue in cheek, "I am not attacking the papacy or its defenders."
Wills, who claims to be a Catholic, condemns the teaching of the 1968 encyclical Humanae vitae that contraception is sinful. He doesn't mention the consequences of his dissenting position which Pope Paul VI lists in Humanae vitae, which have all proven true, or a further consequence that contraception is the chief cause of abortion, which it often causes even in marriage. Besides, he thinks that abortion is not always wrong:
-
TheD, you have made yourself an accomplice to slander. I hold to no heretical positions. Unpopular, yes. Heretical, sinful? No.
HeL-Lo-O, David...you hold that St. Pius X is an anti-pope....
Wake up, man! This is no small matter...and you can count the number of men who agree with you on ONE hand.
-
I would like to remind the Forum that the prev poster( along with the admin to this site and others), has implied that Popes Leo XIII, ST Pius X and Cardinal Raphael are( were) fools, dupes or idiots-- in effect Bad Popes indeed. Because of that I do not take seriously the above defense of Pius X.
-
Who here says that Leo XIII, St. Pius X and Cardinal Raphael Merry del Val were fools, dupes or idiots?
-
roscoe,
You forgot to tell them that you want to hold my hand...
-
Because of that I do not take seriously the above defense of Pius X.
What you fail to consider is that no one takes YOU seriously, my good man.
-
As in days of old there is the implication that I am a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ. It seems this is all the prev poster can resort to when he is cornered.
Even if this were true, the prev poster could not have deduced this because he does not even know me. Nor does he know anyone who does know me who could have even theoretically passed on a hearsay such as that.
The prev poster --and it seems almost everyone at this site-- has fallen for the phoney con- job that Cardinal Rampolla was a 'secret occult mason in the OTO'.
If true this would make Popes Leo XIII, St Pius X and Cardinal Raphael-- who was most likely elected Pope in 1914-- into idiots and fools.
U can leave me out of that.
-
roscoe, if it makes you feel any better, I do not think Cardinal Rampolla was a secret occult mason. I honestly have no idea whether he was or not.
-
TheD, you have made yourself an accomplice to slander. I hold to no heretical positions. Unpopular, yes. Heretical, sinful? No.
At best you are in schism, but I see no reason to argue with you about it.
-
Classicom I found the source of your first post which I put on the thread, CM and his minions. In that we are given the word of those spawns of satan, that old liar, that Pius IX was a mason. I don't know what the bit about witches and demon possession was all about. But in the next one we have the word of a guy named Garry Wills. Here is what is said about him:
Gary Wills, Papal Sin: Structures of Deceit
New York, Toronto, Doubleday Publishers, 2000, 326 pages, $37.95 (Cdn.)
NOT EXACTLY A PRISTINE SOURCE!!!!
Part I: Review by Fr. Leonard Kennedy, C.S.B.
This book is a chronicle of alleged papal sins of deceit, an account of popes who are said to have deliberately used arguments which they knew to be specious, or have otherwise sinned, often in order to cling to past tradition. Some of the topics at issue are the relation of the Church to the Jєωs, contraception, the ordination of women to the priesthood, clerical celibacy, episcopal control of who can be ordained a priest, auricular confession, clerical sɛҳuąƖ sins, clerical ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, the Blessed Virgin, abortion, in vitro fertilization, and papal infallibility. Wills also claims that the Catholic clergy on the whole are aware of what has happened, and are secretly ashamed of their Church's doctrines. And he states, tongue in cheek, "I am not attacking the papacy or its defenders."
Wills, who claims to be a Catholic, condemns the teaching of the 1968 encyclical Humanae vitae that contraception is sinful. He doesn't mention the consequences of his dissenting position which Pope Paul VI lists in Humanae vitae, which have all proven true, or a further consequence that contraception is the chief cause of abortion, which it often causes even in marriage. Besides, he thinks that abortion is not always wrong:
Sounds like a liberal but he had some good info that nobody ever seems to comment on.
Pius IX "I have the Blessed Virgin on my side" - THis pope screwed up Christian unity with his establishment of Club Infallible. So the previous Pope Gregary warned Mastei would destroy the Church, the Papal secretary of state warned of the damage Pius IX was doing. Ok, Club Infallible remained faithful on contraception, but they turned everything else into shambles. One stat from the book list a seminary in 1960 at 50 % homo, and in 1980 it was 70 percent homo. It was so bad the heterosɛҳuąƖ candidates became afraid and left the pro homo seminaries. Recently, someone estimated Rome as being 99% homo clergy.
-
roscoe,
You forgot to tell them that you want to hold my hand...
Disturbing...
-
roscoe,
You forgot to tell them that you want to hold my hand...
Disturbing...
I think Gladius was referring to the Beatles' song.
-
TheD, you have made yourself an accomplice to slander. I hold to no heretical positions. Unpopular, yes. Heretical, sinful? No.
At best you are in schism, but I see no reason to argue with you about it.
One does not commit schism by withdrawing from communion with heresy.
-
TheD, you have made yourself an accomplice to slander. I hold to no heretical positions. Unpopular, yes. Heretical, sinful? No.
At best you are in schism, but I see no reason to argue with you about it.
One does not commit schism by withdrawing from communion with heresy.
:roll-laugh2: :roll-laugh1:
-
TheD, you have made yourself an accomplice to slander. I hold to no heretical positions. Unpopular, yes. Heretical, sinful? No.
At best you are in schism, but I see no reason to argue with you about it.
One does not commit schism by withdrawing from communion with heresy.
:roll-laugh2: :roll-laugh1:
Since you set yourself up as an authority to be listened to, perhaps you could give us your background
age
married/ children?
occupation
catholic background
theological training
degrees in theology and cannon law, etc
How you arrived at your position :rolleyes:
-
:popcorn:
-
roscoe,
You forgot to tell them that you want to hold my hand...
Disturbing...
I think Gladius was referring to the Beatles' song.
It is an old, running, poor joke...based upon something roscoe said a while back in the Ode thread. He likes to pretend that he did not grasp that it was a joke -- one to which he opened up himself by a reference he made to the Beatles' song.
No biggie...carry on...
-
As in days of old there is the implication that I am a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ.
No, just a bit of a dork...
Nor does he know anyone who does know me who could have even theoretically passed on a hearsay such as that.
There never was any hear-say, roscoe, nor did I act as if there was, but I did hear -- from many, far and wide -- that 'vacante' means 'empty'...
-
roscoe,
You forgot to tell them that you want to hold my hand...
Disturbing...
I think Gladius was referring to the Beatles' song.
U are wrong Cheryl-- he is implying that I am a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ.
The only acquiantence I have ever had with the person
accusing me is through this Forum. If such a libel were even true, he would have no way of knowing.
It would seem that the Cardinal Rampolla scam is a very touchy subject indeed.
-
Put down your doobie and go re-read the thread wherein the incident took place.
It is clear to any with eyes to see and a mind to process the basics of human communication that I was joking with you, and in a rather normal manner.
I am telling you I never 'implied' anything, I do not imply it now, and if you want to believe the contrary, that is because you are choosing (once again) to act like an idiot.
-
Ok boys take that stuff back to the Novus Ordo Seminary where it belongs.
============
Getting back on topic. That Gary Wills book is online.
Pius XII in 1951 had a vision just like Fatima ? No coments ?
Another bombshell - Pius IX was John Paul II's hero ? The Manchurian pope (with no travel restrictions under the Communist Block) admired the pope I consider did the most damage to the Church. You have to admit, his pontificate was quite an encore.
-
TheD, you have made yourself an accomplice to slander. I hold to no heretical positions. Unpopular, yes. Heretical, sinful? No.
At best you are in schism, but I see no reason to argue with you about it.
One does not commit schism by withdrawing from communion with heresy.
Sorry, but you're still in heresy. A good way to get out of it would be to stop claiming that good Popes such as Pius X were anti-popes.
-
The poster who thinks this is apparently a joke is deeply involved in the allegations that have been levelled against SGG. Not very funny if U ask me.
-
Sorry, but you're still in heresy. A good way to get out of it would be to stop claiming that good Popes such as Pius X were anti-popes.
Please at least get your theological accusations straight. You cannot accuse a person of heresy for saying that another person was in heresy. The correct accusation is to say that I am in schism. But this would only be true if Pius X himself was not in schism or heresy. But in schism AND heresy he was.
He (wittingly or unwittingly) publicly taught contrary to st. John 8:44 and the Council of Florence and Vatican Council definitions which make Jesus Christ's words therein a dogma.
Notre Charge Apostolique, Given by Antipope Pius X to the French Bishops, August 15, 1910
The same applies to the notion of Fraternity which they found on the love of common interest or, beyond all philosophies and religions, on the mere notion of humanity, thus embracing with an equal love and tolerance all human beings and their miseries, whether these are intellectual, moral, or physical and temporal. But Catholic doctrine tells us that the primary duty of charity does not lie in the toleration of false ideas, however sincere they may be, nor in the theoretical or practical indifference towards the errors and vices in which we see our brethren plunged, but in the zeal for their intellectual and moral improvement as well as for their material well-being. Catholic doctrine further tells us that love for our neighbor flows from our love for God, Who is Father to all, and goal of the whole human family; and in Jesus Christ whose members we are, to the point that in doing good to others we are doing good to Jesus Christ Himself.
Not only does e make out the human race to be one family[/b], but that God is the Father of ALL, including (in context) those who have "false ideas", i.e. about God, religion, etc.
No, we know that we are born sons of satan, thanks to Scripture and the Solemn Magisterium, and we know the only remedy for this is Baptism, according to the Council of Florence, and that only those with Faith are sons and daugters of God, according to the Vatican Council.
Manifest heretics lose office in the Church. Schismatics cannot hold office at all. Pius X was schismatic for following Leo XIII, who is the first "pope" to teach this Masonic doctrine.
This is verifiable, and you don't have to take my word for it or rely on occult knowledge to see it is true. Go search the Councils and search for "adopted as children of God" in Florence and "sons and daughters" in the Vatican Council.
-
Not very funny if U ask me.
No one asked :)
-
I distinctly remember the discussion from about 6 months ago (?) where Gladius made an off the cuff remark to roscoe, using the Beatles song title. I'm sure it was obvious to all reading the discussion that Gladius was not accusing roscoe of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity. At least it was to me.
-
TheD, you have made yourself an accomplice to slander. I hold to no heretical positions. Unpopular, yes. Heretical, sinful? No.
At best you are in schism, but I see no reason to argue with you about it.
One does not commit schism by withdrawing from communion with heresy.
:roll-laugh2: :roll-laugh1:
Since you set yourself up as an authority to be listened to, perhaps you could give us your background
age
married/ children?
occupation
catholic background
theological training
degrees in theology and cannon law, etc
How you arrived at your position :rolleyes:
Im waiting for your answer to this post, Mr Landry. You seem to have "pulled up a chair" and are trying to get all cozy in this forum. I believe that you are dangerous, and I want some answers from you on your background and position.
There are some on here that have seminary training. Do you have any theological training? How old are you? Please answer the questions I asked.
-
Em - I know you are waiting. Good night (and enjoy waiting). :sleep:
-
TheD, you have made yourself an accomplice to slander. I hold to no heretical positions. Unpopular, yes. Heretical, sinful? No.
At best you are in schism, but I see no reason to argue with you about it.
One does not commit schism by withdrawing from communion with heresy.
:roll-laugh2: :roll-laugh1:
Since you set yourself up as an authority to be listened to, perhaps you could give us your background
age
married/ children?
occupation
catholic background
theological training
degrees in theology and cannon law, etc
How you arrived at your position :rolleyes:
Im waiting for your answer to this post, Mr Landry. You seem to have "pulled up a chair" and are trying to get all cozy in this forum. I believe that you are dangerous, and I want some answers from you on your background and position.
There are some on here that have seminary training. Do you have any theological training? How old are you? Please answer the questions I asked.
I'd also like to know these details. Why is CM holding back?
-
Because most of this is on my blog anyway, and because who i am makes no difference to the quotations cited. You can verify it for yourself and make up your own mind and who I doesn't even matter.
-
Because most of this is on my blog anyway, and because who i am makes no difference to the quotations cited. You can verify it for yourself and make up your own mind and who I doesn't even matter.
It DOES matter about who you are and what your background is! Im begging the forum NOT to visit your website. Their faith would be in danger with your poisoness ideas.
Put up or shut up, Mr Landry!
Either tell us about yourself, or quit posting on this forum.
There is an INTRODUCE YOURSELF thread in the general discussion to tell us your life story. Who are you? As far as we know you could be a CIA disinfo agent, an MK ULTRA or whatever? We are just supposed to imbibe your blasphemous beliefs just because you want us to? :good-shot: :heretic:
-
Sorry, but you're still in heresy. A good way to get out of it would be to stop claiming that good Popes such as Pius X were anti-popes.
Please at least get your theological accusations straight. You cannot accuse a person of heresy for saying that another person was in heresy. The correct accusation is to say that I am in schism. But this would only be true if Pius X himself was not in schism or heresy. But in schism AND heresy he was.
He (wittingly or unwittingly) publicly taught contrary to st. John 8:44 and the Council of Florence and Vatican Council definitions which make Jesus Christ's words therein a dogma.
Notre Charge Apostolique, Given by Antipope Pius X to the French Bishops, August 15, 1910
The same applies to the notion of Fraternity which they found on the love of common interest or, beyond all philosophies and religions, on the mere notion of humanity, thus embracing with an equal love and tolerance all human beings and their miseries, whether these are intellectual, moral, or physical and temporal. But Catholic doctrine tells us that the primary duty of charity does not lie in the toleration of false ideas, however sincere they may be, nor in the theoretical or practical indifference towards the errors and vices in which we see our brethren plunged, but in the zeal for their intellectual and moral improvement as well as for their material well-being. Catholic doctrine further tells us that love for our neighbor flows from our love for God, Who is Father to all, and goal of the whole human family; and in Jesus Christ whose members we are, to the point that in doing good to others we are doing good to Jesus Christ Himself.
Not only does e make out the human race to be one family[/b], but that God is the Father of ALL, including (in context) those who have "false ideas", i.e. about God, religion, etc.
No, we know that we are born sons of satan, thanks to Scripture and the Solemn Magisterium, and we know the only remedy for this is Baptism, according to the Council of Florence, and that only those with Faith are sons and daugters of God, according to the Vatican Council.
Manifest heretics lose office in the Church. Schismatics cannot hold office at all. Pius X was schismatic for following Leo XIII, who is the first "pope" to teach this Masonic doctrine.
This is verifiable, and you don't have to take my word for it or rely on occult knowledge to see it is true. Go search the Councils and search for "adopted as children of God" in Florence and "sons and daughters" in the Vatican Council.
Your post proves that you are in heresy. Not to use unnecessary criticism here, but I posted on CAF long enough to know what heresy is. Though I never saw anything like this over there, to claim that Pius X taught Masonic doctrine when he in fact condemned Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ is incorrect. You really need to either keep opinions like that to yourself or seek advice from a Traditional priest and have your viewpoints changed, because stuff like that will give new Catholics the wrong ideas.
Not only that, but we are not sons of Satan. I've heard the expression that we are sons of the sinful Adam before Baptism, but really sons of Satan? That goes way too far. It makes it sound as if Satan has the power to create children. Where do you get this heretical stuff from? And in no way did I see where St. Pius X implied that we are all one family. He probably meant something else and you misunderstood what he said.
One more thing, don't address St. Pius X as "Antipope Pius X" on these boards. If you want to do it on your blog, go right ahead. But this is a Traditional Catholic site. Just think of how many new Catholics post here that will see something like that and, not having any knowledge of previous Popes, will think that Pius X was an anti-pope when in reality he was one of the greatest Popes we have ever had.
-
...accusations without proof and reliable sources are worthless. From all reliable accounts Pope Pius XII lived and exemplary life, This is the first time I have ever heard this disgusting accusation.
Even a novice writer is trained that statements made in a paper must be referenced. Are we supposed to take him at his word, when he accuses a Pope who was loved and cherished by Catholics of a horrible sin? I think not, the burden is on the accuser, and I would urge Catholics to leave this filth in the sewer where it belongs.
Any accusation must be supported by proof, but even more so here since the accusation is being made against a Pope, our deceased Holy Father. Second, the dead cannot defend themselves, so it is the duty of the living to defend their good name against false accusation and possibly slander. Third, sources must be provided so that people have the chance to examine the reliability of the source to make a judgment on whether the source is weighty or not.
This is from another thread, but still... :applause:
-
SS, CM is not wrong for calling evil men sons of Satan. That is not heretical. He got that from Christ himself. See John 8:44. As the just are sons and heirs of God, evil men are sons of the devil.
-
Source?
http://www.nd-chretiente.com/dotclear/public/docuмents/Saint_Pie_X_Lettre_sur_le_Sillon.pdf
Cette même
doctrine catholique nous enseigne aussi que la source de l’amour du prochain se trouve dans
l’amour de Dieu, père commun et fin commune de toute la famille humaine...
"God the common Father and last end of the whole human family." Perhaps Matto sees a problem with this statement?
Because most of this is on my blog anyway, and because who i am makes no difference to the quotations cited. You can verify it for yourself and make up your own mind and who I doesn't even matter.
There is an INTRODUCE YOURSELF thread in the general discussion...
Fine, so go to page 7 and read near the bottom. Then can you perhaps stop with your all bold - all the time posts?
-
CM, in response to the bolded sentence, I would ask for an explanation of it. I understand calling God the common father of the entire human family in the sense that he created everyone. I do not understand calling God the last end of the entire human family and would ask for an explanation of that part. I can not read French.
-
Well in reality and strictly speaking, God did not create (as in by way of creative act) everyone in full, did He? He created their souls, yes, but they cannot be in His family, because, although created good by Him, they were instantly infused into bodies tainted with original sin.
And He did not create the bodies of anyone but Adam and Eve (no comment intended here, however, on the mystery of the Incarnation). The rest were generated by the mechanism He created - multiplication. They are truly children of Adam and Scripture makes it very clear that Jesus Christ came to give men "power to become sons of God".
So the part that he created, the soul, is accidentally a child of Satan as soon as it comes into existence, not from the creative act of God, but on account of original sin, contracted from the body, which, by its (fallen) nature, already was under the dominion of the devil.
-
SS, CM is not wrong for calling evil men sons of Satan. That is not heretical. He got that from Christ himself. See John 8:44. As the just are sons and heirs of God, evil men are sons of the devil.
What I'm talking about is CM stating that children are sons of Satan from the moment they are born until they are Baptized. You must admit, that is pretty ridiculous.
-
Well in reality and strictly speaking, God did not create (as in by way of creative act) everyone in full, did He? He created their souls, yes, but they cannot be in His family, because, although created good by Him, they were instantly infused into bodies tainted with original sin.
And He did not create the bodies of anyone but Adam and Eve (no comment intended here, however, on the mystery of the Incarnation). The rest were generated by the mechanism He created - multiplication. They are truly children of Adam and Scripture makes it very clear that Jesus Christ came to give men "power to become sons of God".
So the part that he created, the soul, is accidentally a child of Satan as soon as it comes into existence, not from the creative act of God, but on account of original sin, contracted from the body, which, by its (fallen) nature, already was under the dominion of the devil.
Please tell me where you get this stuff. Innocent babies are children of Satan at first? Adam and Eve were the only ones created by God? Um, didn't God create Mary to be free of sin, therefore creating her? And He created more people than just them.
-
What I'm talking about is CM stating that children are sons of Satan from the moment they are born until they are Baptized. You must admit, that is pretty ridiculous.
Where would those children go if they died before baptism? Would they go to be with God? Or would they go to be with the Devil?
-
What I'm talking about is CM stating that children are sons of Satan from the moment they are born until they are Baptized. You must admit, that is pretty ridiculous.
Where would those children go if they died before baptism? Would they go to be with God? Or would they go to be with the Devil?
Babies are innocent, if they die before Baptism God isn't going to send them to Hell. Think about it. Why would God send to Hell a baby just because it wasn't Baptized?
-
I agree this is too much and should not be allowed.
true and since you posted this response, here we are on day 8/13/2010 and thread is still going on......so, calumny against Blsd P9 still allowed......
-
SS, CM is not wrong for calling evil men sons of Satan. That is not heretical. He got that from Christ himself. See John 8:44. As the just are sons and heirs of God, evil men are sons of the devil.
What I'm talking about is CM stating that children are sons of Satan from the moment they are born until they are Baptized. You must admit, that is pretty ridiculous.
actually, it fits into his Calvinistic-like world view, noted copiously in prior posts when he was before an active member...same Schisen(?), different day...
-
What I'm talking about is CM stating that children are sons of Satan from the moment they are born until they are Baptized. You must admit, that is pretty ridiculous.
Where would those children go if they died before baptism? Would they go to be with God? Or would they go to be with the Devil?
Neither, ever hear of a palce called Limbo, it is nto the pains/flames of Hell and is not the Heavenly Paradise of Heaven.....set, match....... :applause:
-
I thought that according to the Church, Limbo was a part of Hell, as it is the Divine Comedy, and not a middle place, or part of Heaven. I always thought that Limbo was the least bad part of Hell. I thought that the Church has declared infallibly that the unbaptized infants are damned and do not go to a middle place, and therefore Limbo must be a part of Hell.
-
I thought that according to the Church, Limbo was a part of Hell, as it is the Divine Comedy, and not a middle place, or part of Heaven. I always thought that Limbo was the least bad part of Hell. I thought that the Church has declared infallibly that the unbaptized infants are damned and do not go to a middle place, and therefore Limbo must be a part of Hell.
Where will unbaptized children (and aborted babies) go on the day of the Last Judgment?
It is not a doctrine of Faith that children dying with original sin only on their soul go to a special place or state called the children’s Limbo. However, it is the common opinion of the theologians. This is based upon the teaching of Pope Innocent III (and the Fathers of the Church) on the effects of baptism, in which he has this to say:
The punishment of original sin is deprivation of the vision of God, but the punishment of actual sin is the torments of everlasting hell. (Maiores Ecclesiae causas, Dz 780).
The state of Limbo is consequently a suffering from the pain of loss, or separation from God, but not of the pain of the senses. As St. Thomas Aquinas teaches (De malo 5, 3), such a pain of loss is compatible with a certain natural happiness. At the last judgment, when the bodies will rise to share in the punishment or reward of heaven or hell, the bodies of those who are in Limbo will also rise. Although separated from God, in which way they share the punishment of the damned in hell, they will not be tormented by remorse nor will they suffer the pain of the sense which the damned suffer forever in hell.
The denial of this common teaching by the heretical council of Pistoia was condemned by Pope Pius VI as "false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools." Here is his description of the erroneous doctrine:
The doctrine which rejects as a Pelagian fable that place of the lower regions (which the faithful generally designate by the name of the limbo of children) in which the souls of those departing with the sole guilt of original sin, are punished with the punishment of the condemned, exclusive of the punishment of fire... (Auctorem Fidei, Dz 1526). [Answered by Fr. Peter R. Scott]
http://www.sspx.org/Catholic_FAQs/catholic_faqs__theological.htm
-
ex cathedra[/i]]But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains.
And people here are calling me heretical?
As for Pope Pius VI, he did not call the rejection of Limbo heretical though. Nevertheless I do believe in Limbo, the least part of hell, but that the fire there is mildest. This position has been shared by saints and doctors also.
And of course, an unbaptized infant is living outside the Church, undeniably. Enter Pope Eugene once more:
ex cathedra[/i]]It firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jєωs or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels
This is Catholicism folks, out of the mouth of the pope. Don't believe me? Go look it up.
Oh yeah, one last thing - unbaptized infants, who do they belong to, God or the devil, and are they truly innocent (I can't believe I'm having this discussion - ever heard of the Council of Trent's Decree on Original Sin)?
ex cathedra[/i]]With regard to children, since the danger of death is often present and the only remedy available to them is the sacrament of baptism by which they are snatched away from the dominion of the devil and adopted as children of God, it admonishes that sacred baptism is not to be deferred ...
So don't argue with me. Argue with the pope (and good luck with that).
-
I thought that according to the Church, Limbo was a part of Hell, as it is the Divine Comedy, and not a middle place, or part of Heaven. I always thought that Limbo was the least bad part of Hell. I thought that the Church has declared infallibly that the unbaptized infants are damned and do not go to a middle place, and therefore Limbo must be a part of Hell.
Where will unbaptized children (and aborted babies) go on the day of the Last Judgment?
It is not a doctrine of Faith that children dying with original sin only on their soul go to a special place or state called the children’s Limbo. However, it is the common opinion of the theologians. This is based upon the teaching of Pope Innocent III (and the Fathers of the Church) on the effects of baptism, in which he has this to say:
The punishment of original sin is deprivation of the vision of God, but the punishment of actual sin is the torments of everlasting hell. (Maiores Ecclesiae causas, Dz 780).
The state of Limbo is consequently a suffering from the pain of loss, or separation from God, but not of the pain of the senses. As St. Thomas Aquinas teaches (De malo 5, 3), such a pain of loss is compatible with a certain natural happiness. At the last judgment, when the bodies will rise to share in the punishment or reward of heaven or hell, the bodies of those who are in Limbo will also rise. Although separated from God, in which way they share the punishment of the damned in hell, they will not be tormented by remorse nor will they suffer the pain of the sense which the damned suffer forever in hell.
The denial of this common teaching by the heretical council of Pistoia was condemned by Pope Pius VI as "false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools." Here is his description of the erroneous doctrine:
The doctrine which rejects as a Pelagian fable that place of the lower regions (which the faithful generally designate by the name of the limbo of children) in which the souls of those departing with the sole guilt of original sin, are punished with the punishment of the condemned, exclusive of the punishment of fire... (Auctorem Fidei, Dz 1526). [Answered by Fr. Peter R. Scott]
http://www.sspx.org/Catholic_FAQs/catholic_faqs__theological.htm
Well Said!!!!!! :applause: :applause: :applause:
-
I describe the Roman Catholic Church as being based on the rock of truth which does not change. Your church is based on Pope Pius IX.
So according to Classiccon those of us Catholics who accept Vatican I and Pope Pius IX are not members of the Roman Catholic Church but instead are in another Church that he derogatorily calls Club Infallible.
Classiccon may not be CM but he is just as dangerous and loony.
-
That's Pius IX's legacy - people completely detached from reality that will buy anything. (Assisi 1986 etc.)
How dare you blame the modern apostasy on Pope Pius IX!
-
That's Pius IX's legacy - people completely detached from reality that will buy anything. (Assisi 1986 etc.)
How dare you blame the modern apostasy on Pope Pius IX!
=========================
Romans 3:4
But God is true; and every man a liar, as it is written, That thou mayest be justified in thy words, and mayest overcome when thou art judged.
Just Google "Pius IX Liar" and see how many called him the worst liar. In his teen years he was known as the worst liar in his school. This reminds me of today we have a pope that volunteered early participation in the nαzι Youth league.
Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Lord Acton said this with Pope Pius IX in mind.
====================
Cardinal Gustav von Hohenlohe once told a friend: “In my entire life, I have never met a man who was less particular about the truth than Pius IX.”
=======================
The papal conquest: Italy's warning - 'Wake up, John Bull!'
By Alexander Robertson
Check out page 34 - October 1850 Count Cavour
"With us, the court of Rome has lost every sort of moral authority..
... the masses are religious, very religious, but they no longer have any faith in the pope. The conduct of Pio Nono has too deeply wounded the national sentiment for his anger to be feared "
Robertson commented that
"But long before the Church had lost her temporal power, she lost in Italy, her moral authority"
http://books.google.com/books?id=GfsOAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA29&lpg=PA29&dq=Pope+Gregory+XVI+warning&source=bl&ots=YYgpj3frWZ&sig=Ft0nf0FEYlVG0PA9KNmyKtJ4qcw&hl=en&ei=ZUp-TPvSJMOB8gb6x6HTAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBUQ6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q&f=false
Rip Van Winkle Catholics of Club Infallible never learn. Wait till they get done with all the sex scandal prosecutions that implicate Pope Ratzinger. Pope Pius IX's predecessor Pope Gregory warned about Mastei . He did ruin the Church.
Talk about wounding the spirit of Christians. How are Catholics going to recover when they realize they have been conned for over 140 years with Pius IX, and nearly a hundred years with this Fatima . If the Church refuses to do its job, then the Two Witnesses of the Apocalypse will be employed. Fires engulfing countries, Gulf Oil disaster, etc, etc. - Looks like God's answer to Club Infallible.
-
Proof for your calumny, Classicom???
-
That's Pius IX's legacy - people completely detached from reality that will buy anything. (Assisi 1986 etc.)
How dare you blame the modern apostasy on Pope Pius IX!
=========================
Romans 3:4
But God is true; and every man a liar, as it is written, That thou mayest be justified in thy words, and mayest overcome when thou art judged.
Just Google "Pius IX Liar" and see how many called him the worst liar. In his teen years he was known as the worst liar in his school. This reminds me of today we have a pope that volunteered early participation in the nαzι Youth league.
Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Lord Acton said this with Pope Pius IX in mind.
====================
Cardinal Gustav von Hohenlohe once told a friend: “In my entire life, I have never met a man who was less particular about the truth than Pius IX.”
=======================
The papal conquest: Italy's warning - 'Wake up, John Bull!'
By Alexander Robertson
Check out page 34 - October 1850 Count Cavour
"With us, the court of Rome has lost every sort of moral authority..
... the masses are religious, very religious, but they no longer have any faith in the pope. The conduct of Pio Nono has too deeply wounded the national sentiment for his anger to be feared "
Robertson commented that
"But long before the Church had lost her temporal power, she lost in Italy, her moral authority"
http://books.google.com/books?id=GfsOAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA29&lpg=PA29&dq=Pope+Gregory+XVI+warning&source=bl&ots=YYgpj3frWZ&sig=Ft0nf0FEYlVG0PA9KNmyKtJ4qcw&hl=en&ei=ZUp-TPvSJMOB8gb6x6HTAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBUQ6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q&f=false
Rip Van Winkle Catholics of Club Infallible never learn. Wait till they get done with all the sex scandal prosecutions that implicate Pope Ratzinger. Pope Pius IX's predecessor Pope Gregory warned about Mastei . He did ruin the Church.
Talk about wounding the spirit of Christians. How are Catholics going to recover when they realize they have been conned for over 140 years with Pius IX, and nearly a hundred years with this Fatima . If the Church refuses to do its job, then the Two Witnesses of the Apocalypse will be employed. Fires engulfing countries, Gulf Oil disaster, etc, etc. - Looks like God's answer to Club Infallible.
Pius IX isn't the liar. I think you're the liar.
-
Spiritus Sanctus,
Um, didn't God create Mary to be free of sin, therefore creating her?
Mary is "one of a kind." You want to counter CM's argument as to the generation of the mass of humanity post fall by using the example of someone who is "one of a kind" and therefore not applicable to the rest of us outside her class?
I know CM's been banned, so let me say on his behalf that I've seen nothing here to counter his citation of infallible authority from the Council of Florence. Rather, we see the same kind of "gut reaction" and sentimentality, the kind of "thinking" that brought us V2 and the NO.
We pray for the souls of infants who have died without baptism and offer them up to God. But do not let your sentiment invade dogma and doctrine . . . again, that's taking the path which lead us to V2 and the NO.
The hard truth that God chooses those He wishes to save, and that those so chosen are loved more by God - the principle of predilection - the evasion of this TRUTH causes more and more problems.
We are owed nothing, not a single one of us. We all deserve Hell. God recreates the Elect with the Precious Blood of His Son, the Holy Ghost, and the mysterious involvement of Our Lady as Mother of the Elect.
We should all humbly thank God for moving us to desire Him as our chief passion and love of life, and get on our knees in thanks for His Mercy. There is no salvation for infants apart from baptism - there is no other remedy. That is infallible. Let us pray that His Will be done as to those unbaptized, knowing that He is merciful and just, and that whatever he does with them is merciful and just. As Pius IX (himself) said about speculating regarding the doctrine of No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church, note that their is no such salvation outside, and then simply shut up.
Or better yet, pray.
DR
-
That's Pius IX's legacy - people completely detached from reality that will buy anything. (Assisi 1986 etc.)
How dare you blame the modern apostasy on Pope Pius IX!
=========================
Romans 3:4
But God is true; and every man a liar, as it is written, That thou mayest be justified in thy words, and mayest overcome when thou art judged.
Just Google "Pius IX Liar" and see how many called him the worst liar. In his teen years he was known as the worst liar in his school. This reminds me of today we have a pope that volunteered early participation in the nαzι Youth league.
Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Lord Acton said this with Pope Pius IX in mind.
====================
Cardinal Gustav von Hohenlohe once told a friend: “In my entire life, I have never met a man who was less particular about the truth than Pius IX.”
=======================
The papal conquest: Italy's warning - 'Wake up, John Bull!'
By Alexander Robertson
Check out page 34 - October 1850 Count Cavour
"With us, the court of Rome has lost every sort of moral authority..
... the masses are religious, very religious, but they no longer have any faith in the pope. The conduct of Pio Nono has too deeply wounded the national sentiment for his anger to be feared "
Robertson commented that
"But long before the Church had lost her temporal power, she lost in Italy, her moral authority"
http://books.google.com/books?id=GfsOAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA29&lpg=PA29&dq=Pope+Gregory+XVI+warning&source=bl&ots=YYgpj3frWZ&sig=Ft0nf0FEYlVG0PA9KNmyKtJ4qcw&hl=en&ei=ZUp-TPvSJMOB8gb6x6HTAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBUQ6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q&f=false
Rip Van Winkle Catholics of Club Infallible never learn. Wait till they get done with all the sex scandal prosecutions that implicate Pope Ratzinger. Pope Pius IX's predecessor Pope Gregory warned about Mastei . He did ruin the Church.
Talk about wounding the spirit of Christians. How are Catholics going to recover when they realize they have been conned for over 140 years with Pius IX, and nearly a hundred years with this Fatima . If the Church refuses to do its job, then the Two Witnesses of the Apocalypse will be employed. Fires engulfing countries, Gulf Oil disaster, etc, etc. - Looks like God's answer to Club Infallible.
Pius IX isn't the liar. I think you're the liar.
he quotes Cavour as a source, why thats proof positive then :roll-laugh1:
-
What I'm talking about is CM stating that children are sons of Satan from the moment they are born until they are Baptized. You must admit, that is pretty ridiculous.
Where would those children go if they died before baptism? Would they go to be with God? Or would they go to be with the Devil?
neither, CM did not accept limbo, he was a "brun, suffering miserably in hell" kinda a guy..though infants have never used-nor misused-free will and no actual sins comitted, he was "too bad, so sad", why I used to call him a functional Calvinist,etc....
unbaptized infant dies=limbo, not hell, not heaven, not Disneyland....
-
Belloc
he quotes Cavour as a source, why thats proof positive then :roll-laugh1:[/quote] :roll-laugh1:
===================
I guess Count Cavour's opinion doesn't count. :dancing-banana:
=======================
1965 Music Break -( Dawn of Vatican II )
Gary Lewis & The Playboys - Count Me In (1965)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vsdtjdvt1ko
===================
1870 Music Break ( Dawn of Vatican I)
Tchaikovsky Romeo and Juliet Fantasy Overture (1)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-hvNB0GBDE
1870 in music
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1870_in_music
Events
* January 6 - The Musikverein opens in Vienna.
* March 16 - Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky's fantasy-overture Romeo and Juliet debuts in Moscow, conducted by Nikolai Rubenstein
* May 25 - Léo Delibes' ballet Coppélia debuts at the Paris Opéra
* June 26 - Richard Wagner's Die Walküre premieres at the Munich Court Theatre
Published popular music
* "Come In Old Adam, Come In!" by Alice Cary & C. F. Shattuck
* "Just Touch the Harp Gently, My Pretty Louise" by Sam Mitchell & Charles Blamphin
Classical music
* Max Bruch - Symphony No. 2 in F minor, op. 36 (premiered September 4)[1]
* Antonín Dvořák - Dramatic Overture (overture to the opera Alfred) (B. 16a); String Quartet no. 3 in D, B. 18; String Quartet no. 4 in E minor, B. 19 (see List of compositions by Antonín Dvořák)
* Charles Gounod - Messe des Orphéonistes
* Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky - Romeo and Juliet overture (first version)
Opera
* Antonín Dvořák
o Alfred, B. 16 (libretto by Karl Theodor Körner, premiered in 1938 in Olomouc)[2]
* Karel Miry
o La Saint-Lucas (opera in 1 act, libretto by J. Story, premiered on February 17 in Ghent)
o Het Driekoningenfeest (opera in 1 act, libretto by P. Geiregat, premiered in Brussels)
* Emile Pessard - La cruche cassée (comic opera in 1 act, libretto by Hyppolite Lucas and Emile Abraham, premiered on February 21 at the Théâtre de l'Opéra-Comique in Paris)
* Bedřich Smetana - Prodana Nevesta (eng. The Bartered Bride)
* Richard Wagner - Die Walküre
-
Classicon said:
Talk about wounding the spirit of Christians. How are Catholics going to recover when they realize they have been conned for over 140 years with Pius IX, and nearly a hundred years with this Fatima . .
Mr Classic Con,
You keep digging your grave here on this forum by your rediculous posts. Soon you will be banned just like CM.
:heretic:
-
I'm new here, so please be patient with me if my points have previously been hashed through. But how does one square the positions taken, or at least implied, in this thread, in light of the following provisions of Holy Scripture:
Matthew 16:18 - 19
"And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. [19] And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. . ."
Matthew 28:16 & 20
[16] "And the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them. . . [20] Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world."
The Lord's words to Peter in Chapt 16 - you (and your successors, as the Church teaches) are the Rock; the gates of hell shall not prevail; and you are granted the Keys.
Collapse of the Rock seems to be precluded.
Also, Chapt 18 doesn't seem to provide for any absence of the Lord from the Apostlic chain.
Without the Apostolic chain, where is the authority (Keys), and how are we different from the numerous protestant sects, sub-sects, sub-sub-sects that populate my region. Without authority, that is the chaotic reality--I know--I live amid it. The Apostolic chain provides the authority and is the essence of Catholicism, and we are assured of the Apostolic chain by our Lord.
That being said, I am anguished by the state the Church is in, I do perceive it to be a crisis of critical concern, I fear many souls have been lost due to this and many others are at risk. However, though I question the prudence of the decisions, I do not question the authority. The decisions can be bad decisions (N.O., essentially abolishing fasting/abstitnence laws, etc.) as I believe them to be, because they are not within the realm of infallible pronouncements.
I am pleased to have entered this world after the chaos of the 1960s, but wasn't it bunch of rebels questioning authority who brought on this mess? I'm not making judgments against anyone, but I think questioning authority is a cause for concern due to V-II, the "Reformation," etc.
This may be where I part from reality, but I believe things can be changed back to how they were, at least in substantial part. Pray extensively for those who constitute the Apostolic chain; seek/attract people who think like us in N.O. parishes (as I am) and encourage them to attend the T.L.M. if it's offered and demand it if it's not; to compliment and encourage N.O. priests who offer T.L.M. (not N.O. in Latin); ask them to do also do some special Masses T.L.M. (Christmas, First Communion, etc.) to showcase it to some people who would otherwise attend N.O.; etc. I'm not so naive to think this will get us where we want and need to be within a decade, but I think we can make some serious progress. I feel serious progress has been made where I live because I can now attend T.L.M. every Sunday, as opposed to never--I've got something at age 38 that I prayed to have simply within my lifetime.
(I don't undervalue Magisterium or Tradition. But the reason I jump straight to Scripture right out of the gate, there are points therein which were strong enough to hold me in the Church when I was tempted to leave due to the reckless disregard of what was considered good and right for 2 millinea and the resulting chaos. Also, I live in the midst of people who are suspect of Catholicism and who don't listen to arguments that aren't based on Scripture).
-
Matthew 28:16 & 20
[16] "And the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them. . . [20] Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world."
============================
You focus on the I am with you and forget about "teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you"
Did Christ teach the infallibility of Peter ?
Did Christ teach prayers to Mary or go check out every apparition to come down the pike ?
Did Christ teach ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity as merely an orientation ?
The reason I think Pope Pius IX is more of an antiChrist than a faithful pope is that he placed his words above the words of Jesus. Even the secular Time Magazine noted that "infalliblity" has irrevocably divided Christendom. THat sounds like a feat of Satan rather than a Christian leader. Its true that even truth can divide, but truth and the words of Jesus will not be washed away. This Club Infallible operation has become a mockery of the Gospel and does not look to survive more than one generation. I guess the point will be moot then because all Catholics will have left is the Bible. Purchase a Dewey Rheims version before they are outlawed.
-
Matthew 28:16 & 20
[16] "And the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them. . . [20] Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world."
============================
You focus on the I am with you and forget about "teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you"
Did Christ teach the infallibility of Peter ?
Did Christ teach prayers to Mary or go check out every apparition to come down the pike ?
Did Christ teach ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity as merely an orientation ?
The reason I think Pope Pius IX is more of an antiChrist than a faithful pope is that he placed his words above the words of Jesus. Even the secular Time Magazine noted that "infalliblity" has irrevocably divided Christendom. THat sounds like a feat of Satan rather than a Christian leader. Its true that even truth can divide, but truth and the words of Jesus will not be washed away. This Club Infallible operation has become a mockery of the Gospel and does not look to survive more than one generation. I guess the point will be moot then because all Catholics will have left is the Bible. Purchase a Dewey Rheims version before they are outlawed.
I'm surprised you recommend a Douay Rheims Bible considering you create your own faith.
-
Classiccom,
Do you think the Apostolic chain is in peril of ceasing to be?
Do you think it is not right to pray to Mary and/or the Saints?
As for your sentiment about the Douay-Rheims, that is the only version I read now and the only version I have ever trusted (even in my earliest pre-teen years of reading the Bible), as I presume is the same for most of the folks on here. I, too, have feared it may go the way of our beautiful Mass. Not completely outlawed or lost—but exceedingly difficult to acquire.
I understand and academically respect your interpretation of Matthew 28:20. But I still believe our Lord was assuring the Apostolic chain would endure. I think your interpretation is reading an “if” into that verse. Our Lord gave an absolute command in that verse certain of being carried out. There was no warning of consequences as found in Genesis—God’s Will in regard to His Church enduring was simply being imposed, and therewith He assured His disciples (and their successors) that He would be with them.
Don’t confuse what I say regarding God imposing His Will as though I have said that the Apostles and their successors do not have a personal free will—they most certainly have free will as regards their personal souls in matters of whether they are on the course to Heaven or hell and where they actually end up. Fortunately, our Lord did not make the Apostolic chain dependent on the sanctity of the links. He unconditionally assured remaining with the Apostles (and their successors).
