Author Topic: Prodinoscopus...  (Read 1883 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline DeMaistre

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 343
  • Reputation: +15/-0
  • Gender: Male
Prodinoscopus...
« on: June 22, 2009, 11:32:11 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Prodinoscopus, I like you, but I think that you are misguided. Please provide a defense for Assisi and all the prayer meetings that the Vatican II popes have gone to and approved of.

    Offline Caminus

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3015
    • Reputation: +1/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Prodinoscopus...
    « Reply #1 on: June 22, 2009, 12:06:11 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Why do you suppose that we should 'defend' Assisi if we take John Paul and Benedict as valid Popes?  


    Offline DeMaistre

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 343
    • Reputation: +15/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Prodinoscopus...
    « Reply #2 on: June 22, 2009, 12:16:01 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Caminus
    Why do you suppose that we should 'defend' Assisi if we take John Paul and Benedict as valid Popes?  


    Its outright apostasy. If you don't see that then you're blind.

    Offline Caminus

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3015
    • Reputation: +1/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Prodinoscopus...
    « Reply #3 on: June 22, 2009, 12:40:22 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • So you are saying that by this prayer meeting, John Paul formally renounced the Christian religion?  How does that work?

    Offline Prodinoscopus

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 149
    • Reputation: +12/-0
    Prodinoscopus...
    « Reply #4 on: June 22, 2009, 12:59:32 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: DeMaistre
    Prodinoscopus, I like you, but I think that you are misguided.

    Likewise, on both counts.  :-)

    However, I'm not taking the bait on this thread.

    Hopefully our friend Caminus will persuade you.
    Exile in Novus Ordo land ... please pray for me!


    Offline Caminus

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3015
    • Reputation: +1/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Prodinoscopus...
    « Reply #5 on: June 22, 2009, 12:59:48 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • In other words, explain how that amounts to a profession of Judaism or Islam or Naturalism or Rationalism.  I trust you won't find any such profession, but what you will find is a novel understanding of religions in light of Vatican II.  This novel understanding holds that the religions are good insofar as the agree with or express an affinity with Christianity.  This is a grevious error that leads to heresy and apostasy.  But something that leads to something else is not the thing itself.  The aggravating circumstance is not that he was a usurper, but rather that he was the Roman Pontiff.  Only a Roman Pontiff could cause that much damage in the Church.

    Offline Raoul76

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4814
    • Reputation: +2007/-4
    • Gender: Male
    Prodinoscopus...
    « Reply #6 on: June 22, 2009, 01:22:37 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • DeMaistre, are you back in the fold?  

    Caminus, no, this has gone well beyond just saying that other religions have "good aspects."  They have said the Old Covenant with Jews was never rescinded and that Jews still have the faith.  Yesterday I found a quote from then-Cardinal Ratzinger where he said that Jews can convert people to the one God and help them out of the darkness.

    Saying Jews can convert people to the true faith = Denial of Christ and His Church as the only means of salvation.  You are not going to be able to scare even kids like DeMaistre for much longer.  It's so obvious now.  

    I'm almost beginning to feel sorry for you because the whole edifice is crumbling.  Why do you keep digging yourself in deeper and deeper?  Don't you know you can't win on the side of the Father of Lies?
    As I was a new convert when posting here, my posts are often full of error, even unwitting heresy and rash judgment, all of which I renounce, and all my writings are best avoided -- MDLS

    Offline Caminus

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3015
    • Reputation: +1/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Prodinoscopus...
    « Reply #7 on: June 22, 2009, 02:26:42 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Raoul76
    DeMaistre, are you back in the fold?  

    Caminus, no, this has gone well beyond just saying that other religions have "good aspects."  They have said the Old Covenant with Jews was never rescinded and that Jews still have the faith.  Yesterday I found a quote from then-Cardinal Ratzinger where he said that Jews can convert people to the one God and help them out of the darkness.

    Saying Jews can convert people to the true faith = Denial of Christ and His Church as the only means of salvation.  You are not going to be able to scare even kids like DeMaistre for much longer.  It's so obvious now.  

    I'm almost beginning to feel sorry for you because the whole edifice is crumbling.  Why do you keep digging yourself in deeper and deeper?  Don't you know you can't win on the side of the Father of Lies?


     :laugh1: Don't feel sorry for me, friend.  Feel sorry for yourself.  When you are ready to take a look at your position, let me know.  And frankly, all this talk of how "obvious" things are only serves to discredit your position as it stems from a severe over-simplification.  You seem to think that incessantly saying to people how "obvious" it all is relieves you from presenting actual evidence.  

    When speaking about concrete facts, upon which you claim to rest, I detect more dishonesty and simple unwarranted inferences.  Sorry, that's how it looks to me and you ain't doin' much to remove these accusations, in fact, you are seriously compounding them.  

    Quote
    no, this has gone well beyond just saying that other religions have "good aspects."  They have said the Old Covenant with Jews was never rescinded and that Jews still have the faith.


    No it hasn't, it is the direct result of thinking about these religions in the best of terms.  All sorts of bad things happen because of this very small change in principle.  A small error in principle leads to very big problems in conclusions.  That's a basic philosophical principle.  

    Now, if they identify modern Jews with the Jews of old, then the talk of having "faith" makes sense.  But you and I both know there's a problem with making such an identification.  A very big problem indeed no doubt.  But on the other hand, listen carefully, this problem does not touch upon the faith itself.  It is a factual error with very dire consequences.  With regard to the "revocation" issue, you'll have to consider the Abrahamic Covenant when trying to discern their meaning.  And that is a primary point, trying to discern their meaning, not what you inject and infer from their words.  You ought to try it sometime.

    Quote
    Yesterday I found a quote from then-Cardinal Ratzinger where he said that Jews can convert people to the one God and help them out of the darkness.


    And this is a direct result of looking at religions in the way they do, it perverts other things indirectly.  But that is what theological and errors about concrete facts do: they injure and diminish other things, up to and include the faith itself.  Your primary problem is that you confuse the intellectual order of things and the direction of the succession of ideas.  Take for example your ridiculous treatment of Lumen Gentium.  You interpret it in such a way that has the Fathers of the Council asserting that they worship false gods.  

    This reading turns the whole thing on its head; it is an act of injustice in order to further your opinion.  To think that the Bishops, the majority of whom were orthodox, intended or even implied such a thing is a stupendous mistake.  So outrageous is your forced reading that it seems you have totally disqualified yourself from an objective critical analysis.  For anyone with even a remote sense of understanding will see that the statement asserts that Muslims, right or wrong, worship the same God as we do, not the other way around.  The correctness of this statement needs to be assessed on its own merits, not your absolutely unfounded, ridiculous, unjust imposition of meaning.

     



    Offline Caminus

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3015
    • Reputation: +1/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Prodinoscopus...
    « Reply #8 on: June 22, 2009, 02:31:28 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    DeMaistre, are you back in the fold?


    Only a schismatic would ask such a question.

    Offline Raoul76

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4814
    • Reputation: +2007/-4
    • Gender: Male
    Prodinoscopus...
    « Reply #9 on: June 22, 2009, 04:42:28 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • "With regard to the 'revocation' issue, you'll have to consider the Abrahamic Covenant when trying to discern their meaning."

    Who are you, anyway, are you a Vatican II 'priest'?  They are the only ones who suggest we must try to "discern the meaning" of Vatican II.  The last I recall, Christ said "Let your answers be yes, yes, no, no, anything else is from the devil."  Not "contradict yourself deliberately, be orthodox one day and heretical the next so people become worn-out and apathetic."  

    Why would I spend my time trying to "discern the meaning" of apostates?  When I read their writings, I read them in order to study their methods of lying, like a police officer watching a suspect squirm in his seat as he keeps digging himself in deeper and deeper with conflicting accounts of where he was at 7 PM last night.  

    Anyway, I know their meaning very well.  The Popes before Vatican II and writers like Henri DeLassus put us on our guard against it.  And before becoming Catholic I read lots of philosophy, garbage like Emmanuel Levinas and his talk of the "Other" -- meaning the Jew.  Ratzinger uses PRECISELY the terminology of this Judaizer to speak of Jews.  I know this whole early 20th century strain of nihilistic/New Age/Jewish gobbeldygook like the back of my hand, it's from Adorno and Heidegger and Rahner all jumbled together.  

    Do you want me to write you an essay on Charles Tournemire's "L'Orgue Mystique" and how this reflects the underside of the new liturgy, with its purposeful vagueness, and the way this plays on Jungian dream-states?  Would that establish my academic credentials?  I know exactly what they are trying to do in Vatican II, my friend.  I have traced it to its root.  

