Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Raoul76 on May 23, 2011, 01:31:53 AM
-
I often wonder whether or not Benedict is a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ. Hopefully people don't pretend to be shocked, because I'm sure they've also thought about it.
The homoerotic acrobats were one thing, but he also, in his books, often refers to a very arcane French-American writer named Julien Green who was an open ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ. Of course, I know Julien Green, and I'm not ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ, from my past as a bookworm, but this arcane gαy author is a truly bizarre person for a Cardinal to repeatedly cite in books about "faith."
There are other indications about Ratzinger. He appears to be one of those gnostic aesthetes of the kind that fawn over Brideshead Revisited. Something I've observed about ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs, from my limited experience, is that they often believe their filthy proclivities give them some kind of secret, special knowledge. There is almost something inherently GNOSTIC about ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity itself, as you might expect, since such tastes are literally unfathomable to heterosɛҳuąƖ men. Perhaps it is so traumatic to the mind to have participated in these foul acts that gαys, like schizophrenics, attempt to escape into an imaginary personality. At any rate, like many other groups who don't want the truth, they do tend to construct an elaborate but ungodly ethos to justify their actions.
I remember George Michael was once photographed having an assignation with an old man. He said to the photographer, "Are you gαy? No? Then you don't know anything about it!" In other words, you have to be one of the initiated, one of the elite, to understand why they act the way they do. Being gαy doesn't mean they're sick, it means they are exquisite, sensitive, unique flowers. Fallen angels, at times, but aspiring towards the empyrean climes... All you have to do to understand what I'm talking about is take a look at someone like Oscar Wilde, who carried himself as if he was the pinnacle of civilization while all those who would impede his sodomite proclivities were barbaric fiends. His life is treated by gαys as if he were Jesus, as if he suffered for humanity.
This is why gαys often act bashful and sensitive and artistic. It's like some kind of mask for their gross activity, a way to make it seem poetic instead of just deranged and diseased. They essentially construct an entire philosophy, an ethics and an aesthetics around what is in reality a freakish and base desire. This dichotomy surely accounts for their bad tempers, their ultra-sensitivity, as you will be familiar with if you have ever known a gαy. They almost all have hair-trigger tempers and are violently unstable. I knew one gαy guy, an actor, when I was in junior high, and I remember him storming angrily out of the room when he showed me one of his performances and I didn't say anything about how great he was within one or two minutes of watching it. Like Jews, they put on an air of meekness and sweetness, but underneath there is often a self-loathing that is infinite, a self-loathing that could easily turn into hate for others.
Something that is VERY noticeable about the writings of Ratzinger is that this man is a full-blown gnostic, in a cult of one, speaking only to himself, as if he has some kind of private wisdom. He will allow you to hear it, to be privy to it, but he will not give you the key to unlock it. He doesn't even act as if he wants to be understood. Like all gnostics, he appears to want to be seen as having an impenetrably deep mind, and to this effect he cloaks himself in nonsensical ambiguities. In reality he sounds like an incompetent schoolboy who just read his first ten pages of Heidegger and decides to try to blend it with his rudimentary Christian faith. But his obscure and "aesthetic" mind, in tandem with certain other events of his pontificate, sure does lead one to wonder.
-
A very interesting post, Raoul. It would be very interesting to see how Pope Benedict would reply if a reporter simply asked him, "Your Holiness, are you ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ?"
-
A very interesting post, Raoul. It would be very interesting to see how Pope Benedict would reply if a reporter simply asked him, "Your Holiness, are you ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ?"
Too bad Bazz isn't here to defend a non-answer from B16 as being the most appropriate response.
-
I often wonder whether or not Benedict is a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ. ....sure does lead one to wonder.
You should have kept this blasted "wonder" to yourself. Your post is bad. Infernally bad. Your post is almost as nauseating as sodomy itself. They both stink to high heaven. They both come straight from hell.
This is going to require some serious reparation. Underneath all the rot, you know this. Step away from this board - and for an extended time. But are you capable of doing this?
Come to your senses, man. Don't you smell the sulfur all around you? Or are you now totally acclimated to it? "Water? WHAT water?" says the fish. Is it too late for you?
Find out. Go into a deep, extended study of the 8th Commandment. Go to your catechism.
And listen:
Backbiting 1 (http://www.audiosancto.org/sermon/20070701-On-Backbiting-part-1-of-2.html)
Backbiting 2 (http://www.audiosancto.org/sermon/20070722-On-Backbiting-part-2-of-2.html)
And read:
Sins of the Tongue (free online) (http://ecceagnusdei.blogspot.com/2006/01/sins-of-tongue-backbiting-tongue.html)
&
In Silence with God (http://www.amazon.com/Silence-God-Benedict-Baur/dp/0933932936/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1306370454&sr=8-1)
&
The Wisdom of Silence thread in the Library here.