I do not see how, without the Apostolic chain, and the protection thereof assured by our Lord, there can be a Church. Without a Divinely guided authority to turn to in matters such as whether I am right or you are right regarding our interpretation of Matthew 28:20, would there not be total chaos and disarray. I know the answer to that question by virtue of the predominantly fundamentalist protestant region in which I live—all of the country preachers (with varying extents of education, good-heartedness, well-meaningness, etc.) preaching their own variations of scripture interpretation, attaining salvation, etc. With disregard of Apostolic authority, do people not break the First Commandment by putting their faith and trust of their salvation in mere men—as opposed to men assured of being guided by God.
It seems that without the Apostolic chain along with its inherent authority and guidance, we would all be free to set up our own Churches, as many others have done, and make up our own paths to Heaven, etc. As much as the N.O. looks like Babel to me, those I described above, who have essentially done this, look exponentially more like Babel.
-
Quote
I'm surprised you recommend a Douay Rheims Bible considering you create your own faith
==========================
THe Dewey Rheims bible - That's the only thing that hasn't changed in the past 1600 years. Don't blame me for making anything up. It is you people that are in denial and caught in the Club Infallible post 1870 vortex. Time to rescue the Church from the ninth son of confusion - Pius IX. After Pius IX got done with it, the false church is about as stable as the that Italy landslide video.
Matthew - was that landslide in Pius IX's home town?
-
... his citation of infallible authority from the Council of Florence.
I missed that one. What is the citation and what was the application and claim?
-
Roman Catholic,
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 6, ex cathedra said:
But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains.
And people here are calling me heretical?
As for Pope Pius VI, he did not call the rejection of Limbo heretical though. Nevertheless I do believe in Limbo, the least part of hell, but that the fire there is mildest. This position has been shared by saints and doctors also.
And of course, an unbaptized infant is living outside the Church, undeniably. Enter Pope Eugene once more:
Session 11 of the Council of Florence, ex cathedra said:
It firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jєωs or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels
This is Catholicism folks, out of the mouth of the pope. Don't believe me? Go look it up.
Oh yeah, one last thing - unbaptized infants, who do they belong to, God or the devil, and are they truly innocent (I can't believe I'm having this discussion - ever heard of the Council of Trent's Decree on Original Sin)?
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 11, ex cathedra said:
With regard to children, since the danger of death is often present and the only remedy available to them is the sacrament of baptism by which they are snatched away from the dominion of the devil and adopted as children of God, it admonishes that sacred baptism is not to be deferred ...
So don't argue with me. Argue with the pope (and good luck with that).
-
God recreates the Elect with the Precious Blood of His Son, the Holy Ghost, and the mysterious involvement of Our Lady as Mother of the Elect.
We know that God redeemed all men - Jesus paid the ramsom for all. But not all will be saved.
Men are saved through Jesus and His precious Blood.The salvation of men is something that is played out during their lives - the results being known to God from all eternity.
Hence the elect, properly speaking, are those whom from all eternity are predestined to be saved -- in other words, the ones who end up being saved through membership in the Church and cooperation with redemption and Grace.
So the elect are created, redeemed and saved. But what exactly do you mean by "God recreates the Elect"?
-
But what exactly do you mean by "God recreates the Elect"?
The rebirth of John 3:5 results in a "new creature," one that was previously created in their fallen state prior to baptism.
-
But what exactly do you mean by "God recreates the Elect"?
The rebirth of John 3:5 results in a "new creature," one that was previously created in their fallen state prior to baptism.
Sure, the creature previously created in its fallen state prior to baptism, is now "re-born."
That is a "re-birth" resulting in a "new creature". It is not a re-creation though, is it?
-
That is a "re-birth" resulting in a "new creature". It is not a re-creation though, is it?
I see no problem with calling a rebirth into a new creature a "recreation."
Do you smell a fault?
-
Classiccon,
What about the Apostolic chain being in peril of ceasing and what about praying to the Blessed Virgin Mary and the Saints?
You made reference to the false church since Pope Pius IX--do you believe the Apostolic chain is over; what do you believe to be the true church and is that where the Apostolic chain is and what's your basis for saying so, or is the Apostolic chain even important to you.
Roman Catholic,
I infer what you mean in referring to predestined is that God knows what is going to happen. But "predestined" Calvinistic connotations (I'm sure you know) which many take to mean it doesn't matter what they do in this life. However, "predestination" in that sense is inaccurate. For example, say one believes in predesination in that sense and decides since it doesn't matter anyway that he will commit ѕυιcιdє and does so and assuming the circuмstances are such that it is a mortal sin. God has known for all eternity that was going to happen, but did not will it nor otherwise force it.
I'm an attorney, and I sometimes know with as much certainty as a human being can know anything that my client is going to do something do dig himself a deeper hole before his case is over--and he goes and does so. My knowledge that it is going to happen does not force it. Knowledge alone even to 100% certainty as would be the case with God, does not force anything--and God does not Will some to act worthy of salvation and others not to do so. Thus, we are obligated to persevere and hold steadfast to appropriate modes of conduct, etc.
Everything you said is consistent with this, but I am not aware of the Catholic Church using the term "predestined" to describe God's omniscience (I would like to see it if the Church does so for a better understanding than I have) and it seems to me to be hazardous to other souls if I am correct about the prevalent connotation.
-
That is a "re-birth" resulting in a "new creature". It is not a re-creation though, is it?
I see no problem with calling a rebirth into a new creature a "recreation."
Do you smell a fault?
Understood in the sense you intended and explained; I see no problem.
But creation is not the same as birth.
And the wording "God recreates the Elect" is novel to me, that's all. But maybe I just have not come across it before. Have you? It would certainly need explaining, like many things to do.
.
To clarify, I was not accusing you of any fault or heresy. :wink:
-
And the wording "God recreates the Elect" is novel to me, that's all. But maybe I just have not come across it before. Have you? It would certainly need explaining, like many things to do.
To clarify, I was not accusing you of any fault or heresy.
Ok, we're good. :dancing:
I can't recall it being used exactly that way before, but I'm sure baptism or our rebirth in Christ has been referred to as a "recreation." I'll see if I can track that down for you . . . though, since I'm off the hook for heresy, there's less urgency to do so. :smile:
DR
-
OHCA,
I infer what you mean in referring to predestined is that God knows what is going to happen.
I'll let Roman Catholic speak for himself, but it is perfectly Roman Catholic to believe thus:
We shall return later on to a discussion of the literal meaning and scope of these texts, when we present the scriptural background for the teaching of St. Thomas. It suffices for the present to point out with the Thomists and St. Robert Bellarmine (16), what Scripture has to say about the gratuitousness of predestination to eternal life. Such is the teaching of Scripture, which declares three indisputable things on this point, namely: (1) God has chosen certain persons to constitute the elect.(17) (2) He has caused this election to be efficacious so that they will infallibly get to heaven: "My sheep shall not perish for ever. And no man shall pluck them out of My hand."(18) "Whom He predestinated, them He also called. And whom He called, them He also justified. And whom He justified, them He also glorified."(19) (3) God's choice of the elect was entirely gratuitous and previous to any consideration of foreseen merits: "Fear not little flock, for it hath pleased your Father to give you a kingdom."(20) "You have not chosen Me, but I have chosen you; and have appointed you, that you should go and should bring forth fruit and your fruit should remain."(21) "Even so then, at this present time also, there is a remnant saved according to the election of grace. And if by grace, it is not now by works, otherwise grace is no more grace."(22) "As He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy,"(23) and not because we were so, or because He foresaw that we would be so by our own efforts. "For whom He foreknew (in His benevolence), He also predestinated to be made conformable to the image of His Son." (24)
From all these passages of Scripture, St. Augustine formulated this classical definition: "Predestination is the foreknowledge and preparedness on God's part to bestow the favors by which all those are saved who are to be saved."(25) St. Augustine is still more explicit on this point when he writes: "God already knew, when He predestined, what He must do to bring His elect infallibly to eternal life."(26)
This is from Father Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange's book, Predestination, parts of which are available here: http://www.thesumma.info/predestination/index.php
God's choice of the elect is not dependent on foresight of what they will do - his choice determines that they will do what they must do, and He gives them the efficacious graces to do it. Yet God's plan utilizes man's freedom of will in effecting His plan.
This is classical Thomism, as opposed to the Molinism which is more prevalent today - not a good sign for Molinism.
DR
-
Roman Catholic,
I infer what you mean in referring to predestined is that God knows what is going to happen. But "predestined" Calvinistic connotations (I'm sure you know) which many take to mean it doesn't matter what they do in this life. However, "predestination" in that sense is inaccurate. For example, say one believes in predesination in that sense and decides since it doesn't matter anyway that he will commit ѕυιcιdє and does so and assuming the circuмstances are such that it is a mortal sin. God has known for all eternity that was going to happen, but did not will it nor otherwise force it.
I'm an attorney, and I sometimes know with as much certainty as a human being can know anything that my client is going to do something do dig himself a deeper hole before his case is over--and he goes and does so. My knowledge that it is going to happen does not force it. Knowledge alone even to 100% certainty as would be the case with God, does not force anything--and God does not Will some to act worthy of salvation and others not to do so. Thus, we are obligated to persevere and hold steadfast to appropriate modes of conduct, etc.
Everything you said is consistent with this, but I am not aware of the Catholic Church using the term "predestined" to describe God's omniscience (I would like to see it if the Church does so for a better understanding than I have) and it seems to me to be hazardous to other souls if I am correct about the prevalent connotation.
The Catholic Church uses the term "predestination", but it is more complex than just about God's omniscience.
In fact it is Catholic dogma, which like other mysteries of the Faith, no human will ever comprehend fully.
I will see if I can find something for you.
The Catholic dogma of predestination is not to be confused with the Calvinistic heresy and the connotations that most people own for the word "predestination."
-
And the wording "God recreates the Elect" is novel to me, that's all. But maybe I just have not come across it before. Have you? It would certainly need explaining, like many things to do.
To clarify, I was not accusing you of any fault or heresy.
Ok, we're good. :dancing:
I can't recall it being used exactly that way before, but I'm sure baptism or our rebirth in Christ has been referred to as a "recreation." I'll see if I can track that down for you . . . though, since I'm off the hook for heresy, there's less urgency to do so. :smile:
DR
Ha ha, no urgency at all and no big deal. I know what you meant now, so please don't spend too much time or energy on it.
..Unless of course you feel yourself slipping away into heresy because of the wording. :wink:
-
OHCA,
I infer what you mean in referring to predestined is that God knows what is going to happen.
I'll let Roman Catholic speak for himself, but it is perfectly Roman Catholic to believe thus:
We shall return later on to a discussion of the literal meaning and scope of these texts, when we present the scriptural background for the teaching of St. Thomas. It suffices for the present to point out with the Thomists and St. Robert Bellarmine (16), what Scripture has to say about the gratuitousness of predestination to eternal life. Such is the teaching of Scripture, which declares three indisputable things on this point, namely: (1) God has chosen certain persons to constitute the elect.(17) (2) He has caused this election to be efficacious so that they will infallibly get to heaven: "My sheep shall not perish for ever. And no man shall pluck them out of My hand."(18) "Whom He predestinated, them He also called. And whom He called, them He also justified. And whom He justified, them He also glorified."(19) (3) God's choice of the elect was entirely gratuitous and previous to any consideration of foreseen merits: "Fear not little flock, for it hath pleased your Father to give you a kingdom."(20) "You have not chosen Me, but I have chosen you; and have appointed you, that you should go and should bring forth fruit and your fruit should remain."(21) "Even so then, at this present time also, there is a remnant saved according to the election of grace. And if by grace, it is not now by works, otherwise grace is no more grace."(22) "As He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy,"(23) and not because we were so, or because He foresaw that we would be so by our own efforts. "For whom He foreknew (in His benevolence), He also predestinated to be made conformable to the image of His Son." (24)
From all these passages of Scripture, St. Augustine formulated this classical definition: "Predestination is the foreknowledge and preparedness on God's part to bestow the favors by which all those are saved who are to be saved."(25) St. Augustine is still more explicit on this point when he writes: "God already knew, when He predestined, what He must do to bring His elect infallibly to eternal life."(26)
This is from Father Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange's book, Predestination, parts of which are available here: http://www.thesumma.info/predestination/index.php
God's choice of the elect is not dependent on foresight of what they will do - his choice determines that they will do what they must do, and He gives them the efficacious graces to do it. Yet God's plan utilizes man's freedom of will in effecting His plan.
This is classical Thomism, as opposed to the Molinism which is more prevalent today - not a good sign for Molinism.
DR
And it should be noted that we should not embark on reading about predestination in order to gain a full understanding of the doctrine. That would be temptation. Like the doctrine of the Trinity, we will not fully understand it.
There is no danger in some people trying to partly understand it, however it has been pointed out that for some people it is best to have a basic understanding and assent to it, rather than be tempted to delve deeper into a doctrine that some souls despair over due to lack of comprehension (our darkened intellects), certain temperaments, and the urgings of the Devil.
-
Predestination (Lat. prae, destinare), taken in its widest meaning, is every Divine decree by which God, owing to His infallible prescience of the future, has appointed and ordained from eternity all events occurring in time, especially those which directly proceed from, or at least are influenced by, man's free will. It includes all historical facts, as for instance the appearance of Napoleon or the foundation of the United States, and particularly the turning-points in the history of supernatural salvation, as the mission of Moses and the Prophets, or the election of Mary to the Divine Motherhood. Taken in this general sense, predestination clearly coincides with Divine Providence and with the government of the world, which do not fall within the scope of this article (see Divine Providence).
I. NOTION OF PREDESTINATION.—Theology restricts the term to those Divine decrees which have reference to the supernatural end of rational beings, especially of man. Considering that not all men reach their supernatural end in heaven, but that many are eternally lost through their own fault, there must exist a twofold predestination: (a) one to heaven for all those who die in the state of grace; (b) one to the pains of hell for all those who depart in sin or under God's displeasure. However, according to present usage, to which we shall adhere in the course of the article, it is better to call the latter decree the Divine "reprobation", so that the term predestination is reserved for the Divine decree of the happiness of the elect.
A. The notion of predestination comprises two essential elements: God's infallible foreknowledge (praescientia), and His immutable decree (decretum) of eternal happiness. The theologian who, following in the footsteps of the Pelagians, would limit the Divine activity to the eternal foreknowledge and exclude the Divine will, would at once fall into Deism (q.v.), which asserts that God, having created all things, leaves man and the universe to their fate and refrains from all active interference. Though the purely natural gifts of God, as descent from pious parents, good education, and the providential guidance of man's external career, may also be called effects of predestination, still, strictly speaking, the term implies only those blessings which lie in the supernatural sphere, as sanctifying grace, all actual graces, and among them in particular those which carry with them final perseverance and a happy death. Since in reality only those reach heaven who die in the state of justification or sanctifying grace, all these and only these are numbered among the predestined, strictly so called. From this it follows that we must reckon among them also all children who die in baptismal grace, as well as those adults who, after a life stained with sin, are converted on their deathbeds. The same is true of the numerous predestined who, though outside the pale of the true Church of Christ, yet depart from this life in the state of grace, as catechumens, Protestants in good faith, schismatics, Jєωs, Mahommedans, and pagans. Those fortunate Catholics who at the close of a long life are still clothed in their baptismal innocence, or who after many relapses into mortal sin persevere till the end, are not indeed predestined more firmly, but are more signally favored than the last-named categories of persons.
But even when man's supernatural end alone is taken into consideration, the term predestination is not always used by theologians in an unequivocal sense. This need not astonish us, seeing that predestination may comprise wholly diverse things. If taken in its adequate meaning (praedestinatio adaequata or completa), then predestination refers to both grace and glory as a whole, including not only the election to glory as the end, but also the election to grace as the means, the vocation to the faith, justification, and final perseverance, with which a happy death is inseparably connected. This is the meaning of St. Augustine's words (De dono persever., xxxv): "Prsedestinatio nihil est aliud quam prsescientia et praeparatio beneficiorum, quibus certissime liberantur [i.e. salvantur], quicunque liberantur" (Predestination is nothing else than the foreknowledge and foreordaining of those gracious gifts which make certain the salvation of all who are saved). But the two concepts of grace and glory may be separated and each of them be made the object of a special predestination. The result is the so-called inadequate predestination (praedestinatio inadcequata or incompleta), either to grace alone or to glory alone. Like St. Paul, Augustine, too, speaks of an election to grace apart from the celestial glory (loc. cit., xix): "Praedestinatio est gratise praeparatio, gratia vero jam ipsa donatio." It is evident, however, that this (inadequate) predestination does not exclude the possibility that one chosen to grace, faith, and justification goes nevertheless to hell. Hence we may disregard it, since it is at bottom simply another term for the universality of God's salvific will and of the distribution of grace among all men (see Grace). Similarly eternal election to glory alone, that is, without regard to the preceding merits through grace, must be designated as (inadequate) predestination. Though the possibility of the latter is at once clear to the reflecting mind, yet its actuality is strongly contested by the majority of theologians, as we shall see further on (under sect. III). From these explanations it is plain that the real dogma of eternal election is exclusively concerned with adequate predestination, which embraces both grace and glory and the essence of which St. Thomas (I, Q. xxiii, a. 2) defines as: "Praeparatio gratise in prsesenti et glorise in futuro" (the foreordination of grace in the present and of glory in the future).
In order to emphasize how mysterious and unapproachable is Divine election, the Council of Trent calls predestination a "hidden mystery". That predestination is indeed a sublime mystery appears not only from the fact that the depths of the eternal counsel cannot be fathomed, it is even externally visible in the inequality of the Divine choice. The unequal standard by which baptismal grace is distributed among infants and efficacious graces among adults is hidden from our view by an impenetrable veil. Could we gain a glimpse at the reasons of this inequality, we should at once hold the key to the solution of the mystery itself. Why is it that this child is baptized, but not the child of the neighbor? Why is it that Peter the Apostle rose again after his fall and persevered till his death, while Judas Iscariot, his fellow-Apostle, hanged himself and thus frustrated his salvation? Though correct, the answer that Judas went to perdition of his own free will, while Peter faithfully cooperated with the grace of conversion offered him, does not clear up the enigma. For the question recurs: Why did not God give to Judas the same efficacious, infallibly successful grace of conversion as to St. Peter, whose blasphemous denial of the Lord was a sin no less grievous than that of the traitor Judas? To all these and similar questions the only reasonable reply is the word of St. Augustine (loc. cit., 21): "Inscrutabilia sunt judicia Dei" (the judgments of God are inscrutable).
B. The counterpart of the predestination of the good is the reprobation of the wicked, or the eternal decree of God to cast all men into hell of whom He foresaw that they would die in the state of sin as his enemies. This plan of Divine reprobation may be conceived either as absolute and unconditional or as hypothetical and conditional, according as we consider it as dependent on, or independent of, the infallible foreknowledge of sin, the real reason of reprobation. If we understand eternal condemnation to be an absolute, unconditional decree of God, its theological possibility is affirmed or denied according as the question whether it involves a positive, or only a negative, reprobation is answered in the affirmative or in the negative. The conceptual difference between the two kinds of reprobation lies in this, that negative reprobation merely implies the absolute will not to grant the bliss of heaven, while positive reprobation means the absolute will to condemn to hell. In other words, those who are reprobated merely negatively are numbered among the non-predestined from all eternity; those who are reprobated positively are directly predestined to hell from all eternity and have been created for this very purpose. It was Calvin who elaborated the repulsive doctrine that an absolute Divine decree from all eternity positively predestined part of mankind to hell and, in order to obtain this end effectually, also to sin. The Catholic advocates of an unconditional reprobation evade the charge of heresy only by imposing a twofold restriction on their hypothesis: (a) that the punishment of hell can, in time, be inflicted only on account of sin, and from all eternity can be decreed only on account of foreseen malice, while sin itself is not to be regarded as the sheer effect of the absolute Divine will, but only as the result of God's permission; (b) that the eternal plan of God can never intend a positive reprobation to hell, but only a negative reprobation, that is to say, an exclusion from heaven. These restrictions are evidently demanded by the formulation of the concept itself, since the attributes of Divine sanctity and justice must be kept inviolate (see Gon). Consequently, if we consider that God's sanctity will never allow Him to will sin positively even though He foresees it in His permissive decree with infallible certainty, and that His justice can foreordain, and in time actually inflict, hell as a punishment only by reason of the sin foreseen, we understand the definition of eternal reprobation given by Peter Lombard (I. Sent., dist. 40): "Est praescientia iniquitatis quorundam et praeparatio damnationis eorundem" (it is the foreknowledge of the wickedness of some men and the foreordaining of their damnation). Cf. Scheeben, "Mysterien des Christentums" (2nd ed., Freiburg, 1898), 98-103.
II. THE CATHOLIC DOGMA.—Reserving the theological controversies for the next section, we deal here only with those articles of faith relating to predestination and reprobation, the denial of which would involve heresy.
A. The Predestination of the Elect.—He who would place the reason of predestination either in man alone or in God alone would inevitably be led into heretical conclusions about eternal election. In the one case the error concerns the last end, in the other the means to that end. Let it be noted that we do not speak of the "cause" of predestination, which would be either the efficient cause (God), or the instrumental cause (grace), or the final cause (God's honor), or the primary meritorious cause, but of the reason or motive which induced God from all eternity to elect certain definite individuals to grace and glory. The principal question then is: Does the natural merit of man exert perhaps some influence on the Divine election to grace and glory? If we recall the dogma of the absolute gratuity of Christian grace, our answer must be outright negative (see Grace). To the further question whether Divine predestination does not at least take into account the supernatural good works, the Church answers with the doctrine that heaven is not given to the elect by a purely arbitrary act of God's will, but that it is also the reward of the personal merits of the justified (see Merit). Those who, like the Pelagians, seek the reason for predestination only in man's naturally good works, evidently misjudge the nature of the Christian heaven, which is an absolutely supernatural destiny. As Pelagianism puts the whole economy of salvation on a purely natural basis, so it regards predestination in particular not as a special grace, much less as the supreme grace, but only as a reward for natural merit.
The Semipelagians, too, depreciated the gratuity and the strictly supernatural character of eternal happiness by ascribing at least the beginning of faith (initium fidei) and final perseverance (donum perseverantice) to the exertion of man's natural powers, and not to the initiative of preventing grace. This is one class of heresies which, slighting God and His grace, makes all salvation depend on man alone. But no less grave are the errors into which a second group falls by making God alone responsible for everything, and abolishing the free cooperation of the will in obtaining eternal happiness. This is done by the advocates of heretical Predestinarianism (q.v.), embodied in its purest form in Calvinism and Jansenism. Those who seek the reason of predestination solely in the absolute Will of God are logically forced to admit an irresistibly efficacious grace (gratia irresistibilis), to deny the freedom of the will when influenced by grace and wholly to reject supernatural merits (as a secondary reason for eternal happiness). And since in this system eternal damnation, too, finds its only explanation in the Divine will, it further follows that concupiscence acts on the sinful will with an irresistible force, that there the will is not really free to sin, and that demerits cannot be the cause of eternal damnation.
Between these two extremes the Catholic dogma of predestination keeps the golden mean, because it regards eternal happiness primarily as the work of God and His grace, but secondarily as the fruit and reward of the meritorious actions of the predestined. The process of predestination consists of the following five steps: (a) the first grace of vocation, especially faith as the beginning, foundation, and root of justification; (b) a number of additional, actual graces for the successful accomplishment of justification; (c) justification itself as the beginning of the state of grace and love; (d) final perseverance or at least the grace of a happy death; (e) lastly, the admission to eternal bliss. If it is a truth of Revelation that there are many who, following this path, seek and find their eternal salvation with infallible certainty, then the existence of Divine predestination is proved (cf. Matt., xxv, 34; Apoc., xx, 15). St. Paul says quite explicitly (Rom., viii, 28 sq.): "we know that to them that love God, all things work together unto good, to such as, according to his purpose, are called to be saints. For whom he foreknew, he also predestinated to be made conformable to the image of his Son; that he might be the first born amongst many brethren. And whom he predestinated, them he also called. And whom he called, them he also justified. And whom he justified, them he also glorified." (Cf. Eph., i, 4-11.) Besides the eternal "foreknowledge" and foreordaining, the Apostle here mentions the various steps of predestination: "vocation", "justification", and "glorification". This belief has been faithfully preserved by Tradition through all the centuries, especially since the time of Augustine.
There are three other qualities of predestination which must be noticed, because they are important and interesting from the theological standpoint: its immutability, the definiteness of the number of the predestined, and its subjective uncertainty.
(I) The first quality, the immutability of the Divine decree, is based both on the infallible foreknowledge of God that certain, quite determined individuals will leave this life in the state of grace, and on the immutable will of God to give precisely to these men and to no others eternal happiness as a reward for their supernatural merits. Consequently, the whole future membership of heaven, down to its minutest details, with all the different measures of grace and the various degrees of happiness, has been irrevocably fixed from all eternity. Nor could it be otherwise. For if it were possible that a predestined individual should after all be cast into hell or that one not predestined should in the end reach heaven, then God would have been mistaken in his foreknowledge of future events; He would no longer be omniscient. Hence the Good Shepherd says of his sheep (John, x, 28): "And I give them life everlasting; and they shall not perish forever, and no man shall pluck them out of my hand." But we must beware of conceiving the immutability of predestination either as fatalistic in the sense of the Mahommedan kismet or as a convenient pretext for idle resignation to inexorable fate. God's infallible foreknowledge cannot force upon man unavoidable coercion, for the simple reason that it is at bottom nothing else than the eternal vision of the future historical actuality. God foresees the free activity of a man precisely as that individual is willing to shape it. Whatever may promote the work of our salvation, whether our own prayers and good works, or the prayers of others in our behalf, is eo ipso included in the infallible foreknowledge of God and consequently in the scope of predestination (cf. St. Thomas, I, Q. xxiii, a. 8). It is in such practical considerations that the ascetical maxim (falsely ascribed to St. Augustine) originated: "Si non es praedestinatus, fac ut praedestineris" (if you are not predestined, so act that you may be predestined). Strict theology, it is true, cannot approve this bold saying, except in so far as the original decree of predestination is conceived as at first a hypothetical decree, which is afterwards changed to an absolute and irrevocable decree by the prayers, good works, and perseverance of him who is predestined, according to the words of the Apostle (II Pet., i, 10): "Wherefore, brethren, labor the more, that by good works you may make sure your calling and election."
God's unerring foreknowledge and foreordaining is designated in the Bible by the beautiful figure of the "Book of Life" (liber vitae, Greek: to biblion tes zoes). This book of life is a list which contains the names of all the elect and admits neither additions nor erasures. From the Old Testament (cf. Ex., xxxii, 32; Ps. lxviii, 29) this symbol was taken over into the New by Christ and His Apostle Paul (cf. Luke, x, 20; Heb., xii, 23), and enlarged upon by the Evangelist John in his Apocalypse [cf. Apoc., xxi, 27: "There shall not enter into it anything defiled. but they that are written in the book of life of the Lamb" (cf. Apoc., xiii, 8; xx, 15)]. The correct explanation of this symbolic book is given by St. Augustine (De civ. Dei, XX, xiii): "Praescientia Dei, quae non potest falli, liber vitae est" (the foreknowledge of God, which cannot err, is the book of life). However, as intimated by the Bible, there exists a second, more voluminous book, in which are entered not only the names of the elect, but also the names of all the faithful on earth. Such a metaphorical book is supposed wherever the possibility is hinted at that a name, though entered, might again be stricken out [cf. Apoc., iii, 5: "and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life" (cf. Ex., xxxii, 33)]. The name will be mercilessly cancelled when a Christian sinks into infidelity or godlessness and dies in his sin. Finally there is a third class of books, wherein the wicked deeds and the crimes of individual sinners are written, and by which the reprobate will be judged on the last day to be cast into hell (cf. Apoc., xx, 12): "and the books were opened;. and the dead were judged by those things which were written in the books, according to their works". It was this grand symbolism of Divine omniscience and justice that inspired the soul-stirring verse of the Dies irce, according to which we shall all be judged out of a book: "Liber scriptus proferetur: in quo totum continetur". Regarding the book of life, cf. St. Thomas, I, Q. xxiv, a. 1-3, and Heinrich-Gutberlet, "Dogmat. Theologie", VIII (Mainz, 1897), § 453.
(2) The second quality of predestination, the definiteness of the number of the elect, follows naturally from the first. For if the eternal counsel of God regarding the predestined is unchangeable, then the number of the predestined must likewise be unchangeable and definite, subject neither to additions nor to cancellations. Anything indefinite in the number would eo ipso imply a lack of certitude in God's knowledge and would destroy His omniscience. Furthermore, the very nature of omniscience demands that not only the abstract number of the elect, but also the individuals with their names and their entire career on earth, should be present before the Divine mind from all eternity. Naturally, human curiosity is eager for definite information about the absolute as well as the relative number of the elect. How high should the absolute number be estimated? But it would be idle and useless to undertake calculations and to guess at so and so many millions or billions of predestined. St. Thomas (I, Q. x) dii, a. 7) mentions the opinion of some theologians that as many men will be saved as there are fallen angels, while others held that the number of predestined will equal the number of the faithful angels.
Lastly, there were optimists who, combining these two opinions into a third, made the total of men saved equal to the unnumbered myriads of created spirits. But even granted that the principle of our calculation is correct, no mathematician would be able to figure out the absolute number on a basis so vague, since the number of angels and demons is an unknown quantity to us. Hence, "the best answer", rightly remarks St. Thomas, "is to say: God alone knows the number of his elect". By relative number is meant the numerical relation between the predestined and the reprobate. Will the majority of the human race be saved or will they be damned? Will one-half be damned, the other half saved? In this question the opinion of the rigorists is opposed to the milder view of the optimists. Pointing to several texts of the Bible (Matt., vii, 14; xxii, 14) and to sayings of great spiritual doctors, the rigorists defend as probable the thesis that not only most Christians but also most Catholics are doomed to eternal damnation. Almost repulsive in its tone is Massillon's sermon on the small number of the elect. Yet even St. Thomas (loc. cit., a. 7) asserted: "Pauciores sunt qui salvantur" (only the smaller number of men are saved). And a few years ago, when the Jesuit P. Castelein ("Le rigorisme, le nombre des elus et la doctrine du salut", 2nd ed., Brussels, 1899) impugned this theory with weighty arguments, he was sharply opposed by the Redemptorist P. Godts ("De paucitate salvandorum quid docuerunt sancti", 3rd ed., Brussels, 1899). That the number of the elect cannot be so very small is evident from the Apocalypse (vii, 9). When one hears the rigorists, one is tempted to repeat Dieringer's bitter remark: "Can it be that the Church actually exists in order to people hell?" The truth is that neither the one nor the other can be proved from Scripture or Tradition (cf. Heinrich-Gutberlet, "Dogmat. Theologie", Mainz, 1897, VIII, 363 sq.). But supplementing these two sources by arguments drawn from reason we may safely defend as probable the opinion that the majority of Christians, especially of Catholics, will be saved. If we add to this relative number the overwhelming majority of non-Christians (Jєωs, Mahommedans, heathens), then Gener ("Theol. dogmat. scholast.", Rome, 1767, II, 242 sq.) is probably right when he assumes the salvation of half of the human race, lest "it should be said to the shame and offense of the Divine majesty and clemency that the [future] Kingdom of Satan is larger than the Kingdom of Christ" (cf. W. Schneider, "Das andere Leben", 9th ed., Paderborn, 1908, 476 sq.).
(3) The third quality of predestination, its subjective uncertainty, is intimately connected with its objective immutability. We know not whether we are reckoned among the predestined or not. All we can say is: God alone knows it. When the Reformers, confounding predestination with the absolute certainty of salvation, demanded of the Christian an unshaken faith in his own predestination if he wished to be saved, the Council of Trent opposed to this presumptuous belief the canon (Sess. VI, can. xv): "S. q. d., hominem renatum et justificatum teneri ex fide ad credendum, se certo esse in numero praedestinatorum, anathema sit" (if any one shall say that the regenerated and justified man is bound as a matter of faith to believe that he is surely of the number of the predestined, let him be anathema). In truth, such a presumption is not only irrational, but also unscriptural (cf. I Cor., iv, 4; ix, 27; x, 12; Phil., ii, 12). Only a private revelation, such as was vouchsafed to the penitent thief on the cross, could give us the certainty of faith: hence the Tridentine Council insists (loc. cit., cap. xii): "Nam nisi ex speciali revelatione sciri non potest, quos Deus sibi elegerit" (for apart from a special revelation, it cannot be known whom God has chosen). However, the Church condemns only that blasphemous presumption which boasts of a faithlike certainty in matters of predestination. To say that there exist probable signs of predestination which exclude all excessive anxiety is not against her teaching. The following are some of the criteria set down by the theologians: purity of heart, pleasure in prayer, patience in suffering, frequent reception of the sacraments, love of Christ and His Church, devotion to the Mother of God, etc.
B. The Reprobation of the Damned.—An unconditional and positive predestination of the reprobate not only to hell, but also to sin, was taught especially by Calvin (Instit., III, c. xxi, xxiii, xxiv). His followers in Holland split into two sects, the Supralapsarians and the Infralapsarians (q.v.), the latter of whom regarded original sin as the motive of positive condemnation, while the former (with Calvin) disregarded this factor and derived the Divine decree of reprobation from God's inscrutable will alone. Infralapsarianism was also held by Jansenius (De gratia Christi, 1. X, c. ii, xi sq.), who taught that God had preordained from the massa damnata of mankind one part to eternal bliss, the other to eternal pain, decreeing at the same time to deny to those positively damned the necessary graces by which they might be converted and keep the commandments; for this reason, he said, Christ died only for the predestined (cf. Denzinger, "Enchiridion", n. 1092-6). Against such blasphemous teachings the Second Synod of Orange in 529 and again the Council of Trent had pronounced the ecclesiastical anathema (cf. Denzinger, nn. 200, 827). This condemnation was perfectly justified, because the heresy of Predestinarianism, in direct opposition to the clearest texts of Scripture, denied the universality of God's salvific will as well as of redemption through Christ (cf. Wis., xi, 24 sq.; I Tim., ii, 1 sq.), nullified God's mercy towards the hardened sinner (Ezech., xxxiii, 11; Rom., ii, 4; II Pet., iii, 9), did away with the freedom of the will to do good or evil, and hence with the merit of good actions and the guilt of the bad, and finally destroyed the Divine attributes of wisdom, justice, veracity, goodness, and sanctity. The very spirit of the Bible should have sufficed to deter Calvin from a false explanation of Rom., ix, and his successor Beza from the exegetical maltreatment of I Pet., ii, 7-8. After weighing all the Biblical texts bearing on eternal reprobation, a modern Protestant exegete arrives at the conclusion: "There is no election to hell parallel to the election to grace: on the contrary, the judgment pronounced on the impenitent supposes human guilt.... It is only after Christ's salvation has been rejected that reprobation follows" ("Realencyk. fur prot. Theol.", XV, 586, Leipzig, 1904). As regards the Fathers of the Church, there is only St. Augustine who might seem to cause difficulties in the proof from Tradition. As a matter of fact he has been claimed by both Calvin and Jansenius as favoring their view of the question. This is not the place to enter into an examination of his doctrine on reprobation; but that his works contain expressions which, to say the least, might be interpreted in the sense of a negative reprobation, cannot be doubted. Probably toning down the sharper words of the master, his "best pupil", St. Prosper, in his apology against Vincent of Lerin (Resp. ad 12 obj. Vincent.), thus explained the spirit of Augustine: "Voluntate exierunt, voluntate ceciderunt, et quia praesciti sunt casuri, non sunt praedestinati; essent autem praedestinati, si essent reversuri et in sanctitate remansuri, ac per hoc praedestinatio Dei multis est causa standi, nemini est causa labendi" (of their own will they went out; of their own will they fell, and because their fall was foreknown, they were not predestined; they would however be predestined if they were going to return and persevere in holiness; hence, God's predestination is for many the cause of perseverance, for none the cause of falling away). Regarding Tradition cf. Petavius, "De Deo", X, 7 sq.; Jacquin in "Revue de l'histoire ecclesiastique", 1904, 266 sq.; 1906, 269 sq.; 725 sq.
We may now briefly summarize the whole Catholic doctrine, which is in harmony with our reason as well as our moral sentiments. According to the doctrinal decisions of general and particular synods, God infallibly foresees and immutably preordains from eternity all future events (cf. Denzinger, n. 1784), all fatalistic necessity, however, being barred and human liberty remaining intact (Denz., n. 607). Consequently man is free whether he accepts grace and does good or whether he rejects it and does evil (Denz., n. 797). Just as it is God's true and sincere will that all men, no one excepted, shall obtain eternal happiness, so, too, Christ has died for all (Denz., n. 794), not only for the predestined (Denz., n. 1096), or for the faithful (Denz., n. 1294), though it is true that in reality not all avail themselves of the benefits of redemption (Denz., n. 795). Though God preordained both eternal happiness and the good works of the elect (Denz., n. 322), yet, on the other hand, He predestined no one positively to hell, much less to sin (Denz., nn. 200, 816). Consequently, just as no one is saved against his will (Denz., n. 1363), so the reprobate perish solely on account of their wickedness (Denz., nn. 318, 321). God foresaw the everlasting pains of the impious from all eternity, and preordained this punishment on account of their sins (Denz., n. 322), though He does not fail therefore to hold out the grace of conversion to sinners (Denz., n. 807), or pass over those who are not predestined (Denz., n. 827). As long as the reprobate live on earth, they may be accounted true Christians and members of the Church, just as on the other hand the predestined may be outside the pale of Christianity and of the Church (Denz., nn. 628, 631). Without special revelation no one can know with certainty that he belongs to the number of the elect (Denz., nn. 805 sq., 825 sq.).
III. THEOLOGICAL CONTROVERSIES.—Owing to the infallible decisions laid down by the Church, every orthodox theory on predestination and reprobation must keep within the limits marked out by the following theses: (a) At least in the order of execution in time (in ordine executions) the meritorious works of the predestined are the partial cause of their eternal happiness; (b) hell cannot even in the order of intention (in ordine intentionis) have been positively decreed to the damned, even though it is inflicted on them in time as the just punishment of their misdeeds; (c) there is absolutely no predestination to sin as a means to eternal damnation. Guided by these principles, we shall briefly sketch and examine three theories put forward by Catholic theologians.
A. The Theory of Predestination ante praevisa merita.—This theory, championed by all Thomists and a few Molinists (as Bellarmine, Suarez, Francis de Lugo), asserts that God, by an absolute decree and without regard to any future supernatural merits, predestined from all eternity certain men to the glory of heaven, and then, in consequence of this decree, decided to give them all the graces necessary for its accomplishment. In the order of time, however, the Divine decree is carried out in the reverse order, the predestined receiving first the graces preappointed to them, and lastly the glory of heaven as the reward of their good works. Two qualities, therefore, characterize this theory: first, the absoluteness of the eternal decree, and second, the reversing of the relation of grace and glory in the two different orders of eternal intention (ordo intentionis) and execution in time (ordo executions). For while grace (and merit), in the order of eternal intention, is nothing else than the result or effect of glory absolutely decreed, yet, in the order of execution, it becomes the reason and partial cause of eternal happiness, as is required by the dogma of the meritoriousness of good works (see Merit). Again, celestial glory is the thing willed first in the order of eternal intention and then is made the reason or motive for the graces offered, while in the order of execution it must be conceived as the result or effect of supernatural merits. This concession is important, since without it the theory would be intrinsically impossible and theologically untenable.
But what about the positive proof? The theory can find decisive evidence in Scripture only on the supposition that predestination to heavenly glory is unequivocally mentioned in the Bible as the Divine motive for the special graces granted to the elect. Now, although there are several texts (e.g. Matt., xxiv, 22 sq.; Acts, xiii, 48, and others) which might without straining be interpreted in this sense, yet these passages lose their imagined force in view of the fact that other explanations, of which there is no lack, are either possible or even more probable. The ninth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans in particular is claimed by the advocates of absolute predestination as that "classical" passage wherein St. Paul seems to represent the eternal happiness of the elect not only as the work of God's purest mercy, but as an act of the most arbitrary will, so that grace, faith, justification must be regarded as sheer effects of an absolute, Divine decree (cf. Rom., ix, 18: "Therefore he hath mercy on whom he will; and whom he will, he hardeneth"). Now, it is rather daring to quote one of the most difficult and obscure passages of the Bible as a "classical text" and then to base on it an argument for bold speculation. To be more specific, it is impossible to draw the details of the picture in which the Apostle compares God to the potter who hath "power over the clay, of the same lump, to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor" (Rom., ix, 21), without falling into the Calvinistic blasphemy that God predestined some men to hell and sin just as positively as he pre-elected others to eternal life. It is not even admissible to read into the Apostle's thought a negative reprobation of certain men. For the primary intention of the Epistle to the Romans is to insist on the gratuity of the vocation to Christianity and to reject the Jєωιѕн presumption that the possession of the Mosaic Law and the carnal descent from Abraham gave to the Jєωs an essential preference over the heathens. But the Epistle has nothing to do with the speculative question whether or not the free vocation to grace must be considered as the necessary result of eternal predestination to celestial glory [cf. Franzelin, "De Deo uno", thes. lxv (Rome, 1883)].
It is just as difficult to find in the writings of the Fathers a solid argument for an absolute predestination. The only one who might be cited with some semblance of truth is St. Augustine, who stands, however, almost alone among his predecessors and successors. Not even his most faithful pupils, Prosper and Fulgentius, followed their master in all his exaggerations. But a problem so deep and mysterious, which does not belong to the substance of Faith and which, to use the expression of Pope Celestine I (d. 432), is concerned with profundiores difficilioresque partes incurrentium quaestionum (ef. Denz., n. 142), cannot be decided on the sole authority of Augustine. Moreover, the true opinion of the African doctor is a matter of dispute even among the best. authorities, so that all parties claim him for their conflicting views [cf. O. Rottmanner, "Der Augustinismus" (Munich, 1892); Pfiilf, "Zur Pradestinationslehre des hl. Augustinus" in "Innsbrucker Zeitschrift fur kath. Theologie", 1893, 483 sq.]. As to the unsuccessful attempt made by Gonet and Billuart to prove absolute predestination ante praevisa merita "by an argument from reason", see Pohle, "Dogmatik", II, 4th ed., Paderborn, 1909, 443 sq.