    Luckily since my fortuitous reading of Lumen Gentium I don't have to bother with even this anymore.  Lumen Gentium is open heresy.  You may think I am too obvious with my obviouslies -- I will continue to think you are ridiculous with your that's-ridiculouses.  What part of this don't you understand?  "Together with us Muslims worship the One True God."  Boom.  Basta.  Out of the Church.  Heretic.  Mikey doesn't need to play anymore.  And what part of JPII's "The Old Covenant has never been revoked" don't you understand?  

    I know I touch your sore spot.  I don't complain about spectacles like Assissi because those do not touch the main body of Catholics, but call them out for what you people don't want anyone to know about -- their dogmatic idolatry and enforced sins against the First Commandment FROM THE MAGISTERIUM.  

    You want me to be like the others and pretend that the thieves are too subtle to be caught, that they have protected themselves through cloudy, Heideggerean mumbo-jumbo and that I have to twist my mind into a pretzel to discern the few shreds of Catholic truth within that verbal swamp-gas.  But they have not protected themselves.  They have been caught dogmatically teaching heresy and eliminating themselves from Holy Mother Church along with all those who serve them, unless they repent of their errors.  Anyone reading what I say can now go take a look at Lumen Gentium, there are no excuses left.    
    As I was a new convert when posting here, my posts are often full of error, even unwitting heresy and rash judgment, all of which I renounce, and all my writings are best avoided -- MDLS

    Offline St Jude Thaddeus

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 853
    • Reputation: +181/-23
    • Gender: Male
    Prodinoscopus...
    « Reply #10 on: June 22, 2009, 05:43:53 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Great threads on this subforum!

    In the last few weeks Cathinfo has become the hottest Catholic forum on the net. On no other forum do they even allow these things to be discussed.

    Carry on!
    St. Jude, who, disregarding the threats of the impious, courageously preached the doctrine of Christ,
    pray for us.


    Offline Prodinoscopus

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 149
    • Reputation: +12/-0
    Prodinoscopus...
    « Reply #11 on: June 22, 2009, 06:49:40 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: St Jude Thaddeus
    Great threads on this subforum!

    In the last few weeks Cathinfo has become the hottest Catholic forum on the net. On no other forum do they even allow these things to be discussed.

    Carry on!

    Good point, SJT. Hard to believe, I was banned from AQ for posting critical comments about Benedict XVI. It's a different world at CathInfo, that's for sure.
    Exile in Novus Ordo land ... please pray for me!

    Offline Caminus

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3015
    • Reputation: +1/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Prodinoscopus...
    « Reply #12 on: June 23, 2009, 01:40:59 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Raoul76
    "With regard to the 'revocation' issue, you'll have to consider the Abrahamic Covenant when trying to discern their meaning."

    Who are you, anyway, are you a Vatican II 'priest'?  They are the only ones who suggest we must try to "discern the meaning" of Vatican II.  The last I recall, Christ said "Let your answers be yes, yes, no, no, anything else is from the devil."  Not "contradict yourself deliberately, be orthodox one day and heretical the next so people become worn-out and apathetic."


    You're so deep in dream mode that you hadn't even considered that possibility.  Now you preach simplicity to avoid embarrassment.  I see that you too use Jesus' words to distract from the issue, cover over lies and avoid having to answer questions.  I see a trend, when it suits you invoke simplicity in the face of cumbersome distinctions that expose your possible erroneous judgment, but when it comes to analyzing their "evil deeds" you wax eloquent about causes.  Hypocrite.      

    Quote
    Why would I spend my time trying to "discern the meaning" of apostates?


    Can you for once stop begging the question?  Your knees must be getting tired.  I'm beginning to think you are a lost cause seeing how so personally invested you've become in certain opinions.  Like Drolesky, your posts are dripping with emotion and anger.  But like lust, anger blinds a man.  So in the end, you become just as blind as John Paul, though for different reasons.  

    Quote
    When I read their writings, I read them in order to study their methods of lying, like a police officer watching a suspect squirm in his seat as he keeps digging himself in deeper and deeper with conflicting accounts of where he was at 7 PM last night.
     

    At least police officers try to be objective.  

    Quote
    Anyway, I know their meaning very well.
     

    No, actually, you don't.  You know the meaning imposed on the text, sure, but this isn't the same as knowing their meaning.  

    Quote
    The Popes before Vatican II and writers like Henri DeLassus put us on our guard against it.  And before becoming Catholic I read lots of philosophy, garbage like Emmanuel Levinas and his talk of the "Other" -- meaning the Jew.  Ratzinger uses PRECISELY the terminology of this Judaizer to speak of Jews.
     

    For every similiarity, there is dissimilarity.  I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here, that since a cat has four legs, and a dog has four legs, a cat must be a dog?  

    Quote
    I know this whole early 20th century strain of nihilistic/New Age/Jewish gobbeldygook like the back of my hand, it's from Adorno and Heidegger and Rahner all jumbled together.
     

    You must be very proud of yourself.  Now, how 'bout one proposition that you know beyond any doubt constitutes canonical heresy.  Thanks.  

    Quote
    Do you want me to write you an essay on Charles Tournemire's "L'Orgue Mystique" and how this reflects the underside of the new liturgy, with its purposeful vagueness, and the way this plays on Jungian dream-states?  Would that establish my academic credentials?  I know exactly what they are trying to do in Vatican II, my friend.  I have traced it to its root.
     

    Sounds to me like you do alot of day dreaming, trying to connect the dots with the haze of conspiracy, and not alot of actual study regardind dogmatic theology.  You're mind seems to be very close to mush, logically speaking.    

    Quote
    Luckily since my fortuitous reading of Lumen Gentium I don't have to bother with even this anymore.  Lumen Gentium is open heresy.


    Rule #1 of the rational life: Just because you assert it, doesn't make it true.  Apparently, this little section of LG has become that big intellectual life preserver.  Now you don't have to do anymore work!  Just sit back and spit out condemnations because you've got this thing pinned down.  

    Quote
    You may think I am too obvious with my obviouslies -- I will continue to think you are ridiculous with your that's-ridiculouses.  What part of this don't you understand?  "Together with us Muslims worship the One True God."  Boom.  Basta.  Out of the Church.  Heretic.  Mikey doesn't need to play anymore.


    Apparently you either did not read what I wrote here and elsewhere or you have zero tolerance for making proper distinctions.  I think this is more about your laziness than anything else.  Its funny how you've made this your bread and butter.  But, uh oh, now I come along while you and your buddies are slapping each other on the back and ask a couple of simple questions.  Sorry to ruin your party.  

    Now for the last time, please demonstrate how asserting that Muslims worship the same God, an assertion of concrete fact regarding a particular group of people, directly denies an article of faith.  Don't just say it.  Drop the attitude and prove it.  What are you so afraid of?  

     
    Quote
    And what part of JPII's "The Old Covenant has never been revoked" don't you understand?


    You need to engage my points about this or put a sock in it.  

    Offline gladius_veritatis

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6172
    • Reputation: +1234/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Prodinoscopus...
    « Reply #13 on: June 23, 2009, 01:59:52 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Caminus
    But on the other hand, listen carefully, this problem does not touch upon the faith itself.


    Does worshiping with Animists in Lake Togo "touch upon the faith"?  If NOT, what possibly COULD?

    "...cogitatione, verbo, et opere..."

    Btw, Mortalium animos clearly spells out that such behavior (and the mere SUPPORT of such) is - not approaches, leads to, etc., but IS - apostasy.

    "...Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little, turn aside to naturalism and atheism, as it is called; from which it clearly follows that one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, IS altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion..." [My emphasis - g_v]

    That last bit is a concise definition of apostasy - and is being applied to those who merely support such activity.
    + Vincit veritas +

    Offline CM

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2726
    • Reputation: +0/-0
    Prodinoscopus...
    « Reply #14 on: June 23, 2009, 02:14:53 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Like you Caminus, by not denouncing those who act in that manner.

    Quote from: Caminus
    Now, how 'bout one proposition that you know beyond any doubt constitutes canonical heresy.  Thanks.


    Let me ask you some questions Caminus.

    1) From which authoritative Catholic source do you draw your definition of 'canonical heresy' and will you please present it before the court?

    2) If a person you accept as pope were to be proven guilty of 'canonical heresy', would you then reject him as an antipope?

    3) Where were you at 7 pm last night?

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16