Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Centroamerica on May 09, 2014, 10:08:27 AM
-
After watching the newest episode of the Remnant's Remnant TV program "Neocatholic Update:Canonizing Vatican 2 and to Hell with Tradition", I find it to be a bit confusing if they are accepting the false canonizations. It appears they have.
At minute mark 9:15 Christopher Ferrara says that he doesn't believe the canonizations were prudent, but that he does not disagree with the majority of Catholic theologians about the object of the canonization. He seems to say that the only thing required to accept the canonization is that these two men have received the Beatific Vision. Michael Matt jumps in agreeing and says "yeah, well he had a priest at his deathbed and received the Sacraments," or something live that. One thing I wondered is who was he referring to regarding these "Catholic theologians"? Does he mean the theologians who claim that canonizations are infallible or does he mean the "modernist theologians" who occupy Catholic positions illegitimately?
So, it appears that our friends at the Remnant have compromised once more by sending out videos of them having accepted the false canonizations, declared in a video addressing Neo-Catholics.
http://youtu.be/uzKQzrrGkWw
Thoughts?
-
After watching the newest episode of the Remnant's Remnant TV program "Neocatholic Update:Canonizing Vatican 2 and to Hell with Tradition", I find it to be a bit confusing if they are accepting the false canonizations. It appears they have.
At minute mark 9:15 Christopher Ferrara says that he doesn't believe the canonizations were prudent, but that he does not disagree with the majority of Catholic theologians about the object of the canonization. He seems to say that the only thing required to accept the canonization is that these two men have received the Beatific Vision. Michael Matt jumps in agreeing and says "yeah, well he had a priest at his deathbed and received the Sacraments," or something live that. One thing I wondered is who was he referring to regarding these "Catholic theologians"? Does he mean the theologians who claim that canonizations are infallible or does he mean the "modernist theologians" who occupy Catholic positions illegitimately?
So, it appears that our friends at the Remnant have compromised once more by sending out videos of them having accepted the false canonizations, declared in a video addressing Neo-Catholics.
http://youtu.be/uzKQzrrGkWw
Thoughts?
They accept them if Francis can still be Pope and reject them if they mean he can't. It really is that simple.
-
I have not watched the video yet. However, this is backtracking on the part of Chris Ferrara. In the early May, 2011, issue of "The Remnant", he penned an article saying that JPII was not worthy of beatification, but, one does not have to worry too much, since beatifications are not infallible. He finally goes on to write that it is different with canonisation because, and he clearly writes this, canonisations are INFALLIBLE. He goes on to say that JPII would not be canonised.
He has either changed his mind in the past three years(people can certainly do that; however, given that he has been at this sort of thing for some time, how can he be put forth as a guide of sorts concerning the faith and what is possible if he is now going against what Pope Benedict XIV taught on canonisations as well as scores of approved theologians and the practice of the Church. He is doing it on his say so-he knows better than the Church).
I know that Novusordowatch has this on their website. When I tried to post something similiar as to what I just wrote as a comment on an article at "The Remnant", it was soon taken off.
If nothing else, people need to do their own research, seeking help when needed of course, then verifying things and make their own discisions. This is like the blind leading the blind.
Joe
-
I have not watched the video yet. However, this is backtracking on the part of Chris Ferrara. In the early May, 2011, issue of "The Remnant", he penned an article saying that JPII was not worthy of beatification, but, one does not have to worry too much, since beatifications are not infallible. He finally goes on to write that it is different with canonisation because, and he clearly writes this, canonisations are INFALLIBLE. He goes on to say that JPII would not be canonised.
He has either changed his mind in the past three years(people can certainly do that; however, given that he has been at this sort of thing for some time, how can he be put forth as a guide of sorts concerning the faith and what is possible if he is now going against what Pope Benedict XIV taught on canonisations as well as scores of approved theologians and the practice of the Church. He is doing it on his say so-he knows better than the Church).
I know that Novusordowatch has this on their website. When I tried to post something similiar as to what I just wrote as a comment on an article at "The Remnant", it was soon taken off.
If nothing else, people need to do their own research, seeking help when needed of course, then verifying things and make their own discisions. This is like the blind leading the blind.
Joe
Chris Ferrara, Michael Voris, John Vennari, Michael Matt, etc., are all cut from the same cloth.
-
The Remnant has not been traditional for 20 years, ignore them.
Marsha
-
The Remnant has not been traditional for 20 years, ignore them.
Marsha
I mean, I know that they are supporters of the Insult crowd, but I never imagined that they would so easily give in and accept John Paul 2 as a validly canonized saint. I am still surprised.
-
The Remnant has not been traditional for 20 years, ignore them.
Marsha
I mean, I know that they are supporters of the Insult crowd, but I never imagined that they would so easily give in and accept John Paul 2 as a validly canonized saint. I am still surprised.
I'm not. For them it all revolves around the leader of the Vatican Institution as being the valid head of the Roman Catholic Church. Everything has to square with that.
-
I have not watched the video yet. However, this is backtracking on the part of Chris Ferrara. In the early May, 2011, issue of "The Remnant", he penned an article saying that JPII was not worthy of beatification, but, one does not have to worry too much, since beatifications are not infallible. He finally goes on to write that it is different with canonisation because, and he clearly writes this, canonisations are INFALLIBLE. He goes on to say that JPII would not be canonised.
