Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: DeMaistre on June 22, 2009, 11:32:11 AM
-
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.
-
Why do you suppose that we should 'defend' Assisi if we take John Paul and Benedict as valid Popes?
-
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.
-
So you are saying that by this prayer meeting, John Paul formally renounced the Christian religion? How does that work?
-
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.
-
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 circuмstance 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.
-
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 They have said the Old Covenant with Jews was never rescinded and that Jews still have the faith.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?
-
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.
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.
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.
-
DeMaistre, are you back in the fold?
Only a schismatic would ask such a question.
-
"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/Jєωιѕн 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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
"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 cuмbersome distinctions that expose your possible erroneous judgment, but when it comes to analyzing their "evil deeds" you wax eloquent about causes. Hypocrite.
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.
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.
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.
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?
I know this whole early 20th century strain of nihilistic/New Age/Jєωιѕн 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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
-
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.
-
Like you Caminus, by not denouncing those who act in that manner.
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?
-
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.
The question is: what is "this opinion" to which Mortalium Animos refers. And communicatio in sacris has never been thought of as an act of apostasy. Sacrilege is a different vice than apastasy.
But your example isn't ad rem for the question was: how does asserting that Muslims (or anyone else for that matter) worship the same God as us directly deny an article of faith. It doesn't touch upon our faith, rather it is a statement about people outside the Church, it is a statement of fact (or fiction) that doesn't objectively deny any truth of faith. For one could theoretically assert that all men actually worship the Blessed Trinity, consciously or unconsciously, whilst still maintaining all the dogmas of the faith for their inclusion doesn't affect the substance of our belief. Therefore it is not strictly heresy, nor is it apostasy. It is a philosophical/theological error in fact, that is ultimately outside of the competence of the magisterium of the Church. No Catholic is bound to believe this statement.
-
"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."
I will give you this, Caminus. You are good at what you do. You know how to go for the jugular and attack weaknesses.
What can I say against this? My being a daydreamer or intellectual dilettante or having a "pattern-making" mind doesn't mean that I am not right about what I say, but it's a nice aspersion to use to discredit me with whoever might be reading, because there is some truth to it. Congrats. You are very intuitive. I was actually warned today in a letter that precisely this would happen.
What you said isn't false, exactly, but it's as if, say, Mary Magdalene were trying to convert you after the death of Christ, and you said, "Why should I listen to you? You're the village whore." You're simply using whatever weakness in my character you can find against me, and hoping that will blacken my ( screen ) name.
Luckily there are other sedes out there who use the scholastic method more thoroughly than I do, and I do not try to compete with them.
Now I am being accused of being too spontaneous, whereas before I was too pretentious. Now I am unscholastic, when before I was an insufferable bookworm. But this may be a blessing in disguise. I think God kept me a bit worldly like Augustine so that I would have a different angle on this debate. I see someone like John Lane fumbling through books to find quotes and missing simple facts that are right under his nose, or entirely omitting the very existence of Freemasons and conspirators. I'm not sure books are the answer here. No book written 500 years ago can describe our unique historical situation.
I grant to myself a certain freedom to speak of cօռspιʀαcιҽs precisely because I am not a clergyman, and so I don't have to be afraid to be called a "nut." I expect it. And I am absolutely certain that anyone at this stage in history that doesn't believe in cօռspιʀαcιҽs is the real nut. The devil is running out of ideas and the "playing both sides" tactic he uses with Vatican II/SSPX is now painfully obvious ( there's that word again ).
As for the rest of your post --
"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."
It doesn't say Muslims worship "the same god." With your usual shameless pretense you are acting as if Lumen Gentium says only that all Muslims worship the same God i.e. Allah. Actually it says "together with US ( Catholics ) they worship the one true God." That is, Muslims and Catholics have the SAME God.
For the millionth time, just as with the quote from JPII about the Old Covenant, this is saying that Christ's sacrifice was not necessary and not the only path to salvation. I do not want to be part of a "Church" making that assumption because I can guarantee you, those who support such a horrible, impious lie by their presence in a Novus Ordo death-chamber, patiently listening to such things, are in grave danger. It also implies -- more than implies -- that it is not necessary for EVERY MAN to submit to the Holy Catholic Church as the One True Church that is guided by the Holy Spirit.