B. The Theory of the Negative Reprobation of the Damned.—What deters us most strongly from embracing the theory just discussed is not the fact that it cannot be dogmatically proved from Scripture or Tradition, but the logical necessity to which it binds us, of associating an absolute predestination to glory, with a reprobation just as absolute, even though it be but negative. The well-meant efforts of some theologians (e.g. Billot) to make a distinction between the two concepts, and so to escape the evil consequences of negative reprobation, cannot conceal from closer inspection the helplessness of such logical artifices. Hence the earlier partisans of absolute predestination never denied that their theory compelled them to assume for the wicked a parallel, negative reprobation—that is, to assume that, though not positively predestined to hell, yet they are absolutely predestined not to go to heaven (cf. above, I, B). While it was easy for the Thomists to bring this view into logical harmony with their praemotio physica, the few Molinists were put to straits to harmonize negative reprobation with their scientia media. In order to disguise the harshness and cruelty of such a Divine decree, the theologians invented more or less palliative expressions, saying that negative reprobation is the absolute will of God to "pass over" a priori those not predestined, to "overlook" them, "not to elect" them, "by no means to admit" them into heaven. Only Gonet had the courage to call the thing by its right name: "exclusion from heaven" (exclusio a gloria).
In another respect, too, the adherents of negative reprobation do not agree among themselves, namely, as to what is the motive of Divine reprobation. The rigorists (as Alvarez, Estius, Sylvius) regard as the motive the sovereign will of God who, without taking into account possible sins and demerits, determined a priori to keep those not predestined out of heaven, though He did not create them for hell.
A second milder opinion (e.g. de Lemos, Gotti, Gonet), appealing to the Augustinian doctrine of the massa damnata, finds the ultimate reason for the exclusion from heaven in original sin, in which God could, without being unjust, leave as many as He saw fit. The third and mildest opinion (as Goudin, Graveson, Billuart) derives reprobation not from a direct exclusion from heaven, but from the omission of an "effectual election to heaven"; they represent God as having decreed ante praevisa merita to leave those not predestined in their sinful weakness, without denying them the necessary sufficient graces; thus they would perish infallibly (cf. "Innsbrucker Zeitschrift fur kath. Theologie", 1879, 203 sq.).
Whatever view one may take regarding the internal probability of negative reprobation, it cannot be harmonized with the dogmatically certain universality and sincerity of God's salvific will. For the absolute predestination of the blessed is at the same time the absolute will of God "not to elect" a priori the rest of mankind (Suarez), or which comes to the same, "to exclude them from heaven" (Gonet), in other words, not to save them. While certain Thomists (as Bafiez, Alvarez, Gonet) accept this conclusion so far as to degrade the "voluntas salvifica" to an ineffectual "velleitas", which conflicts with evident doctrines of revelation, Suarez labors in the sweat of his brow to safeguard the sincerity of God's salvific will, even towards those who are reprobated negatively. But in vain. How can that will to save be called serious and sincere which has decreed from all eternity the metaphysical impossibility of salvation? He who has been reprobated negatively, may exhaust all his efforts to attain salvation: it avails him nothing. Moreover, in order to realize infallibly his decree, God is compelled to frustrate the eternal welfare of all excluded a priori from heaven, and to take care that they die in their sins. Is this the language in which Holy Writ speaks to us? No; there we meet an anxious, loving father, who wills not "that any should perish, but that all should return to penance" (II Pet., iii, 9). Lessius rightly says that it would be indifferent to him whether he was numbered among those reprobated positively or negatively; for, in either case, his eternal damnation would be certain. The reason for this is that in the present economy exclusion from heaven means for adults practically the same thing as damnation. A middle state, a merely natural happiness, does not exist.
C. The Theory of Predestination post praevisa merita.—This theory, defended by the earlier Scholastics (Alexander of Hales, Albertus Magnus), as well as by the majority of the Molinists, and warmly recommended by St. Francis de Sales "as the truer and more attractive opinion", has this as its chief distinction, that it is free from the logical necessity of upholding negative reprobation. It differs from predestination ante praevisa merita in two points: first, it rejects the absolute decree and assumes a hypothetical predestination to glory; secondly, it does not reverse the succession of grace and glory in the two orders of eternal intention and of execution in time, but makes glory depend on merit in eternity as well as in the order of time. This hypothetical decree reads as follows: Just as in time eternal happiness depends on merit as a condition, so I intended heaven from all eternity only for foreseen merit.—It is only by reason of the infallible foreknowledge of these merits that the hypothetical decree is changed into an absolute: These and no others shall be saved.
This view not only safeguards the universality and sincerity of God's salvific will, but coincides admirably with the teachings of St. Paul (cf. II Tim., iv, 8), who knows that there "is laid up" (reposita est, Greek: apokeitai) in heaven "a crown of justice", which "the just judge will render" (reddet, Greek: apodosei) to him on the day of judgment. Clearer still is the inference drawn from the sentence of the universal Judge (Matt., xxv, 34 sq.): "Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat" etc. As the "possessing" of the Kingdom of Heaven in time is here linked to the works of mercy as a condition, so the "preparation" of the Kingdom of Heaven in eternity, that is, predestination to glory is conceived as dependent on the foreknowledge that good works will be performed. The same conclusion follows from the parallel sentence of condemnation (Matt., xxv, 41 sq.): "Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat" etc. For it is evident that the "everlasting fire of hell" can only have been intended from all eternity for sin and demerit, that is, for neglect of Christian charity, in the same sense in which it is inflicted in time. Concluding a pari, we must say the same of eternal bliss. This explanation is splendidly confirmed by the Greek Fathers. Generally speaking, the Greeks are the chief authorities for conditional predestination dependent on foreseen merits. The Latins, too, are so unanimous on this question that St. Augustine is practically the only adversary in the Occident. St. Hilary (In Ps. lxiv, n. 5) expressly describes eternal election as proceeding from "the choice of merit" (ex meriti delectu), and St. Ambrose teaches in his paraphrase of Rom., viii, 29 (De fide, V, vi, 83): "Non enim ante praedestinavit quam praescivit, sed quorum merita praescivit, eorum praemia praedestinavit" (He did not predestine before He foreknew, but for those whose merits He foresaw, He predestined the reward). To conclude: no one can accuse us of boldness if we assert that the theory here presented has a firmer basis in Scripture and Tradition than the opposite opinion.
J. POHLE
Pohle, J. (1911). Predestination. The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company.
-
Thank you to DecemRationis and Roman Catholic for taking the time to provide these sources. I found it quite informative, and I'm sorry for challenging Roman Catholic's terminology.
-
No problem. None of us know everything about Catholicism, or about anything else.
Glad the info was of interest to you.
-
OHCA,
You're welcome. As RC says, this is not an easy subject. If one wants to explore it, one must be patient and humble, and meditate deeply to understand.
As one who subscribes to the Dominican/Thomist view on this issue, I can't recommend enough Father Garrigou-Lagrange's book on Predestination. It is superb!!!!
DR
-
Quote
I'm surprised you recommend a Douay Rheims Bible considering you create your own faith
==========================
THe Dewey Rheims bible - That's the only thing that hasn't changed in the past 1600 years. Don't blame me for making anything up. It is you people that are in denial and caught in the Club Infallible post 1870 vortex. Time to rescue the Church from the ninth son of confusion - Pius IX. After Pius IX got done with it, the false church is about as stable as the that Italy landslide video.
Matthew - was that landslide in Pius IX's home town?
First of all, you obviously didn't notice but in my post I underlined Douay to show you that it is actually spelt Douay, not "Dewey". People aren't going to be convinced you even have a Douay Rheims Bible if you can't spell it right. Anyway, why do you act as your knowledge in religion is infinate? Pius IX was no anti-pope, or freemason, or modernist, or any other name you claim he was. It is completely absurd to waste your time accusing good Popes of being flaming liberals when you should instead be focusing on what post-Vatican II Popes have been doing wrong.
Such accusations about Pius IX make you look like a :heretic:
-
I would ditch that burning at the stake animation.
==============================
20th CENTURY ATROCITIES OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH
http://vodpod.com/watch/2053025-20th-century-atrocities-of-the-roman-catholic-church
==============================
Spelt
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Spelt (Triticuм spelta) is a hexaploid species of wheat. Spelt was an important staple in parts of Europe from the Bronze Age to medieval times; it now survives as a relict crop in Central Europe and has found a new market as a health food. Spelt is sometimes considered a subspecies of the closely related species common wheat (T. aestivum), in which case its botanical name is considered to be Triticuм aestivum subsp. spelta.
-
I would ditch that burning at the stake animation
We wnnt ditch it......we need to add more! :heretic: :heretic: :heretic: :heretic:
-
I would ditch that burning at the stake animation
We wnnt ditch it......we need to add more! :heretic: :heretic: :heretic: :heretic:
=========================
A member of your parish ?
Take No Prisoners
U.S. Marines execute an Iraqi to the cheers of fellow marines
WARNING:-
This video should only be viewed by a mature audience
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5365.htm
-
I would ditch that burning at the stake animation.
==============================
20th CENTURY ATROCITIES OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH
http://vodpod.com/watch/2053025-20th-century-atrocities-of-the-roman-catholic-church
==============================
Spelt
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Spelt (Triticuм spelta) is a hexaploid species of wheat. Spelt was an important staple in parts of Europe from the Bronze Age to medieval times; it now survives as a relict crop in Central Europe and has found a new market as a health food. Spelt is sometimes considered a subspecies of the closely related species common wheat (T. aestivum), in which case its botanical name is considered to be Triticuм aestivum subsp. spelta.
What does this have to do with Pius IX? And the only two animations on this site that should be removed are the hook 'em horns and turban ones. No one ever uses either one of them. Besides, they are sacreligious.
-
Why are U taking the blasphemer seriously enough to answer his post?
-
First of all, you obviously didn't notice but in my post I underlined Douay to show you that it is actually spelt Douay, not "Dewey". People aren't going to be convinced you even have a Douay Rheims Bible if you can't spell it right.
These days I pay scant attention to Classicom's posts. He generally won't discuss issues or reply to questions about his posts. Rather he just talks AT the forum, and makes Old-Catholic pronouncements.
So I missed his posts about the so called "Dewey" Bible.
I agree with SS. It is very strange. Anyone who is familiar with that Catholic Bible. knows how to spell it.
The way Classicom spelled it is not even the way a child would spell it from hearing the word spoken. It was not a typo either.
And if anyone knew any of the relevant history about the Reformation and that version of the Bible, he would know how to spell Douay.
It is evident that Classicom is not familiar at all with Douay, or the Douay Rheims Bible.
Strange indeed, for someone who made a point of twice promoting the "Dewey" Bible.
Very strange!
-
Roman Catholic,
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 6, ex cathedra said:
But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains.
And people here are calling me heretical?
As for Pope Pius VI, he did not call the rejection of Limbo heretical though. Nevertheless I do believe in Limbo, the least part of hell, but that the fire there is mildest. This position has been shared by saints and doctors also.
And of course, an unbaptized infant is living outside the Church, undeniably. Enter Pope Eugene once more:
Session 11 of the Council of Florence, ex cathedra said:
It firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jєωs or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels
This is Catholicism folks, out of the mouth of the pope. Don't believe me? Go look it up.
Oh yeah, one last thing - unbaptized infants, who do they belong to, God or the devil, and are they truly innocent (I can't believe I'm having this discussion - ever heard of the Council of Trent's Decree on Original Sin)?
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 11, ex cathedra said:
With regard to children, since the danger of death is often present and the only remedy available to them is the sacrament of baptism by which they are snatched away from the dominion of the devil and adopted as children of God, it admonishes that sacred baptism is not to be deferred ...
So don't argue with me. Argue with the pope (and good luck with that).
DecemRationis,
Thanks. I had only glanced at the discussion that led to that post and still have not read most of it.
Clearly, CM had some things right; he was not in error or in heresy over everything that he held.
-
I don't feel Classiccom has responded to my questions about inferences that can be drawn from his post to which I replied and the post in which he replied to me. Perhaps if I searched all of his posts I could find the answer. But I've only been on here a few days. I've read many interesting older posts, but it's information overload and time better spent reading other sources (such as the Bible, Saints' lives, etc.--no offense to this valuable forum) than to read all of the old posts.
Thus, I would appreciate if Classicom would answer the following:
1. I can only see 2 possible meanings in your post regarding did our Lord tell us to pray to Mary. a). Because our Lord did not tell us to do so, it is wrong that we do so; b). Though our lord did not tell us to do so, it is right that we do so anyway, thus demonstrating that Catholicism is not sola Scriptura. Please explain which of these you meant, or you meant something else that I'm missing about your position regarding prayer to the Blessed Virgin Mary. If you meant b), I suppose you meant that some source other than Scripture supports some point you were trying to make. If so, what specific source do point to and to support what point?
2. Please answer whether you believe the Apostolic chain is in peril of ceasing; and whether you believe it is possible or impossible for the Apostolic chain to cease.
-
I don't feel Classiccom has responded to my questions about inferences that can be drawn from his post to which I replied and the post in which he replied to me. Perhaps if I searched all of his posts I could find the answer. But I've only been on here a few days. I've read many interesting older posts, but it's information overload and time better spent reading other sources (such as the Bible, Saints' lives, etc.--no offense to this valuable forum) than to read all of the old posts.
Thus, I would appreciate if Classicom would answer the following:
1. I can only see 2 possible meanings in your post regarding did our Lord tell us to pray to Mary. a). Because our Lord did not tell us to do so, it is wrong that we do so; b). Though our lord did not tell us to do so, it is right that we do so anyway, thus demonstrating that Catholicism is not sola Scriptura. Please explain which of these you meant, or you meant something else that I'm missing about your position regarding prayer to the Blessed Virgin Mary. If you meant b), I suppose you meant that some source other than Scripture supports some point you were trying to make. If so, what specific source do point to and to support what point?
2. Please answer whether you believe the Apostolic chain is in peril of ceasing; and whether you believe it is possible or impossible for the Apostolic chain to cease.
=======================
I had exposure to Bayside NY so that turned me off to the whole rosary. FYI the Dimond bros. also were sucked into Bayside. My experience has been that Rosary people are much more superstitious and much less logical.
What good is the Apostolic chain when the last 10 links are probably in deep apostasy. If the Catholic clergy don't do their job, you are supposed to defend the true faith. Catholics today have abandoned Christ's words in the Gospel and are content to just roll along with the great apostasy.
Good news, I just found out that an Old Catholic Church is supposed to be opened in my area this year. Thanks for all the recent hard knocks that made me search for that information.
http://www.holyredeemerocc.org/
I just recently heard someone named CJ that gave a testimony her spiritual journey. I was impressed that it sounded Catholic in many ways, but without the turmoil and mumbo jumbo.
Nathan interviews - C. J. - a Sister in Christ
who gives a testimony of her real conversion.
She also saw Heaven and Hell !
http://www.watchmanscry.com/audio/broadcast_156.mp3
-
I had exposure to Bayside NY so that turned me off to the whole rosary. FYI the Dimond bros. also were sucked into Bayside. My experience has been that Rosary people are much more superstitious and much less logical.
Why would someone who is intelligent, logical and of goodwill be turned off to the whole rosary, just because of exposure to Bayside NY?
That would be like someone claiming he is intelligent, logical and of goodwill, but turned off to the whole Roman Catholic Church because he ran afoul of some kooks in Bayside who claim to be Roman Catholics.
-
Classicom,
Thanks for responding. I'm not familiar with Bayside NY. Could you please point me somewhere to see what you are talking about. It seems to me that prayers to the Blessed Virgin Mary and the saints is consistent with the concept of communion of saints as we are not praying to them as we do God, but rather it's for their intercession. At a very basic level, from my perspective it's nothing wrong with it just as there's nothing wrong with asking your priest or others in your parish to pray for you.
The Apostolic chain is important to me. So important that I feel compelled to suffer the chaos, watered-down, relaxed culture and customs to remain where I believe the Apostolic chain to be. I am attending the T.L.M. and praying for the discipline to attend it exclusively. If we are ever denied the "Motu," I will make effort to attend SSPX if their position remains as I perceive it to currently be. The reason it's important to me is it's a sign of the Church and is necessary to perpetuate Holy Orders and ultimately the other sacraments.
So I take it you either believe the true Church need not have the Apostolic chain, or that the true Church is dead or soon will be dead. I don't mean to be putting words in your mouth--I'm simply providing feedback for what I'm understanding you to be saying so you can confirm or straighten out my misunderstanding.
Roman Catholic,
You attend SSPX, right? You believe in the communion of saints, right?
-
Roman Catholic,
Would you please PM me so perhaps I can PM you back. I can't be the initial PMer yet as I'm not an established member yet. Hopefully, I may be able to respond, though.
Thanks
-
Quote OCHA
"I'm not familiar with Bayside NY. Could you please point me somewhere to see what you are talking about. It seems to me that prayers to the Blessed Virgin Mary and the saints is consistent with the concept of communion of saints as we are not praying to them as we do God, but rather it's for their intercession. At a very basic level, from my perspective it's nothing wrong with it just as there's nothing wrong with asking your priest or others in your parish to pray for you."
=====================
I have experienced first hand how a "voicebox of the Devil" and the the traditional Catholic elect can work together. They have a lot in common with the typical Cathinfo member. If there were a few honest Catholics in the world, it could be acknowleged that a spirit can influence people to support apostasy in the Church, namely JPII and his 1986 paganfest at Assisi. This is swept under the rug and ignored because of the following implication : Fatima is a stamp of approval of Pius IX 's spiritual dictatorship of 1870.
(cινιℓ ωαr & vatican council 1870 - concentration of human power to achieve godlike status)
Christ warns us about signs and wonders , and doctines of demons. Funny you should talk about apostolic links. The links of the rosaries at Bayside would sometimes turn gold. If Catholics would only go back to Chist's words in the gospel as priority number one, then you would not have all the modernist confusion and diabolic alchemy.
The False Apparitions at Bayside, New York
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/bayside_false_apparitions.html
=======================
Myrna brought up an interesting link
"The MOST Theological Collection: Vatican II vs Pius IX? A Study in Lefebvrism"
Any students of modern politics would recognize that TPTB always give us two false choices to choose from. What ever happened to Jesus Christ being the cornerstone of our Faith ?
-
S.S., R.C. -
I'm surmising that Classicom knows how to spell the name of the Catholic Bible with no problem (if you noticed, R.C., he made a point of correcting your old-fashioned spelling of the past participle of the verb 'to spell').
I think Classicom was actually making a play on the phonetic similarity between 'Douay', and "Dewey" -- as in John Dewey, the notorious liberal philosopher whose theories had such a deleterious effect on American public school education, among other things. He was being a wit, in other words.
FWIW,
Janet C.
-
S.S., R.C. -
I'm surmising that Classicom knows how to spell the name of the Catholic Bible with no problem (if you noticed, R.C., he made a point of correcting your old-fashioned spelling of the past participle of the verb 'to spell').
I think Classicom was actually making a play on the phonetic similarity between 'Douay', and "Dewey" -- as in John Dewey, the notorious liberal philosopher whose theories had such a deleterious effect on American public school education, among other things. He was being a wit, in other words.
FWIW,
Janet C.
Hard to believe a spelling mistake would arouse this much rancor. It is Satanic to strain a gnat and totally ignore the original subject matter. That is the way the Devil operates - any time the truth is uttered, shut it down. With recent hate crime legislation, I think the bibles will soon be outlawed.
Recently I found that many Protestants like the Douay Rheims translation, even the hard core anti-Catholic Bible thumpers. I guess it blows their mind how the Church in apostasy can have such a good bible.
Douay-Rheims Bible Amos 8:11
Behold the days come, saith the Lord, and I will send forth a famine into the land: not a famine of bread, nor a thirst of water, but of hearing the word of the Lord.
Is that why the Pope sent 33 Rosaries to the Chile miners instead of one Bible ?
-
I don't feel Classiccom has responded to my questions about inferences that can be drawn from his post to which I replied and the post in which he replied to me. Perhaps if I searched all of his posts I could find the answer. But I've only been on here a few days. I've read many interesting older posts, but it's information overload and time better spent reading other sources (such as the Bible, Saints' lives, etc.--no offense to this valuable forum) than to read all of the old posts.
Thus, I would appreciate if Classicom would answer the following:
1. I can only see 2 possible meanings in your post regarding did our Lord tell us to pray to Mary. a). Because our Lord did not tell us to do so, it is wrong that we do so; b). Though our lord did not tell us to do so, it is right that we do so anyway, thus demonstrating that Catholicism is not sola Scriptura. Please explain which of these you meant, or you meant something else that I'm missing about your position regarding prayer to the Blessed Virgin Mary. If you meant b), I suppose you meant that some source other than Scripture supports some point you were trying to make. If so, what specific source do point to and to support what point?
2. Please answer whether you believe the Apostolic chain is in peril of ceasing; and whether you believe it is possible or impossible for the Apostolic chain to cease.
=======================
I had exposure to Bayside NY so that turned me off to the whole rosary. FYI the Dimond bros. also were sucked into Bayside. My experience has been that Rosary people are much more superstitious and much less logical.
What good is the Apostolic chain when the last 10 links are probably in deep apostasy. If the Catholic clergy don't do their job, you are supposed to defend the true faith. Catholics today have abandoned Christ's words in the Gospel and are content to just roll along with the great apostasy.
Good news, I just found out that an Old Catholic Church is supposed to be opened in my area this year. Thanks for all the recent hard knocks that made me search for that information.
http://www.holyredeemerocc.org/
I just recently heard someone named CJ that gave a testimony her spiritual journey. I was impressed that it sounded Catholic in many ways, but without the turmoil and mumbo jumbo.
Nathan interviews - C. J. - a Sister in Christ
who gives a testimony of her real conversion.
She also saw Heaven and Hell !
http://www.watchmanscry.com/audio/broadcast_156.mp3
This post shows you are a CINO Catholic, Catholic In-Name only. Just like CM you reject nearly every teaching of the Catholic Church and make up your own. People who say The Rosary are more superstitious? I can prove that statement incredibly wrong since I do not practice any kind of superstition.
-
S.S., R.C. -
I'm surmising that Classicom knows how to spell the name of the Catholic Bible with no problem (if you noticed, R.C., he made a point of correcting your old-fashioned spelling of the past participle of the verb 'to spell').
I think Classicom was actually making a play on the phonetic similarity between 'Douay', and "Dewey" -- as in John Dewey, the notorious liberal philosopher whose theories had such a deleterious effect on American public school education, among other things. He was being a wit, in other words.
FWIW,
Janet C.
Hard to believe a spelling mistake would arouse this much rancor. It is Satanic to strain a gnat and totally ignore the original subject matter. That is the way the Devil operates - any time the truth is uttered, shut it down. With recent hate crime legislation, I think the bibles will soon be outlawed.
Recently I found that many Protestants like the Douay Rheims translation, even the hard core anti-Catholic Bible thumpers. I guess it blows their mind how the Church in apostasy can have such a good bible.
Douay-Rheims Bible Amos 8:11
Behold the days come, saith the Lord, and I will send forth a famine into the land: not a famine of bread, nor a thirst of water, but of hearing the word of the Lord.
Is that why the Pope sent 33 Rosaries to the Chile miners instead of one Bible ?
If it is Satanic to ignore the original subject matter, then you are also at fault. I've seen you ignore many people's questions here.
-
I perceive Classiccom to have little concern about, or to have completely despaired of any hope for, traditional Catholicism and the Apostolic chain. His posts are more about why such concerns are evil (the Rosary), no longer important (the Apostolic chain), etc. I wish a Sede who is very upset about his perception of the state of the Apostolic chain and has hope that the chain will again be clarified, and who holds true to traditional Catholic principles would discredit Classiccom.
Classiccom's position on the Apostolic chain (uncaring or despair), the Rosary, reference to "false church" (with apparent callous boastfulness rather than worry), appear nothing short of blasphemous!
Rather than traditional Catholicism being restored, Classiccom, at least implicitly, is telling us that ship has sank and we should do something else. This is most definitely something other than a Catholic perspective!
Classiccom, I pray for your return or converision to the true Faith, the true Church established by our Lord, with which He shall be until the end of the world, and against which the fires of hell shall not prevail!
-
Roman Catholic,
Would you please PM me so perhaps I can PM you back. I can't be the initial PMer yet as I'm not an established member yet. Hopefully, I may be able to respond, though.
Thanks
I sent you a PM.
-
Thanks Roman Catholic. I can see that I have 2 PMs now, but when I try to access the messenger bar I get the same "established member" thing I was getting in trying to send out. Hopefully I'll be able to use it soon.
Thanks
-
Thanks Roman Catholic. I can see that I have 2 PMs now, but when I try to access the messenger bar I get the same "established member" thing I was getting in trying to send out. Hopefully I'll be able to use it soon.
Thanks
That happens to all of us, when we are new. Very soon now, you will be considered one of us. Not sure if that is good or bad. :confused1:
You can always put classicom on hide!
-
S.S., R.C. -
I'm surmising that Classicom knows how to spell the name of the Catholic Bible with no problem (if you noticed, R.C., he made a point of correcting your old-fashioned spelling of the past participle of the verb 'to spell').
I think Classicom was actually making a play on the phonetic similarity between 'Douay', and "Dewey" -- as in John Dewey, the notorious liberal philosopher whose theories had such a deleterious effect on American public school education, among other things. He was being a wit, in other words.
FWIW,
Janet C.
Thanks Janet,
Actually it was SS who wrote "spelt" but yes I did notice that Classicom made a point of correcting the old-fashioned spelling.
Classicom implied that he likes the Douay version, so I do not know why he would have spelled it as "Dewey" unless he really is is unfamiliar with it.
-
S.S., R.C. -
I'm surmising that Classicom knows how to spell the name of the Catholic Bible with no problem (if you noticed, R.C., he made a point of correcting your old-fashioned spelling of the past participle of the verb 'to spell').
I think Classiccom was actually making a play on the phonetic similarity between 'Douay', and "Dewey" -- as in John Dewey, the notorious liberal philosopher whose theories had such a deleterious effect on American public school education, among other things. He was being a wit, in other words.
FWIW,
Janet C.
Hard to believe a spelling mistake would arouse this much rancor. It is Satanic to strain a gnat and totally ignore the original subject matter. That is the way the Devil operates - any time the truth is uttered, shut it down. With recent hate crime legislation, I think the bibles will soon be outlawed.
Recently I found that many Protestants like the Douay Rheims translation, even the hard core anti-Catholic Bible thumpers. I guess it blows their mind how the Church in apostasy can have such a good bible.
Douay-Rheims Bible Amos 8:11
Behold the days come, saith the Lord, and I will send forth a famine into the land: not a famine of bread, nor a thirst of water, but of hearing the word of the Lord.
Is that why the Pope sent 33 Rosaries to the Chile miners instead of one Bible ?
If it is Satanic to ignore the original subject matter, then you are also at fault. I've seen you ignore many people's questions here.
If it is Satanic to ignore the original subject of posts, then Classiccom is a devil!
Classicom, your spelling mistake did not arouse rancor. It was just a noticeably telling mistake that you made more than once.
Don't be such a baby. You dished it out to SS for what you perceived to be spelling mistake.
You are the one who has an ongoing rancorous outlook, continually harrasing people here just because they are Roman Catholics.
BTW,have you ever seen actually seen a Douay-Rheims bible in real life?
What version does your Old Catholic sect rrecommend?
-
I don't feel Classiccom has responded to my questions about inferences that can be drawn from his post to which I replied and the post in which he replied to me. Perhaps if I searched all of his posts I could find the answer. But I've only been on here a few days. I've read many interesting older posts, but it's information overload and time better spent reading other sources (such as the Bible, Saints' lives, etc.--no offense to this valuable forum) than to read all of the old posts.
Thus, I would appreciate if Classicom would answer the following:
1. I can only see 2 possible meanings in your post regarding did our Lord tell us to pray to Mary. a). Because our Lord did not tell us to do so, it is wrong that we do so; b). Though our lord did not tell us to do so, it is right that we do so anyway, thus demonstrating that Catholicism is not sola Scriptura. Please explain which of these you meant, or you meant something else that I'm missing about your position regarding prayer to the Blessed Virgin Mary. If you meant b), I suppose you meant that some source other than Scripture supports some point you were trying to make. If so, what specific source do point to and to support what point?
2. Please answer whether you believe the Apostolic chain is in peril of ceasing; and whether you believe it is possible or impossible for the Apostolic chain to cease.
=======================
I had exposure to Bayside NY so that turned me off to the whole rosary. FYI the Dimond bros. also were sucked into Bayside. My experience has been that Rosary people are much more superstitious and much less logical.
What good is the Apostolic chain when the last 10 links are probably in deep apostasy. If the Catholic clergy don't do their job, you are supposed to defend the true faith. Catholics today have abandoned Christ's words in the Gospel and are content to just roll along with the great apostasy.
Good news, I just found out that an Old Catholic Church is supposed to be opened in my area this year. Thanks for all the recent hard knocks that made me search for that information.
http://www.holyredeemerocc.org/
I just recently heard someone named CJ that gave a testimony her spiritual journey. I was impressed that it sounded Catholic in many ways, but without the turmoil and mumbo jumbo.
Nathan interviews - C. J. - a Sister in Christ
who gives a testimony of her real conversion.
She also saw Heaven and Hell !
http://www.watchmanscry.com/audio/broadcast_156.mp3
This post shows you are a CINO Catholic, Catholic In-Name only. Just like CM you reject nearly every teaching of the Catholic Church and make up your own. People who say The Rosary are more superstitious? I can prove that statement incredibly wrong since I do not practice any kind of superstition.
He is not a Roman Catholic, even in name only.
He is an Old Catholic. Old Catholics are heretics and schismatics.
And yes, he is a blasphemer too.
-
Just found another reference:
Study in American Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ
By Arthur Preuss
"Pope Pius IX was a Freemason... "
http://books.google.com/books?id=kCflifoXePAC&pg=PA267&lpg=PA267&dq=Pope+Pius+IX+Mason&source=bl&ots=LzNSXhgckL&sig=6CtWJWYcRB-iGOp6vN9Ihx_1JIg&hl=en&ei=lLyGTKkDgZyWB669lboO&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CD0Q6AEwCTgK#v=onepage&q=Pope%20Pius%20IX%20Mason&f=false
=======================
Pius IX, a Mason, did not participate in the war against Freemasons and he lost ...
http://catholic.cephasministry.com/p24.html
-
Classicom, please give it a rest on the Pius IX:freemason junk. No one here believes a word of that nonsense. If you want to fool people into believing that, then you'd be better off posting that at CAF.
-
He cant, it gives weight to his "church went to hell in hand basket in 1870" rhetoric....he dropped that, he loses a big wedge...
-
Classicom, please give it a rest on the Pius IX:freemason junk. No one here believes a word of that nonsense.
He is only here to post his anti-Catholic rhetoric. He lives in unholy hope that he can get some Catholics to apostatize.
-
http://traditio.com/comment/com1009.htm
Benedict-Ratzinger Novus Ordo-Beatifies Cardinal Newman
Ironically, Newman Did Not Believe that Papal Infallibility Was Opportunely Decreed
From: The Fathers
John Henry Newman
John Henry Cardinal Newman, Later Cardinal Newman
(1801-1890)
Converted from Being an Anglican Minister to Catholicism
Like Most Contemporary Bishops, Newman Rightly Predicted
That the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Was Inopportunely Decreed
Vatican I Never Completed Its Work on the Full Definition of the Doctrine As the Council Was Hastily Adjourned in the Face of the Italian Revolutionaries
On September 19, 2010, Benedict-Ratzinger Novus Ordo-beatified John Henry Cardinal Newman (1801-1890), a former Anglican minister. There was irony in this act. Newman was one of those called "Non-opportunists," who believed that it was not opportune at the Vatican I Council to issue a decree on papal infallibility. In that opinion, he was joined by a majority of the bishops at the council and even by Pope Pius IX. In fact, the issue was put on the council's agenda, not by the pope, but by the extremist French Ultramontanists, who wanted to make the pope into some kind of secular demigod, so that he could act on an equal plane with the national leaders of the 19th century.
The decree, titled Pastor aeternus, did eventually pass, but only because most of the bishops did not want embarrass Pius IX after the decree had been put on the public agenda. Many bishops were opposed to issuing a decree simply absented themselves from the vote. Vatican I was never able to complete its work and put the decree into its proper context. The Italian revolutionaries invaded Rome and made the pope a "prisoner of the Vatican." The council was adjourned in a panic, having passed only one part of the decree.
Newman, a brilliant intellect, knew that confusion would ensue because of the incomplete nature of the council's work, as it in fact did. No sooner had the decree passed than he was bombarded with the confusion it produced. Catholics and non-Catholics in England misunderstood that the pope was a demigod, whose every whim was an infallible act, just as the papolators of today believe. True, the council never decreed that, and in fact severely limited papal infallibility to matters of faith and morals, and only if the exercise of that infallibility expounded on no "new doctrine," but only what was already in the Deposit of Faith.
The first cardinal of the United States, James Gibbons, who personally participated at the council, encountered confusion when he returned to his country from the council and was asked whether the pope was infallible in everything. "I don't think so," Cardinal Gibbons replied, "He called me Mister Jibbons!" To the contrary, Newman's proper understanding of the decree was confirmed by none other than Pope St. Pius X, who wrote that of all the cardinals, Newman had most correctly explicated the doctrine.
Benedict-Ratzinger Hypocritically Ignores History on His British Junket He Sides with Those Who Murdered Bishop John Fisher and St. Thomas More
From: The Fathers
Newchurchers can accept Benedict-Ratzinger's British junket September 16-19, 2010, only if they are hypocrites. He prayed with Anglicans, under whose auspices hundreds of Catholics were tortured and killed in the reigns of Edward VI, Elizabeth I, and James I for refusing to do what Benedict-Ratzinger cravenly did. If Benedict-Ratzinger's actions were correct, then those martyrs died in vain. If the martyrs were correct, then Benedict-Ratzinger is a traitor to 450 years of Catholic recusant heroism and sainthood, including St. Thomas More and Bishop John Fisher.
In the Newchurch of the New Order, servile "obedience" and subservience to hierarchical dictatorship continue to take precedence over the truth. This failing is at the root of Newchurch's Great Sex and Embezzlement h0Ɩ0cαųst as well. The cover-up depended upon the bureaucratic belief that one does not expose presbyters and Newbishops to negative publicity or prosecution. By personal signature of Ratzinger, notorious child-rape accomplices such as Newcardinals Roger Mahony, of Los Angeles, California, and Francis George, of Chicago, Illinois, are being allowed to serve their full term and then retire with all the prestige and riches of their office, instead of being sent to prison, where they belong.
The pope also offered unqualified praise for the British establishment for its fight against the nαzιs. He failed to note that he himself was a nαzι sympathizer, first as a uniformed member of the nαzι Youth Corps and then in the Wehrmacht, the armed forces of nαzι Germany. He now pleads youth (although he wasn't all that young at sixteen) and necessity (although he joined up five months before the legal requirement), whereas many of his fellows in Regensberg were resisting the nαzιs and refusing to sign up. [Some information for this Commentary was contributed by the Revisionist Review.]
-
Kyrie eleison
I'm beginning to think the internet is Satan's most powerful weapon.
-
Classicom, you are wasting your time bashing Vatican I. No one here is going to buy into this crock about Vatican I making errors.
-
Classicom, you are wasting your time bashing Vatican I. No one here is going to buy into this crock about Vatican I making errors.
Indeed. I'm all ears to various conclusions about the fiasco of VII, but this is a bit much.
The length of his papacy itself makes the suggestion that he was a mason absurd.
-
quote from Tradio.com
"To the contrary, Newman's proper understanding of the decree was confirmed by none other than Pope St. Pius X, who wrote that of all the cardinals, Newman had most correctly explicated the doctrine. "
==============================
At least this supports my pet theory that half Polish Pius X had the common sense to attempt to put the infallible Pius IX in proper perspective. He had a vision in 1909 that saw the sack of Rome but he never attributed that as a spiritual sack of Rome by Pius IX. The great Satanic trick - while everybody was watching the Church loose physical control of Rome nobody noticed that they lost the spiritual. That July 18 1870 date (Infallibility declaration) does coincide with the burning of Rome.
64
A great fire began that ultimately destroyed most of Rome. The emperor Nero blamed it on Christians and began the first Roman persecution of them.
Read more: This Day in History: July 18 — Infoplease.com
=======================
Anyway, you people are sure a bunch of uppity ditch dwellers to be so critical of me. Trying to figure out the forensics of the present Catholic dilemma should not be a crime as you make it out to be.
-
quote from Tradio.com
"To the contrary, Newman's proper understanding of the decree was confirmed by none other than Pope St. Pius X, who wrote that of all the cardinals, Newman had most correctly explicated the doctrine. "
==============================
At least this supports my pet theory that half Polish Pius X had the common sense to attempt to put the infallible Pius IX in proper perspective. He had a vision in 1909 that saw the sack of Rome but he never attributed that as a spiritual sack of Rome by Pius IX. The great Satanic trick - while everybody was watching the Church loose physical control of Rome nobody noticed that they lost the spiritual. That July 18 1870 date (Infallibility declaration) does coincide with the burning of Rome.
64
A great fire began that ultimately destroyed most of Rome. The emperor Nero blamed it on Christians and began the first Roman persecution of them.
Read more: This Day in History: July 18 — Infoplease.com
=======================
Anyway, you people are sure a bunch of uppity ditch dwellers to be so critical of me. Trying to figure out the forensics of the present Catholic dilemma should not be a crime as you make it out to be.
Your problem is that you go too far. You seem to think the Church was brought down by Pius IX. I don't know the reason for why you are so obssessed with him, but Vatican II is responsible for the near-destruction of the Church, not Pius IX. Maybe if you did some research you would see that is the case. Furthermore, if Our Lady of Fatima said that there would be a "diabolical dis-orientation" (remember she said this after the reign of Pius IX) which was a clear reference to Vatican II, then why the heck should we be pointing the finger at Pius IX? If you want to point a finger at any Pope, it should be John XXIII and/or Paul VI. What is a crime is that you constantly blaspheme the Catholic faith. You say you're trying to help the faith out but how is that even possible when in almost every post of yours you use the "Club Infallible" term?
-
[/quote]
Your problem is that you go too far. You seem to think the Church was brought down by Pius IX. I don't know the reason for why you are so obssessed with him, but Vatican II is responsible for the near-destruction of the Church, not Pius IX. Maybe if you did some research you would see that is the case. Furthermore, if Our Lady of Fatima said that there would be a "diabolical dis-orientation" (remember she said this after the reign of Pius IX) which was a clear reference to Vatican II, then why the heck should we be pointing the finger at Pius IX? If you want to point a finger at any Pope, it should be John XXIII and/or Paul VI. What is a crime is that you constantly blaspheme the Catholic faith. You say you're trying to help the faith out but how is that even possible when in almost every post of yours you use the "Club Infallible" term?[/quote]
======================================
Scriptures tell us that ST. Paul corrected St. Peter. Since 1870, the illusion of the infallible papacy has removed the possibly of the Roman Catholic Church to correct any mistakes . This is the doctrine that wore out the saints and we no longer have room on this planet for a St. Paul correcting the pope.
So like I said before, you like the ditch you are in , then there you will be , perhaps forever.
Insanity is currently often described as doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. At least I tried to come up with a path that is neither far left or far right and could possibly bring back the Protestants into the Faith. From your tone of correspondence, there is a kind of ugliness that even the liberal Novus Ordo can't match. The same garbage is the rule for politics. Two paths, both of which are designed for maximum destruction.
-
I see ClassiFallible continues to slander and detract, apparently, free to do so......
-
Your problem is that you go too far. You seem to think the Church was brought down by Pius IX. I don't know the reason for why you are so obssessed with him, but Vatican II is responsible for the near-destruction of the Church, not Pius IX. Maybe if you did some research you would see that is the case. Furthermore, if Our Lady of Fatima said that there would be a "diabolical dis-orientation" (remember she said this after the reign of Pius IX) which was a clear reference to Vatican II, then why the heck should we be pointing the finger at Pius IX? If you want to point a finger at any Pope, it should be John XXIII and/or Paul VI. What is a crime is that you constantly blaspheme the Catholic faith. You say you're trying to help the faith out but how is that even possible when in almost every post of yours you use the "Club Infallible" term?[/quote]
======================================
Scriptures tell us that ST. Paul corrected St. Peter. Since 1870, the illusion of the infallible papacy has removed the possibly of the Roman Catholic Church to correct any mistakes . This is the doctrine that wore out the saints and we no longer have room on this planet for a St. Paul correcting the pope.
So like I said before, you like the ditch you are in , then there you will be , perhaps forever.
Insanity is currently often described as doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. At least I tried to come up with a path that is neither far left or far right and could possibly bring back the Protestants into the Faith. From your tone of correspondence, there is a kind of ugliness that even the liberal Novus Ordo can't match. The same garbage is the rule for politics. Two paths, both of which are designed for maximum destruction. [/quote]
Your post was more of an Ad hominem post than one that addressed my points. I'm in a "ditch" just because I don't think Pius IX destroyed the Catholic Church? The path you came up with is definitely too far to one side. Viewpoints like that aren't going to bring Protestants back to the Faith, it's going to steer them away even more. If I walked up to a Protestant and said they should convert to the Catholic faith, THEN started blaspheming the Faith by using the "Club Infallible" term, they would think I'm nuts. Blaspheming Catholicism can't draw people back in. You also have not one time confronted my point about Vatican II. I'm beginning to wonder if you literally saw nothing wrong with Vatican II. Remember, the modernist movement in the Church itself started not long before Vatican II was called for.
Furthermore, you are extremely lucky that you are allowed to post here as much as you cut down Vatican I and good Popes. This is a Traditional Catholic forum. I don't mean to sound rude, but not one Traditionalist here wants to hear this stuff about Pius IX being a freemason and about Vatican I being a bad Council. Nor will anyone here believe any of that. I don't want you to think you're going to be able to convince anybody here that what you believe in is true, because I am afraid that you wasting your time if you think you can convince anyone here of that stuff. Your viewpoints come from extremism, a form of heresy that stems from extreme sedevacanism but goes way beyond any level of sedevacanism there is. When searching from Traditional Catholicism, you went too far. I advise you to do plentiful research on both Vatican I and II. If you would do that and also pray for God to show you the truth, then you would see who was truely responsible for the near destruction of the Traditional Catholic Church.
-
. . .
======================================
Scriptures tell us that ST. Paul corrected St. Peter. Since 1870, the illusion of the infallible papacy has removed the possibly of the Roman Catholic Church to correct any mistakes . This is the doctrine that wore out the saints and we no longer have room on this planet for a St. Paul correcting the pope.
. . .
[/quote]
Classiccom,
It is evident that you do not even understand the doctrine of infallibility and what it even applies to. The exchange of Paul rebuking Peter to which you refer was in regard to Peter "mistreating" Gentiles in the presence of Jєωs--without going into a dissertation on what infallibility does and does not apply to (something that I do not consider myself qualified to do), this CLEARLY is not an incident to which infallibility is applicable.
Suppose you are correct, Classiccom, that the Catholic Church came apart under Pope Pius IX--that brings me back to what I asked you in the "Open Letter to a Pope" thread (which I do not recollect your answering):
1) How many of the Sacraments do you believe are still available today?
2) Are there any valid bishops still around, in your view, and please identify them?
3) Suppose you wanted to convert someone with little or no current knowledge of Catholicism to the Faith, what reasons would you present as to why they should convert?
4) What specific Catechism or other CATHOLIC source, in addition to the Bible, would you use to train a new Catechumen?
-
I have no authority, just personal opinion and the right and DUTY of all Christians to question their superiors with the teaching of scripture and tradition.
Q-
What specific Catechism or other CATHOLIC source, in addition to the Bible, would you use to train a new Catechumen?
=============
Great question - you would think there would be an American Catechism before Pius IX . They probably had them all burned because they disputed the notion of papal infalliblity.
I think Pius X tried to write a catechism, but it was criticized and only it was only used locally in Rome. He was the only saintly pope in the last 500 years , so look for clues there.
Now getting back to our cast of unsaintly popes, here is a tidbit of info from thw 9/21 interview of William H. Kennedy on Stan Montieth's Liberty Radio program.
Pope Benedict's Masonic Meetings
this is about 31 minutes into the interview
Wm H. Kennedy
Pope Benedict just visited England
Q of England personal representative to the Pope is the
Dutchess of Kent who travels to the Vatican several times a year to meet directly with the Pope.
Her husband Duke of Kent is the grand head of international Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ. He is the head of all nations on earth.
Audio download
http://archives2010.gcnlive.com/Archives2010/sep10/RadioLiberty/0921101.mp3
====================
http://revisionistreview.blogspot.com/2010/09/pope-in-scotland-and-england-conscience.html
excerpt from Michael Hoffman
Most intriguing of all the developments in the pontiff's sojourn in Britain, is the remarkable public emergence of what was for centuries a great secret: the symbiotic relationship between the Neoplatonic imperium that gained purchase inside the Vatican beginning with the Renaissance, and the masonic cryptocracy of Britain -- two seeming opposing forces -- now shown to be in alliance.
Lastly, the pope beatified (raised to near-saint status) the Victorian savant and Anglican convert to Catholicism, John Henry Newman. When asked, in the 19th century, to toast the pope, Cardinal Newman is reported to have said, "To the pope, yes, -- but to conscience first." Cardinal Newman's standard should be our own in this time of crisis, as we observe the shenanigans of the wily Benedict XVI and his apparatchiks, inside the Vatican and beyond.
==============================
2 Thessalonians 2 >>
Douay-Rheims Bible
1 And we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of our gathering together unto him: 2 That you be not easily moved from your sense, nor be terrified, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by epistle, as sent from us, as if the day of the Lord were at hand. 3 Let no man deceive you by any means, for unless there come a revolt first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition, 4 Who opposeth, and is lifted up above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, so that he sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself as if he were God. 5 Remember you not, that when I was yet with you, I told you these things? 6 And now you know what withholdeth, that he may be revealed in his time. 7 For the mystery of iniquity already worketh; only that he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way. 8 And then that wicked one shall be revealed whom the Lord Jesus shall kill with the spirit of his mouth; and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming, him, 9 Whose coming is according to the working of Satan, in all power, and signs, and lying wonders, 10 And in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish; because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying: 12 That all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity.
13 But we ought to give thanks to God always for you, brethren, beloved of God, for that God hath chosen you firstfruits unto salvation, in sanctification of the spirit, and faith of the truth: 14 Whereunto also he hath called you by our gospel, unto the purchasing of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.
16 Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God and our Father, who hathloved us, and hath given us everlasting consolation, and good hope in grace, 17 Exhort your hearts, and confirm you in every good work and word.
-
.....edited
Great question - you would think there would be an American Catechism before Pius IX . They probably had them all burned because they disputed the notion of papal infalliblity. ....edited
Ahhh, yes, This is a mystery I have pondered too. I am a lover of old books and why is it I can't find any old Catholic books? You would think they would be floating around used bookstores. Granted, this is the U.S. and maybe I'm just looking in the wrong country? I find it odd nonetheless.
I did find a slightly odd Catholic Bible from 1963 with the eye in the triangle (same as on the dollar bill) on the inside cover.
-
Leisa,
You might want to read this thread...
http://www.cathinfo.com/index.php/Quick-question
-
Classicom - thank you for the audio and article. The audio is very interesting.
Gladius - thank you for the link to the discussion. I must say though that I have to respectfully disagree. I do not think it is a Catholic symbol. The symbol of the all seeing eye predates Christianity and is in fact pagan. Why Catholics in the middle ages would pick up this symbol and use it is beyond me. I alway mistrust symbols unless they are totally Christian such as a crucifix or Jesus or Mary and Joseph..etc...the dove for the Holy Spirit.
The letterhead used by our diocese has a picture a golden sun and its not a coincidence. Wouldn't you want to represent the Catholic church with a picture of Jesus or Mary or a cross? Would you choose a sun?
(Sorry! I don't mean to hyjack the thread. Sorry).
Leisa
-
.....edited
Great question - you would think there would be an American Catechism before Pius IX . They probably had them all burned because they disputed the notion of papal infalliblity. ....edited
Ahhh, yes, This is a mystery I have pondered too. I am a lover of old books and why is it I can't find any old Catholic books? You would think they would be floating around used bookstores. Granted, this is the U.S. and maybe I'm just looking in the wrong country? I find it odd nonetheless.
I did find a slightly odd Catholic Bible from 1963 with the eye in the triangle (same as on the dollar bill) on the inside cover.
You must be young. The reason why there aren't that many old Catholic books left is because they have all been bought up. Traditionals have been buying them since the 1970s.
-
I have no authority, just personal opinion and the right and DUTY of all Christians to question their superiors with the teaching of scripture and tradition.
Q-
What specific Catechism or other CATHOLIC source, in addition to the Bible, would you use to train a new Catechumen?
=============
Great question - you would think there would be an American Catechism before Pius IX . They probably had them all burned because they disputed the notion of papal infalliblity.
I think Pius X tried to write a catechism, but it was criticized and only it was only used locally in Rome. He was the only saintly pope in the last 500 years , so look for clues there.
Now getting back to our cast of unsaintly popes, here is a tidbit of info from thw 9/21 interview of William H. Kennedy on Stan Montieth's Liberty Radio program.
Pope Benedict's Masonic Meetings
this is about 31 minutes into the interview
Wm H. Kennedy
Pope Benedict just visited England
Q of England personal representative to the Pope is the
Dutchess of Kent who travels to the Vatican several times a year to meet directly with the Pope.
Her husband Duke of Kent is the grand head of international Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ. He is the head of all nations on earth.
Audio download
http://archives2010.gcnlive.com/Archives2010/sep10/RadioLiberty/0921101.mp3
====================
http://revisionistreview.blogspot.com/2010/09/pope-in-scotland-and-england-conscience.html
excerpt from Michael Hoffman
Most intriguing of all the developments in the pontiff's sojourn in Britain, is the remarkable public emergence of what was for centuries a great secret: the symbiotic relationship between the Neoplatonic imperium that gained purchase inside the Vatican beginning with the Renaissance, and the masonic cryptocracy of Britain -- two seeming opposing forces -- now shown to be in alliance.
Lastly, the pope beatified (raised to near-saint status) the Victorian savant and Anglican convert to Catholicism, John Henry Newman. When asked, in the 19th century, to toast the pope, Cardinal Newman is reported to have said, "To the pope, yes, -- but to conscience first." Cardinal Newman's standard should be our own in this time of crisis, as we observe the shenanigans of the wily Benedict XVI and his apparatchiks, inside the Vatican and beyond.
==============================
2 Thessalonians 2 >>
Douay-Rheims Bible
1 And we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of our gathering together unto him: 2 That you be not easily moved from your sense, nor be terrified, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by epistle, as sent from us, as if the day of the Lord were at hand. 3 Let no man deceive you by any means, for unless there come a revolt first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition, 4 Who opposeth, and is lifted up above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, so that he sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself as if he were God. 5 Remember you not, that when I was yet with you, I told you these things? 6 And now you know what withholdeth, that he may be revealed in his time. 7 For the mystery of iniquity already worketh; only that he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way. 8 And then that wicked one shall be revealed whom the Lord Jesus shall kill with the spirit of his mouth; and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming, him, 9 Whose coming is according to the working of Satan, in all power, and signs, and lying wonders, 10 And in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish; because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying: 12 That all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity.
13 But we ought to give thanks to God always for you, brethren, beloved of God, for that God hath chosen you firstfruits unto salvation, in sanctification of the spirit, and faith of the truth: 14 Whereunto also he hath called you by our gospel, unto the purchasing of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.
16 Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God and our Father, who hathloved us, and hath given us everlasting consolation, and good hope in grace, 17 Exhort your hearts, and confirm you in every good work and word.
Yeah, it's the duty of all Catholics to question their superiors... when they are wrong! You question things that are not wrong and turn them into your own thing. And as surprised as I am to hear that you consider Pius X to have been a good Pope (which he was, although you attack nearly every one of the Pius Popes), Pius X was NOT the only canonized Pope within the last 500 years.
-
I have no authority, just personal opinion and the right and DUTY of all Christians to question their superiors with the teaching of scripture and tradition.
Q-
What specific Catechism or other CATHOLIC source, in addition to the Bible, would you use to train a new Catechumen?
=============
Great question - you would think there would be an American Catechism before Pius IX . They probably had them all burned because they disputed the notion of papal infalliblity.
I think Pius X tried to write a catechism, but it was criticized and only it was only used locally in Rome. He was the only saintly pope in the last 500 years , so look for clues there.
. . .
Isn't "QUESTION AUTHORITY" the eternal battlecry of the likes of the flower-children of the 1960s "revolution;" the liberals/modernists the world over in general, and, in particular, those beloved souls that brought us Vatican-REGURGITATE-II and who perpetrated the N.O. scam and made a sham of the rightful Catholic customs of fasting and abstaining, etc., etc., etc. owed to their "QUESTIONING AUTHORITY;" Martin Luther, Calvin, Henry VIII, etc., etc., etc.?!?!?!?
QUESTION AUTHORITY = PROTEST(ANT) PERIOD PERIOD PERIOD PERIOD!!!!!!
In light of your position on Pope Pius X, do we have a now-we-see-you-now-we-don't Apostolic Chain and that kind of honoring of Christ's promise to be with the Apostles until the consummation of the world?
I thought your position was it was all over with Pius IX.
Your positions are becoming clearer with your liberal QUESTION AUTHORITY "pick and choose my own Popes" attitude (which is MOST UN-CATHOLIC, and which has resulted in the proliferation of numerous anti-Catholic heretical sects) and your protestant leanings regarding the Blessed Virgin Mary, sola Scriptura, the Inquisitions and slurring Popes back as far as the middle of the 13th Century, quoting anti-Catholic heretical sources such as Martin Luther and that one "scholarly" anti-Catholic travelguide website for which I would most certainly be remiss shall I fail to give you credit for citing.
Please do not take this personal. I have many protestant friends, though I am constantly slamming their heretical beliefs! This is merely what I think of your non-Catholic brand of "religion" and the sources by which you attempt to support your positions.
I feel all the more compelled to challenge non-Catholic and anti-Catholic assertions on this forum. Hopefully most members here are in tune enough to recognize your brand of religion for what IT IS NOT!! But because you are trying to spin it as "Catholicism," I feel my DUTY is to point out that it most certainly is not "Catholicism" for any members who may be duped, and, more importantly, for people who may have simply come across this forum in search of information on traditonal Catholicism.
I don't want you to convince them that Catholic's "worship" the Blessed Virgin Mary, that Catholicism is sola Scriptura, that the Catholic church is tainted all the way back to the days of the Inquisitions--these positions must be confronted!
For those who may not be familiar with our earlier disagreements, I shall soon post a follow-up referencing the relevant threads. Stay tuned. . .
-
Quote
""pick and choose my own Popes"
=============================
I guess I espouse the Reagan doctrine "trust, but verify". All the popes , including St. Peter, don't get a free pass without some scrutiny. Of course I trust St. Peter, but the popes in my lifetime have all been questionable. This antipope business is a matter for the church hierarchy and I never use the expression.
You think the pope wears some kind of superman outfit and is incapable of preaching error. This is why one billion people gave JPII a pass at Assisi. I don't blame the Manchurian Pope, I blame you for putting up with this nonsense. Take some responsibility for your actions or lack of action. If you like being a brainwashed drone, check out the Moonies. I think he is using the Pope Pius IX playbook. He set up his own secular kingdom, a new home in Paraguay next to George Bush. I don't think he has built his own tobacco factory or marketed perfume, but he's big in publishing, gun & ammo production, fisheries, etc.etc.
Moon's message to his converts : "I am your brain".
He even scammed the Japanese out of 50 Billion for the relief of souls in hell. (gee, I wonder where he got that idea ?)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAAgzAL7QBw
-
Quote
. . .
He even scammed the Japanese out of 50 Billion for the relief of souls in hell. (gee, I wonder where he got that idea ?)
. . .
Classiccom,
Are you not again borrowing a concept from the play-book of the heretical Martin Luther, the very premise upon which he justified picking and choosing - modern day liberal N.O. cafeteria style "catholicism" - what he did and did not want to believe, and thereby became the father of protestantism which has gone forth and since multiplied into a morass of varying heretical "bible-based - sola Scriptura without authoritative interpretation - I'm saved" religions!
Here are the references to the threads I previously referenced in which Classiccom and I have otherwise disagreed:
Classiccom quoting language maligning the Church and Popes all the way back to the middle of the 13th century, conjuring up the Inquisitions (a common rambling point for heretical fundamentalist anti-Catholic protestants), from a source clearly touting an anti-Catholic perspective, and which is, shall we say, less than scholarly (a travel guide website):
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=12202&f=3&min=20&num=20
And again he hits the Inquisitions:
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Inventors-of-Evil-Things
The heretical fundamentalist anti-Catholic protestant recluse publisher, Jack Chick, also uses the Inquisitions as one of his talking points in one of his heretical fundamentalist anti-Catholic protestant cartoon tracts for simple minds, “Man in Black.”
Classiccom posted the following at http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=9164&min=20&num=20
“Please don't take anything here personal. Even if it were personal, a
Christian roast is like prepping for the final exam where the imperfect works are burned so that you may still be saved.
Ephesians 2: 8-10.
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.”
Is Classiccom not implying support for the heresy of justification by faith alone?
The heretical fundamentalist anti-Catholic protestant recluse publisher, Jack Chick, also support for the heresy of justification by faith alone as one of his talking points in one of his heretical fundamentalist anti-Catholic protestant cartoon tracts for simple minds, “Last Rites.” And this, too, ties in with Classiccom’s more-or-less expressed disdain for indulgences found in the post I quote at the top of this post.
Classiccom has failed to provide a clear, unambiguous response to my insistent questioning as to whether he believes the Apostolic chain is in peril of ceasing, and whether he believes it is possible or impossible for the Apostolic chain to cease. Also, Classiccom apparently (Classiccom provides few, if any, clear unambiguous answers to questions) holds heretical fundamentalist anti-catholic protestant views on praying to the Blessed Virgin Mary. See pages 7 – 9 of the following thread:
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=12181&min=120&num=20
I finally got tired of waiting for Classicom to tell me his position regarding the Blessed Virgin Mary, and started searching the forum to get a better read on him. I found a thread which was running over a year and a half before I joined the forum, and found that he considers Catholics “Mary-worshippers,” as I had suspected, that same demented view and slur I have had hurled at me numerous times by heretical fundamentalist anti-Catholic protestants throughout my life here in the “Bible-belt:” Classiccom’s exact words:
“The Fatima Hoax - How many Catholics will loose their faith when they figure out they have been deluded by various Popse [sic.] for many years. Scripture warned us about worshiping the creature more than the Creator. Mary is a creature, not a god.”
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Open-letter-to-the-Pope
The heretical fundamentalist anti-Catholic protestant recluse publisher, Jack Chick, also condemns the Catholic perspective of the Blessed Virgin Mary as one of his talking points in his heretical fundamentalist anti-Catholic protestant cartoon tracts for simple minds, “Last Rites” and “Why is Mary Crying.”
In the same thread, in light of what Classiccom would have us believe is the state of the Church, I asked Classiccom to respond to the following:
1) How many of the Sacraments do you believe are still available today?
2) Are there any valid bishops still around, in your view, and please identify them?
3) Suppose you wanted to convert someone with little or no current knowledge of Catholicism to the Faith, what reasons would you present as to why they should convert?
4) What specific Catechism or other CATHOLIC source, in addition to the Bible, would you use to train a new Catechumen?
I didn’t think I was asking too much. But, true to form, Classiccom never responded.
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Open-letter-to-the-Pope
Classiccom’s eventual response (only to # 4) to the effect “there must be some old Catechism which would be appropriate” (a paraphrased quote from this thread) doesn’t quite set him apart as a man with a suitable plan for jumping ship from the Church our Lord founded. I wonder how old an appropriate Catechism would have to be to gain Classiccom’s approval—I doubt whether the Catechism of the Council of Trent would even suffice, if for no other reason than its chronological proximity to the Inquisitions for which Classiccom sheds so many tears and loses so much sleep!
In yet another thread Classiccom quoted the following, from a piece flattering and quoting the heretic Martin Luther:
“http://johnkaminski.info/pages/articles/the_last_sermon_of_martin_luther.htm
The last sermon of Martin Luther
Condensed from his final book: ‘The Jєωs and Their Lies’
The famous religious reformer Martin Luther (1483-1546) nailed his famous Theses on the front door of the Church at Wittenburg as a reaction to what he would later learn was Jєωιѕн corruption inside the highest offices of the Catholic Church in Rome. His ideas inspired the Protestant Reformation and changed the course of Western Civilization.
. . . .
What follows is a truncated redaction of Martin Luther’s final book: The Jєωs and Their Lies. It is written by a writer who is neither Catholic nor Jєω, but merely a seeker of truth in a world besieged and nearly destroyed by the dishonesty of those who seek to hurt, deceive and destroy others, especially true believers of any type. This redaction consists of selected but unchanged passages from this work, and as such, is more an edited condensation and reshuffling than an actual redaction.
••• “
And, of course, Classiccom ignored my simple query, “So is this what your think of Martin Luther?”
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/The-last-sermon-of-Martin-Luther
Everytime I start giving Classiccom the benefit of the doubt of having some twisted perspective but genuine love of Catholicism, he goes and starts making statements irrelevant to what true Catholics perceive as the crux of the crisis situation--such statements as deriding prayer to the Blessed Virgin Mary; deriding Papal Infallibility; deriding the Inquisitions; more-or-less advocating sola Scriptura--taking the opposite of the SETTLED CATHOLIC position on these matters, preferring instead the positions denounced as HERESIES by the CATHOLIC CHURCH throughout the centuries and advocated most ardently by HATERS of the Faith, the slurs of which are hurled by the staunches anti-Catholic sects!
Classiccom,
You seem to think you have a revolutionary brand of religion in mind to which you are trying to convert us. I certainly do not want to wound your ego, but you are about 500 years too late with your "new" concept, as a heretic named Luther invented it way back then, and it has since been "honed and perfected" by subsequent heretics such as Henry VIII, Calvin, Wesley, Campbell, Roger Williams, Billy Sunday, Jack Chick, etc., etc.--it is called PROTESTANTISM! In fact, it's been honed and taught so well that even the simple-minded uneducated can preach its tenets!
I don't even think you're a protestant of the "old catholic" sect, as some on here have speculated! There is not even a scintillia of Catholicism in many of your outlandish views! You make the same points that heretical readers of Jack Chick's cartoons for simple minds make--don't pray to Mary; the Inquisitions were evil; the Popes think they are God; the bible is all you need! I feel like I'm arguing with a fundamentalist good-ole-boy right here in the "Bible-Belt" that goes to a "church" that calls itself "Baptist" just so people don't look at them cross-eyed, but is actually even farther out there than true Baptists.
-
Pope Pius IX a Mason? You've got to be kidding me. :mad:
If anything, he was one the greatest enemies of the Masons.
For all I know, he could have had even attachments to their ideas in some way or another in the very beginning of his pontificate. The scales fell from his eyes though, and he saw the light concerning liberalism.
-
Kephapaulos,
Classiccom's view regarding Pope Pius IX is mild compared to his views regarding the Blessed Virgin Mary, Papal Infallibility (his favorite derogatory pharse is "Club Infallible"), sola Scriptura, etc.
I cite the threads in my post above where you can see his non-Catholic views.
-
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.
-
Quote
""pick and choose my own Popes"
=============================
I guess I espouse the Reagan doctrine "trust, but verify". All the popes , including St. Peter, don't get a free pass without some scrutiny. Of course I trust St. Peter, but the popes in my lifetime have all been questionable. This antipope business is a matter for the church hierarchy and I never use the expression.
You think the pope wears some kind of superman outfit and is incapable of preaching error. This is why one billion people gave JPII a pass at Assisi. I don't blame the Manchurian Pope, I blame you for putting up with this nonsense. Take some responsibility for your actions or lack of action. If you like being a brainwashed drone, check out the Moonies. I think he is using the Pope Pius IX playbook. He set up his own secular kingdom, a new home in Paraguay next to George Bush. I don't think he has built his own tobacco factory or marketed perfume, but he's big in publishing, gun & ammo production, fisheries, etc.etc.
Moon's message to his converts : "I am your brain".
He even scammed the Japanese out of 50 Billion for the relief of souls in hell. (gee, I wonder where he got that idea ?)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAAgzAL7QBw
Classicom, OHCA isn't giving JPII a "free pass" for the modernist things he did. There may not be one member here who does not think JPII was a modernist. We are all aware that the Vatican II Popes have all been modernists, some of them maybe even anti-popes. You're preaching to the choir here, buddy. You go WAY overboard though. You go looking for something wrong with every Pope, even with St. Peter. Even if you can't find anything you basically force yourself to point out something bad about a certain Pope, and 9 times out of 10 that bad thing you note is not true. You are clearly a follower of Martin Luther.
-
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?
-
. . .
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)!
-
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]
-
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 !")
-
Charles,
I was about to tear into you and accuse you of being Classiccom's alter-ego until I got to the end!
:cheers:
-
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?
-
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 )
-
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
-
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 ?
-
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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
Jesus in diapers is more potent than kings on thrones. It takes many trips to the confessional to heal some sins. Persevere!
-
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.
-
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?
-
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 )
Classicom, Pius IX was NOT warned against by Our Lady or anyone else. If you're going to spend all of your time here at Catholic Info bashing Popes, why not bash Popes such as Paul VI?
-
Hi,
What bothers you about that depction of Jesus?
=================================
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 ? [/quote]
-
Charles,
I was about to tear into you and accuse you of being Classiccom's alter-ego until I got to the end!
:cheers:
I figured if we gotta spin a tale, it might as well be a goodun !
-
More food for thought.
Famous Epileptics that ruled Rome.
Julius Caeser - Pius IX
===============================
http://www.helium.com/items/1330850-julius-caesar
Biography: Julius Caesar
"I had rather be first in a village than second in Rome." Thus spoke Julius Caesar, the man who would become first in Rome, as its consul for life and upon whom was bestowed the prestigious title, " Pater Patriae" Father of the Nation.
"in 63 BC, after a vigorous campaign, he gained the important post of Pontifex Maximus chief of religion in the Roman state."
======================
I find it amazing that no one has the guts to spell out all the antiChrist characteristics of Pius IX. Even the Protestants never talk much about it. Christ talked about that phenomenon about evil does not cast out evil.
-
Here is an interesting list of megalomaniacs.
http://www.disabled-world.com/artman/publish/epilepsy-famous.shtml
By Disabled World - 2008-01-17
Many famous and well known people have or did have epilepsy, here is a list of some of these people who suffered epilepsy in their lives.
* * *
Strange they forgot Pius IX.
-
This information is interesting, but unfortunately you can't believe what a Mason says because they are all liars. As Dr. James Wardner said, Masons have taken an oath to lie. Nevertheless, if Pius IX was a Mason, he would have been an ineligible due to automatic excommunication. His council making the papacy infallible would be null and void. His successors would be antipopes and not popes, regardless of how good-looking and pious they were. That would make Vatican II null, the Pius X breviary void, all the sneaky Modernist reforms between 1846 and 1958 vacated. Excuse me, did you know that Pope Pius IX was a commissioned officer in the Freemason Napoleon Bonapartes Grand Armee? Participating in the Masonic conquest of Europe? Let me guess... You have your hands over your ears so you won't see. Funny, everyone has at least one false belief he holds onto for dear life. The CMRI deny Feeneyism. The SSPX and Resistance deny sedevacantism. Roscoe denies both. RJMI denies that anyone outside his group can go to Heaven. And the Masonic high council are laughing at us all. They think they have won. I don't. I believe in the Catholic Church, and I believe that somehow it will get back on its feet and smash all the lies we are following.
-
This information is interesting, but unfortunately you can't believe what a Mason says because they are all liars. As Dr. James Wardner said, Masons have taken an oath to lie. Nevertheless, if Pius IX was a Mason, he would have been an ineligible due to automatic excommunication. His council making the papacy infallible would be null and void. His successors would be antipopes and not popes, regardless of how good-looking and pious they were. That would make Vatican II null, the Pius X breviary void, all the sneaky Modernist reforms between 1846 and 1958 vacated. Excuse me, did you know that Pope Pius IX was a commissioned officer in the Freemason Napoleon Bonapartes Grand Armee? Participating in the Masonic conquest of Europe? Let me guess... You have your hands over your ears so you won't see. Funny, everyone has at least one false belief he holds onto for dear life. The CMRI deny Feeneyism. The SSPX and Resistance deny sedevacantism. Roscoe denies both. RJMI denies that anyone outside his group can go to Heaven. And the Masonic high council are laughing at us all. They think they have won. I don't. I believe in the Catholic Church, and I believe that somehow it will get back on its feet and smash all the lies we are following.
Yes the Catholic Church shall rise again.
Thank God that papal elections are "Acts of administration and are not a sacrament."
Popes are administrators of the doctrines and dogmas of the Church through the discipline they impose on the Church. If they do anything else they are not to be listened to and ignored.
Pius IX is a strange case of an epileptic who was given a dispensation to become a priest by Pope Pius VII in 1819. Very strange indeed.
Shall we start giving hermaphrodites dispensations also and see how that works out?
Yet he was also excitable, oversensitive, and something of a bully. Sometimes this was expressed with a strange humor. To some Protestant clergy that visited him, he gave them this benediction: "May you be blessed by Him in whose honor you shall be burnt" More headlines went around the world.
When bishops displeased him, he ordered them to kiss his feet, or a worse humiliation would fall on them. He sustained the death sentences of two anarchists. It is well-known by those who have read papal biographies that Pius IX was given to rages and was alternately kind and cruel to subordinates.
One biographer, Martina, describes a "siege complex." Anyone who did not think as Pius IX thought was considered an enemy of the church and a personal enemy to be dealt with. He saw them as "unbelievers . . (operating) a war machine against the church. "
…...
Like a good politician, prior to the council, Pio Nono checked on the position of every archbishop and bishop. He used pressure, flattery, and deception to achieve his objective. When the Archbishop of Bologna complained that church tradition in Europe argued against infallibility. Pius roared, "I am tradition!" and immediately reassigned the archbishop to a monastery. Not wanting to spend the rest of his life as a monk washing dishes, the archbishop quickly relented.
Even Cardinal John Henry Newman, the famous British Anglican priest who had converted to Catholicism in 1845, remarked, "It is not good for a pope to live 20 years. He becomes a god and has no one to contradict him." (O so true just look at JPII)
-
Yes the Catholic Church shall rise again.
Thank God that papal elections are "Acts of administration and are not a sacrament."
Popes are administrators of the doctrines and dogmas of the Church through the discipline they impose on the Church. If they do anything else they are not to be listened to and ignored.
Pius IX is a strange case of an epileptic who was given a dispensation to become a priest by Pope Pius VII in 1819. Very strange indeed.
Shall we start giving hermaphrodites dispensations also and see how that works out?
You are one sick individual! Venerable Pius IX was one of the saintliest popes that the Church has ever produced. I’ll bet that the only knowledge you have of him is from Wikipedia.
-
Yes the Catholic Church shall rise again.
Thank God that papal elections are "Acts of administration and are not a sacrament."
Popes are administrators of the doctrines and dogmas of the Church through the discipline they impose on the Church. If they do anything else they are not to be listened to and ignored.
Pius IX is a strange case of an epileptic who was given a dispensation to become a priest by Pope Pius VII in 1819. Very strange indeed.
Shall we start giving hermaphrodites dispensations also and see how that works out?
This is a prime example of the fruits of the R&R position.
-
Yet he was also excitable, oversensitive, and something of a bully. Sometimes this was expressed with a strange humor. To some Protestant clergy that visited him, he gave them this benediction: "May you be blessed by Him in whose honor you shall be burnt" More headlines went around the world.
When bishops displeased him, he ordered them to kiss his feet, or a worse humiliation would fall on them. He sustained the death sentences of two anarchists. It is well-known by those who have read papal biographies that Pius IX was given to rages and was alternately kind and cruel to subordinates.
One biographer, Martina, describes a "siege complex." Anyone who did not think as Pius IX thought was considered an enemy of the church and a personal enemy to be dealt with. He saw them as "unbelievers . . (operating) a war machine against the church. "
Hmmm... some of this sounds very familiar. Qui legit, intelligat.
(And I say this as a "KAG2020" supporter, albeit primarily for the good of the unborn. There is nothing perfect in this universe except God Himself.)
-
Yet he was also excitable, oversensitive, and something of a bully. Sometimes this was expressed with a strange humor. To some Protestant clergy that visited him, he gave them this benediction: "May you be blessed by Him in whose honor you shall be burnt" More headlines went around the world.
When bishops displeased him, he ordered them to kiss his feet, or a worse humiliation would fall on them. He sustained the death sentences of two anarchists. It is well-known by those who have read papal biographies that Pius IX was given to rages and was alternately kind and cruel to subordinates.
One biographer, Martina, describes a "siege complex." Anyone who did not think as Pius IX thought was considered an enemy of the church and a personal enemy to be dealt with. He saw them as "unbelievers . . (operating) a war machine against the church. "
Hmmm... some of this sounds very familiar. Qui legit, intelligat.
(And I say this as a "KAG2020" supporter, albeit primarily for the good of the unborn. There is nothing perfect in this universe except God Himself.)
Sorry, the man was an extremely saintly pope and was violently attacked by the enemy's of the Church. It must be fun for the R&R type to attack a true pope’s dignity and thus lower the status of the papacy to justify their insubordination to the heretics whom they consider real popes. Instead of taking the word of a modernist biography from 1974, try this contemporary one by Shea: https://archive.org/details/TheLifeOfPopePiusIX/page/n11/mode/2up (https://archive.org/details/TheLifeOfPopePiusIX/page/n11/mode/2up)
-
This information is interesting, but unfortunately you can't believe what a Mason says because they are all liars. As Dr. James Wardner said, Masons have taken an oath to lie. Nevertheless, if Pius IX was a Mason, he would have been an ineligible due to automatic excommunication. His council making the papacy infallible would be null and void. His successors would be antipopes and not popes, regardless of how good-looking and pious they were. That would make Vatican II null, the Pius X breviary void, all the sneaky Modernist reforms between 1846 and 1958 vacated. Excuse me, did you know that Pope Pius IX was a commissioned officer in the Freemason Napoleon Bonapartes Grand Armee? Participating in the Masonic conquest of Europe? Let me guess... You have your hands over your ears so you won't see. Funny, everyone has at least one false belief he holds onto for dear life. The CMRI deny Feeneyism. The SSPX and Resistance deny sedevacantism. Roscoe denies both. RJMI denies that anyone outside his group can go to Heaven. And the Masonic high council are laughing at us all. They think they have won. I don't. I believe in the Catholic Church, and I believe that somehow it will get back on its feet and smash all the lies we are following.
Why don’t you read a real biography on this great pope, instead of spouting stupidity. https://archive.org/details/TheLifeOfPopePiusIX/page/n11/mode/2up (https://archive.org/details/TheLifeOfPopePiusIX/page/n11/mode/2up)
-
To some Protestant clergy that visited him, he gave them this benediction: "May you be blessed by Him in whose honor you shall be burnt"
What is there to object to?
Pope Pius XI - 1928
Mortalium Animos, On Religious Unity
https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius11/p11morta.htm
9. These pan-Christians who turn their minds to uniting the churches seem, indeed, to pursue the noblest of ideas in promoting charity among all Christians: nevertheless how does it happen that this charity tends to injure faith? Everyone knows that John himself, the Apostle of love, who seems to reveal in his Gospel the secrets of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and who never ceased to impress on the memories of his followers the new commandment “Love one another,” altogether forbade any intercourse with those who professed a mutilated and corrupt version of Christ’s teaching: “If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him: God speed you.”[18] For which reason, since charity is based on a complete and sincere faith, the disciples of Christ must be united principally by the bond of one faith. Who then can conceive a Christian Federation, the members of which retain each his own opinions and private judgment, even in matters which concern the object of faith, even though they be repugnant to the opinions of the rest? And in what manner, We ask, can men who follow contrary opinions, belong to one and the same Federation of the faithful?
St. Alexander of Alexandria
Epistles on Arianism and the Deposition of Arius
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0622.htm
6. Since, therefore, our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ has thus Himself exhorted us, and by His apostle has signified such things to us; we, who have heard their impiety with our own ears, have consistently anathematized such men, as I have already said, and have declared them to be aliens from the Catholic Church and faith, and we have made known the thing, beloved and most honoured fellow-ministers, to your piety, that you should not receive any of them, should they venture rashly to come unto you, and that you should not trust Eusebius or any one else who writes concerning them. For it becomes us as Christians to turn with aversion from all who speak or think against Christ, as the adversaries of God and the destroyers of souls, and "not even to wish them Godspeed, lest at any time we become partakers of their evil deeds," as the blessed John enjoins.
He sustained the death sentences of two anarchists.
Again, what is there to object to?
I don't know the names of those two men, but if they were akin to the likes of Leon Czolgosz or Gaetano Bresci, then they received due justice.
-
Sorry, the man was an extremely saintly pope and was violently attacked by the enemy's of the Church. It must be fun for the R&R type to attack a true pope’s dignity and thus lower the status of the papacy to justify their insubordination to the heretics whom they consider real popes. Instead of taking the word of a modernist biography from 1974, try this contemporary one by Shea: https://archive.org/details/TheLifeOfPopePiusIX/page/n11/mode/2up (https://archive.org/details/TheLifeOfPopePiusIX/page/n11/mode/2up)
OK, let me clarify. I had no intention whatsoever of attacking Pius IX. I was merely quoting what someone else said, and made the observation --- apparently too oblique --- that these personal traits are also attributed by some to Donald Trump. With the mess our country is in, especially with regard to abortion, I really don't care about the president's deportment or etiquette, as long as he gets the job done, as he is largely doing. Americans, though, being the dainty and sensitive types that they are (many of them, anyway), are suckers for the gentle demeanor and avuncular delivery of "Uncle Joe" Biden. This may not end well. Remember what a nice, gentlemanly, soft-spoken man that Jimmy Carter was. Kind man, good man, but not the type of man who would deal harshly with our enemies (both foreign and domestic).
-
https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/pope-pius-ix-mason/msg690777/#msg690777
Wenceslas, you've quoted pieces of an article from what appears to be a Baptist website.
Why are you reading such material from non-Catholic authors?
-
This is a prime example of the fruits of the R&R position.
I quite agree with your dismissive replies to the jumped-up ignoramuses who are sneering at a better and more saintly man than they themselves are ever likely to be. Yet do you truly think that the statement quoted above embodies a necessary or even an appropriate conclusion from the available evidence? I suggest that it doesn't.
The commenters you rebuked indeed spoke stupidly, arrogantly, and rashly, but as stupidity, arrogance, and rash judgment are no respecters of theological positions—especially at the present time, when sound catechesis doesn't precisely lie thick on the ground—I hope that you will reconsider your words and either retract the statement or at least modify it.
-
I quite agree with your dismissive replies to the jumped-up ignoramuses who are sneering at a better and more saintly man than they themselves are ever likely to be. Yet do you truly think that the statement quoted above embodies a necessary or even an appropriate conclusion from the available evidence? I suggest that it doesn't.
The commenters you rebuked indeed spoke stupidly, arrogantly, and rashly, but as stupidity, arrogance, and rash judgment are no respecters of theological positions—especially at the present time, when sound catechesis doesn't precisely lie thick on the ground—I hope that you will reconsider your words and either retract the statement or at least modify it.
Claudel,
Sorry if I’ve offended you with my post. I think you know that I’m not a dogmatic sedevacantist and my post certainly does not apply to all who hold the R&R position. What I wrote above encapsulates my fear that some of those who do hold the R&R position, eventually find themselves attacking various pre-VII popes in order to lower the status of the papacy, thus justifying their insubordination to the heretics whom they consider real popes. I hope this helps you understand what I was trying to convey, as what I wrote above does seem a bit harsh.
-
OK, let me clarify. I had no intention whatsoever of attacking Pius IX. I was merely quoting what someone else said, and made the observation --- apparently too oblique --- that these personal traits are also attributed by some to Donald Trump. With the mess our country is in, especially with regard to abortion, I really don't care about the president's deportment or etiquette, as long as he gets the job done, as he is largely doing. Americans, though, being the dainty and sensitive types that they are (many of them, anyway), are suckers for the gentle demeanor and avuncular delivery of "Uncle Joe" Biden. This may not end well. Remember what a nice, gentlemanly, soft-spoken man that Jimmy Carter was. Kind man, good man, but not the type of man who would deal harshly with our enemies (both foreign and domestic).
Sorry, by the way your post was written, I didn’t realize you were quoting someone else.
-
I hope this helps you understand what I was trying to convey, as what I wrote above does seem a bit harsh.
Pax tecuм!
-
Pax tecuм!
Et cuм spiritu tuo!
-
Pius IX (and bl with a JP2 beatification in '00) was a Pope of extraordinary holiness and heroism. May he pray for us sinners.
-
The varnished descriptions of Pius IX by his sycophants give quite a distorted version of him. One must dig deeper if one must find truth. I have found much worse than what has been quoted.
When this is sorted out Pius IX will by no means come out looking good. This Pope created the ammunition for the far left of the Church to destroy the Church via Vatican II. The papacy has now digressed down into a game of thrones. Who can get the throne? If you do, you win! The conclave of 2013 proved this to be absolutely true.
Not one peep from anyone in the Church questioning or denouncing "Pacem in Terris" when it was published in April 1963. Silence. Why? Well he is the Pope! No one questions the Pope becauseeeeeeee. Because of Vatican I.
Compare that with John XXII and his looney ideas about the blessed. The Church members rose up against him, resisted him and made him back down. Otherwise the Church would have ended up as we are today. That type of reaction can't happen today because the Pope snores infallibly in his sleep as John XXIII, Paul VI, JPII, Benedict XVI, and Francis did and do. Why? Vatican I of course.
Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Frankly, you disgust me. Dig deeper? LOL. Why don’t you read an approved book like the one in the link above? I know, you prefer heretical sources, which is to be expected, since you’re not a Catholic.
-
Shows what type of individual you are by your ad hominem attack.
Remember "the end does not justify the means" which is from moral theology 101. Pius IX's abduction of the Jєωιѕн boy can no where be justified in any sane Catholic thinking. With Pius IX's thinking though (since he has made himself into Lord of the World via the Syllabus of Errors and Vatican I) he could do anything. The papacy since the Council of Constance has almost digressed into a despotic super king as shown by the aftermath of Vatican II.
Begone, you filthy heretic!
-
Pius IX's abduction of the Jєωιѕн boy can no where be justified in any sane Catholic thinking.
For degenerate heretics, such as yourself, the body is more important than the soul.
-
With Pius IX's thinking though (since he has made himself into Lord of the World via the Syllabus of Errors and Vatican I) he could do anything. The papacy since the Council of Constance has almost digressed into a despotic super king as shown by the aftermath of Vatican II.
Heresy plan and simple......you’ve been reported to Matthew.
-
The member "King Wenceslaus" has been banned for heresy.
Vatican I was a legitimate ecuмenical council of the Catholic Church. It DID define new dogmas, and those dogmas are binding upon all Catholics, including the dogma of Papal Infallibility.
CathInfo is not a "catch all" for all critics of the Catholic Church. Only those who object to Vatican II (which happened in the 1960s, on to the present day) are welcome here.
Vatican II was a robber council. It was taken over by Freemasons at the outset. It defined no new dogmas. Its fruits are completely diabolical, and Our Lord gave us the sage advice to "judge a tree by its fruits".
We are NOT permitted to go backwards and part company with the official Church structures, the hierarchy, the Pope, etc. a single day before Vatican II.
If anyone woke up and found himself in 1960, he would be OBLIGED under pain of sin to fully recognize AND obey the current Pope, as well as attend Sunday Mass at his local parish (approved by the Church authorities). Anything less than this, and he would be objectively in Mortal Sin and in danger of hell fire.
The OP of this thread (Classiccom) started this thread 10 years ago. He was banned for being against Vatican I -- a.k.a. heresy or being an "Old Catholic". Old Catholics are NOT welcome here. This forum is for Traditional Catholics (Catholics reacting against and resisting Vatican II) only.
-
Hey Classicom, did you ever think that the person who wrote the article you posted made the whole thing up? Any anti-Catholic can make a Pope look bad by making up an article full of "quotes" from certain people to make it look real. This is the first I have ever heard of Pius IX being a freemason. While it's true that he wasn't always Traditional, the chances of him being a freemason are slim to none.
Could it be that the person who wrote the article was a freemason in an attempt to sow confusion and discord in the Church?