He has either changed his mind in the past three years(people can certainly do that; however, given that he has been at this sort of thing for some time, how can he be put forth as a guide of sorts concerning the faith and what is possible if he is now going against what Pope Benedict XIV taught on canonisations as well as scores of approved theologians and the practice of the Church. He is doing it on his say so-he knows better than the Church).
I know that Novusordowatch has this on their website. When I tried to post something similiar as to what I just wrote as a comment on an article at "The Remnant", it was soon taken off.
If nothing else, people need to do their own research, seeking help when needed of course, then verifying things and make their own discisions. This is like the blind leading the blind.
Joe
Chris Ferrara, Michael Voris, John Vennari, Michael Matt, etc., are all cut from the same cloth.
Correct. The leader of the Vatican Institution must be Pope and that is the bottom line.
-
I have not watched the video yet. However, this is backtracking on the part of Chris Ferrara. In the early May, 2011, issue of "The Remnant", he penned an article saying that JPII was not worthy of beatification, but, one does not have to worry too much, since beatifications are not infallible. He finally goes on to write that it is different with canonisation because, and he clearly writes this, canonisations are INFALLIBLE. He goes on to say that JPII would not be canonised.
He has either changed his mind in the past three years(people can certainly do that; however, given that he has been at this sort of thing for some time, how can he be put forth as a guide of sorts concerning the faith and what is possible if he is now going against what Pope Benedict XIV taught on canonisations as well as scores of approved theologians and the practice of the Church. He is doing it on his say so-he knows better than the Church).
I know that Novusordowatch has this on their website. When I tried to post something similiar as to what I just wrote as a comment on an article at "The Remnant", it was soon taken off.
If nothing else, people need to do their own research, seeking help when needed of course, then verifying things and make their own discisions. This is like the blind leading the blind.
Joe
Chris Ferrara, Michael Voris, John Vennari, Michael Matt, etc., are all cut from the same cloth.
I see what you are saying but I do think there is one difference. MV is the only one who WILL NOT criticize THE POPE!
-
Chris Ferrara, Michael Voris, Michael Matt, John Vennari
They are all pretty much the same, though. They are like different degrees. Michael Voris doesn't criticize the pope and attends a diocesan "Mass". Michael Matt criticizes the pope and attends a diocesan Mass and John Vennari criticizes the pope and attends SSPX Masses.
-
Chris Ferrara, Michael Voris, Michael Matt, John Vennari
They are all pretty much the same, though. They are like different degrees.
Michael Voris doesn't criticize the pope and attends a diocesan "Mass".
Michael Matt criticizes the pope and attends a diocesan Mass and
John Vennari criticizes the pope and attends SSPX Masses.
And Chris Ferrara likes to get face time on as many venues as possible so that as many publications as possible will pay him -- to supply articles they can print, or to drop in to give a speech here and there. He can take a lesson from +F and just be careful to tailor his words to the audience at hand. (Or maybe F and +F take their lessons from the same mentor?)
.
-
.
It seems you've got a typo here, Joe -- an unfinished thought.
Do you recall what you were about to say when you interrupted your incomplete sentence with a parenthetical segment?
I have not watched the video yet. However, this is backtracking on the part of Chris Ferrara. In the early May, 2011, issue of "The Remnant", he penned an article saying that JPII was not worthy of beatification, but, one does not have to worry too much, since beatifications are not infallible. He finally goes on to write that it is different with canonisation because, and he clearly writes this, canonisations are INFALLIBLE. He goes on to say that JPII would not be canonised.
He has either changed his mind in the past three years(people can certainly do that; however, given that he has been at this sort of thing for some time, how can he be put forth as a guide of sorts concerning the faith and what is possible if he is now going against what Pope Benedict XIV taught on canonisations as well as scores of approved theologians and the practice of the Church. He is doing it on his say so-he knows better than the Church).
I know that Novusordowatch has this on their website. When I tried to post something similiar as to what I just wrote as a comment on an article at "The Remnant", it was soon taken off.
If nothing else, people need to do their own research, seeking help when needed of course, then verifying things and make their own discisions. This is like the blind leading the blind.
Joe
That is, you were saying that Ferrara has "either changed his mind in the past 3 years," or else .......... what?
.
-
Chris Ferrara, Michael Voris, Michael Matt, John Vennari
They are all pretty much the same, though. They are like different degrees.
Michael Voris doesn't criticize the pope and attends a diocesan "Mass".
Michael Matt criticizes the pope and attends a diocesan Mass and
John Vennari criticizes the pope and attends SSPX Masses.
And Chris Ferrara likes to get face time on as many venues as possible so that as many publications as possible will pay him -- to supply articles they can print, or to drop in to give a speech here and there. He can take a lesson from +F and just be careful to tailor his words to the audience at hand. (Or maybe F and +F take their lessons from the same mentor?)
.
Does this mean the lawyer is not getting paid enough for his day job?
-
.
Lawyers never make enough money to satisfy themselves. You should know that.
Additionally, they have a weakness (inasmuch as they are human) to be entertained by themes and issues that for whatever reason appeal to them. It seems Ferrara has this fascination, enough to make him learn to be fluent in a foreign language, just so that he can converse with Romans over these hot-button issues. He does provide a service, but I hope he does not lose his spiritual bearings. There is a great temptation for lawyers to lose their spiritual bearings.
.