And pray.
"But I say unto you, that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall render an account for it in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned."
-Matthew 12:36-37
"And the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity. The tongue is placed among our members, which defileth the whole body, and inflameth the wheel of our nativity, being set on fire by hell. For every nature of beasts, and of birds, and of serpents, and of the rest, is tamed, and hath been tamed, by the nature of man: But the tongue no man can tame, an unquiet evil, full of deadly poison. By it we bless God and the Father: and by it we curse men, who are made after the likeness of God. Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not so to be."
-James 3:6-10
(At this moment your pride is welling up. Overflowing. To vindicate yourself, you want to blast away at me, shut me down, humiliate me, dismiss me, reduce me to ashes. Go ahead. I won't make this a pissing contest. But after you sober up, step back and think about what I've said. You know it's true. And it's true regardless of whether Joseph Ratzinger is the pope or not.)
-
Um, you might want to switch to decaf.
-
A very interesting post, Raoul. It would be very interesting to see how Pope Benedict would reply if a reporter simply asked him, "Your Holiness, are you ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ?"
Too bad Bazz isn't here to defend a non-answer from B16 as being the most appropriate response.
I don't remember who Bazz is. I suppose "None of your business, sir," might be an acceptable answer. A simple "yes" or "no" would be more re-assuring.
-
I suppose it is possible. I don't think Benedict is gαy, but you raise an interesting point Raoul. And Jitpring, what Raoul is doing isn't sinful. If he had come out and said "Benedict is definitely a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ that needs to come out of the closet!" then that would be sinful because he can't prove it. But he said he only wondered. Wondering if a person might be gαy isn't a sin, unless the person clearly isn't and you're just making stuff up. Just curious, Jitpring, why do you keep asking people to leave the forum for a while?
-
I don't remember who Bazz is.
Here's his profile. He was banned a while back for a negative comment about the Scapular.
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=profile&w=1375
-
I suppose it is possible. I don't think Benedict is gαy, but you raise an interesting point Raoul. And Jitpring, what Raoul is doing isn't sinful. If he had come out and said "Benedict is definitely a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ that needs to come out of the closet!" then that would be sinful because he can't prove it. But he said he only wondered. Wondering if a person might be gαy isn't a sin, unless the person clearly isn't and you're just making stuff up. Just curious, Jitpring, why do you keep asking people to leave the forum for a while?
He didn't only wonder; he voiced this wonder publicly and without sufficient justification. This makes all the difference.
I haven't asked anyone to leave; I've suggested it. I've done so because of the sinful nastiness and chaos here and resulting lack of peace. I now see that it's I who should leave.
-
jitpring please stay!!
i think you and raoul need to go sky surfing and patch things up!!
(http://gymnasticscoaching.com/new/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/skydiving-skysurf2.jpg)
-
Without sufficient justification, Jitpring? What, the covering-up of pedophiles, the acrobats from the gαy circus, his constant companion "Gorgeous George Ganswein"who fusses over this sad heretic like an old woman -- according to one article -- and the constant quotations from an arcane ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ author aren't enough to at least raise suspicion? How about the fact that he is clearly an "aesthete"? Sorry, I'm not worried God will have my head for this one.
Actually I am very careful with my tongue. I don't even comment on Paul VI possibly being gαy, though there is apparently some very solid proof of that. I don't take it lightly even when it comes to suggesting someone is gαy, but in the case of this Ratzinger, people aren't saying enough. Talking about his potential gαyness for me is part of the attempt to understand why he would fail so spectacularly to respond in any meaningful way to a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ pedophile crisis in the "Church." I don't think we can act like these things are happening in a vacuum.
In order to show people what has gone wrong, they need to know that Vatican II is a gαy cult, that gαys have a stranglehold on the seminaries, and that this is a conspiracy of people who have given themselves over to abomination, and not just about men who are driven to sinful acts by celibacy. Whether or not Ratzinger partakes in this gαy cult, he most certainly protects it.
What I have observed in my study of gαys is, like I said, that they have codes and various reference points by which they understand each other -- it is known that gαys will wear, say, a flag in one pocket, or something like that, to signal to other gαys what they are. But they also have a network of cultural references by which they know each other. That is how they are able to work together, as it were, and block out anyone who is not "one of them" from getting into Vatican II, in so many cases.
I was very careful to draw no conclusions about Ratzinger, except that he is, and this can't be denied, the head of the largest gαy cult in the world. I also wanted to point to an extremely pronounced cryptic, gnostic and self-absorbed tendency in the writings of Ratzinger.
Julien Green is a man whose books are decidedly gnostic ( he is an open ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ, by the way, in case you want to have another hissy fit ); and Ratzinger, out of NOWHERE, has dug up this Julien Green and constantly quotes him, as if he has any relevance at all to the Catholic faith.
If you want mollycoddling of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs, go to Michael Voris. I personally have no sympathy for what these people are doing in the name of the Church, and I sincerely question anyone who does. These people are not special little snowflakes, they are duped by the devil into hideous acts, acts that lead to despair, which in turn leads to a seared conscience... And much more sin. Why does Ratzinger do nothing to stop the scourge, after so much time in office?
-
Jtspring- please don't leave- you have no reason to.
Raoul seems to be more and more absurd in many of his posts. Having an opinion or wondering isn't what's wrong. You are right- he voiced his wonder without justification publicly- then he back tracks to save face. How foolish and prideful.
Edit: you 'do' have reason to, but have a drink and sleep on it and I'm hoping you'll be back.
-
Let's put it this way, Jit -- you don't see any cause for concern that the head of the largest gαy cult in the world often quotes an open ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ gnostic author as if this man were some kind of oracle, and then invites homoerotic circus performers to the Vatican? I'm the one you have a problem with?
Let's put it this way. I can see that ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs would have a big problem with my post, because it shows that I clearly see through them with X-ray vision and know exactly how they operate and what they're up to. I know about their little cultural aesthetic codes, I know about how they flatter themselves that they are tragic, beautiful creatures.
-
That was a stupid and illogical conclusion and you know it Raoul. You just morphed everything JT said into whether he had a problem with BVI or not and you? for someone who trys to sound so smart, you really can seem overly simple. Dude- get off.
-
S2srea said:
Having an opinion or wondering isn't what's wrong. You are right- he voiced his wonder without justification publicly
I just gave you the justification. I know many Catholics who crack jokes during that acrobat video like "Benedict is enjoying himself today!" etc. I am far from the only one who thinks the man might be gαy.
Do you think simply ignoring my evidence and defaming me instead is being a good Catholic? You are the one who are making yourself suspicious by acting as if what I'm saying is out of the blue.
-
S2srea said:
Having an opinion or wondering isn't what's wrong. You are right- he voiced his wonder without justification publicly
I just gave you the justification. I know many Catholics who crack jokes during that acrobat video like "Benedict is enjoying himself today!" etc. I am far from the only one who thinks the man might be gαy.
Do you think simply ignoring my evidence and defaming me instead is being a good Catholic? You are the one who are making yourself suspicious by acting as if what I'm saying is out of the blue.
You did it after the fact smart-guy. That's not defaming you, but pointing out the facts.
-
Your post is almost as nauseating as sodomy itself.
LOL! Even if you disagree with him, this comment is over the top and seems to demonstrate an inaccurate grasp of the heinousness of sodomy.
-
You are right- he voiced his wonder without justification publicly- then he back tracks to save face. How foolish and prideful.
Actually, a good chunk of the world, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, thinks/mentions/discusses these things regularly. Why? Because the vipers in Rome have given them PLENTY of reason and justification for doing so. Their present (non-)actions tend to fan the flames that were created in the past. It is as if they are seeing how much sh*t the sheeple will swallow -- apparently a lot. This phenomenon, by the way, is happening on all levels of the Sociopathocracy we call the civilized world.
FWIW, the ones giving the scandal are the vipers in Rome (and those aided and abetted, over the course of decades, by the Lavender Mafia) -- not those who speak plainly about what is, at this point, clearly a public matter which must be aired if health is to return to our society.
-
S2srea said:
Having an opinion or wondering isn't what's wrong. You are right- he voiced his wonder without justification publicly
I just gave you the justification. I know many Catholics who crack jokes during that acrobat video like "Benedict is enjoying himself today!" etc. I am far from the only one who thinks the man might be gαy.
Do you think simply ignoring my evidence and defaming me instead is being a good Catholic? You are the one who are making yourself suspicious by acting as if what I'm saying is out of the blue.
You did it after the fact smart-guy. That's not defaming you, but pointing out the facts.
The justification was there whether it was specifically stated or not. This not some kind of rumor, it is a question based on public actions.
-
Jitpring, I suggest you stay here. You won't find a Catholic forum better than this one.
As far as wondering if Benedict XVI is gαy, what GV said is right. After all the stuff the Vatican has done over the years, they themselves make people wonder such things. I don't think Benedict is gαy, but I've seen him with the "gαy flag" before.
-
I don't remember who Bazz is.
Here's his profile. He was banned a while back for a negative comment about the Scapular.
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=profile&w=1375
I believe he was banned for other reasons, like being several people including Fr. Anthony Cekada.
-
Actually, a good chunk of the world, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, thinks/mentions/discusses these things regularly
I'm sorry, but I'm pretty up to day on what Catholic and non-catholic media puts out other and I have never once heard this accusation about him. If I had, my reaction probably wouldn't have been so harsh. I don't see how I could have missed this.
Please understand, I'm not saying BVI is a saint- thats cause its not for me to say. I'm saying that I felt that starting the thread with "I often wonder if BVI is gαy..." is not the correct approach. Whether or not he is gαy he is still wrong. First of all you couldn't prove it, second of all, he'd still be wrong in matters of faith- and that is whats most important to us. Now, of course, if he came out and said, "I like dudes"- yes- that is different, and makes the situation worse. But c'mon, this man is surrounded by all sorts of sodomites both within the hierarchy and outside the church- it is the nature of being a high ranking official in the NO to come in contact with sodomites. So JT's articles were quite right for the OP to see.
-
I'm sorry, but I'm pretty up to day on what Catholic and non-catholic media puts out other and I have never once heard this accusation about him.
Who mentioned anything about the media? The media is owned by his bosses/fellow criminals, the тαℓмυdic Zionαzιs.
But c'mon, this man is surrounded by all sorts of sodomites both within the hierarchy and outside the church- it is the nature of being a high ranking official in the NO to come in contact with sodomites.
So, he comes into contact with them all the time, rules the roost yet never does anything about the unspeakably reprehensible behavior that has decimated the formerly-Christian world, and we are to think it is wild to speculate about his own behavior/habits? Actually, such speculation, in the face of such a track record, is quite natural -- just as it is natural to speculate about BO's ties to TPTB when he habitually fails to curb their activity (and actually does all in his power to assist them and further their agenda).
-
Who mentioned anything about the media? The media is owned by his bosses/fellow criminals, the тαℓмυdic Zionαzιs.
I assumed you did from your comment:
Actually, a good chunk of the world, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, thinks/mentions/discusses these things regularly.
Unless you think you have a good view of the world from outside Catholic (including traditional) and non-Catholic media...?
So, he comes into contact with them all the time, rules the roost yet never does anything about the unspeakably reprehensible behavior that has decimated the formerly-Christian world, and we are to think it is wild to speculate about his own behavior/habits? Actually, such speculation, in the face of such a track record, is quite natural -- just as it is natural to speculate about BO's ties to TPTB when he habitually fails to curb their activity (and actually does all in his power to assist them and further their agenda).
See comment on him not being a saint.
Anyways, I wont go around and around on this. Point is is that there are plenty of intelligent people here and it was a bogus comment.
-
Who mentioned anything about the media? The media is owned by his bosses/fellow criminals, the тαℓмυdic Zionαzιs.
I assumed you did from your comment:
Actually, a good chunk of the world, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, thinks/mentions/discusses these things regularly.
Unless you think you have a good view of the world from outside Catholic (including traditional) and non-Catholic media...?
So, he comes into contact with them all the time, rules the roost yet never does anything about the unspeakably reprehensible behavior that has decimated the formerly-Christian world, and we are to think it is wild to speculate about his own behavior/habits? Actually, such speculation, in the face of such a track record, is quite natural -- just as it is natural to speculate about BO's ties to TPTB when he habitually fails to curb their activity (and actually does all in his power to assist them and further their agenda).
See comment on him not being a saint.
Anyways, I wont go around and around on this. Point is is that there are plenty of intelligent people here and it was a bogus comment.
The point is that he is supposedly a pope, not necessarily a saint. The charism of infallibilty doesn't make a man a saint.
-
I don't remember who Bazz is.
Here's his profile. He was banned a while back for a negative comment about the Scapular.
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=profile&w=1375
I believe he was banned for other reasons, like being several people including Fr. Anthony Cekada.
Wow, didn't know that. Thanks for the info.
-
The point is that he is supposedly a pope, not necessarily a saint. The charism of infallibilty doesn't make a man a saint.
SJB- I understand this. However, my point was just the opposite. Sede's consider the pope a perfect super-human doctrinal saint. GV essentially avoided this and caminus has handled his argument on another thread.
-
Sede's consider the pope a perfect super-human doctrinal saint.
You have a very poor understanding of what SVs actually think, as NO SV thinks what you describe. I am not sure whence you obtained this idea, but it would be wise to lose it -- as it is utterly erroneous.
GV essentially avoided this and caminus has handled his argument on another thread.
I didn't avoid it. I just didn't answer it in the way you expected -- precisely because the idea is, in se, nonsense. Accept it.
-
The point is that he is supposedly a pope, not necessarily a saint. The charism of infallibilty doesn't make a man a saint.
SJB- I understand this. However, my point was just the opposite. Sede's consider the pope a perfect super-human doctrinal saint. GV essentially avoided this and caminus has handled his argument on another thread.
I don't think you properly understand the charism of infallibility nor the infallibility of the Church. You believe the pope can be an unorthodox head of the Catholic Church. This is wrong.
Refering to Caminus' arguments won't help you here. He has been proven wrong on a number of points and has never admitted it. He cites NO sources, simply because he does his own theology.
-
StoS:
I'm sorry, but I'm pretty up to day on what Catholic and non-catholic media puts out other and I have never once heard this accusation about him. If I had, my reaction probably wouldn't have been so harsh. I don't see how I could have missed this.
Yes, the rest of us don't understand how you could have missed this either.
-
I don't think you properly understand the charism of infallibility nor the infallibility of the Church. You believe the pope can be an unorthodox head of the Catholic Church. This is wrong.
If it was this simple, there would be no sede vs non-sede debate.
-
Sede's consider the pope a perfect super-human doctrinal saint.
You have a very poor understanding of what SVs actually think, as NO SV thinks what you describe. I am not sure whence you obtained this idea, but it would be wise to lose it -- as it is utterly erroneous.
Sorry GV- I'm not the most learned cat on the block, but I'm only responding to what I see written. Its not so much that sede's have said those very words, its how they act (per se) and is the spirit of their writings.
-
I don't think you properly understand the charism of infallibility nor the infallibility of the Church. You believe the pope can be an unorthodox head of the Catholic Church. This is wrong.
If it was this simple, there would be no sede vs non-sede debate.
Well, that's where the theological sources come in. I didn't say it was simple, but following the approved sources is the correct way for a Catholic to analyze it.
-
Well, that's where the theological sources come in. I didn't say it was simple, but following the approved sources is the correct way for a Catholic to analyze it.
Yet there is still debate? Not being simple, and making an opinion a dogma (or at least acting that way) are two different things.
-
Well, that's where the theological sources come in. I didn't say it was simple, but following the approved sources is the correct way for a Catholic to analyze it.
Yet there is still debate? Not being simple, and making an opinion a dogma (or at least acting that way) are two different things.
Caminus (and you?) makes the sedeplentist position dogmatic. I am opposed to any dogmatic stance, be it sedeplentist or sedevacantist.
-
I'm sorry I don't know what sedeplentism is...?
-
I'm sorry I don't know what sedeplentism is...?
It is a dogmatic fact that B16 is a true pope and must be recognized as such.
-
I'm sorry I don't know what sedeplentism is...?
It is a dogmatic fact that B16 is a true pope and must be recognized as such.
In that case, I am not. I personally believe he may or may not be pope. Regardless, we have no authority to make that decision apart from holding personal opinions. Once you become a lay member, or a priest or bishop, preaching this and telling people it MUST be true and it is imperative they believe this as well, it is erroneous and dangerous.
I don't think anyone has ever been condemned for not being sedevecantist in the history of the church, have they? Can you find that in any catechism?
-
I'm sorry I don't know what sedeplentism is...?
It is a dogmatic fact that B16 is a true pope and must be recognized as such.
In that case, I am not. I personally believe he may or may not be pope. Regardless, we have no authority to make that decision apart from holding personal opinions. Once you become a lay member, or a priest or bishop, preaching this and telling people it MUST be true and it is imperative they believe this as well, it is erroneous and dangerous.
I don't think anyone has ever been condemned for not being sedevecantist in the history of the church, have they? Can you find that in any catechism?
7. And here it seems opportune to expound and to refute a certain false opinion, on which this whole question, as well as that complex movement by which non-Catholics seek to bring about the union of the Christian churches depends. For authors who favor this view are accustomed, times almost without number, to bring forward these words of Christ: "That they all may be one.... And there shall be one fold and one shepherd,"[14] with this signification however: that Christ Jesus merely expressed a desire and prayer, which still lacks its fulfillment. For they are of the opinion that the unity of faith and government, which is a note of the one true Church of Christ, has hardly up to the present time existed, and does not to-day exist. They consider that this unity may indeed be desired and that it may even be one day attained through the instrumentality of wills directed to a common end, but that meanwhile it can only be regarded as mere ideal. They add that the Church in itself, or of its nature, is divided into sections; that is to say, that it is made up of several churches or distinct communities, which still remain separate, and although having certain articles of doctrine in common, nevertheless disagree concerning the remainder; that these all enjoy the same rights; and that the Church was one and unique from, at the most, the apostolic age until the first Ecuмenical Councils. Controversies therefore, they say, and longstanding differences of opinion which keep asunder till the present day the members of the Christian family, must be entirely put aside, and from the remaining doctrines a common form of faith drawn up and proposed for belief, and in the profession of which all may not only know but feel that they are brothers. The manifold churches or communities, if united in some kind of universal federation, would then be in a position to oppose strongly and with success the progress of irreligion. This, Venerable Brethren, is what is commonly said. There are some, indeed, who recognize and affirm that Protestantism, as they call it, has rejected, with a great lack of consideration, certain articles of faith and some external ceremonies, which are, in fact, pleasing and useful, and which the Roman Church still retains. They soon, however, go on to say that that Church also has erred, and corrupted the original religion by adding and proposing for belief certain doctrines which are not only alien to the Gospel, but even repugnant to it. Among the chief of these they number that which concerns the primacy of jurisdiction, which was granted to Peter and to his successors in the See of Rome. Among them there indeed are some, though few, who grant to the Roman Pontiff a primacy of honor or even a certain jurisdiction or power, but this, however, they consider not to arise from the divine law but from the consent of the faithful. Others again, even go so far as to wish the Pontiff Himself to preside over their motley, so to say, assemblies. But, all the same, although many non-Catholics may be found who loudly preach fraternal communion in Christ Jesus, yet you will find none at all to whom it ever occurs to submit to and obey the Vicar of Jesus Christ either in His capacity as a teacher or as a governor. Meanwhile they affirm that they would willingly treat with the Church of Rome, but on equal terms, that is as equals with an equal: but even if they could so act. it does not seem open to doubt that any pact into which they might enter would not compel them to turn from those opinions which are still the reason why they err and stray from the one fold of Christ.
-
I'm sorry I don't know what sedeplentism is...?
It is a dogmatic fact that B16 is a true pope and must be recognized as such.
In that case, I am not. I personally believe he may or may not be pope. Regardless, we have no authority to make that decision apart from holding personal opinions. Once you become a lay member, or a priest or bishop, preaching this and telling people it MUST be true and it is imperative they believe this as well, it is erroneous and dangerous.
I don't think anyone has ever been condemned for not being sedevecantist in the history of the church, have they? Can you find that in any catechism?
7. And here it seems opportune to expound and to refute a certain false opinion, on which this whole question, as well as that complex movement by which non-Catholics seek to bring about the union of the Christian churches depends. For authors who favor this view are accustomed, times almost without number, to bring forward these words of Christ: "That they all may be one.... And there shall be one fold and one shepherd,"[14] with this signification however: that Christ Jesus merely expressed a desire and prayer, which still lacks its fulfillment. For they are of the opinion that the unity of faith and government, which is a note of the one true Church of Christ, has hardly up to the present time existed, and does not to-day exist. They consider that this unity may indeed be desired and that it may even be one day attained through the instrumentality of wills directed to a common end, but that meanwhile it can only be regarded as mere ideal. They add that the Church in itself, or of its nature, is divided into sections; that is to say, that it is made up of several churches or distinct communities, which still remain separate, and although having certain articles of doctrine in common, nevertheless disagree concerning the remainder; that these all enjoy the same rights; and that the Church was one and unique from, at the most, the apostolic age until the first Ecuмenical Councils. Controversies therefore, they say, and longstanding differences of opinion which keep asunder till the present day the members of the Christian family, must be entirely put aside, and from the remaining doctrines a common form of faith drawn up and proposed for belief, and in the profession of which all may not only know but feel that they are brothers. The manifold churches or communities, if united in some kind of universal federation, would then be in a position to oppose strongly and with success the progress of irreligion. This, Venerable Brethren, is what is commonly said. There are some, indeed, who recognize and affirm that Protestantism, as they call it, has rejected, with a great lack of consideration, certain articles of faith and some external ceremonies, which are, in fact, pleasing and useful, and which the Roman Church still retains. They soon, however, go on to say that that Church also has erred, and corrupted the original religion by adding and proposing for belief certain doctrines which are not only alien to the Gospel, but even repugnant to it. Among the chief of these they number that which concerns the primacy of jurisdiction, which was granted to Peter and to his successors in the See of Rome. Among them there indeed are some, though few, who grant to the Roman Pontiff a primacy of honor or even a certain jurisdiction or power, but this, however, they consider not to arise from the divine law but from the consent of the faithful. Others again, even go so far as to wish the Pontiff Himself to preside over their motley, so to say, assemblies. But, all the same, although many non-Catholics may be found who loudly preach fraternal communion in Christ Jesus, yet you will find none at all to whom it ever occurs to submit to and obey the Vicar of Jesus Christ either in His capacity as a teacher or as a governor. Meanwhile they affirm that they would willingly treat with the Church of Rome, but on equal terms, that is as equals with an equal: but even if they could so act. it does not seem open to doubt that any pact into which they might enter would not compel them to turn from those opinions which are still the reason why they err and stray from the one fold of Christ.
Your quote did not answer his question, nor was your quote even about his question. Moralium Animos is the condemnation of Ecuмanism with heretics, heathens and apostates. Your highlighted portion in its proper context refers to protestants believing that the church at the time of it's writing 1927 I believe, was in error on it's most fundemental levels. It then goes on later to state that holding meetings with these people is wrong, would lead to corrupting the beliefs of the true church etc. etc.
-
It would be impossible for someone to be condemned for not being a sedevacantist.
-
It would be impossible for someone to be condemned for not being a sedevacantist.
Exactly. Yet many sedes- here and elsewhere- while not saying it (most of the time) have this attitude.
-
Many non-sedes have the contrary attitude. So be it.
Ignore the dogmatic members of either camp. They serve the Enemy's designs.
-
I don't think anyone has ever been condemned for not being sedevecantist in the history of the church, have they? Can you find that in any catechism?
Has anyone been condemned for being a sedevacantist? Can you find that in any catechism?
No.
-
Your quote did not answer his question, nor was your quote even about his question.
With all due respect, his question is not really all that impressive or difficult to answer.
No one will find the condemnation of a sedevacantist or non-sedevacantist, as such, in any catechism (especially since catechisms are used to teach, not to record such things).
-
.
I was very careful to draw no conclusions about Ratzinger, except that he is, and this can't be denied, the head of the largest gαy cult in the world.
"It is very difficult for me to see how anyone on any side of this question, even gαy advocates or activists, could disagree with this simple assertion."
This was the reaction of a business associate of mine who is ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ when I sent him Raoul's original post on this thread.
-
I don't remember who Bazz is.
Here's his profile. He was banned a while back for a negative comment about the Scapular.
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=profile&w=1375
I believe he was banned for other reasons, like being several people including Fr. Anthony Cekada.
I hope so. I only read his last post, which was a quite from Orestes Brownson that i found pretty unobjectionable.
-
"It is very difficult for me to see how anyone on any side of this question, even gαy advocates or activists, could disagree with this simple assertion."
This was the reaction of a business associate of mine who is ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ when I sent him Raoul's original post on this thread.
Very interesting. Thank you for sharing his response, Sigi. Have a peaceful and spiritually-profitable weekend.
-
But, all the same, although many non-Catholics may be found who loudly preach fraternal communion in Christ Jesus, yet you will find none at all to whom it ever occurs to submit to and obey the Vicar of Jesus Christ either in His capacity as a teacher or as a governor.
The point is that Pius XI here is clearly saying submission and obedience to the Roman Pontiff is necessary.
-
But, all the same, although many non-Catholics may be found who loudly preach fraternal communion in Christ Jesus, yet you will find none at all to whom it ever occurs to submit to and obey the Vicar of Jesus Christ either in His capacity as a teacher or as a governor.
The point is that Pius XI here is clearly saying submission and obedience to the Roman Pontiff is necessary.
Reading into statements, cutting out the parts you want and using them out of context is something a protestant would do.
-
So, LP, are you arguing that Pius XI is not, in fact, saying submission and obedience to the Roman Pontiff is necessary?
-
But, all the same, although many non-Catholics may be found who loudly preach fraternal communion in Christ Jesus, yet you will find none at all to whom it ever occurs to submit to and obey the Vicar of Jesus Christ either in His capacity as a teacher or as a governor.
The point is that Pius XI here is clearly saying submission and obedience to the Roman Pontiff is necessary.
Reading into statements, cutting out the parts you want and using them out of context is something a protestant would do.
Do you have any idea what you just said?
-
But, all the same, although many non-Catholics may be found who loudly preach fraternal communion in Christ Jesus, yet you will find none at all to whom it ever occurs to submit to and obey the Vicar of Jesus Christ either in His capacity as a teacher or as a governor.
The point is that Pius XI here is clearly saying submission and obedience to the Roman Pontiff is necessary.
Reading into statements, cutting out the parts you want and using them out of context is something a protestant would do.
Do you have any idea what you just said?
Yes I said you are arguing like a protestant would.
-
So, LP, are you arguing that Pius XI is not, in fact, saying submission and obedience to the Roman Pontiff is necessary?
No but it's out of context, he's saying that the protestants do not accept the primacy of rome.
Everyone must obey the Roman Pontiff under normal circuмstances, but not if something heretical or contrary to the faith is said from Rome.
Sergius, Pyrrus, and Mennas all pleaded with the third council of constantinople that they had authorisation from Honorius to say and do what they did. They all stated they were obeying the Pope.
Mennas even provided proof of this, which resulted only in Honorius being condemned.
As in everything there is the ordinary rule and the extraordinary rule.
That is what I am saying.
I do not see how his quote relates to the question that was asked?
-
But, all the same, although many non-Catholics may be found who loudly preach fraternal communion in Christ Jesus, yet you will find none at all to whom it ever occurs to submit to and obey the Vicar of Jesus Christ either in His capacity as a teacher or as a governor.
The point is that Pius XI here is clearly saying submission and obedience to the Roman Pontiff is necessary.
Reading into statements, cutting out the parts you want and using them out of context is something a protestant would do.
Do you have any idea what you just said?
Yes I said you are arguing like a protestant would.
Let me be clear, I am not calling you a protestant, I was merely saying that taking snippets of a quote and taking it out of context is how both the protestants and neo-caths generally argue. In my opinion it is far better to take a quote in full that is in direct relation to what you are saying not meant for something else.
I appologize if my statement seemed like it was something else.
-
But, all the same, although many non-Catholics may be found who loudly preach fraternal communion in Christ Jesus, yet you will find none at all to whom it ever occurs to submit to and obey the Vicar of Jesus Christ either in His capacity as a teacher or as a governor.
The point is that Pius XI here is clearly saying submission and obedience to the Roman Pontiff is necessary.
Reading into statements, cutting out the parts you want and using them out of context is something a protestant would do.
Do you have any idea what you just said?
On reflection, I was very uncharitable in my statement.
So please take it like this: I was arguing with neo-caths and protestants in the past, they would constantly take little snippets of quotes and use them out of context so when I saw you taking snippets from an attack on ecuмanism and using it in relation to what was asked regarding whether sedecavantism or sedeplantism would or should be dogmatic I became annoyed.
What I should have said was "I believe that quote is out of context and not relative to what was asked" but I got snippy and compared your posting style in this thread to the protestants who had annoyed me in the past.
I apologize for my uncharitableness.
-
I don't think anyone has ever been condemned for not being sedevecantist in the history of the church, have they? Can you find that in any catechism?
Has anyone been condemned for being a sedevacantist? Can you find that in any catechism?
No.
Luther, Calvin, The Orthodox, Old Catholics (sort of)... of course these are extreme differences, but fundamentally, they were (are) and extreme which I believe the enemy can use sedevecantism as a cloak to lead people dangerously close to spiritual danger.
Its very sad- there is a gentleman at the chapel I go to who is dating a young lady. She is a convert from protestantism (in the process). When she started coming to mass, she was very kind and cheerful. This gentleman made the mistake (imo of course) of sending her to the CMRI in Santa Clarita since she lived so far away from our chapel. She went a few times without him and ever since, in Catechism with the priest, her whole personality and approach with our priest has been morphed. I do not want to slander any priest or society, however it seems as if someone at the CMRI has convinced her that our priest, since he isn't sede, is invalid. I will clarify that she hasn't said this, but it is what I can gather from her actions and from other experiences of friends who have been to other local CMRI chapels and have been told this by the priest and laity.
How sad to be a convert and rush into sedevecantism. Its such a deep intellectual opinion I would believe requires so much prayer and theological study...
Let me clarify, I am not anti CMRI, I only hold a different opinion. I believe they are valid and good willed, but some of the experiences I have had, directly and indirectly, have been unfortunate; the same with SSPX. I can only pray for their priests and faithful.
-
But, all the same, although many non-Catholics may be found who loudly preach fraternal communion in Christ Jesus, yet you will find none at all to whom it ever occurs to submit to and obey the Vicar of Jesus Christ either in His capacity as a teacher or as a governor.
The point is that Pius XI here is clearly saying submission and obedience to the Roman Pontiff is necessary.
Reading into statements, cutting out the parts you want and using them out of context is something a protestant would do.
Do you have any idea what you just said?
On reflection, I was very uncharitable in my statement.
So please take it like this: I was arguing with neo-caths and protestants in the past, they would constantly take little snippets of quotes and use them out of context so when I saw you taking snippets from an attack on ecuмanism and using it in relation to what was asked regarding whether sedecavantism or sedeplantism would or should be dogmatic I became annoyed.
What I should have said was "I believe that quote is out of context and not relative to what was asked" but I got snippy and compared your posting style in this thread to the protestants who had annoyed me in the past.
I apologize for my uncharitableness.
No need to apologize to me. The point I was making was Pius XI was expressing the Dogma that everybody must be subject to the Roman Pontiff. That's why it's not out of context. Remember what Pius XII said in Humani Generis:
20. Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me";[3] and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official docuмents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.
This totally exposes the post V2 encyclicals as frauds, as well.
-
Everyone must obey the Roman Pontiff under normal circuмstances, but not if something heretical or contrary to the faith is said from Rome.
Except heresy does not flow from the First See. This is a dogma of the Faith.
-
I don't think anyone has ever been condemned for not being sedevecantist in the history of the church, have they? Can you find that in any catechism?
Has anyone been condemned for being a sedevacantist? Can you find that in any catechism?
No.
Luther, Calvin, The Orthodox, Old Catholics (sort of)...
To believe that the See of Peter is THE seat of power but is, at this time, vacant (which happens all the time) does not line up in any way, shape, or form with Luther, Photius, Calvin, etc.
There is a difference of KIND, not merely one of degree.
-
Are the dogmatic sede-plenists at it again?
Boy, I like the ring of that.. dogmatic sede-plenist. Way to go, whoever came up with that one. Really shoves their term at us sedes back them. Maybe enough for them to reconsider their position.