By doing this, they eliminated two of the four marks. No longer is their Church One and Catholic ( universal ), because there are other ways to be saved. And after toppling these two marks, the other two fell on their own. This Catholic-seeming sect cannot be apostolic because how can a Catholic who believes in only one path to salvation try to convert people to an unnecessary, optional Church? That is like trying to fly in a hot-air balloon that you've filled with mustard. The apostolic mission has been totally robbed of urgency. And all of this of course defeats the holiness of the Church.
Luckily it is a fake Church that is missing the four marks. The real one still has them.
I hope the hour of your insane defiance is almost up and that, instead of pipsqueaks like me reaching for their keyboards, Michael the Archangel is reaching for his trumpet. How much longer will this go on?
-
"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."
It doesn't say Muslims worship "the same god." With your usual shameless pretense you are acting as if Lumen Gentium says only that all Muslims worship the same God i.e. Allah. Actually it says "together with US ( Catholics ) they worship the one true God." That is, Muslims and Catholics have the SAME God.
You misunderstood Caminus' point. He does not interpret LG to say merely that Muslims worship the same God among themselves. He knows perfectly well that LG says that Muslims worship the same God -- one and merciful -- as Catholics. Caminus' question to you is as follows:
How does a profound theological error of fact ("Muslims worship the same God as Catholics, i.e., Muslims worship God who is 'one and merciful' even if they deny the Trinity") constitute a direct and explicit denial of an article of Faith?
Please identify precisely which article of Faith is being directly and explicitly denied by LG.
-
... this is saying that Christ's sacrifice was not necessary and not the only path to salvation.
That is just flat out wrong, Raoul76. Saying that "Muslims worship the same God as Catholics, i.e., Muslims worship God who is 'one and merciful' even if they deny the Trinity" is not the same as saying that "Christ's sacrifice was not necessary and not the only path to salvation". You are making an absurd logical leap here. The first statement is a profound theological error of fact. The second statement is a manifest denial of a specific article of the Catholic Faith.
-
I am busy studying. I will be back later. I am reading Father Cekada, Tumultous Times by Radecki, and Bishop Tillier De Mallerais. I find this quote of his to be most interesting.
"there exists a 'legitimate doubt' on the 'validity of a pope such as Benedict XVI." Tissier noted in his letter that the SSPX's founder, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, also had this doubt.-+Tillier to the French Press.
-
-
CM, strictly speaking, LG does not say that the Muslims have God the Father revealed by His Son Jesus Christ. However, I've been mulling things over and I'm beginning to think that all of this hairsplitting about what constitutes explicit heresy might be missing the point. I might post some surprising things later (or I might not -- I still need to mull some more). Watch this space ...
-
The question is: what is "this opinion" to which Mortalium Animos refers.
Read the encyclical. Then, read JP2's works. The opinion is that all religions are more or less praiseworthy - something JP2 stated word for word multiple times. He put his money where his despicable mouth was, too, joining MYRIAD actions to his insane statements.
"...cogitatione, verbo, et opere..."
-
The Pope said that statement rests upon another opinion which he stated just prior. You have to determine the presence of that opinion, not whether he made the statement that all religions are good and praiseworthy. You'll get no argument from me on that score. So egregious was his error on this that he thought the Council "re-defined" the nature of the Church. Assisi was but a manifestation of his ecclesiology. Don't make the mistake of thinking that just because I defend him from accusations of apostasy, I defend him pure and simple. Far from it. If there was anyone that could be suspected of heresy it was him. In fact, if one were to hold him as a heretic, I wouldn't be surprised at all, but overstating the case doesn't help. John Paul was absolutely the worse Pope in history. If Pope Agatho thought that Honorious was an "instrument of the Devil" for his mere private accomodation of one heresy, what would he have thought of John Paul?
-
If Pope Agatho thought that Honorious was an "instrument of the Devil" for his mere private accomodation of one heresy, what would he have thought of John Paul?
Why, that he was an apostate antipope, of course. :rolleyes: