Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: CathMomof7 on October 20, 2010, 04:48:13 PM
-
I have never really posted anything here controversial or really worthy of great intellectual discussion. I'm fairly new around here and still trying to get my feet wet. But I did find something today that I would really like to talk about or at least clarify.
I scour around the various sites on the internet and a comment about an article in a Protestant magazine caught my attention. So I went to the site where I could read the article for myself.
Now, I am aware that this magazine is Protestant. I know their point is to suggest that the Catholic Church and the Pope are liars. But doesn't it seem interesting that Catholics inside the Church are ignorant of the Pope's theological positions while some Protestants are quick to point them out?
I've know for awhile the philosophical leanings of this Pope but some of his statements seem quite heretical in and of themselves.
(Pages referenced are from Introduction to Christianity) His definition is both strange and ambiguous. “Resurrection”, he writes, “expresses the idea that the immortality of man can exist and be thought of only in the fellowship of men” (p 172). The doctrine, he claims, creates a “curious dilemma” (p 238) because modern liberal theologians no longer believe that body and soul can be identified as separate entities, something that Ratzinger dismisses, together with the immortality of the soul, as a Greek notion which has “become obsolete” (p 241).
Ratzinger’s book, Eschatology: Death and Eternal Life, covers, amongst other things, the nature of the resurrection. He notes that the accepted view among modern Roman Catholic and liberal Protestant theologians is that body
and soul expire at the point of death and that “the proper Christian thing, therefore, is to speak, not of the soul’s immortality, but of the resurrection of the complete human being and of that alone” (p 105). He notes that the word soul has disappeared from Roman Catholic liturgy (also from Roman Catholic Bible translations) as a consequence. Ratzinger offers his own new definition of the soul: “The ‘soul’ is our term for that in us which offers a foothold for this relation [with the eternal]. Soul is nothing other than man’s
capacity for relatedness with truth, with love eternal” (p 259). The soul is therefore defined heretically as the capacity for relationship rather than real spiritual substance; having a soul means “being God’s partner in dialogue”.10
In Introduction to Christianity, Ratzinger explicitly denies the resurrection of the body. “It now becomes clear that the real heart of faith in the resurrection does not consist at all in the idea of the restoration of bodies, to which we have reduced it in our thinking; such is the case even though this is the pictorial image used throughout the Bible”. He says that the word body, or flesh, in the phrase, the resurrection of the body, “in effect means ‘the world of man’ . . . [it is] not meant in the sense of a corporality isolated from the soul” (pp 240-41).
He draws the conclusion that “one thing at any rate may be fairly clear: both John (6:63) and Paul (1 Cor 15:50) state with all possible emphasis that the ‘resurrection of the flesh’, the ‘resurrection of the body’, is not a ‘resurrection
of physical bodies’. . . . Paul teaches, not the resurrection of physical bodies, but the resurrection of persons, and this not in the return of ‘flesh body’, that is, the biological structure, an idea he expressly describes as impossible (‘the perishable cannot become imperishable’) but in the different form of the life of the resurrection, as shown in the risen Lord” (p 246).
He says that “their essential content is not the conception of a restoration of bodies to souls after a long interval; their aim is to tell men that they, they themselves, live on . . . because they are known and loved by God in a way that they can no longer perish . . . the essential part of man, the person, remains . . . it goes on existing because it
lives in God’s memory” (p 243).
The author of the article goes on to conclude after his analysis that It is alarming to think of the extent of the heresies held by those who have authority within the bounds of Rome if Ratzinger is to be considered conservative.
Is this just Protestants attacking the Church or is there some merit to this? I have read none of the current Pope's writings. I do know that in his youth he was heavily influenced by Hans Kung and Karl Rahner and the ideas of phenomenology.
Do you think he still believes in these ideas? Or do you believe he has had a change of ideology? What does this say about the current state of affairs in the Church?
Quotes are from an article titled Does the Pope Believe in the Resurrection? by Matthew Vogan from the September 10 issue of Free Presbyterian Magazine
-
"not bodies" but "persons"
Definitely close to a direct denial.
Paul wasn't speaking of just a "pictorial representation"
They don't call them neo-modernists for nothing cathmom.
-
http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1998_January/Cardinal_Ratzinger.htm
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Is-this-okay-on-an-sspx-board
-
I'll probably get banned for asking this question, but here goes.
How can some still believe he is a true pope?
-
I'll probably get banned for asking this question, but here goes.
How can some still believe he is a true pope?
I don't think you'll get banned for that question. So why do I think he's true Pope? Well, as I said a few days ago, there are Popes and there are anti-popes, no in-between. This could have been stuff that he wrote or said before he even became Pope. I still don't think he meets enough criteria to be named anti-pope. Is he a Traditional Pope? No. Is he what I would call a good Pope? No. However, I don't think he's an anti-pope.
-
Is he a Traditional Pope? No.
Anyone who is an enemy of the Traditions of the Catholic Faith is an enemy of the Catholic Church.
An enemy of the Catholic Church can't be a Catholic.
A non-Catholic can't be a pope.
-
I am not prepared to claim that there is no Pope or that the current pontiff is not Catholic. I did find this information, however, useful.
A pope who, while not being guilty of formal heresy in the strict sense, has allowed heresy to undermine the Church through compromise, weakness, ambiguous or even gravely imprudent teaching remains Pope, but can be judged by his successors, and condemned as was the case with Honorius I.
I am totally aware that the Church has been under attack from within since the beginning. But did Our Lord not promise us that it could never be destroyed and that we would never lose the Church?
Is this not a time similar to St. Anthanasius's time where the hierarchy was led by heretical influences?
Wouldn't this be the case now? At some point won't some authoritative council have to say "That is heresy." or will we just go back to things before VII?
-
Is he a Traditional Pope? No.
Anyone who is an enemy of the Traditions of the Catholic Faith is an enemy of the Catholic Church.
An enemy of the Catholic Church can't be a Catholic.
A non-Catholic can't be a pope.
I wouldn't exactly say he's an enemy of Tradition. Ever since he became Pope I think he has slowly began to realize he went a little too far to the modernist side. Although, he's still on that side and needs to get off.
-
A pope who, while not being guilty of formal heresy in the strict sense, has allowed heresy to undermine the Church through compromise, weakness, ambiguous or even gravely imprudent teaching remains Pope, but can be judged by his successors, and condemned as was the case with Honorius I.
Honorius was not judged by his successors, and condemned as a heretic.
-
But did Our Lord not promise us that it could never be destroyed and that we would never lose the Church?
Sure. But if there is no pope for a period, that does not mean the Church is destroyed.
The pope is not the Church.
-
But did Our Lord not promise us that it could never be destroyed and that we would never lose the Church?
Sure. But if there is no pope for a period, that does not mean the Church is destroyed.
The pope is not the Church.
By that same token, we can have a bad Pope for a period and it does not mean the Church is destroyed.
Cathmom, I don't think it would be enough to just go back to things before Vatican 2 because things weren't so peachy then either. Most people had already, consciously or not, adopted heresy they just weren't fully acting on it yet on such a large scale. I think we will have to have a full blown condemnation, weeding and renewal. A real one, not a V2 one.
-
I am not prepared to claim that there is no Pope or that the current pontiff is not Catholic. I did find this information, however, useful.
A pope who, while not being guilty of formal heresy in the strict sense, has allowed heresy to undermine the Church through compromise, weakness, ambiguous or even gravely imprudent teaching remains Pope, but can be judged by his successors, and condemned as was the case with Honorius I.
And this would be useful if Benedict XVI were merely "allowing heresy to undermine the Church". The quotes above, and I have read them before, are his own words and his own teaching prior to his election. This is heresy as any first grade child who has been taught the Catechism could tell you. He has not renounced the heresy and, in fact, this heretical book was republished after his election.
I don't know if there is a "hidden pope" out there. (I suspect not.) I don't know if there can be a "material" pope as opposed to a "formal" pope as there is material and formal heresy. I don't know how the Crisis will be resolved. I only know that I am convinced that Benedict XVI cannot be the pope of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
-
By that same token, we can have a bad Pope for a period and it does not mean the Church is destroyed.
Sure.
But if a "bad" "pope" is a heretic; he is not a Catholic, let alone a pope.
But still the Church is not destroyed.
-
I'll probably get banned for asking this question, but here goes.
How can some still believe he is a true pope?
Exactly my question. I think all Catholics need to climb out of the co-dependent relationship and see it for what it is. Benedict is an abuser of Catholics (not to mention children).
His refusal to ever, turn known pedophiles over to police athorities, is just one more example of where this man's allegiances are. Hmm, how long has pedophelia been a part of the Catholic church?
It's interesting. He is a brazen heretic and Catholics don't seem to notice or care. Then his involvement in the pedophile coverups comes out in the mainstream media. Catholics are still going to Mass.
This shows me that Catholics who follow Benedict XVI will follow him no matter what. It seems that there is no heresy too great, no child that is so important, that they will back away from him.
Matthew 19:14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
I believe it is a testimony to the power of the devil. When people stopped believing in evil, that is when evil really gets a foothold. It's so easy for the devil now. Thanks to Benedict and all the other anti-popes who have paved the highway to hell. Hey, the devil doesn't really exist, so we don't need the exorcism rites anymore.
That should have been a major clue for people right there. Don't we need the rite of exorcism? Why are they trashing it?
So many clues. It's a wonder people are not getting it.
-
I only know that I am convinced that Benedict XVI cannot be the pope of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
If there is anyone here on CathInfo that can convince me beyond a shadow of a doubt of the same, I will be eternally grateful. :pop:
-
His refusal to ever, turn known pedophiles over to police athorities, is just one more example of where this man's allegiances are. Hmm, how long has pedophelia been a part of the Catholic church?
This is the least of our problems and would that it were the only one we had.
Heresy is a greater sin than sodomy. As harsh as that sounds to modern ears, it is nonetheless true.
-
I am not prepared to claim that there is no Pope or that the current pontiff is not Catholic. I did find this information, however, useful.
A pope who, while not being guilty of formal heresy in the strict sense, has allowed heresy to undermine the Church through compromise, weakness, ambiguous or even gravely imprudent teaching remains Pope, but can be judged by his successors, and condemned as was the case with Honorius I.
I am totally aware that the Church has been under attack from within since the beginning. But did Our Lord not promise us that it could never be destroyed and that we would never lose the Church?
Is this not a time similar to St. Anthanasius's time where the hierarchy was led by heretical influences?
Wouldn't this be the case now? At some point won't some authoritative council have to say "That is heresy." or will we just go back to things before VII?
Is it just a misunderstanding or what! If we are without a true pope for a time, that certainly does not mean God did not keep His promise. The Church is THE TEACHINGS OF CHRIST, and don't we all have that SSPX, SEDE or INDependent?
-
A pope who, while not being guilty of formal heresy in the strict sense, has allowed heresy to undermine the Church through compromise, weakness, ambiguous or even gravely imprudent teaching remains Pope, but can be judged by his successors, and condemned as was the case with Honorius I.
The sedevacantists do not believe that the current and past four popes were eligible for office since to be a pope you must be a Catholic and, since these men were already heretics prior to their papal election, they were, therefore, not Catholic. So, they have not "un-poped" anyone as they were never true popes to begin with.
I am not saying that this is what I firmly believe, only telling you that this is how the sedevacantists that I know think. If I am wrong, someone that is more knowledgeable here will correct me.
-
But did Our Lord not promise us that it could never be destroyed and that we would never lose the Church?
Sure. But if there is no pope for a period, that does not mean the Church is destroyed.
The pope is not the Church.
I've met few Sedevacantists who don't throw out the whole institutional Catholic Church with the Pope they reject.
In other words, they shouldn't be called Sedevacantists but something more inclusive. They aren't rejecting just the pope, but about 1 billion Catholics as well.
Seems like the term isn't expressing the reality.
Matthew
-
Matthew wrote: "...In other words, they shouldn't be called Sedevacantists but something more inclusive. They aren't rejecting just the pope, but about 1 billion Catholics as well..."
I don't understand what you're saying in your post, but as to what I quote above, I was thinking about some things.
I don't think anyone should be declared as absolutely outside the Church unless one of two things are true:
1) The individual himself declares that he is not Catholic; or
2) The individual's personal doctrines are heretical even though he, himself, knows what the doctrines of the Catholic Church are.
It is very possible that many of these 1 billion self-professed Catholics are indeed Catholics because they have been so poorly educated about the faith that they truly believe the heretical doctrines they hold are authentic Catholic doctrines but would, if corrected, submit to the true Faith of the Catholic Church. In many instances, this docilitiy can only be known by God. In many Western countries, however, the vast majority of self-professed Catholics know that they profess heresy (as many polls indicate) and will admit, "I know what the Church teaches, but..." These individuals should never be considered to be Catholics.
In the case of the clergy, however, I cannot accept that but only a very, very few do not know what the Church teaches on most matters of doctrine and I certainly cannot accept that one who headed the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith for years is ignorant of the True Faith, even though he may really think that Truth can change over time as is what most Modernist priest and bishops today believe. (Remember that as Father Ratzinger, Benedict XVI did take the Oath Against Modernism--He positively knows that the Church teaches that Truth [i.e., doctrine] does not change.)
I wonder when, precisely, a faithful Catholic in England realized that the Church he had been baptized in and attended every Sunday and Holy Day was no longer Catholic or when the average citizen of England was no longer Catholic and when the average citizen no longer even considered himself Catholic. We seem today to be in that transition period in the Church, though I hope and I pray that the Crisis will one day end and we will have a Catholic pope again.
-
I think Matthew is trying to say, that some Sedevacantist, although they no longer can accept the VII popes as true, they can accept some/many of the laity. With that I say; I hope so because all the while I was within the camp of VII, I considered myself Catholic. Misled, but still Catholic! Yet, when the facts were presented to me, I felt the grace, and saw the light and did something about it.
-
....edited.....It is very possible that many of these 1 billion self-professed Catholics are indeed Catholics because they have been so poorly educated about the faith that they truly believe the heretical doctrines they hold are authentic Catholic doctrines but would, if corrected, submit to the true Faith of the Catholic Church. ...edited...
Ahh, invinsible ignornance, another modern heresy.
2 Corinthians 4:3 "And if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost, in whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine unto them."
-
Leisa, thank you for that St. Paul quote.
I have checked the notes for that in my Haydock commentary, and it says:
"...And he says, if there be any who have not yet received it, that it is their own fault. For had they been as eager to receive it, as we have been to announce it to them, the whole world had long since been converted."
Then he goes on to say that Our Lord permitted their blindness.
-
You're welcome Alexandria,
And I like 2 Corinthians 4:2
But we renounce the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness nor adulterating the word of God: but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience, in the sight of God.
-
I'll probably get banned for asking this question, but here goes.
How can some still believe he is a true pope?
Exactly my question. I think all Catholics need to climb out of the co-dependent relationship and see it for what it is. Benedict is an abuser of Catholics (not to mention children).
His refusal to ever, turn known pedophiles over to police athorities, is just one more example of where this man's allegiances are. Hmm, how long has pedophelia been a part of the Catholic church?
It's interesting. He is a brazen heretic and Catholics don't seem to notice or care. Then his involvement in the pedophile coverups comes out in the mainstream media. Catholics are still going to Mass.
This shows me that Catholics who follow Benedict XVI will follow him no matter what. It seems that there is no heresy too great, no child that is so important, that they will back away from him.
Matthew 19:14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
I believe it is a testimony to the power of the devil. When people stopped believing in evil, that is when evil really gets a foothold. It's so easy for the devil now. Thanks to Benedict and all the other anti-popes who have paved the highway to hell. Hey, the devil doesn't really exist, so we don't need the exorcism rites anymore.
That should have been a major clue for people right there. Don't we need the rite of exorcism? Why are they trashing it?
So many clues. It's a wonder people are not getting it.
I really would not mention pedophiles being in the Church. Sure it's a problem, but as Alexandria said we are dealing with more important matters right now, modernism being the main one. Plus, the Protestants constantly use pedophiles being in the Church as an excuse for not wanting to become Catholic. I really think this is an issue that should be dealt with later. We first to try to take down modernism.
-
I've met few Sedevacantists who don't throw out the whole institutional Catholic Church with the Pope they reject.
Matthew
What exactly do you mean by "institutional" Catholic Church?
And what do you by "throw out"?
-
I really would not mention pedophiles being in the Church. ........
Are you afraid people might actually leave the Vatican II church?
-
I mean the Church that the average man would point to as the "Catholic Church".
-
For many Sedevacantists, it's not just a question of "is the See vacant, or not?" which the name Sedevacantism implies.
No, it's more than that.
When a Sedevacantist rejects the current Pope (Benedict XVI) as being valid, about 98% of them also reject the "Novus Ordo" mainstream Catholic Church structure, including its sacraments, priests, and laity -- effectively excommunicating the whole Church, reducing the Church of Christ to a few thousand (for some, it's a few hundred, a few dozen, or just a few!) individuals scattered around the world.
How many Sedevacantists consider novus ordo Catholics to be nothing more than protestants? Come on, they at least bear the Catholic name! Give them at least a little bit of credit. Lutherans are named after Luther. Calvinists are named after Calvin. No protestant Church can trace itself back to Christ. The Catholic Church is the original Christian Church, with 2,000 years of history and founded by Christ. Any novus ordo Catholic sees "Catholic Church" on the building they attend Mass at every single Sunday. I could imagine that fact putting someone at ease.
Unless they lived through Vatican II, how would they know they shouldn't trust their priest? Do they have some magical Catholic sense of what is right and wrong? A correct Sensus Fidei (sense of the faith) is only possessed by those who grew up in Catholic sanity (doctrine, liturgy, practice, culture, etc.) What kind of Sensus Fidei must be possessed by the average 20 year old Novus Ordo Catholic? Probably a very distorted one.
Matthew
-
Does that include the "Old Catholics" then or the American Catholic Church? They do call themselves Catholic and believe parts of the Truth as the Novus Ordo Catholics believe part of the Truth.
-
....edited.....It is very possible that many of these 1 billion self-professed Catholics are indeed Catholics because they have been so poorly educated about the faith that they truly believe the heretical doctrines they hold are authentic Catholic doctrines but would, if corrected, submit to the true Faith of the Catholic Church. ...edited...
Ahh, invinsible ignornance, another modern heresy.
2 Corinthians 4:3 "And if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost, in whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine unto them."
You misunderstand me though I am not sure whether you do so intentionally or just refuse to actually read what I wrote. I did not, nor do I, suggest that "invincible ignorance" will save these people. They will be condemned for their sins, for their unbelief, and for their lack of Sanctifying Grace. Invincible ignorance does not save.
I am merely pointing out that true ignorance of doctrine does not cut the bonds of unity and an individual who is ignorant of a particular doctrine but will, nevertheless, submit to the true doctrine if and when he becomes aware of it, is still a Catholic.
Being a member of the Catholic Church is necessary for salvation--this is dogma. But membership itself does not save. The sole question here is, "Just who is a member of the Catholic Church?" Knowledge of each and every doctrine of the Catholic Church is not necessary to be a member, if it did, then little children who have not been taught the Catechism would be classified as heretics. If your parents or priest mistakenly teach you a heresy (such as, for instance, that the souls of aborted babies go to heaven), you may still be a member of the Catholic Church until such time as you learn the True doctrine. Only if you stubornly cling to the heresy do the bonds of unity break and you become an heretic.
Invincible ignorance is not an heresy. It is a mere statement of fact. What is heretical is the application many Modernists make of the fact, suggesting that invincible ignorance can lead to eternal Life.
-
I am merely pointing out that true ignorance of doctrine does not cut the bonds of unity and an individual who is ignorant of a particular doctrine but will, nevertheless, submit to the true doctrine if and when he becomes aware of it, is still a Catholic.
This fits myself, while I was attending novus ordo for the first 15 years of their new religion. I didn't like it, but I also didn't know where to go. So I kept on going, but started to pray more about it. I prayed about the loss I felt and emptyness.
-
A lot of people are confused and vulnerable,etc. Most do not recognize that a schism/heresy has occured.
Most Prots, betwen sex abuse scandals and disinigration of most of human element of the CHurch, see little need nor value of becoming Catholic...I blame them far less, in most cases, then us for failing to be and live up to waht we are and claim to be. Excluding of course the Port that is antiCathoic, hard core and knows the truth and ignores it, or, fails, willingly to look for it...despite internet, most of it is antiCatholic. Conversions to the Faith have and remain, mainly through contacts with Catholics, and most are failing miserably, either taking a "your a dumb, evil prot" bashing approach or siad Catholic is so liberal and confused, the Prot wisely does nto see truth and Christ in that person.
Example-have a Baptist minster that is afriend of mine, an arminian theologically. I was the first Catholic he told me he had met that bleived in Genesis, creation, took ones faith seriously, attend Mass and showed a militancy...all he met were lukewarm, liberal, heretical (as we know it) Catholics that were lax and indifferent...
Gods will be done, granted, but who impresses said minster more toward truth? me more than most he met and defiantely, not the Catholic that treats him like dirt and has a "your a Prot, so you are stupid or purposley ignorant of the Catholic faith" approach, often these people lurk in trad circles.
You might be the only real Catholic, dear posters, that a Prot, Jєω,etc might meet and how you treat and approach them is key. If you take a "bash um in the head" approach and they nver convert, part of that will be on you....so too, indifferentism and universal salvation, even worse and more a stench in Gods nostrils, as we see in ch 3 of Apoc. No mamby pamby, but not eyes buging out, head spinning frothing at the mouth....
I got a lot at judgment to answer for, do not want to answer why a Prot is in Hell or looong Purgatory because I failed to properly stand for Catholic Truth....remembering well what ABL stated, that if a prot is saved, and some would be, it is in spite of there heretical beleifs, not by them....
Too often, the head spinning, bashing-have seen it turn off people, some never again will consider the Fide due to poor and uncharitable behaviors. Some of the fault lies not with the ehretic on that one....the most conversions have seen, it was by Catholics that did not sell out the truth, but approached with fimr charity and kindness...a pleasant disposition and open approach.....not the head spinning, wigging out....
agree w/Myrna, the NO will not stop the NWO, evil Satan and does not in the end appeal to too many strict Prots, men and those truly yearning for Truth...it is dessicated and vacant...for me, cannot stand to go to 95% or more of Catholic (some, so called) Churches....cannot tolerate it nor abide by it and should not....when you find a gem, no one wants granite....
-
Does that include the "Old Catholics" then or the American Catholic Church? They do call themselves Catholic and believe parts of the Truth as the Novus Ordo Catholics believe part of the Truth.
No, you see, because they can't trace their organization back to Jesus Christ like the "mainstream" Catholic Church can. The mainstream Church is connected to Rome, for example, which has always been the headquarters of the Catholic Church.
Any schismatic groups wouldn't even have this going for them -- because they're cut off from the main body with all the "history".
Glad you brought that up.
-
Well, my next question would be in light of the topic of this thread, and the fact that Benedict XVI says this :
“Paul [St. Paul] teaches not the resurrection of physical bodies but of persons…”
Source: Joseph Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity, (republished in 1990 with Ratzinger’s approval), p. 277
Instead of this:
The same most holy Roman Church firmly believes, and firmly declares that nevertheless on the day of judgment all men will be brought together with their bodies before the tribunal of Christ to render an account of their own deeds.” (Denz. 464)
Source: Pope Gregory X, Council of Lyons II, 1274, ex cathedra
Why would the SSPX be interested in negotiating with a man who holds errors?
-
Why would the SSPX be interested in negotiating with a man who holds errors?
Anyone know where the term "negotiation" entered the picture in regard to the talks between SSPX and Rome? Just wondering if that was a HUGE mistake on the part of the SSPX to refer to these discussions as "negotiations" or if that was a term which entered the picture from another source.
Anyhow, it seems a tired question ... is it not the job of a Catholic to dialogue with those in error in an attempt to instruct/convert them?
-
Does that include the "Old Catholics" then or the American Catholic Church? They do call themselves Catholic and believe parts of the Truth as the Novus Ordo Catholics believe part of the Truth.
No, you see, because they can't trace their organization back to Jesus Christ like the "mainstream" Catholic Church can. The mainstream Church is connected to Rome, for example, which has always been the headquarters of the Catholic Church.
Any schismatic groups wouldn't even have this going for them -- because they're cut off from the main body with all the "history".
Glad you brought that up.
I see, but, if you listen to Catholic Radio they would and always do say that the SSPX is schismatic and cut off from the main body as you say. So this is more of what I am meaning. Really they do fall all over themselves when the topic of the "Schismatic SSPX" comes up for discussion, they do not think well of them at all.
-
Well, then use the term talk or the term dialogue. Yes, we should certainly try to convert those in error for if they are in error they are outside of the one True Church of which there is no salvation. If they are not in error then no need to talk. Yes, it is a bit of a sticky situation indeed when those in error are the ones in Rome and therefore not Catholics and therefore outside the Church.
What was it that the True Pontiff said to Luther? No dialogue as a matter of fact when Luther said here I stand, he was told by the pontiff Anathema. I guess it is not always wise to continue to talk when those you are trying to convert have no intention of converting, and even worse muddy up what you believe yourself.
-
f you listen to Catholic Radio they would and always do say that the SSPX is schismatic and cut off from the main body as you say.
That is true. Just a few weeks ago I heard on Catholic Answers radio show one of their "apologists" caution someone against receiving Holy Communion in an SSPX Church since, as the apologist said, that would be signifying that you are in communion with the SSPX and it would be a sin to do so. But by all means, do go to your spouses protestant church without any qualms as I have also heard them say many times. :rolleyes:
Such are the times in which we live.
-
Well, then use the term talk or the term dialogue. Yes, we should certainly try to convert those in error for if they are in error they are outside of the one True Church of which there is no salvation. If they are not in error then no need to talk. Yes, it is a bit of a sticky situation indeed when those in error are the ones in Rome and therefore not Catholics and therefore outside the Church.
What was it that the True Pontiff said to Luther? No dialogue as a matter of fact when Luther said here I stand, he was told by the pontiff Anathema. I guess it is not always wise to continue to talk when those you are trying to convert have no intention of converting, and even worse muddy up what you believe yourself.
I think the SSPX most commonly says "discussions with Rome", but could certainly be wrong about that.
Yes, as with any attempt at conversion (or correction, as an individual in error isn't necessarily at the point where they would be outside the Church) the persons involved should pray to know when to stay and when to drop it and go their way. As we're not any of those persons and know very little of the "nitty gritty", it would be appropriate to give those involved the benefit of the doubt.
-
Does that include the "Old Catholics" then or the American Catholic Church? They do call themselves Catholic and believe parts of the Truth as the Novus Ordo Catholics believe part of the Truth.
No, you see, because they can't trace their organization back to Jesus Christ like the "mainstream" Catholic Church can. The mainstream Church is connected to Rome, for example, which has always been the headquarters of the Catholic Church.
Any schismatic groups wouldn't even have this going for them -- because they're cut off from the main body with all the "history".
Glad you brought that up.
I see, but, if you listen to Catholic Radio they would and always do say that the SSPX is schismatic and cut off from the main body as you say. So this is more of what I am meaning. Really they do fall all over themselves when the topic of the "Schismatic SSPX" comes up for discussion, they do not think well of them at all.
But the SSPX was founded as a Pious Union with the approval of Rome and the local bishop. (Did you know that?)
Plus, Catholic Answers and media offensives aside, the official Roman position is that the SSPX is not schismatic. They ardently wish for people to be under the impression that they are -- but when you ask them point blank, in an official manner, they give you the truth.
The Old Catholics and other schismatic groups ARE schismatic. And the founder of the Old Catholics (Arnold Mathew) was excommunicated and declared Vitandi (a person to be shunned by Catholics) by Pope St. Pius X.
http://www.chantcd.com/real_excomm.htm
That never happened to the SSPX founders. Archbishop Lefebvre's "excommunication" was more of a "Let it be known, these men have incurred automatic excommunication for consecrating bishops without a papal mandate." rather than actively excommunicating them by his own power.
Compare John Paul II's "excommunication" of the SSPX bishops with the above REAL excommunication of a heretic.
http://www.chantcd.com/ecclesia_dei.htm
Matthew
-
But back to the point...
A NO Catholic ... never been considered schismatic
An Old Catholic ... has always been considered schismatic
So, the NO Catholic -- especially those with no pre-VII memory -- should be given a bit of credit simply in that they carry the name Catholic.
-
You misunderstand me though I am not sure whether you do so intentionally or just refuse to actually read what I wrote. I did not, nor do I, suggest that "invincible ignorance" will save these people. They will be condemned for their sins, for their unbelief, and for their lack of Sanctifying Grace. Invincible ignorance does not save.
I am merely pointing out that true ignorance of doctrine does not cut the bonds of unity and an individual who is ignorant of a particular doctrine but will, nevertheless, submit to the true doctrine if and when he becomes aware of it, is still a Catholic.
Being a member of the Catholic Church is necessary for salvation--this is dogma. But membership itself does not save. The sole question here is, "Just who is a member of the Catholic Church?" Knowledge of each and every doctrine of the Catholic Church is not necessary to be a member, if it did, then little children who have not been taught the Catechism would be classified as heretics. If your parents or priest mistakenly teach you a heresy (such as, for instance, that the souls of aborted babies go to heaven), you may still be a member of the Catholic Church until such time as you learn the True doctrine. Only if you stubornly cling to the heresy do the bonds of unity break and you become an heretic.
Invincible ignorance is not an heresy. It is a mere statement of fact. What is heretical is the application many Modernists make of the fact, suggesting that invincible ignorance can lead to eternal Life.
Hi, I underlined the parts of your post that I would call into question. A heretic is not inside the church. Correct? You said "true ignorance of doctrine does not cut the bonds of unity.."
However ignorance of the faith is not an excuse. I say that ignorance does put one outside of the Catholic faith. I cannot be a member of something if I don't know what membership is?
If one is attending an invalid and heretical church then how is one to assume that they have the true Catholic faith? Not to mention the fact that it is a sin to attend a heretical Mass.
(Little children have not reached the age of reason.)
If I am misinterpreting you then please inform me.
-
I am just repeating what I hear almost every week on Relevant Radio. As a sede I have my own private opinion on both parties discussing, talking, dialoging, negotiating whatever term they are using.
And, this is not just the host of the programming saying that SSPX is schismatic it is the priests, bishops and even the Vatican Correspondent they speak with each week for updates from Rome.
Again, not my words but the general opinion of persons such as Francis Cardinal George, Monsignor John D Wayne of the Vatican and so on.
-
Dawn, those priests are not infallible. They can be quite wrong, and part of the "disinformation campaign" waged by the Vatican in this matter.
The only time you get the truth is when a layman writes to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
Here is an interview with Cardinal Castrillon-Hoyos:
http://www.30giorni.it/us/articolo_stampa.asp?id=9360
Your Eminence, what was the nature of the audience granted by the Pope to the Superior General of the Saint Pius X Fraternity?
DARÍOCASTRILLÓN HOYOS: The audience is part of a process that began with a very important intervention by the then Cardinal Ratzinger, who signed a protocol of agreement with Monsignor Lefebvre before the latter decided to proceed to the episcopal consecrations of 1988.
Monsignor Lefebvre did not back off…
CASTRILLÓN HOYOS: Unfortunately Monsignor Lefebvre went ahead with the consecration and hence the situation of separation came about, even if it was not a formal schism. (emphasis added)
Just like that, a highly contentious issue that’s been dividing Catholics since 1988 was settled. And it’s impossible to believe that a man in the Cardinal’s elevated position, with his closely guarded reputation for discretion, could have acted in this regard without the Pope’s foreknowledge.
But, there’s more. We’ve all grown accustomed to the neo-Catholics charging all traditionalists with “closet sedevacantism”, especially the priests and bishops of the SSPX. Cardinal Hoyos put the lie to that as well:
After the audience [between SSPX head Bishop Bernard Fellay and Pope Benedict on August 29, 2005] an authoritative cardinal suggested that the Fraternity should recognize the legitimacy of the present Pontiff…
CASTRILLÓN HOYOS: Unfortunately that is proof that within the Church, even at high levels, there is not always full knowledge of the Fraternity. The Fraternity has always recognized in John Paul II, and now in Benedict XVI, the legitimate successor of Saint Peter. That is not a problem. That then there are traditionalist groups that don’t recognize the last popes, the so-called “empty throne” people, is another question that doesn’t concern the Saint Pius X Fraternity.
Next, the coup de grace. His Eminence conceded a point that traditionalists have been contesting for 35 years—that the old Mass was abrogated and, as such, requires a special permission or “indult” for use:
It is known that the Saint Pius X Fraternity is asking the Holy See for a liberalization of the so-called Tridentine mass and a declaration affirming that this liturgy has never been abolished.
CASTRILLÓN HOYOS: The mass of Saint Pius V has never been abolished…
-
Anyhow, Dawn, I realize you're a sedevacantist but this is not an SSPX-Sedevacantist argument thread. You're derailing the thread and I ask you now to refrain from further posting in this thread unless you wish to follow the "lead" of Mater's last post -- which attempted to put this thread back on track.
I'm going to delete any posts from you that violate my warning.
I'm not going to get (further) into another worn-out SSPX-Sede debate.
Matthew
-
I am sorry Matthew, and I specifically said that this was not my opinion as a sede. This is what I hear on Relevant Radio. And, I do not agree with them on many things there opinion of the SSPX included. They are very ignorant about what occured. It is not a sede debate and I said so. It is a SSPX, Novus Ordo Radio or EWTN debate.
How can I be faulted for what they are saying.
-
A heretic is not inside the church. Correct?
Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this is false. You have to be pertinacious in your heresy to be automatically excommunicated. An accidental heretic is still within the Church.
-
I am sorry Matthew, and I specifically said that this was not my opinion as a sede. This is what I hear on Relevant Radio. And, I do not agree with them on many things there opinion of the SSPX included. They are very ignorant about what occured. It is not a sede debate and I said so. It is a SSPX, Novus Ordo Radio or EWTN debate.
How can I be faulted for what they are saying.
Why do you listen to Relevant Radio? If they say these things, aren't you concerned about it muddying up your beliefs?
:wink:
If we really want to be back on topic, I suppose I should read the OP, which I have not.
:plant:
Oh well...
-
I really would not mention pedophiles being in the Church. ........
Are you afraid people might actually leave the Vatican II church?
No. The more people that leave the Vatican II Church the better. I guess I'm saying that modernism is a bigger problem right now.
-
Well, my next question would be in light of the topic of this thread, and the fact that Benedict XVI says this :
“Paul [St. Paul] teaches not the resurrection of physical bodies but of persons…”
Source: Joseph Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity, (republished in 1990 with Ratzinger’s approval), p. 277
Instead of this:
The same most holy Roman Church firmly believes, and firmly declares that nevertheless on the day of judgment all men will be brought together with their bodies before the tribunal of Christ to render an account of their own deeds.” (Denz. 464)
Source: Pope Gregory X, Council of Lyons II, 1274, ex cathedra
Why would the SSPX be interested in negotiating with a man who holds errors?
Let's be real here. Is the SSPX were negotiating with Rome, they would already have worked out a deal like the FSSP. Just because the SSPX is in talks with them does not mean they are negotiating. It's nothing more than a false rumor put out by a bunch of extreme sedes or extremists. They are trying to convert Rome. Heck, Archbishop LeFebvre, in many of his books, states that he never gave up trying to convert Rome. Yesterday someone asked why the SSPX would talk with Rome since they probably would not abandon Vatican II. Well, should we not try to convert the Protestants just because the chances of them converting to Traditional Catholicism are slim? See the flaw in that reasoning? Anyway, enough of this debate...
-
Let's be real here. Is the SSPX were negotiating with Rome, they would already have worked out a deal like the FSSP.
How is that a logical assumption to make?
Just because the SSPX is in talks with them does not mean they are negotiating.
Except one can see the effects of the SSPX's new attitude at the local chapter. A catechism class devoted to defending the conciliar priests against the abuse charges - for example.
It's nothing more than a false rumor put out by a bunch of extreme sedes or extremists. They are trying to convert Rome.
What about the dinoscopus entry quoted here:
http://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?a=topic&t=12467&f=9&min=0&num=20
-
This is what I hear on Relevant Radio.
Sorry, I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, but what is Relevant Radio? :confused1:
-
So, does anyone have anything to say about the original post?
I have never really posted anything here controversial or really worthy of great intellectual discussion. I'm fairly new around here and still trying to get my feet wet. But I did find something today that I would really like to talk about or at least clarify.
I scour around the various sites on the internet and a comment about an article in a Protestant magazine caught my attention. So I went to the site where I could read the article for myself.
Now, I am aware that this magazine is Protestant. I know their point is to suggest that the Catholic Church and the Pope are liars. But doesn't it seem interesting that Catholics inside the Church are ignorant of the Pope's theological positions while some Protestants are quick to point them out?
I've know for awhile the philosophical leanings of this Pope but some of his statements seem quite heretical in and of themselves.
(Pages referenced are from Introduction to Christianity) His definition is both strange and ambiguous. “Resurrection”, he writes, “expresses the idea that the immortality of man can exist and be thought of only in the fellowship of men” (p 172). The doctrine, he claims, creates a “curious dilemma” (p 238) because modern liberal theologians no longer believe that body and soul can be identified as separate entities, something that Ratzinger dismisses, together with the immortality of the soul, as a Greek notion which has “become obsolete” (p 241).
Ratzinger’s book, Eschatology: Death and Eternal Life, covers, amongst other things, the nature of the resurrection. He notes that the accepted view among modern Roman Catholic and liberal Protestant theologians is that body
and soul expire at the point of death and that “the proper Christian thing, therefore, is to speak, not of the soul’s immortality, but of the resurrection of the complete human being and of that alone” (p 105). He notes that the word soul has disappeared from Roman Catholic liturgy (also from Roman Catholic Bible translations) as a consequence. Ratzinger offers his own new definition of the soul: “The ‘soul’ is our term for that in us which offers a foothold for this relation [with the eternal]. Soul is nothing other than man’s
capacity for relatedness with truth, with love eternal” (p 259). The soul is therefore defined heretically as the capacity for relationship rather than real spiritual substance; having a soul means “being God’s partner in dialogue”.10
In Introduction to Christianity, Ratzinger explicitly denies the resurrection of the body. “It now becomes clear that the real heart of faith in the resurrection does not consist at all in the idea of the restoration of bodies, to which we have reduced it in our thinking; such is the case even though this is the pictorial image used throughout the Bible”. He says that the word body, or flesh, in the phrase, the resurrection of the body, “in effect means ‘the world of man’ . . . [it is] not meant in the sense of a corporality isolated from the soul” (pp 240-41).
He draws the conclusion that “one thing at any rate may be fairly clear: both John (6:63) and Paul (1 Cor 15:50) state with all possible emphasis that the ‘resurrection of the flesh’, the ‘resurrection of the body’, is not a ‘resurrection
of physical bodies’. . . . Paul teaches, not the resurrection of physical bodies, but the resurrection of persons, and this not in the return of ‘flesh body’, that is, the biological structure, an idea he expressly describes as impossible (‘the perishable cannot become imperishable’) but in the different form of the life of the resurrection, as shown in the risen Lord” (p 246).
He says that “their essential content is not the conception of a restoration of bodies to souls after a long interval; their aim is to tell men that they, they themselves, live on . . . because they are known and loved by God in a way that they can no longer perish . . . the essential part of man, the person, remains . . . it goes on existing because it
lives in God’s memory” (p 243).
The author of the article goes on to conclude after his analysis that It is alarming to think of the extent of the heresies held by those who have authority within the bounds of Rome if Ratzinger is to be considered conservative.
Is this just Protestants attacking the Church or is there some merit to this? I have read none of the current Pope's writings. I do know that in his youth he was heavily influenced by Hans Kung and Karl Rahner and the ideas of phenomenology.
Do you think he still believes in these ideas? Or do you believe he has had a change of ideology? What does this say about the current state of affairs in the Church?
Quotes are from an article titled Does the Pope Believe in the Resurrection? by Matthew Vogan from the September 10 issue of Free Presbyterian Magazine
-
I will answer. No, this is not just a Protestant Newspaper twisting the words of Benedict. Yes, Benedict believes exactly that as I posted earlier in this thread in direct opposition of Church teaching.
There are many other things Benedict holds to be true that are in direct contrast to what Holy Mother Church holds to be true.
I will always tell the truth as that is what I am called to do. I do not believe him to be a True Pontiff but an Illegal Occupant to the Chair of St. Peter. Souls are being lost everyday because everyone is afraid to tell the truth everyone thinks they must walk on eggshells for fear of being banned or otherwise shunned. I do not fear this, I fear more not having the strength and fortitude needed to defend my Faith even unto death.
And, another thing, call it what you will as far as the SSPX and NewChurch they are talking. There is a protitute on the street corner in town. Really, there is. If I am seen talking to her every night and having lunch and dinner at her house do you think my neighbors will say, "Oh, Dawn will convert that one and have her leave her life of shame", or do you think they will assume I am like her?
-
Cheryl, Relevant Radio is Novus Ordo Radio in my area. I can hear the weather and headlines without being offended. But, every once in a while when I am doing laundry or cooking dinner if the catch me with an upcoming discussion I will listen. That is why I can state that the Vatican representative from Rome with whom they speak weekly calls that group schismatic.
-
You misunderstand me though I am not sure whether you do so intentionally or just refuse to actually read what I wrote. I did not, nor do I, suggest that "invincible ignorance" will save these people. They will be condemned for their sins, for their unbelief, and for their lack of Sanctifying Grace. Invincible ignorance does not save.
I am merely pointing out that true ignorance of doctrine does not cut the bonds of unity and an individual who is ignorant of a particular doctrine but will, nevertheless, submit to the true doctrine if and when he becomes aware of it, is still a Catholic.
Being a member of the Catholic Church is necessary for salvation--this is dogma. But membership itself does not save. The sole question here is, "Just who is a member of the Catholic Church?" Knowledge of each and every doctrine of the Catholic Church is not necessary to be a member, if it did, then little children who have not been taught the Catechism would be classified as heretics. If your parents or priest mistakenly teach you a heresy (such as, for instance, that the souls of aborted babies go to heaven), you may still be a member of the Catholic Church until such time as you learn the True doctrine. Only if you stubornly cling to the heresy do the bonds of unity break and you become an heretic.
Invincible ignorance is not an heresy. It is a mere statement of fact. What is heretical is the application many Modernists make of the fact, suggesting that invincible ignorance can lead to eternal Life.
Hi, I underlined the parts of your post that I would call into question. A heretic is not inside the church. Correct? You said "true ignorance of doctrine does not cut the bonds of unity.."
However ignorance of the faith is not an excuse. I say that ignorance does put one outside of the Catholic faith. I cannot be a member of something if I don't know what membership is?
If one is attending an invalid and heretical church then how is one to assume that they have the true Catholic faith? Not to mention the fact that it is a sin to attend a heretical Mass.
(Little children have not reached the age of reason.)
If I am misinterpreting you then please inform me.
MaterDominici is correct, one must be "pertinacious in your heresy to be automatically excommunicated". If you are ignorant, say, of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception and while discussing the life of the Blessed Virgin you make a comment suggesting her redemption from original sin, you are wrong on a fact and have uttered a heresy, but you are still a member of the Catholic Church. Your friend corrects you and explains the doctrine. You don't believe your friend and go on believing that Mary was conceived with original sin. However, you begin checking Catholic religious books and you talk with your priest and discover the truth of the matter. You are a heretic if you decide that the Church is wrong and logic dictates to you that Mary must have been conceived with original sin and you go on believing that false doctrine. On the other hand, if you docilely submit to the true doctrine and take it as your own belief, you never were a heretic and thus never cut the bonds of unity with the Church by heresy--you were simply mistaken.
It is a major point here that is important to grasp. The average Novus Ordo Catholic may be wrong about many things and not be a heretic, though it is not as many as one might think. Most of them, at least in the United States, I think, and probably in many Western nations, hold to heresy because one priest told them something that they knew to be wrong but cling to the notion even though they know that it is not what the Church teaches.
A good example of this is in the area of contraception. There are indeed Catholics who know that the Church teaches that articificial means of contraception are wrong in every case but decide that they are going to employ such methods anyway fully aware that they are committing mortal sin. These Catholics are not heretics though they are cut-off from heaven due to mortal sin unless and until they stop their sin and make a good confession; furthermore, they know this is the case. On the other hand, there are also a great many more Catholics who tenaciously insist that the issue is much more complex and that in his or her own situation, contraception is actually permitted by the Church because one priest many years ago said so. In spite of the fact that the truth is known, the sin continues and, and this is the key point, the sinner pertinaciously refuses to accept that the Church condemns the practice and stubbornly insists that the Church is wrong or that the Church really doesn't teach such a doctrine.
There are many doctrinal issues that fit this category and we see them in the many (usually) secular polls of Catholics when they ask, "Can you be a Catholic in good standing if you believe..." Then the polster gives any of a number of false doctrines that one cannot hold, in good conscience, knowing that they are heresies.
...that Christ didn't bodily rise from the dead?
...that ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ conduct is morally good?
...that living together before marriage is acceptable?
...that a priest can consecrate a rice host to give for holy communion to a person with severe wheat allergies?
...that Mary had other children after Jesus?
...that the miracle of loaves and fishes was really just a story about sharing?
...that the Blessed Sacrament is merely symbolic?
Etc., etc., etc. What is particularly sad is that Novus Ordo Catholics know what the true doctrines of the Church are on these and other matters because of the secular media pointing these doctrine out rather than the priests and bishops teaching the people. One can hardly fault a child for believing that the (conciliar) Mass is merely a re-enactment of the Last Supper and not, as even the conciliar Church teaches, a true sacrifice for sin (the fact that the Novus Ordo is almost always invalid as currently celebrated notwithstanding). Only as the child matures and learns about what the Catholic Church truly teaches does the unbelief of the true doctrines manifest itself as the crime of heresy. And yes, heresy is a crime. Never in Church history has a man been tried in Ecclesiastical courts for looking at a woman and feeling lust in his heart or deciding to sleep in on Sunday morning and not go to Mass; but many people have been tried in Ecclesiastical courts for heresy and, if found guilty, turned over to the secular government for punishment--the heresy having already excommunicated the criminal.
Since you quoted a bible verse to me, let me paraphrase one back to you (and you'll have to find it yourself because I don't know where it is other than in the Gospels). Jesus told the scribes and the Pharasees that if they were blind they would not have guilt but because they say they see, the guilt remains. In other words, if they had been truly ignorant of the Truth they would not have been guilty of anything, but because they did indeed know the Truth, they are guilty of rejecting Him. Invincible ignorance is not a heresy, it really does exist though it is not really as wide-spread as those who condemn it wish to believe. Most who remain ignorant of doctrine do so willfully, and, I believe, every priest, bishop, and theologian who utters heresy in his prepared sermons, pubishes heresy in books, or makes long and detailed heretical speeches does so with his eyes wide open. They know that what they say would have been condemned as heresy before the Council (many of them actually were) but the pertinaciously believe that the Church as changed her doctrine and no longer teaches outdated theology that was true at one time but is evolved or grown because modern humankind no longer needs such or wants them.
For some of the simple faithful, on the other hand, it may not always be a matter of pertinaciously holding heresy since many modern catechetical books actually do publish heresy--and even have an imprimatur. There are many Catholics today in the Novus Ordo "community" who are confused, especially when they run across older books and see that it says something completely different from what they were taught and can still read in the newer books. The ones who are truly Catholics are on the way to finding tradition and these are the ones who show up at your traditional chapel one day seeking Truth.
By the way, I wanted to send "Dawn" a pm about her posts as I didn't want to answer her on the forum as it was pointed out that this was derailing the topic; but she doesn't have a "pm" button. How come?
-
I do not know why I can not send or receive messages.
I mentioned listening to Novus Ordo Radio, and it is a very sad fact. They will mention a topic, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs for instance. And, in one breath say it is wrong, sinful, harmful. The very next statement they obfuscate and waffle and backpedal so that a listener who did not know the truth for themselves would REALLY not know the truth by the time the program was finished.
-
Cheryl, Relevant Radio is Novus Ordo Radio in my area. I can hear the weather and headlines without being offended. But, every once in a while when I am doing laundry or cooking dinner if the catch me with an upcoming discussion I will listen. That is why I can state that the Vatican representative from Rome with whom they speak weekly calls that group schismatic.
Dawn, is this it? http://www.relevantradio.com/Page.aspx?pid=469
I like to listen to all points of view. If I don't know what's going on elsewhere, how can I defend my own point of view?
Although right now, I have little stomach for the Vatican. A few weeks ago, when I was shopping in my favorite used book store, I came across a book titled, Fatima Priest, by Francis Alban and Christopher Ferrara. What I've read in this book about what "persons unknown" inside the Vatican have done to Fr. Gruner, because he refuses to present the "lite" version of the message of Fatima, upsets me terribly! Fr. Gruner has a "bad" habit of using those "dirty" Catholic works that aren't supposed to be used in the N.O.; penance, reparation, the Kingship of Christ, etc. But never has he denied any Pope not to be valid. In the past few years it seems that he's hooked up with visible personages of the SSPX, Christopher Ferrara, John Vennari and a few others whose names escape me.
I think it's very important to know what all the other teams are doing as well as your own.
Thanks for the info on Relevant Radio, I'll listen to it online when I get time. :smile:
-
Absolutely we must know what they teach. How else can we help our families caught in the false religion of NewRome.
Yes, That blow-hard Christopher Ferrara can be credited with finally making me stop my hesitating in accepting the Sede position. His article on the "Enterprise" really made things clear for me. I think it was John Gregory who writes for the Four Marks newspaper who claimed the same.
-
TKGS, are you referring to John 9:40-41?
-
I will answer. No, this is not just a Protestant Newspaper twisting the words of Benedict. Yes, Benedict believes exactly that as I posted earlier in this thread in direct opposition of Church teaching.
There are many other things Benedict holds to be true that are in direct contrast to what Holy Mother Church holds to be true.
I originally posted this because I do want to know what is really happening. I also recognize that the Church, throughout Her history, has been led by less the exemplary men. God has an amazing ability to use what is perceived as evil for something very good.
I know that the current Pope was heavily influenced by many people. I know also that he was a very young man at the time. What I want to understand is two-fold:
Did he indeed write these words about the Resurrection of the Body? And, if so, does he still believe this to be true?
If he does, does his personal opinion/belief/theology directly affect the Church? Or is the Church, designed by God, always protected from the personal ideologies of men, including the Pope?
The Pope is not the Church, but he is the Visible Head of the Church. How do his public opinions and actions affect us, the Church Militant? What can we do besides pray?
I have NO interest in discussing the Sede vs. SSPX issue. While I do not support the Sede argument for various reasons, I can understand that argument and I can appreciate the views of those who hold it.
-
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity, 2004, p. 349: “It now becomes clear that the real heart of faith in the resurrection does not consist at all in the idea of the restoration of bodies, to which we have reduced it in our thinking; such is the case even though this is the pictorial image used throughout the Bible.”
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity, p. 353: “The foregoing reflections may have clarified to some extent what is involved in the biblical pronouncements about the resurrection: their essential content is not the conception of a restoration of bodies to souls after a long interval…”
Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity, 2004, pp. 357-358: “To recapitulate, Paul teaches, not the resurrection of physical bodies, but the resurrection of persons…”
This is as of 2004. Maybe you can show me where he corrected himself publicly for this error that was written in his book.
-
Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215, ex cathedra: “…all of whom will rise with their bodies which they now bear…” (Denz. 429)
Pope Gregory X, Second Council of Lyons, 1274, ex cathedra: “The same most holy Roman Church firmly believes and firmly declares that nevertheless on the day of judgment all men will be brought together with their bodies before the tribunal of Christ to render an account of their own deeds.” (Denz. 464)
Pope Benedict XII, Benedictus Deus, Jan. 29, 1336, ex cathedra: “Moreover, we declare that… all men with their bodies will make themselves ready to render an account of their own deeds before the tribunal of Christ…” (Denz. 531)
Benedict XVI denies this dogma in his book Introduction to Christianity ( see the quotes from his book above) by teaching that St. Paul doesn’t teach the resurrection of physical bodies, and that the resurrection does not consist in the restoration of bodies.
-
I will always tell the truth as that is what I am called to do. I do not believe him to be a True Pontiff but an Illegal Occupant to the Chair of St. Peter. Souls are being lost everyday because everyone is afraid to tell the truth everyone thinks they must walk on eggshells for fear of being banned or otherwise shunned. I do not fear this, I fear more not having the strength and fortitude needed to defend my Faith even unto death.
Spoken like a true warrior of Holy Mother Church! :applause: :applause:
-
This is as of 2004. Maybe you can show me where he corrected himself publicly for this error that was written in his book.
I wish I could find his quote since becoming pope where he said point blank that he hasn't changed since his suit and tie days of Vatican II.
-
Hmm, I wonder. I do remember before he was pope that he was interviewed by Raymond Arroyo of EWTN. Something to the effect of Raymond saying that in the days of Vatican II you, Cardinal Ratzinger were thought to be liberal, and yet now we call you a very strong conservative (God's Rotweiller). How have you change? His reply was that he has not moved but the Church has moved to agree with him.
The proof is there. I have shown it and if people choose to ignore it and hurl what they consider to be an epithet of sede to my name as if to make what I say not true it is not my problem I am to correct error when I hear it. We are all to correct error when we hear it.
-
Let's be real here. Is the SSPX were negotiating with Rome, they would already have worked out a deal like the FSSP.
How is that a logical assumption to make?
Just because the SSPX is in talks with them does not mean they are negotiating.
Except one can see the effects of the SSPX's new attitude at the local chapter. A catechism class devoted to defending the conciliar priests against the abuse charges - for example.
It's nothing more than a false rumor put out by a bunch of extreme sedes or extremists. They are trying to convert Rome.
What about the dinoscopus entry quoted here:
http://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?a=topic&t=12467&f=9&min=0&num=20
1.- The SSPX has been in talks for some time now. Don't you think that if they were negotiating, they would have already bought in to some agreement thrown out by Rome? When negotiating with Rome, their stance is pretty simple. "You have either this option or the other, take your pick." That's usually how it is.
2.- Those catechism classes mean nothing in this particular discussion. Who really expected the SSPX to be just as good if not better without LeFebvre?
3.- Still not buying it. I think some of the extreme sedes went overboard when they first heard that the SSPX was in talks with Rome.
-
As for Benedict, I saw something on EWTN a few days ago (I usually only watch out of curiosity to see how bad the station has gotten) where according to the network, Benedict did not completely agree with the changes that came from Vatican II. I don't buy that though. Really, Benedict realized that SOME of the changes were wrong AFTER he became Pope.
-
1.- The SSPX has been in talks for some time now. Don't you think that if they were negotiating, they would have already bought in to some agreement thrown out by Rome? When negotiating with Rome, their stance is pretty simple. "You have either this option or the other, take your pick." That's usually how it is.
It is not logical to assume they would have come to an agreement already. We can say that the excommunications have been lifted and there is some shift in society rhetoric.
2.- Those catechism classes mean nothing in this particular discussion. Who really expected the SSPX to be just as good if not better without LeFebvre?
No, they have to do with the attitude that the society wants sspx goers to have towards the conciliar bishops: ie to defend them against the accusations in the abuse scandal.
3.- Still not buying it. I think some of the extreme sedes went overboard when they first heard that the SSPX was in talks with Rome.
Not buying what? You said:
It's nothing more than a false rumor put out by a bunch of extreme sedes or extremists.
I showed you that it isn't just extreme sedes talking about it.
You know it's rather amusing, many sspx priests and bishops are accused by NO types of being crypto-sedes. Maybe the moment they are no longer in favor this will be a way to banish them, by suddenly discovering they must be sedes because they are saying the same things the society has always said, and you couldn't say those things without really being a sede.
-
I can not locate it right now, but if there is nothing to worry about why did Bishop Richard Williamson shout out danger a few months ago?
-
The SSPX actually has plenty of sedevacanists. The ones who are sede may not come out and admit it publicly, but there are indeed sedes in the Society. And when has the SSPX ever wanted priests to accept the abuse scandals going on in the Vatican II church? Please explain that, Tele.
-
The SSPX actually has plenty of sedevacanists. The ones who are sede may not come out and admit it publicly, but there are indeed sedes in the Society. And when has the SSPX ever wanted priests to accept the abuse scandals going on in the Vatican II church? Please explain that, Tele.
The point of the catechism class was to defend the current hierarchy against the media criticism. When I mentioned that maybe the scandals have to do with the crisis and the problems in the seminaries the priest started talking about how it went back to Pius XII. He didn't want to link the two, even though ten percent of the priests ordained in 1970 have been accused of abused.
It wasn't just the catechism class. There was similar material in the Angelus: a letter from a Jєωιѕн businessman to a local paper that the Angelus republished. This priest read that letter to the class. He regularly contributes to the Angelus.
Believe me, there's a very very serious problem in the society.
-
Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this is false. You have to be pertinacious in your heresy to be automatically excommunicated. An accidental heretic is still within the Church.
If these quotes are not appropriate let me know. Firstly, I don't know what an "accidental heretic" is. Nor, do I understand what "pertinacious" heresy is.
If you have a dogmatic pronouncement explaining them it would be helpful.
Here are some quotes to illustrate that a heretic is outside the church.
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, "Cantate Domino," 1441:
"Therefore the Holy Roman Church condemns, reproves, anathematizes and declares to be outside the Body of Christ, which is the Church, whoever holds opposing or contrary views."
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 23), June 29, 1943:
"For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy."
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896:
"The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium."
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9):
"No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single heresy he is not a Catholic."
from:
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/Sedevacantism_Refuted.html
My understanding is that even if you don't know you are a heretic, you can still be a heretic. Its like if I didn't know I had to be baptized to be saved, I still wouldn't be saved. In orer to not be a heretic you have to know what you need to know to be saved.
Am I wrong?
-
Leisa,
I'm certainly not an expert on such things, but do know that there are different types of heretics...
material heretic - believes something which is heresy although they don't know it to be such
formal heretic - knows that the belief they hold is heresy
pertinacious heretic - a formal heretic who has been corrected by Church authority and yet refuses to submit and discontinue belief in the heresy
Those who hold to a heresy unknowingly are still within the Church. St. Thomas gives a list of knowledge with is essential to joining the Church. Yes, it is fitting for every Catholic to know all the ins and outs of the Faith, but the essentials is a very short list and there may be those who have joined the Church who are mistaken on any number of things until they are taught otherwise.
I don't know if it's more proper to refer to such individuals as "material heretics" or "persons holding to a heresy", but either way, they're still within the Church if they've never been taught otherwise.
As TKGS said, those who fit this catagory are probably not many.
-
from:
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/Sedevacantism_Refuted.html
Leisa, stay away from the site, most holy family monastery. It has played havoc with the heads of many a new Sedevacantists.
For starters, the "brothers" are not really monks. No one can find any proof of their investiture. If you don't think as they say, then you're a heretic. There is "some" good info on their site, but you have to sift through a lot of garbage to find a treasure. Please stay away from that site! Feel free to PM me and I'll provide you with Sede links that will provide you with the true teachings of The Church. I can't state it strongly enough, stay away from that site! It is the worst site for those who are new to Sedevacantism! :scared2:
-
Cheryl, is offering good advice, that site is Hell on earth.
Yes, the site has much good information, just like the :devil2:
he gives you something attractive then you are trapped. They are outside the Church because not only of their judgement toward their fellow Catholics; mainly they deny Church teaching, they deny Baptism of Blood/Desire. Although the Church teaches and has always taught BOD/BOD, since the beginning when Christians were tossed into the Lions den, without water Baptism, and became Saints, many canonized, because they died for Christ while desiring baptism.
They appear to be ever so Catholic, but the things on their web site that are correct are copied from other acceptable web sites.
These Dimond brothers truly give sedevacantist a very bad name, which is exactly what the devil wants.
-
Leisa,
I'm certainly not an expert on such things, but do know that there are different types of heretics...
material heretic - believes something which is heresy although they don't know it to be such
formal heretic - knows that the belief they hold is heresy
pertinacious heretic - a formal heretic who has been corrected by Church authority and yet refuses to submit and discontinue belief in the heresy
Those who hold to a heresy unknowingly are still within the Church. St. Thomas gives a list of knowledge with is essential to joining the Church. Yes, it is fitting for every Catholic to know all the ins and outs of the Faith, but the essentials is a very short list and there may be those who have joined the Church who are mistaken on any number of things until they are taught otherwise.
I don't know if it's more proper to refer to such individuals as "material heretics" or "persons holding to a heresy", but either way, they're still within the Church if they've never been taught otherwise.
As TKGS said, those who fit this catagory are probably not many.
Ok, so if I'm hearing you correctly, you are saying that you are guilty of the sins you commit even if you didn't know they are a sin, but you are not guilty of believing a heresy if you didn't know it was a heresy.
Is that correct?
-
The SSPX actually has plenty of sedevacanists. The ones who are sede may not come out and admit it publicly, but there are indeed sedes in the Society. And when has the SSPX ever wanted priests to accept the abuse scandals going on in the Vatican II church? Please explain that, Tele.
The point of the catechism class was to defend the current hierarchy against the media criticism. When I mentioned that maybe the scandals have to do with the crisis and the problems in the seminaries the priest started talking about how it went back to Pius XII. He didn't want to link the two, even though ten percent of the priests ordained in 1970 have been accused of abused.
It wasn't just the catechism class. There was similar material in the Angelus: a letter from a Jєωιѕн businessman to a local paper that the Angelus republished. This priest read that letter to the class. He regularly contributes to the Angelus.
Believe me, there's a very very serious problem in the society.
Well, modernism in the Church does date back to Pius XII, but I don't believe at all he was responsible for it. The abuse scandal I think dates to the days of Paul VI. Like I said though, the SSPX may not be as good as they once were, but if not for them and Archbishop LeFebvre we would have no TLM.
-
Cheryl, is offering good advice, that site is Hell on earth.
Yes, the site has much good information, just like the :devil2:
he gives you something attractive then you are trapped. They are outside the Church because not only of their judgement toward their fellow Catholics; mainly they deny Church teaching, they deny Baptism of Blood/Desire. Although the Church teaches and has always taught BOD/BOD, since the beginning when Christians were tossed into the Lions den, without water Baptism, and became Saints, many canonized, because they died for Christ while desiring baptism.
They appear to be ever so Catholic, but the things on their web site that are correct are copied from other acceptable web sites.
These Dimond brothers truly give sedevacantist a very bad name, which is exactly what the devil wants.
Hi Myrna, thanks for the warning. Its nice to meet a fellow sedevacantist and also its nice to meet Cheryl as well.
I must admit I am confused by your statements because John 3:5 says
Jesus answered: Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
-
Hi Myrna, thanks for the warning. Its nice to meet a fellow sedevacantist and also its nice to meet Cheryl as well.
I must admit I am confused by your statements because John 3:5 says
Jesus answered: Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
No, Leisa, no! Please! We just went through all this a few weeks ago, in excruciating detail. I posted that same passage from John, too. By the time it was all over, we were all more confused than when we started!
I've quoted that same passage on Fisheaters, too, and I never understand the answers that I get. By the time it's all over, I feel like I just stuck my cerebrum in a blender.
Me, before BOD/BOB discussion: :incense:
Me, after BOD/BOB discussion: :ape:
-
(http://baseballsnatcher.mlblogs.com/can%20of%20worms.jpg)
I'll discuss anything else you want to:
Mormon view of apostolic succession
Aztec trade routes
Toothpaste manufacture
Barack Obama's academic credentials
The sex life of the gerbil
Anything! Just not...BOB and BOD! :scared2:
-
:roll-laugh1:
-
Oh my! You are a funny one!
Thanks for the laugh.
-
(http://baseballsnatcher.mlblogs.com/can%20of%20worms.jpg)
I'll discuss anything else you want to:
Mormon view of apostolic succession
Aztec trade routes
Toothpaste manufacture
Barack Obama's academic credentials
The sex life of the gerbil
Anything! Just not...BOB and BOD! :scared2:
SJT, just how much is it worth to you not to go there again? :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1:
-
SJT, just how much is it worth to you not to go there again? :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1:
I'll send you the "JPII" rosary my mother bought at the Vatican when she went four years ago, and had blessed by Benedict XVI! (Blessed from 300 yards away, of course.)
-
Oh my! You are a funny one!
Thanks for the laugh.
I was being dead serious, ma'am. :cowboy:
-
I was being dead serious, ma'am. :cowboy:
Ok, but now I have to ask, - do you believe in baptism of desire and baptism of blood?
-
I was being dead serious, ma'am. :cowboy:
Ok, but now I have to ask, - do you believe in baptism of desire and baptism of blood?
:faint:
-
Does anyone remember where that last discussion was, the link so Leisa can read it?
-
It's ok, we don't have to discuss it. I don't want Thaddeus to loose consciousness.
I did read John chapter 3 slowly though and I feel pretty satisfied or contented with it. If Jesus says it is so then its so.
There's no need to complicate it. Not only did he say it, but he also did it (water baptism) there in Judea while John was baptizing in Ennon where there was a lot of water.
-
Of course He meant it, Jesus instituted the Sacrament, seven of them. Baptism of desire or blood is NOT a sacrament, but it has the effect of giving Sanctifying grace, which is all one needs to save their soul.
-
It's ok, we don't have to discuss it. I don't want Thaddeus to loose consciousness.
I did read John chapter 3 slowly though and I feel pretty satisfied or contented with it. If Jesus says it is so then its so.
There's no need to complicate it. Not only did he say it, but he also did it (water baptism) there in Judea while John was baptizing in Ennon where there was a lot of water.
Actually, Leisa, according to John 4, Jesus Himself did not baptize. Only His disciples did:
When Jesus therefore understood that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus maketh more disciples, and baptizeth more than John, [2] (Though Jesus himself did not baptize, but his disciples,)
http://drbo.org/chapter/50004.htm
This to me is an argument against BOD and BOB, because we see here that it is the disciples who do the baptizing, not God Himself. Another human person must do it. But I have been told I'm wrong on this so many times and with so much verbiage that I have given up and accept that apparently Jesus's words don't mean what Jesus said.
My personal opinion--opinion, mind you--is that there has been an ongoing discussion/argument/fight about this inside the Church for centuries. That is why popes, bishops, saints, and theologians' statements seem to contradict each other. For example, look at the emphasis the Rev. Challoner puts on the "water" part in his version and comments for the Douay-Rheims:
Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
[5] "Unless a man be born again"... By these words our Saviour hath declared the necessity of baptism; and by the word water it is evident that the application of it is necessary with the words. Matt. 28. 19.
http://drbo.org/chapter/50003.htm
So apparently there was disagreement on these matters long before the modern age.
Myself, I incline toward the strictest interpretation, but am willing to admit that Churchmen much more knowledgeable than I have allowed for some exceptions, such as martyrs and catechumens.
Other posters, one in particular who is no longer with us, would accept no compromises at all on this issue. I repeat, my personal inclination is to take Jesus's words in John 3 literally, but I cannot dismiss lightly the weighty views of otherwise orthodox Churchmen of the past to the contrary.
-
Of course He meant it, Jesus instituted the Sacrament, seven of them. Baptism of desire or blood is NOT a sacrament, but it has the effect of giving Sanctifying grace, which is all one needs to save their soul.
And of course this is yet another way of looking at it, making a distinction between the sacrament itself and the effects of the sacrament which may be achieved without the normal requirements of the sacrament, much in the same way that the SSPX or sede groups can absolve sins or perform confirmations without ordinary jurisdiction.
But I do not have enough knowledge to argue these points any further than that. Other posters here do it much better.
-
My personal opinion--opinion, mind you--is that there has been an ongoing discussion/argument/fight about this inside the Church for centuries. That is why popes, bishops, saints, and theologians' statements seem to contradict each other.
I don't know where you see a contradiction.
For example, look at the emphasis the Rev. Challoner puts on the "water" part in his version and comments for the Douay-Rheims:
From the same Rev. Challoner:
LINK (http://books.google.com/books?id=CCkvAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA31&lpg=PA31&dq=Challoner+baptism+of+desire&source=bl&ots=1Dl5KLU7ED&sig=ZVvB3DTpBHZ9XwDsZFtUHXcV7ww&hl=en&ei=28HETNqEHoGWsgOGkPCODA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false)
(http://books.google.com/books?id=CCkvAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA31&img=1&zoom=3&hl=en&sig=ACfU3U3JFnDk9fSvWMtYdZZ_KQplZ_PVGg&ci=54%2C432%2C823%2C409&edge=0)
-
My personal opinion--opinion, mind you--is that there has been an ongoing discussion/argument/fight about this inside the Church for centuries. That is why popes, bishops, saints, and theologians' statements seem to contradict each other.
I don't know where you see a contradiction.
For example, look at the emphasis the Rev. Challoner puts on the "water" part in his version and comments for the Douay-Rheims:
From the same Rev. Challoner:
LINK (http://books.google.com/books?id=CCkvAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA31&lpg=PA31&dq=Challoner+baptism+of+desire&source=bl&ots=1Dl5KLU7ED&sig=ZVvB3DTpBHZ9XwDsZFtUHXcV7ww&hl=en&ei=28HETNqEHoGWsgOGkPCODA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false)
(http://books.google.com/books?id=CCkvAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA31&img=1&zoom=3&hl=en&sig=ACfU3U3JFnDk9fSvWMtYdZZ_KQplZ_PVGg&ci=54%2C432%2C823%2C409&edge=0)
Here we go again!
Trad123, why don't you explain the contradiction? If there is one.
-
Here we go again!
Trad123, why don't you explain the contradiction? If there is one.
First of all, I think it would be better to continue this discussion in the thread about Fr. Feeney, and secondly, since I don't see a contradiction it would be better for you to post some texts that you think seemingly contradict one another, side by side so to speak.
-
No thank you. I don't have any "texts" to post, and anyway we already filled up page after page of arguments on this subject and I don't think anybody was persuaded to change their opinions.
The most obvious contradiction is between Jesus's words in John 4 to the effect that a man cannot enter the Kingdom of God unless he has received water baptism and the words of anybody else who says that yes, you can enter the Kingdom of God without water baptism.
The real challenge here is knowing what the Church Herself infallibly teaches, about which there have also been innumerable threads with innumerable posts claiming to represent the Truth on one side or another. I already said that I was willing to allow for some exceptions as knowledgeable, orthodox Churchmen in the past also had done.
-
Thaddeus, thank you, Jesus did not personally do the baptizing. My point was simply that not only did he say they must be baptized, but he physicaly went and had everyone baptized. So that just reinforces that you can't misinterpret him because he followed the words with the action. Ie: if you don't believe him when he says so, then you still have to ask yourself well if it's not absolutely necessary, then why did he have everyone baptized and teach them to baptize.
I think we should look at where the tradition of baptism of desire or blood started. Is it supported in the bible? I realize that its an emotional issue because if someone was torn apart by lions the church doesn't want to say 'oh well, thats a pity, they didn't get baptized'. Or if a catachuman dies tragically before being baptized they don't want to tell the family they are not in Heaven.
-
I was being dead serious, ma'am. :cowboy:
Ok, but now I have to ask, - do you believe in baptism of desire and baptism of blood?
:faint:
This is worthy of a MasterCard commercial, priceless. :laugh2:
-
Leisa,
I'm certainly not an expert on such things, but do know that there are different types of heretics...
material heretic - believes something which is heresy although they don't know it to be such
formal heretic - knows that the belief they hold is heresy
pertinacious heretic - a formal heretic who has been corrected by Church authority and yet refuses to submit and discontinue belief in the heresy
Those who hold to a heresy unknowingly are still within the Church. St. Thomas gives a list of knowledge with is essential to joining the Church. Yes, it is fitting for every Catholic to know all the ins and outs of the Faith, but the essentials is a very short list and there may be those who have joined the Church who are mistaken on any number of things until they are taught otherwise.
I don't know if it's more proper to refer to such individuals as "material heretics" or "persons holding to a heresy", but either way, they're still within the Church if they've never been taught otherwise.
As TKGS said, those who fit this catagory are probably not many.
Ok, so if I'm hearing you correctly, you are saying that you are guilty of the sins you commit even if you didn't know they are a sin, but you are not guilty of believing a heresy if you didn't know it was a heresy.
Is that correct?
No, you're also not guilty of a sin if you are unaware that it is sinful. Just like heresy, sin can be material as well.
Q. 282. How many things are necessary to make a sin mortal?
A. To make a sin mortal, three things are necessary: 1.a grievous matter, sufficient reflection, and full consent of the will.
Q. 283. What do we mean by "grievous matter" with regard to sin?
A. By "grievous matter" with regard to sin we mean that the thought, word or deed by which mortal sin is committed must be either very bad in itself or severely prohibited, and therefore sufficient to make a mortal sin if we deliberately yield to it.
Q. 284. What does "sufficient reflection and full consent of the will" mean?
A. "Sufficient reflection" means that we must know the thought, word or deed to be sinful at the time we are guilty of it; and "full consent of the will" means that we must fully and willfully yield to it.
Q. 285. What are sins committed without reflection or consent called?
A. Sins committed without reflection or consent are called material sins; that is, they would be formal or real sins if we knew their sinfulness at the time we committed them. Thus to eat flesh meat on a day of abstinence without knowing it to be a day of abstinence or without thinking of the prohibition, would be a material sin.
Q. 286. Do past material sins become real sins as soon as we discover their sinfulness?
A. Past material sins do not become real sins as soon as we discover their sinfulness, unless we again repeat them with full knowledge and consent.
Again, it can be said that material sins are rare.
-
formal heretic - knows that the belief they hold is heresy
pertinacious heretic - a formal heretic who has been corrected by Church authority and yet refuses to submit and discontinue belief in the heresy
Where did you get these definitions?
-
Pertinacity: Material and Formal Heresy
by John S. Daly
What is Pertinacity?
If a baptised person expresses an opinion in conflict with Catholic dogma, it is plain that the material element of heresy is present: error in the intellect contrary to the Catholic Faith. But of course it does not yet follow that the sin of heresy has been imputably committed, or that the person in question is in fact a heretic.
From the position of Canon Law a single question must be asked: does the person realise that his opinion conflicts with Catholic teaching? If he does, he is canonically deemed to be a heretic. Canon 1325 defines a heretic as a baptised person, still calling himself a Christian, who “pertinaciously denies or doubts any of the truths which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith.” And the word “pertinaciously” is understood by canonists to mean that the person is conscious of the conflict between his opinion and the Church's teaching. (Cf. Noldin: Theologia Moralis, vol. II, n.29; de Siena: Commentarius Censurarum, p.24; Dom Gregory Sayers: Thesaurus Casuum Conscientiae III,iv,18; Suarez: Opera, XII, p.474, ed. Vivès; Bouscaren and Ellis: Canon Law, p.902)
It is important to avoid a misunderstanding at this point. It is well known, that Canon law, like civil law, is concerned with externally ascertainable facts and their external effects. It is not directly involved with what takes place in the individual's soul, for until the internal act is externalised, it cannot be known with certainty. In technical terms, moral imputability is said to belong to the internal forum, known with certainty only to the individual and his Creator, and to the confessor in the sacrament of Penance. Canonical imputability and its effects belong to the external forum and are assessed in accordance with outward words and deeds, not with hidden interior dispositions. For this reason Canon Law provides that when a Catholic commits an external infraction of a law, he is presumed for legal purposes to have done so knowingly and culpably, unless and until he should prove the contrary (Canon 2200/2).
Relying on this principle, some have imagined that when a heretical statement is made, it is presumed to have been pertinacious - i.e. that the person knew his statement to be heretical and made it nonetheless. This view is quite mistaken. Canon 2200/2 requires guilt (culpability) to be presumed whenever an infraction of the law takes place, but of course it does not authorise the presumption of the infraction itself. One must first know that the law has indeed been broken, at least externally, before Canon 2200/2 can have any application.
And as the Canon Lawyers understand it, this pertinacity, this consciousness that one's opinion is in conflict with Catholic teaching, is essential to the canonical delict of heresy. Canon 2200/2 does not entitle anyone to presume it. If an individual makes a heretical statement, we have already said that we must find out whether he is aware that his opinion conflicts with the Faith. We may now add that we must establish the answer to this question without any help from Canon 2200/2 and its presumption of guilt in the external forum. Otherwise we should be presuming not just imputability, but the crime itself, which would be plainly contrary to justice.
To clarify this point, let us state it in slightly different words. A heretic is a baptised Christian who does not accept the Catholic rule of faith, i.e. who rejects the Church's authority in forming his religious beliefs. Whenever anyone rejects the Church's rule of faith, he is canonically presumed to do so culpably. But the mere denial of a dogma does not always establish that the Catholic rule of faith is being rejected. Perhaps the miscreant does not realise that his stated opinion is contrary to the Faith. To clarify that question, Canon 2200/2 offers no help. It cannot be legitimately applied to settling, even presumptively, that question.
So how can the individual's awareness that his view is unorthodox be established? There are in fact several ways. He may say so in as many words, or unmistakably imply that he is departing from Catholic belief. Alternatively, it may be evident from his status and education, and the particular dogma he rejects, that he cannot be unaware of the facts. Otherwise, it is open to anyone to draw to his attention the Catholic teaching which conflicts with his stated opinion, to give him the opportunity of correcting his position. Once the Catholic doctrine is sufficiently made known to him, persistence in denying or doubting it establishes pertinacity and therefore the canonical delict of heresy.
All this seems clear and simple enough. If misunderstandings and conflicting interpretations have arisen, it is chiefly because the Church's laws on this topic, and the classic theological texts dealing with it, consider heresy as the act of a person who has once been a Catholic and has recognised the Church's divine authority to teach. Such a person, of course, if he consciously departs from that teaching, is inevitably guilty in the eyes of God of a mortal sin against the virtue of faith. (Denzinger 1794 and 1815)
The Relevance of Good Faith
But of course there are baptised persons who consider themselves Christians and yet have never recognised the authority of the Catholic Church. Some of them have never been presented with any reason for submitting to the Catholic Magisterium as the divinely established rule of faith. Some have barely heard of God's Church. Thus there exist baptised non-Catholics who think themselves to be disciples of Jesus Christ, yet are separated from His Church by invincible ignorance of what it is. And these persons all fall within the canonists' definition of heretics, for they openly reject what they know the Catholic Church teaches - and why should they do otherwise as they know of no reason to accept it?
At this point the moral theologian parts company with the canonist. Heresy, he argues, is per se a sin; the sin of rejecting a truth revealed by God. But Protestants in good faith who reject Catholic teaching are guilty of no sin by so doing because they do not realise that these truths have been revealed by God. And if they have not culpably committed the sin of heresy, by what right can one label them heretics?
Quite rightly the canonist replies that all such individuals are presumed guilty in the external forum by virtue of Canon 2200/2 as they have committed an external infraction of the law requiring assent to any Catholic dogma (Canon 1323/1). Their moral guilt in the internal forum the canonists will leave to moralists to theorise about and to confessors to assess when necessary. Their own task is simply to evaluate the external fact that a given baptised person publicly rejects the Catholic rule of faith, and as such is deemed for all practical purposes to be excommunicated and outside the Church.
Here some individuals have become confused between the external, canonical facts, and the internal moral ones. By reference to some of the classic theological writers, they argue that “pertinacity” is the element that makes heresy culpable, an imputable sin. And they rightly observe that Protestants who are in good faith are not culpable or guilty of imputable sin for their rejection of Catholic doctrine. Therefore, it has been argued, pertinacity is wanting to the case. And since this pertinacity is admitted by canonists themselves to be essential to the material act of heresy, it certainly cannot justly be presumed. That would be presuming the fact of the crime itself, not just its guilt. Moreover, it is argued, since pertinacity implies moral guilt in the rejection of Catholic doctrine, if Protestants in good faith are to be canonically presumed pertinacious and excommunicated, the same must apply to Catholics who by an innocent mistake advance an opinion which they do not realise to be in conflict with a dogma. Thus Catholics who pronounce on theology with insufficient knowledge would be forever incurring excommunication in the external forum by virtue of presumed pertinacity.
What terrible confusion! And it has been only aggravated by canonists who have tried to reply without spotting the root of the disagreement, for they have sometimes conceded the last point of their adversaries, allowing Canon 2200/2 to apply to the mere outward statement of a position which the Church rejects. Thus they admit that one may presume an individual to be in conflict with the Church, even though he is a good sound Catholic and merely guilty of a mistaken formulation. And they concede this because they see no other way of defending what they know to be true - namely that Protestants, no matter if they be in invincible ignorance, are presumed excommunicated and deemed to be outside the Church's external communion.
Two Distinct Senses of the Word Pertinacious
The nub of the problem - we say it again - is that the word pertinacity has been differently used by different writers. Each use is defensible, and the distinction is largely an accident of history. But now that it exists, it is crucial not to apply to this term in one sense statements made about its other sense.
The canonists have defined pertinacity as recognition or awareness of the conflict between one's belief and that of the Church. As such, pertinacity is essential to the canonical delict of heresy; it is part of the matter or (technically) corpus delicti of heresy. Hence it must be proved before anyone can be considered a heretic, and Canon 2200/2 with its presumption of culpability does not help to prove it, for it applies only when the law is already externally infringed. And if Catholic doctrine is inadvertently denied by one who does not notice his error, there is not even an external infraction of the law requiring orthodox belief.
Moralists, on the other hand, consider pertinacity as the formal constituent of the sin of heresy - the disordered state of the will in adhering to a belief opposed to the Faith. As such, pertinacity never exists except where the heretical belief is imputably sinful. And for that, not one, but two things are necessary. First the doctrinal authority of the Church must be sufficiently proposed to the individual concerned. Secondly the specific teaching of the Church which conflicts with his error must be sufficiently proposed to him. In other words, according to the definition, pertinacity entails awareness of two distinct truths: not just that the Church rejects the opinion advanced, but also that the Church is the divinely-appointed custodian of God's revelation to men.
There is no doubt that the definition of the moralists is the older one. If the ancient authorities (St Augustine: Contra Manichaeos, De Civ. Dei,l . XVIII, c. 51, n. 1; St Thomas Aquinas: Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 11, a. 2; Cajetan, ad locuм; St Alphonsus Liguori: Summa Theologiae Moralis, l. 3, n. 19), who used the word “pertinacity” for the perverse will of one who sinfully rejects a part of the Catholic Faith, do not advert explicitly to the two conditions mentioned above as necessary to make a heretical statement pertinacious, it is because they were writing of erstwhile Catholics who fell into heresy. And one who has once been a Catholic is necessarily aware of the Church's teaching authority. He may have failed to advert to the conflict between his stated opinion and a given teaching of the Church, but he cannot be invincibly ignorant that his opinions ought to be in conformity with Catholic teaching. So it is not surprising to see some writers define pertinacity as the formal element of the sin of heresy, the perverse state of will, while mentioning only one necessary condition for this: awareness of the Catholic teaching with which one's stated belief conflicts. With regard to Catholics and former Catholics, that is exact. With regard to persons baptised outside the Church, and perhaps invincibly ignorant of her teaching authority, however, it is an over-simplification due to factors we have already noted.
Could it be argued that the canonists' use of the term “pertinacity”, with a slightly different meaning from that of the classic theological usage, is responsible for the confusion? Doubtless the canonists would say that they needed a word for the deliberate decision to hold a belief contrary to that of the Church and that pertinacity was chosen as being the classic term, so defined by many of the theologians who gave it its currency. Hence any confusion is due rather to the fact that theologians had made two statements about pertinacity (viz. 1. That is consists in awareness of the conflict between one's opinion and Catholic doctrine, and 2. That it is the formal constituent of the imputable sin of heresy) of which, with reference to Catholics who fall into heresy, both are true, but with reference to baptised persons who are invincibly ignorant of the Catholic faith, both of which cannot be true. In other words the confusion is due to the historical accident that theologians equated two concepts which, in the cases they were considering, invariably coincided, but which in a distinct category of cases, to which they did not advert, do not necessarily coincide.
At any event, further confusion can be avoided by bearing constantly in mind that all canonists are agreed as to what “pertinaciously” means as this word is used in the current text of Canon 1325/2. It means that the miscreant is aware of the conflict between his belief and Catholic doctrine, and is therefore synonymous with knowingly.
Thus a baptised person raised in invincible ignorance of the Catholic Church is nevertheless a pertinacious heretic in the sense of Canon 1325/2. In the eyes of God he is not morally guilty, but owing to his external infraction of the law requiring all the baptised to accept Catholic doctrine, he is presumed in the external forum (by Canon 2200/2) to be culpable and to have incurred excommunication. He certainly does not belong to the institutional Church.
If theologians continue to use the word “pertinacity” to designate the perverse state of the will which makes the profession of a heretical statement an imputable sin, they must recognise that their usage, insofar as it applies to non-Catholics who are or may be invincibly ignorant of the Church's divine authority, does not coincide with canonical usage.
On the other hand, to admit a possibility which canonists would apparently be very reluctant to accept, theologians might wish to argue that Canon 1325/2 has been misunderstood and that the pertinacity it requires for heresy is moral guilt. According to this understanding a Protestant in good faith is not, canonically speaking, a heretic, as he is not morally guilty. As he is certainly deemed by the Church in the external forum to be excommunicated, this must be attributed to a presumption of law - namely that Canon 2200/2 does authorise the presumption of pertinacity. But as this presumption clearly does not apply to Catholics who inadvertently advance an unorthodox proposition, some distinction must be found whereby Canon 2200/2 allows the presumption of pertinacity on the part of invincibly ignorant non-Catholics, but not on the part of Catholics who mistakenly make heretical statements while retaining orthodox interior dispositions. And as the Code lends no support to such a distinction, it is clear why the canonists have unanimously rejected any attempt to construe the Code in this way.
Agreement as to Facts: Disagreement as to Their Expression
The confusion and disagreement we have referred to must not be allowed to cloud the perfect agreement which subsists among all approved theological and canonical authors as to the relevant facts, irrespective of how the current Code of Canon Law is to be understood as stating them. This agreement is best shown by summarising the correct doctrine without using any of the vocabulary which has shown itself liable to ambiguity, and this we think can be done as follows:
Every Catholic must accept the Catholic rule of faith, by believing whatever the Church teaches that God has revealed. Any statement made by a baptised individual which reveals that he does not accept the Catholic rule of faith and knowingly rejects some part of the divine revelation which the Church proposes for our belief, proves that he is not a Catholic, but a heretic, and deemed to have incurred excommunication.
By contrast an unorthodox statement which may have been due to mere inadvertence proves nothing of the sort. One who makes such a statement is not proved to be a heretic until the Catholic doctrine is sufficiently drawn to his attention and he remains obstinate in his position.
The baptised individual who is truly shown to reject the Catholic rule of faith will be guilty of sin if the Church's authority has been sufficiently proposed to him - which will always apply to one who has previously been a Catholic, but will not apply to non-Catholics if they are invincibly ignorant - but not otherwise. But whether or not he is guilty of sin, his rejection of the Catholic rule of faith attests that, for all external purposes, he must be deemed an excommunicated heretic, not a Catholic.
True Rôle of Canon 2200/2 and its Presumption of Malice
Having established these facts, we may now note the true function of Canon 2200/2 in relation to the delict of heresy. This canon rules that when a law is outwardly infringed, the infraction is presumed culpable for the purposes of the external forum. Should a Catholic make an unorthodox statement, it does not entitle anyone to presume for any purpose that his unorthodoxy was deliberate if that is not already evident. But once established that the unorthodoxy was conscious, Canon 2200/2 does require the presumption that the departure from orthodoxy was not merely simulated, due to fear or mental derangement. And with regard to non-Catholics, Canon 2200/2 provides that they are for practical purposes deemed to be culpable for their heterodoxy and therefore excommunicated - a legal presumption which in no way alters the fact that they may be invincibly ignorant of the Church's authority, and therefore, in the internal forum, guiltless. Either way the Church, as a visible institution juridically able to recognise her members, cannot consider such people to be Catholics.
Material and Formal - More Ambiguity
The preceding discussion leads logically to consideration of the analogous ambiguity, relevant to the same topic, which has perhaps been the source of even more serious confusion than the word “pertinacious”; namely, the distinction between material and formal heresy.
Every material object exists by virtue of the union of two elements - the stuff it is made of (matter) and the shape the stuff is made in (form). Thus a wine-glass is made out of glass - its matter; but that alone is not sufficient to make it a vessel suitable for drinking wine from; it also needs its form - the shape of a wine-glass.
Scholastic philosophy has taken the distinction of the two constituent elements of natural objects, and applied it, by extension or analogy, to other entities. Its best known theological application is to sin. Each sin is said to consist of its matter (the physical act) and its form (the disordered act of the will). And this application is very useful because it facilitates recognition of the cases in which the matter of the sin is not accompanied by its form. Thus a man who shoots his neighbour has performed the physical act proper to the sin of murder. But if he had blamelessly mistaken his neighbour for a wild animal, his intention was not disorderly. The matter of the sin was present, but not its form. We have come to say that such a man has sinned materially, but not formally. But what that really means is that he is not guilty of sin at all, for in the absence of the formal element, no entity can exist. A material sin is not really, or fully, a sin, any more than a pane of glass is a drinking vessel until it is moulded to the shape of one.
Application of these Terms to Heresy
With regard to the sin of heresy, it was said that the matter was the intellectual error involved in assenting to a heterodox proposition, while the form was the obstinate attachment of the will. And once again this distinction usefully clarified the fact that one who assents to a heterodox proposition by inadvertence, without obstinate attachment of the will, was not guilty of the sin of heresy.
What muddied the waters was the misleading linguistic development by which material heresy was said to make the person professing it a material heretic. No conclusion could seem more natural to the layman, but it does not in fact follow in logic. A retired lion-trainer is not, after all, a man who trains retired lions! And a serious problem arises when one designates as a material heretic anyone who assents, without moral guilt, to a heretical proposition. The first is that you have created a category which comprises two quite distinct sorts of member and you therefore run the risk of confusing the two. For according to that definition, a good Catholic who inadvertently holds a condemned doctrine, not realising that it is condemned is a material heretic. And so too is a Protestant if he is invincibly ignorant of the Church's status. And while it is true that there is a resemblance between the two cases (for both indeed hold in their minds unorthodox doctrine and neither is culpable in the eyes of God for doing so), nevertheless there is also a huge gulf between them. For the former is a Catholic, habitually adhering to the Catholic rule of faith, whereas the latter is a non-Catholic, with no knowledge of the correct rule of faith and tossed about on the treacherous sea of private opinion.
The inevitable consequence of this misleading assimilation of two such different sorts of person is that they will gradually come to be considered truly alike. This could happen in either of two ways. Mistaken Catholics could be regarded as no better than Protestants in good faith (and some “hard-liners” have practically taken this view, arguing that the most innocent error creates a presumption of heretical animus - a notion we have already seen to be false). More common has been the no less calamitous view that a Protestant, if invincibly ignorant of the status of the Church, is no worse off than a Catholic who inadvertently makes an incorrect doctrinal statement - as though adherence to the Catholic rule of faith, i.e. submission to the Magisterium, were irrelevant, whereas in fact it is what juridical membership of the Church depends on.
Correctly, the material element involved in being a heretic is conscious dissent from the Catholic rule of faith, while the formal element is the perverse state of the will which this entails. The distinction thus made, a Catholic who inculpably advances a heretical proposition by inadvertence may perhaps be said to have advanced a material heresy; but he cannot be called a material heretic. He is not a heretic in any sense. A heretic is one who dissents altogether from the Catholic rule of faith, and he will be called a material heretic if he is invincibly ignorant of the authority of the Church which he rejects, and a formal heretic if the Church's authority has been sufficiently proposed to him, so that his dissent from it is culpable. (This is clearly explained by Cardinal Billot: De Ecclesia Christi, ed. 4, pp. 289-290)
So according to the correct usage of the term, as outlined above, a Catholic can never become a material heretic. He is not invincibly ignorant of the Church's authority, and any conscious dissent from her teachings will therefore make him a formal heretic. Material heretics are exclusively those baptised non-Catholics who err in good faith. That is why Dr Ludwig Ott notes that “public heretics, even those who err in good faith (material heretics), do not belong to the body of the Church, that is to the legal commonwealth of the Church. (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p.311)
And in fact Dr Ott's preferred expression - “heretics who err in good faith” is the one used in the Code of Canon Law (Canon 731), which completely eschews the potentially misleading term “material heretics”
Effects of Heresy
Before closing this discussion of the nature of heresy, some mention should perhaps be made of its effects.
Canon 1325 brands as a heretic whoever, while still calling himself a Christian, pertinaciously (i.e. consciously) doubts or denies any de fide truth. Anyone to whom this applies is deemed not to be a Catholic if he manifests externally his heresy. (If it is purely internal, he has committed a mortal sin against the virtue of faith, but remains within the Church's communion, and without censure. - Cardinal Billot, op. Cit. pp. 295 et seq.)
All heretics incur automatic excommunication by virtue of Canon 2314. This must be carefully distinguished from their expulsion from the Church - one may be excommunicated and yet remain a member of the Church, or one may be outside the Church but nevertheless not excommunicated, as in the case of baptised children raised in heresy, between the age of reason (about seven) and the age of fourteen, before which it is not possible to incur excommunication.
One who commits heresy through ignorance of the duty to believe all that the Church teaches, will not incur the excommunication unless his ignorance was “affected” - i.e. deliberately sought (Canon 2229). But in the external forum he will be deemed excommunicated until he prove the contrary. (In practice, converts who claim, on grounds of ignorance, not to have incurred excommunication are usually absolved conditionally to avoid a complicated judicial procedure to assess their claim.)
Heretical clerics, like laymen, incur excommunication; and infamy if they publicly join a sect. Unlike laymen, they are also to be deprived of any benefice, dignity, pension or office in the Church unless they repent on being admonished; and if a second admonition proves fruitless, they are to be deposed. In fact, if their heresy is public, their offices are forfeited automatically without any admonition (Canon 188/4). And if the heretical cleric not only doubts or denies a dogma, but publicly joins a heretical sect, he will not only lose his office ipso facto and incur infamy; he will also, should admonition fail to amend him, be degraded. (Canon 2314)
John S. Daly
-
Pay special attention to this part of the above post:
Canon 1325 brands as a heretic whoever, while still calling himself a Christian, pertinaciously (i.e. consciously) doubts or denies any de fide truth. Anyone to whom this applies is deemed not to be a Catholic if he manifests externally his heresy. (If it is purely internal, he has committed a mortal sin against the virtue of faith, but remains within the Church's communion, and without censure. - Cardinal Billot, op. Cit. pp. 295 et seq.)
All heretics incur automatic excommunication by virtue of Canon 2314. This must be carefully distinguished from their expulsion from the Church - one may be excommunicated and yet remain a member of the Church, or one may be outside the Church but nevertheless not excommunicated, as in the case of baptised children raised in heresy, between the age of reason (about seven) and the age of fourteen, before which it is not possible to incur excommunication.
One who commits heresy through ignorance of the duty to believe all that the Church teaches, will not incur the excommunication unless his ignorance was “affected” - i.e. deliberately sought (Canon 2229). But in the external forum he will be deemed excommunicated until he prove the contrary. (In practice, converts who claim, on grounds of ignorance, not to have incurred excommunication are usually absolved conditionally to avoid a complicated judicial procedure to assess their claim.)
-
SJT, just how much is it worth to you not to go there again? :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1:
I'll send you the "JPII" rosary my mother bought at the Vatican when she went four years ago, and had blessed by Benedict XVI! (Blessed from 300 yards away, of course.)
SJT, I would have taken you up on your offer, but someone had to go and start the BOD/BOB discussion all over again! I had big plans for that rosary! I was going to take it over to St. Paul's in Grosse Pointe Farms (built in 1829 or 39), where all the rich Grosse Pointers go (not too far from the Yacht Club) and I was going to stand around after they had their protestant service and sell it to the one willing to cough of the most cash. Most of these people have more money than they know what to do with. That's even after they pay their mortgages for their houses on lake St. Claire and their hired help! :kick-can:
-
Matthew, those sources do not support the definition I was questioning.
-
SJB --
Well, give us your definition of those three terms.
-
SJB --
Well, give us your definition of those three terms.
Be specific. What three terms? I am questioning the term pertinacious being defined in such a way where it includes a judgment of the Church.
-
I don't think "pertinacious" necessarily includes a condemnation by the Church. The word means "stubbornly holding on to" so it implies that the person has been corrected -- usually by showing them Church doctrine on the matter.
A person isn't pertinacious unless they are clearly shown Church doctrine on a given matter.
Traditionally, the Church has been VERY clear on what is (or isn't) Catholic doctrine. And usually the bishops, priests, etc. DO THEIR JOB in combating heresy, instead of worrying about workers' rights, gαy ordination, etc.
Getting hit over the head on CathInfo or some other web forum might not be sufficient to show a person the Church's position on a doctrine -- BoB and BoD for example. There are opinions on both sides, so unless the person is convinced the "bashing over the head" comes from Church authority, you can't personally turn someone into a "pertinacious" heretic.
Another example of a doubtful area is "Is Benedict XVI the Pope?" Sedevacantists and non-Sedevacantists can't accuse each other of "bad will" or "heresy" because they have/haven't denied the papacy of Benedict XVI.
That's the old, "Hey, I just told you the truth. Don't believe it? Ooooh, you're of bad will!"
Matthew
-
Thank you Matthew for the article, I found the following helpful:
"So according to the correct usage of the term, as outlined above, a Catholic can never become a material heretic. He is not invincibly ignorant of the Church's authority, and any conscious dissent from her teachings will therefore make him a formal heretic."
-
Thank you Matthew for the article, I found the following helpful:
"So according to the correct usage of the term, as outlined above, a Catholic can never become a material heretic. He is not invincibly ignorant of the Church's authority, and any conscious dissent from her teachings will therefore make him a formal heretic."
I do not think that you can say that any longer. Most novus ordo Catholics do not know what end is up in the church. The young novus ordo priests are taught mostly Vatican II theology with the pre-Vatican II docuмents barely even mentioned. I know this for a fact because I have spoken to a few.
Benedict XVI, however, is a different story. As was JPII and his predecessors.
-
Second Council of Constantinople
"Since the Lord declares that the person is judged already, and the Apostle curses even the angels if they instruct in anything different from what we have preached, how is it possible even for the most presumptuous to assert that these condemnations apply only to those who are still alive? Are they unaware, or rather pretending to be unaware, that to be judged anathematized is just the same as to be separated from God? The heretic, even though he has not been condemned formally by any individual, in reality brings anathema on himself, having cut himself off from the way of truth by his heresy. What reply can such people make to the Apostle when he writes: As for someone who is factious, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned."
http://www.dailycatholic.org/history/5ecuмen1.htm#Anathemas against the Three Chapters
-
Second Council of Constantinople
"Since the Lord declares that the person is judged already, and the Apostle curses even the angels if they instruct in anything different from what we have preached, how is it possible even for the most presumptuous to assert that these condemnations apply only to those who are still alive? Are they unaware, or rather pretending to be unaware, that to be judged anathematized is just the same as to be separated from God? The heretic, even though he has not been condemned formally by any individual, in reality brings anathema on himself, having cut himself off from the way of truth by his heresy. What reply can such people make to the Apostle when he writes: As for someone who is factious, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned."
http://www.dailycatholic.org/history/5ecuмen1.htm#Anathemas against the Three Chapters
Your point?
-
The point is another Dimond brother victim has arrived.
-
The point is another Dimond brother victim has arrived.
You know, I just had a thought about those two (the Dimond Bros.). I bet that at least one if not both of them wind up getting themselves ordained and starting their own "sect".
-
The point is another Dimond brother victim has arrived.
Good point! But I think this one is more willing to listen to reason.
Or should I have said, deprogrammed? I'm easy, you choose. :wink:
-
The point is another Dimond brother victim has arrived.
You know, I just had a thought about those two (the Dimond Bros.). I bet that at least one if not both of them wind up getting themselves ordained and starting their own "sect".
:scared2: :scared2:
-
Why is it that some can not accept this simple teaching of our catechism that which is baptism of desire because they confuse the grace of baptism (which is necessary for salvation) with the character of baptism (which is not necessary for salvation). Because of this confusion, they deny the simple truth that all that is really necessary for salvation is to die in the state of grace.
-
Sanctifying grace - and that comes only through the Cathlic Church and Her Sacraments.
-
Why is it that some can not accept this simple teaching of our catechism that which is baptism of desire because they confuse the grace of baptism (which is necessary for salvation) with the character of baptism (which is not necessary for salvation).
[/b][/i]
Something about that doesn't sound right to me.
-
Sanctifying grace also comes from a perfect love for God, and/or perfect act of contrition. Sounds just right to me!
-
Sanctifying grace also comes from a perfect love for God, and/or perfect act of contrition. Sounds just right to me!
And I was taught in grade school that to achieve such a feat is a very rare and special gift from God; unlike today, when the novus ordo people make it sound as easy as pie and a common occurrence.
-
Novus ordo exaggerate all truth, what else is new.
Still Perfect love for God or perfect Act of Contrition are teachings of the Church and it is God and only God who knows how many or how few are the happy recipients, and no matter how few, it doesn't make it the less of a teaching.
-
Sanctifying grace also comes from a perfect love for God, and/or perfect act of contrition. Sounds just right to me!
Could you tell me what Catechism you found that in? I can not find it written as such.
-
Stories such as the following tell us that it is so rare a thing indeed that even the Saints did not presume upon such a position but made certain of the Baptism on this side of Heaven:
Father Point, S.J. was a fellow Jesuit Missionary to the Indians with Fr. De Smet in the 19th century. He tells a very interesting story about the miraculous resuscitation for Baptism of a person who had been instructed in the Faith but apparently died without receiving the sacrament.
Father Point, S.J., quoted in The Life of Fr. De Smet, pp. 165-166: “One morning, upon leaving the church I met an Indian woman, who said: ‘So-and-so is not well.’ She [the person who was not well] was not yet a catechumen and I said I would go to see her. An hour later the same person [who came and told him the person is not well], who was her sister, came to me saying she was dead. I ran to the tent, hoping she might be mistaken, and found a crowd of relatives around the bed, repeating, ‘She is dead – she has not breathed for some time.’ To assure myself, I leaned over the body; there was no sign of life. I reproved these excellent people for not telling me at once of the gravity of the situation, adding, ‘May God forgive me!’ Then, rather impatiently, I said, ‘Pray!’ and all fell on their knees and prayed devoutly.
“I again leaned over the supposed corpse and said, ‘The Black Robe is here: do you wish him to baptize you?’ At the word baptism I saw a slight tremor of the lower lip; then both lips moved, making me certain that she understood. She had already been instructed, so I at once baptized her, and she rose from her bier, making the sign of the cross. Today she is out hunting and is fully persuaded that she died at the time I have recounted.”
This is another example of a person who had already been instructed in the Faith but had to be miraculously resuscitated specifically for the Sacrament of Baptism, and the miraculous resuscitation occurred at the moment that the priest pronounced the word “Baptism.”
In the life of St. Francis De Sales we also find a child miraculously raised from the dead specifically for the Sacrament of Baptism.
“A baby, the child of a Protestant mother, had died without Baptism. St. Francis had gone to speak to the mother about Catholic doctrine, and prayed that the child would be restored to life long enough to receive Baptism. His prayer was granted, and the whole family became Catholic.”
St. Francis De Sales himself summed up the beautifully simple truth on this issue in the following manner, when he was discoursing against the Protestant heretics.
St. Francis De Sales (Doctor of the Church), The Catholic Controversy, c. 1602, pp. 156-157: “The way in which one deduces an article of faith is this: the Word of God is infallible; the Word of God declares that Baptism is necessary for salvation; therefore Baptism is necessary for salvation.”
It is not that it can not happen, it is that it is very rare indeed especially when it is difficult for one to make a PERFECT Act of Contrition when still living in the world surrounded by sin.
-
All one must do is open any catechism that would have mention of Perfect Act of Contrition to find exactly what it means and does.
I just picked up a few off my shelve titled "Channels of Redemption" by Charles G. Herzog, S.J. Benziger Brothers 1931
"Perfect love of God, always justifies a sinner. This is clear from Scripture and Tradition. Scripture teaches that God loves those who love Him"
****
From: "The Question Box" From the Paulist Press - 1929"Perfect Contrition "reconciles man with God before the Sacrament of Penance is actually received" ( Council of Trent Sess. xiv., ch. 4), although it necessarily includes the desire of receiving he Sacrament.
The babies you mentioned were not old enough, if they are considered babies, to have reached the age of reason, and therefore are unable to love God with a Perfect love, baptism in their case was necessary for salvation, otherwise Limbo, a theory, not de fide. Limbo I meant is not de fide.
-
Those stories were to show the importance of Baptism. There were many, many other stories of other Saints it went on for another several pages ONLY of stories of Saints raising with God's power adults from the dead for the sacrament of baptism.
I have never seen a story yet where a Saint found a candidate for Baptism dead and said, "Well, I am too late,but that is alright they probably made and act of Perfect Love of Perfect Contrition so it will be fine."
No, those are so very rare and the Saints knew how very rare indeed such a thing is so they took no chances and we see how many, many times they, with the Power of God, raised someone from the dead. If it was all so pat don't you think God would have said, " Hey Saints, don't need to do that"?
To leave it to something so simple as it just takes an act of perfect Contrition or Perfect Love of God makes it like we are teaching the truth with a drop of poison. Humans are stupid and fool themselves all the time. We always trick ourselves into thinking, " Hey I am alright, I am good with God." When nothing could be father from the truth. The sins of omission that we commit in a day prove that.
And, yes in the end it all comes down to God, but that is not our business. On this end we are to do and say everything in our to bring souls to Christ. We should never sit their with a smug look on our face assuming it will be alright. We have work to do.
-
Second Council of Constantinople
"Since the Lord declares that the person is judged already, and the Apostle curses even the angels if they instruct in anything different from what we have preached, how is it possible even for the most presumptuous to assert that these condemnations apply only to those who are still alive? Are they unaware, or rather pretending to be unaware, that to be judged anathematized is just the same as to be separated from God? The heretic, even though he has not been condemned formally by any individual, in reality brings anathema on himself, having cut himself off from the way of truth by his heresy. What reply can such people make to the Apostle when he writes: As for someone who is factious, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned."
http://www.dailycatholic.org/history/5ecuмen1.htm#Anathemas against the Three Chapters
Your point?
Do you not understand the quote?
-
Thank you Matthew for the article, I found the following helpful:
"So according to the correct usage of the term, as outlined above, a Catholic can never become a material heretic. He is not invincibly ignorant of the Church's authority, and any conscious dissent from her teachings will therefore make him a formal heretic."
I do not think that you can say that any longer. Most novus ordo Catholics do not know what end is up in the church. The young novus ordo priests are taught mostly Vatican II theology with the pre-Vatican II docuмents barely even mentioned. I know this for a fact because I have spoken to a few.
Benedict XVI, however, is a different story. As was JPII and his predecessors.
Read the quote. It says "..any conscious dissent.."
-
The point is another Dimond brother victim has arrived.
I quoted from Matthew's (Daly) article, then I quoted from the Second Council of Constantinople and....?.....therefore....a Dimond Brother victim!
I have an idea, if you are an expert on Catholic dogma then please give us your thesis and support it with docuмents from Church authority.
I find that is a lot more helpful to Catholics then making spurious and erroneous deductions.
I'm not a victim of anyone, but if I was, its off-topic and its a personal attack.
If you feel the need to make personal attacks please refrain from it as its not charitable.
-
The point is another Dimond brother victim has arrived.
Good point! But I think this one is more willing to listen to reason.
Or should I have said, deprogrammed? I'm easy, you choose. :wink:
Here we go again with personal attacks. I think you are referring to me and that I need to be "deprogrammed" because I quoted from Matthews (Daly) article and the Second Council of Constantinople and am therefore, a "Dimond victim".
Here is a thought for you to ponder. Catholics are not "programed". God gave us free-will. He knows who are his sheep and who are not. And you my friend, are most certainly not God.
-
Leisa
You are a victim, just as I was a victim when led into VII during the first 15 years.
Lumping quotes together somtime, is not reality without researching to whom and why those quotes where spoken to.
We need to read the entire story.
You need to do your own research and start building a library, these books here, I have owned since childhood, they are in Question and Answer, if you can afford to purchase the entire set, you would love them.
They are titled: RADIO REPLIES
http://tinyurl.com/28akqpa
Dawn needs to speak to her priest, for a better explanation of Perfect love for God. I feel your priest might have these Radio Replies, most priest do have them.
-
Fourth Lateran Council 1215
".....He will come at the end of time to judge the living and the dead, to render to every person according to his works, both to the reprobate and to the elect. All of them will rise with their own bodies, which they now wear, so as to receive according to their deserts, whether these be good or bad; for the latter perpetual punishment with the devil, for the former eternal glory with Christ."
-
Leisa
You are a victim, just as I was a victim when led into VII during the first 15 years.
Lumping quotes together somtime, is not reality without researching to whom and why those quotes where spoken to.
We need to read the entire story.
You need to do your own research and start building a library, these books here, I have owned since childhood, they are in Question and Answer, if you can afford to purchase the entire set, you would love them.
They are titled: RADIO REPLIES
http://tinyurl.com/28akqpa
Dawn needs to speak to her priest, for a better explanation of Perfect love for God. I feel your priest might have these Radio Replies, most priest do have them.
Whatever Myrna. If you say I'm a "victim" I must be a "victim". HOW ON GOD"S earth are you to judge me as "unresearched"?
Do you know what books I have read and what books I have not read?
You presume to know me and you do not know ANYTHING about me unless you are the CIA.
I was not a "victim" of the Vat II church. I willingly went into the Catholic Church to be baptized and I willingly took myself out of the Vatican II church. There is no victimization.
Jesus never said people were victims? Where do you get this from? (rhetorical question).
That's enough preaching about what you know nothing about.
Why don't you prove baptism of desire for us. Or why don't you prove what a heretic is or isn't. Instead of hurling insults at people.
If you are so educated then teach us!
Priest? Ok. Well I'm glad you found a Priest who is not a heretic. Maybe you can start with that. Explain to me, the ignoramous, how it is you selected your Priest and what criteria you went by. I would be fascinated to know. Especially in light of my current reading on the Fourth Lateran Council. Maybe you could quote that council when you demonstrate how you identify heretics.
I'm ALL EARS.
-
Fourth Lateran Council
"We excommunicate and anathematize every heresy raising itself up against this holy, orthodox and catholic faith which we have expounded above."
What was expounded above? Here it is:
1. Confession of Faith
We firmly believe and simply confess that there is only one true God, eternal and immeasurable, almighty, unchangeable, incomprehensible and ineffable, Father, Son and holy Spirit, three persons but one absolutely simple essence, substance or nature {1} . The Father is from none, the Son from the Father alone, and the holy Spirit from both equally, eternally without beginning or end; the Father generating, the Son being born, and the holy Spirit proceeding; consubstantial and coequal, co-omnipotent and coeternal; one principle of all things, creator of all things invisible and visible, spiritual and corporeal; who by his almighty power at the beginning of time created from nothing both spiritual and corporeal creatures, that is to say angelic and earthly, and then created human beings composed as it were of both spirit and body in common. The devil and other demons were created by God naturally good, but they became evil by their own doing. Man, however, sinned at the prompting of the devil.
This holy Trinity, which is undivided according to its common essence but distinct according to the properties of its persons, gave the teaching of salvation to the human race through Moses and the holy prophets and his other servants, according to the most appropriate disposition of the times. Finally the only-begotten Son of God, Jesus Christ, who became incarnate by the action of the whole Trinity in common and was conceived from the ever virgin Mary through the cooperation of the holy Spirit, having become true man, composed of a rational soul and human flesh, one person in two natures, showed more clearly the way of life. Although he is immortal and unable to suffer according to his divinity, he was made capable of suffering and dying according to his humanity. Indeed, having suffered and died on the wood of the cross for the salvation of the human race, he descended to the underworld, rose from the dead and ascended into heaven. He descended in the soul, rose in the flesh, and ascended in both. He will come at the end of time to judge the living and the dead, to render to every person according to his works, both to the reprobate and to the elect. All of them will rise with their own bodies, which they now wear, so as to receive according to their deserts, whether these be good or bad; for the latter perpetual punishment with the devil, for the former eternal glory with Christ.
There is indeed one universal church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved, in which Jesus Christ is both priest and sacrifice. His body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the forms of bread and wine, the bread and wine having been changed in substance, by God's power, into his body and blood, so that in order to achieve this mystery of unity we receive from God what he received from us. Nobody can effect this sacrament except a priest who has been properly ordained according to the church's keys, which Jesus Christ himself gave to the apostles and their successors. But the sacrament of baptism is consecrated in water at the invocation of the undivided Trinity -- namely Father, Son and holy Spirit -- and brings salvation to both children and adults when it is correctly carried out by anyone in the form laid down by the church. If someone falls into sin after having received baptism, he or she can always be restored through true penitence. For not only virgins and the continent but also married persons find favour with God by right faith and good actions and deserve to attain to eternal blessedness.
-
A person isn't pertinacious unless they are clearly shown Church doctrine on a given matter.
If they understand the Church teaches it and they deny it, they are pertinacious. You are claiming the only way to know Church teaching is to be formally told what it is at some kind of official hearing or trial.
-
Leisa
Are you an expert on Catholic Dogma?
Cheryl, can I borrow your dunce cap?
-
Leisa, I made a suggestion, something you will read many times on forums such as this, if you can't take the heat sometime get out of the kitchen, so they say.
Are you kidding.... I have been called "witch" here, Americantist, because I posted that I put a flag on my balcony on the 4th of July. I have been called schistmatic for my sede position, and these are only the few names I recall while typing this note. For each of these abuses I have forgiven the posters, and God knows it.
I don't have to prove BOD to you, its in all the Traditional catechism books, read it for yourself.
-
Leisa
Are you an expert on Catholic Dogma?
Cheryl, can I borrow your dunce cap?
Dunce hat? Me too! me too! Humble pie too please!
-
Myrna, what part of RARE but not impossible do you not understand?
Clearly the saints did not just assume their candidates for baptism had a perfect love of God or a perfect contrition or they would not have asked God to raise them from the dead in order to Baptize them. And, this is just not one story but many, many, many.
So, what would you tell the multitude of Saints who prayed to God to raise the person from the dead than died before they could minister the Sacrament? Evidently they knew it is best to opt on the side of error as this is such a difficult state for most humans to achieve. The majority of us are sorry for our sins because of "They just punishment" and not "Because they offend thee my God."
-
The majority of us are sorry for our sins because of "They just punishment" and not "Because they offend thee my God."
What! Haven't you ever shed tears over your sins because you realized that they have pounded those nails into His hands. I believe you have! That is Perfect love for God. You weren't thinking of Hell, you were thinking of just how horrible your sins made Him suffer. Perfect love for God is not as rare as you imagine.
Beside that, I wasn't debating how rare or common Perfect Love for God IS, I was posting that it IS!
-
Leisa
Are you an expert on Catholic Dogma?
Cheryl, can I borrow your dunce cap?
Sure, there's currently no way I can keep it on during this wind storm we're experiencing here. But do give it back when you're done, I don't doubt I'll need it again. :tinfoil:
-
I can't believe my eyes, Cheryl, I see an ignore, CONGRATULATIONS, you must be doing something right.
Don't blame me this time. :roll-laugh2:
-
Leisa
Are you an expert on Catholic Dogma?
Cheryl, can I borrow your dunce cap?
Sure, there's currently no way I can keep it on during this wind storm we're experiencing here. But do give it back when you're done, I don't doubt I'll need it again. :tinfoil:
Thank you. :tinfoil: .....it doesn't fit my head that well either. We do need to get more of these. There's a new member here that will be needing one soon.
-
I can't believe my eyes, Cheryl, I see an ignore, CONGRATULATIONS, you must be doing something right.
Don't blame me this time. :roll-laugh2:
Nothing to get excited about. It's courtesy of Dominion. Roscoe, Alexandria, Dawn and I got one after asking questions about his beliefs. I do hope to actually "earn" one, but lately I seem to keep earning dunce caps. At the beginning of this month I had one of those days, which has since turned into one of those months. Sometimes I think that God is Irish and his last name is Murphy. (Disclaimer: It's supposed to be a joke).
-
funny girl.
-
These days we all need to put a disclaimer on our notes, explaining why we think, believe the way we do.
-
I think Matthew is trying to say, that some Sedevacantist, although they no longer can accept the VII popes as true, they can accept some/many of the laity. With that I say; I hope so because all the while I was within the camp of VII, I considered myself Catholic. Misled, but still Catholic! Yet, when the facts were presented to me, I felt the grace, and saw the light and did something about it.
Myrna,
I agree with you on this point (though I doubt we fully agree about the extent of "misled"). If you were a misled Catholic then, think how much more misled young Catholics in the N.O. are today who have never been exposed to tradition. This is largely why I'm hung up on the idea of making a strong push to force corrections within the N.O., lest true Catholics who have no basis for knowing better miss out on the graces and benefits of full Catholicism.
-
This is largely why I'm hung up on the idea of making a strong push to force corrections within the N.O., lest true Catholics who have no basis for knowing better miss out on the graces and benefits of full Catholicism.
It has been my experience that they like things the way they are and are not very much interested in tradition or traditionals, having been turned off to both by various forums. I am sure you would find a few, but I think that the majority like everything the way it is.
You are not going to "force corrections within the N.O." anymore than we could.
-
OHCA, I have to agree with Alexandria, but maybe you will save a few, who are we to say.
A few years ago, 15 nuns left tradition for the reason you stated, they were going back to the novus ordo to save them, teach them tradition, that was 2 years ago, so they told me anyway. Today, I heard they take communion in the hand. In all fairness, I myself have not seen them doing this since I wouldn't dare attend the same service they do, but I heard this is what they are doing today.
I do know for a fact of two children who attend school where they (the apostate nuns) teach, and these two know very little of basic catechism, and nothing about modesty standards for girls. Nothing has changed at that school where they teach. How would I know this, you might wonder; because one is my granddaughter and the other my God child. I talk to them about basic religion, they do not know what sanctifying grace is, so I am wondering when these nuns who left to teach them, will start teaching them.
The nuns are still dressed as nuns, in full habit, which is a good thing, but most of the laity there think of them as a token. Nuns walking around town and they can still point to them and say, "see we still have nuns".....
-
These days we all need to put a disclaimer on our notes, explaining why we think, believe the way we do.
Now "ain't" that the truth!
-
I do know for a fact of two children who attend school where they (the apostate nuns) teach, and these two know very little of basic catechism, and nothing about modesty standards for girls. Nothing has changed at that school where they teach. How would I know this, you might wonder; because one is my granddaughter and the other my God child. I talk to them about basic religion, they do not know what sanctifying grace is, so I am wondering when these nuns who left to teach them, will start teaching them.
[/b]
Is this true, Myrna? If so, that's a disgrace. They have been gone from the CMRI over three years now, for what? So they could be novus ordo-ized? Same thing happens in a mixed marriage - the protestant rarely becomes Catholic, but the Catholic sure does become protestantized.
-
I got an ignore from Dominion as well. Although, I don't really care.
-
I do know for a fact of two children who attend school where they (the apostate nuns) teach, and these two know very little of basic catechism, and nothing about modesty standards for girls. Nothing has changed at that school where they teach. How would I know this, you might wonder; because one is my granddaughter and the other my God child. I talk to them about basic religion, they do not know what sanctifying grace is, so I am wondering when these nuns who left to teach them, will start teaching them.
[/b]
Is this true, Myrna? If so, that's a disgrace. They have been gone from the CMRI over three years now, for what? So they could be novus ordo-ized? Same thing happens in a mixed marriage - the protestant rarely becomes Catholic, but the Catholic sure does become protestantized.
Reminds me of thay saying, "one rotten apple spoils the whole bunch"
Three years? Wow time sure flies!
-
The majority of us are sorry for our sins because of "They just punishment" and not "Because they offend thee my God."
What! Haven't you ever shed tears over your sins because you realized that they have pounded those nails into His hands. I believe you have! That is Perfect love for God. You weren't thinking of Hell, you were thinking of just how horrible your sins made Him suffer. Perfect love for God is not as rare as you imagine.
Beside that, I wasn't debating how rare or common Perfect Love for God IS, I was posting that it IS!
Is it perfect love of God to shed tears for our sins?. If a person is able to muster perfect love of God and shed tears for sins committed, why is the person not mustering this perfect love of God to not sin to begin with. It becomes like an on/off switch, putting perfect love of God aside, commit the sin, then shed tears because "now" the person has perfect love of God.
-
LM, most traditional Catholic I know have omitted mortal sin from their life, it really isn't that hard when you have perfect love for God.
However its those faults, failings and veniel sins that are so darn pesty, like fruit flies.
Sorry LM, do you have a catechism book you might look up some of these teachings, we never stop learning? Don't take my word, talk to your priest. He will explain it much better than I.
-
LM, most traditional Catholic I know have omitted mortal sin from their life, it really isn't that hard when you have perfect love for God.
However its those faults, failings and veniel sins that are so darn pesty, like fruit flies.
Sorry LM, do you have a catechism book you might look up some of these teachings, we never stop learning? Don't take my word, talk to your priest. He will explain it much better than I.
I don't believe that even the Saints when alive would ever presume to say "I have perfect love for God".
Those darn pesky faults, failings and venial sins say that we are not perfect creatures. Those venial sins, while not mortal, are enough to keep one from a straight shot to heaven for that soul has to spend time in purgatory to get clean of these offenses. Wouldn't "perfect love for God' also keep us from pesky faults, failings and venial sins.
The Church when speaking of a perfect act of contrition includes the intent to confess to a priest. Why do think the Church has included this intent to go to confession. Because the only one who knows for sure whether our sorrow and repentance is due to a perfect love of God, is God Himself. We with our fallen human nature, cannot for sure make that determination so we are provided with the means to actually be absolved from our sins through confession to a priest.
-
I never said, perfect love for God, nor contrition takes the place of confession.
Scripture says we are all sinners, that does not mean we all sin mortally.
-
BTW. . . The saints when alive probably didn't think they were saints either, and I disagree, I believe they had perfect love of God, which is why they became saints, and they went to confession too.
You might want to study this issue a bit more.
-
I never said, perfect love for God, nor contrition takes the place of confession.
Scripture says we are all sinners, that does not mean we all sin mortally.
MyrnaM, I didn't say you did. My response was to what you did say. That realizing we have offended God and shedding tears for our offenses against God is the perfect love for God. My debate is that we has human creatures can never be absolutely sure that we indeed have this perfect love for God. Only God Himself know this. While you may be right, not all sin mortally, but we are are tempted in one way or another, and as scripture says we are all sinners for we still have those pesky faults and venial sins to content with.
!
-
BTW. . . The saints when alive probably didn't think they were saints either, and I disagree, I believe they had perfect love of God, which is why they became saints, and they went to confession too.
You might want to study this issue a bit more.
MyrnaM. I agree the Saints when alive didn't think of themselves as Saints, therefore they went to confession just as we do now. But again, I do not believe the Saints would make the presumption to believe "I have perfect love of God".
-
Sins of Omission. Yes, we can make it to the point of not committing mortal sins. My priest will say it is the sins of omission people forget to think of. Of course the saints did not have mortal or venial sins but they also mastered sins of omission. And, in order to have Perfect love of God we must not have any sins, not even sins of omission. Now, that is really something to strive for.
Crying over our sins, I bet most of us on this board have cried or shuddered to think Christ saw us in our most foul acts. Think of how many times we fail to pray, fail to pray for others, and fail to help others and the list goes on for sins of omission.
That is why the Bible says the JUST man sins 7 times a day.
Perfect Love of God and Perfect Contrition are there of course but it is something extraordinary indeed.
-
Dawn touched on something that I think about everyday, and have talked to my priest about.
I feel very guilty about NOT what I do during the day, but what I don't do.
-
I agree with Dawn on this issue. In order to have perfect love for God, you must be free of sin completely. So Our Lady certainly had perfect love for God. Saints may have good love for God, but not perfect love. As far as not committing mortal sin, it gets to a point where that is a pretty easy thing to do. Most Traditional Catholics are in fact able to avoid mortal sin.
-
You can agree with Dawn, but I choose to agree with the catechism. St. Thomas in "My Woy of Life" page 557 says; "When a man has perfect contrition, he is sorry because God is good and lovable in Himself. When a man has only attrition, he is sorry because he fears to lose heaven or be condemned to hell" Our Lord calls us to this perfection, "Be perfect as I am perfect", He would not call us to something the average person can not reach.
"Perfect contrition on the other hand, that is, sorrow motivated primarily by consideration of God's goodness and worthiness, is in reality equivalent to perfect love of God. It remits the guilt and brings pardon at once, even before confession; for there can be no estrangement between the soul and the God whom it loves perfectly" from: "The Catholic Church and You" . . . dated 1954
Doesn't anyone have a good catechism book? My advice get online and buy one.
I can't understand how people can so casually form an opinion on Church teachings.
Even my Radio Replies backs me up! Perfect Love for God is not that rare, but it is a gift. A gift that some deny here. Scheeeech!
Does you church offer catechism classes? Mount St. Michael does every Tue, just before the Holy hour. Your invited.
Excuse me! I need a vacation! Going to sit down now and read a good old fashioned catechism book, anyone want to join me. :cheers:
-
One more thought, if anyone is interested in researching Perfect Love, it usually falls under "Contrition">Perfect Contrition>Perfect Love
I would be very interested to see what your catechism books say if anyone cares to share. :cheers:
-
Catholic Mom,
I'm not sure where this guy is getting these quotes. His page numbers don't match up with the common version of "Introduction to Christianity". See here:
Link (http://books.google.com/books?id=VwwtInC5fwAC&pg=PA248&lpg=PA248&dq=ratzinger+resurrection+of+the+body+introduction+to+christianity&source=bl&ots=cNm-CvGDjQ&sig=3mjdExJ8aDNuv_EQ3HKMQsx9CAk&hl=en&ei=CSzKTJDeMcOAlAfBpNT1AQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CBsQ6AEwAzgK#v=twopage&q&f=false)
-
Mid-bottom
Pg. 357-358
One thing at any rate may be fairly clear: both John (6:63) and Paul (I Cor. 15:50) state with all possible emphasis that the "resurrection of the flesh", the "resurrection of the body", is not a "resurrection of physical bodies". Thus, from the point of view of modern thought the Pauline sketch is far less naive than later theological erudition with its subtle ways of construing how there can be eternal physical bodies. To recapitulate, Paul teaches, not the resurrection of physical bodies, but the resurrection of persons, and this not in the return of the "fleshly body", that is, the biological structure, an idea he expressly describes as impossible ("the perishable cannot become imperishable"), but in the different form of the life of the resurrection, as shown in the risen Lord.
Don't know what to make of it.
-
You won't find the phrase "the perishable cannot become imperishable" in Scripture, and such a phrase seems to contradict St. Paul when he writes further in verse 53:
For this corruptible must put on incorruption; and this mortal must put on immortality.
If anything, the perishable can indeed become imperishable by the power of God.
-
CCC
997 What is "rising"? In death, the separation of the soul from the body, the human body decays and the soul goes to meet God, while awaiting its reunion with its glorified body. God, in his almighty power, will definitively grant incorruptible life to our bodies by reuniting them with our souls, through the power of Jesus' Resurrection.
-
You can agree with Dawn, but I choose to agree with the catechism. St. Thomas in "My Woy of Life" page 557 says; "When a man has perfect contrition, he is sorry because God is good and lovable in Himself. When a man has only attrition, he is sorry because he fears to lose heaven or be condemned to hell" Our Lord calls us to this perfection, "Be perfect as I am perfect", He would not call us to something the average person can not reach.
"Perfect contrition on the other hand, that is, sorrow motivated primarily by consideration of God's goodness and worthiness, is in reality equivalent to perfect love of God. It remits the guilt and brings pardon at once, even before confession; for there can be no estrangement between the soul and the God whom it loves perfectly" from: "The Catholic Church and You" . . . dated 1954
Doesn't anyone have a good catechism book? My advice get online and buy one.
I can't understand how people can so casually form an opinion on Church teachings.
Even my Radio Replies backs me up! Perfect Love for God is not that rare, but it is a gift. A gift that some deny here. Scheeeech!
Does you church offer catechism classes? Mount St. Michael does every Tue, just before the Holy hour. Your invited.
Excuse me! I need a vacation! Going to sit down now and read a good old fashioned catechism book, anyone want to join me. :cheers:
The only way one can be truely perfect is to be free of sin. Our Lord is not saying "Love me and that makes you perfect". If we can avoid sin completely, only then can we literally be perfect.
-
Yes, and St. Thomas said it is EXTRAORDINARY.
-
Yes, and St. Thomas said it is EXTRAORDINARY.
So extraordinary because very few indeed reach true contrition.
The Catechism of Trent
Necessity Of Confession
Contrition, it is true, blots out sin; but who does not know that to effect this it must be so intense, so ardent, so vehement, as to bear a proportion to the magnitude of the crimes which it effaces? This is a degree of contrition which few reach; and hence, in this way, very few indeed could hope to obtain the pardon of their sins. It, therefore, became necessary that the most merciful Lord should provide by some easier means for the common salvation of men; and this He has done in His admirable wisdom, by giving to His Church the keys of the kingdom of heaven.
According to the doctrine of the Catholic Church, a doctrine firmly to be believed and constantly professed by all, if the sinner have a sincere sorrow for his sins and a firm resolution of avoiding them in future, although he bring not with him that contrition which may be sufficient of itself to obtain pardon, all his sins are forgiven and remitted through the power of the keys, when he confesses them properly to the priest. Justly, then, do those most holy men, our Fathers, proclaim that by the keys of the Church the gate of heaven is thrown open, a truth which no one can doubt since the Council of Florence has decreed that the effect of Penance is absolution from sin.
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/catechism/Holy7Sacraments-Penance.shtml
-
That is what I am trying to show. Thank you very much. When we run around spouting platitudes with a dreamy almost hypnotized air on "It is o.k. not hard just have perfect love and perfect contrition"
I tell you that is leading people into a sense of false security.
Especially when that attitude flies in the face of how the Saints dealt with the subject of Baptism.
-
I was taught that it was very rare and not to bank on it or presume God's Mercy. Also, only God can know whether we have that "Perfect Love" or "Perfect Contrition."
-
I am sorry, this is a direct result of modernism and the Novus Ordo cult of the Divine Mercy that has caused the confusion.
It is almost a trance like mantra these people repeat.
Speaking of old songs, on the other thread, this attitude reminded me of Bobby Farrin's, "Don't Worry Be Happy"
-
I was taught that it was very rare and not to bank on it or presume God's Mercy. Also, only God can know whether we have that "Perfect Love" or "Perfect Contrition."
Your right only God knows how rare His gift is or how frequent, we don't know.
Perfect Love does not mean you are sinless, however it does mean that Perfect Love removes your sins even mortal sins prior to Confession. Perfect Love is not a sacrament, therefore Confession is still necessary at the first opportunity, if mortal sins were forgiven through perfect love. However if the person dies before the sacrament of confession through no fault of his own, his mortal sin was forgiven. Perfect love is proper disposition, it does not mean we have to be perfect as Our Lady was perfect, sinless always.
DISPOSITION is the key word here.
Of course we can not mock God, nor presume we will have this gift, we must pray for it when needed and pray for our novus ordo Catholics, and especially Catholics who insist on being home alone, without the sacraments.
I don't believe that SSPX teaches perfect love means we have to be as Our Lady, we are all sinners, however some saints never committed a mortal sin, such as St. Gertrude, if we can believe what we read about the Saints.
Some Saints were great sinners, but through the prayers of others, as St. Augustine they were graced with God's mercy.
-
Speaking of old songs, on the other thread, this attitude reminded me of Bobby Farrin's, "Don't Worry Be Happy"
Oh! Oh! Oh! How I simply despised that song. It made me miserable. :roll-laugh1: :tinfoil:
-
I don't know, Myrna, if I could ever (being the sinner that I am) be sorry for my sins simply because they have offended God and not because of a fear of going to hell. I pray every day to love Our Lord as He wants to be loved by His creatures knowing full well that I fall far short of that love.
I am certain, though, that it is a gift we can and should all pray for in case we should ever (God forbid! But one never knows...) die without the chance of the Last Rites.
-
I was taught that it was very rare and not to bank on it or presume God's Mercy. Also, only God can know whether we have that "Perfect Love" or "Perfect Contrition."
Your right only God knows how rare His gift is or how frequent, we don't know.
Perfect Love does not mean you are sinless, however it does mean that Perfect Love removes your sins even mortal sins prior to Confession. Perfect Love is not a sacrament, therefore Confession is still necessary at the first opportunity, if mortal sins were forgiven through perfect love. However if the person dies before the sacrament of confession through no fault of his own, his mortal sin was forgiven. Perfect love is proper disposition, it does not mean we have to be perfect as Our Lady was perfect, sinless always.
DISPOSITION is the key word here.
Of course we can not mock God, nor presume we will have this gift, we must pray for it when needed and pray for our novus ordo Catholics, and especially Catholics who insist on being home alone, without the sacraments.
I don't believe that SSPX teaches perfect love means we have to be as Our Lady, we are all sinners, however some saints never committed a mortal sin, such as St. Gertrude, if we can believe what we read about the Saints.
Some Saints were great sinners, but through the prayers of others, as St. Augustine they were graced with God's mercy.
May I suggest that you read what constitutes true contrition. The link to the Catechism of Trent is provided above.
-
I was taught that it was very rare and not to bank on it or presume God's Mercy. Also, only God can know whether we have that "Perfect Love" or "Perfect Contrition."
Your right only God knows how rare His gift is or how frequent, we don't know.
Perfect Love does not mean you are sinless, however it does mean that Perfect Love removes your sins even mortal sins prior to Confession. Perfect Love is not a sacrament, therefore Confession is still necessary at the first opportunity, if mortal sins were forgiven through perfect love. However if the person dies before the sacrament of confession through no fault of his own, his mortal sin was forgiven. Perfect love is proper disposition, it does not mean we have to be perfect as Our Lady was perfect, sinless always.
DISPOSITION is the key word here.
Of course we can not mock God, nor presume we will have this gift, we must pray for it when needed and pray for our novus ordo Catholics, and especially Catholics who insist on being home alone, without the sacraments.
I don't believe that SSPX teaches perfect love means we have to be as Our Lady, we are all sinners, however some saints never committed a mortal sin, such as St. Gertrude, if we can believe what we read about the Saints.
Some Saints were great sinners, but through the prayers of others, as St. Augustine they were graced with God's mercy.
May I suggest that you read what constitutes true contrition. The link to the Catechism of Trent is provided above.
Would that be sorrow for your sins? And a true mind set not to sin again?
-
I was taught that it was very rare and not to bank on it or presume God's Mercy. Also, only God can know whether we have that "Perfect Love" or "Perfect Contrition."
Your right only God knows how rare His gift is or how frequent, we don't know.
Perfect Love does not mean you are sinless, however it does mean that Perfect Love removes your sins even mortal sins prior to Confession. Perfect Love is not a sacrament, therefore Confession is still necessary at the first opportunity, if mortal sins were forgiven through perfect love. However if the person dies before the sacrament of confession through no fault of his own, his mortal sin was forgiven. Perfect love is proper disposition, it does not mean we have to be perfect as Our Lady was perfect, sinless always.
DISPOSITION is the key word here.
Of course we can not mock God, nor presume we will have this gift, we must pray for it when needed and pray for our novus ordo Catholics, and especially Catholics who insist on being home alone, without the sacraments.
I don't believe that SSPX teaches perfect love means we have to be as Our Lady, we are all sinners, however some saints never committed a mortal sin, such as St. Gertrude, if we can believe what we read about the Saints.
Some Saints were great sinners, but through the prayers of others, as St. Augustine they were graced with God's mercy.
May I suggest that you read what constitutes true contrition. The link to the Catechism of Trent is provided above.
Would that be sorrow for your sins? And a true mind set not to sin again?
That is part. Read the Catechism of Trent.
-
I don't know, Myrna, if I could ever (being the sinner that I am) be sorry for my sins simply because they have offended God and not because of a fear of going to hell. I pray every day to love Our Lord as He wants to be loved by His creatures knowing full well that I fall far short of that love.
I am certain, though, that it is a gift we can and should all pray for in case we should ever (God forbid! But one never knows...) die without the chance of the Last Rites.
I think with prayer, meditating on the Stations of the Cross, sorrowful mysteries of the rosary, thinking of Our Lords sufferings and how He would have suffered for only YOU, because your soul is that important to Him.
Thinking too of all your blessings and how rich you are having the True Faith, the grace God has given you to see this truth. His Faith.
Proper disposition can be obtained!
Have you ever wondered if you would give your life for Him, if need be? You don't have to answer me, Alexandria, just questions I always ask myself. My answer is: With your grace I hope too.
-
I was taught that it was very rare and not to bank on it or presume God's Mercy. Also, only God can know whether we have that "Perfect Love" or "Perfect Contrition."
Your right only God knows how rare His gift is or how frequent, we don't know.
Perfect Love does not mean you are sinless, however it does mean that Perfect Love removes your sins even mortal sins prior to Confession. Perfect Love is not a sacrament, therefore Confession is still necessary at the first opportunity, if mortal sins were forgiven through perfect love. However if the person dies before the sacrament of confession through no fault of his own, his mortal sin was forgiven. Perfect love is proper disposition, it does not mean we have to be perfect as Our Lady was perfect, sinless always.
DISPOSITION is the key word here.
Of course we can not mock God, nor presume we will have this gift, we must pray for it when needed and pray for our novus ordo Catholics, and especially Catholics who insist on being home alone, without the sacraments.
I don't believe that SSPX teaches perfect love means we have to be as Our Lady, we are all sinners, however some saints never committed a mortal sin, such as St. Gertrude, if we can believe what we read about the Saints.
Some Saints were great sinners, but through the prayers of others, as St. Augustine they were graced with God's mercy.
May I suggest that you read what constitutes true contrition. The link to the Catechism of Trent is provided above.
Would that be sorrow for your sins? And a true mind set not to sin again?
That is part. Read the Catechism of Trent.
Thanks, I'm working on that right now in fact.
LM, don't leave me in a lurch, tell me what I was missing above. Now this is what I love, learning together as Catholics, the best discussions ever.
-
Have you ever wondered if you would give your life for Him, if need be? You don't have to answer me, Alexandria, just questions I always ask myself. My answer is: With your grace I hope too.
All of the time. My response is the same as yours. What other response could there be? Even St. Peter found that out.
-
Just think if we could give our life for God, we would escape Purgatory! Straight to Heaven!
Alexandria, have you ever wondered what souls actually do in Heaven. I know we see the face of God, and sing Holy, Holy, Holy. There is no such a thing as time, so we can't get bored, just eternity.
Yet, I do imagine waterfalls, flowers, beautiful parks, and all those mansions that the Bible says are in Heaven.
I love thinking about these things, in fact that is the way I fall asleep at night. Some people count sheep, while I try to imagine Heaven.
-
Alexandria, have you ever wondered what souls actually do in Heaven.
No, I do not, because I know that it is beyond anything my finite mind can even begin to imagine.
Look at St. Thomas Acquinas, that genius, who it is said that before he died, Our Lord revealed such things to him that St. Thomas said that everything he had ever written in his life he now knew was "so much straw".
Being a coward and hating pain and suffering, I don't pray to be a martyr. I only pray that, if such should be God's will for me, that He gives me the grace not to deny Him and choose to suffer martyrdom instead. Left to myself, I would never do it.
-
Fr. Denis of C.M.R.I. would pray to be a martyr, yet he died of cancer.
I just want to escape Purgatory, not that I don't deserve it, but that is what I coward away from.
-
Sorry...
I have not been online and, as a result, have not read any of this thread, but...
It is plain BXVI does not believe in the Resurrection, nor has he for well nigh 50 years (at least).
He is a Modernist, through and through -- end of story. His apologists may bend over this way and that, surpassing the most incredible pretzels known to man, to excuse him. So what? He does not believe what Catholics believe, nor in the way we believe it. As Sander (HMiS from FE) is fond of saying, "Basta!"
-
I was taught that it was very rare and not to bank on it or presume God's Mercy. Also, only God can know whether we have that "Perfect Love" or "Perfect Contrition."
Your right only God knows how rare His gift is or how frequent, we don't know.
Perfect Love does not mean you are sinless, however it does mean that Perfect Love removes your sins even mortal sins prior to Confession. Perfect Love is not a sacrament, therefore Confession is still necessary at the first opportunity, if mortal sins were forgiven through perfect love. However if the person dies before the sacrament of confession through no fault of his own, his mortal sin was forgiven. Perfect love is proper disposition, it does not mean we have to be perfect as Our Lady was perfect, sinless always.
DISPOSITION is the key word here.
Of course we can not mock God, nor presume we will have this gift, we must pray for it when needed and pray for our novus ordo Catholics, and especially Catholics who insist on being home alone, without the sacraments.
I don't believe that SSPX teaches perfect love means we have to be as Our Lady, we are all sinners, however some saints never committed a mortal sin, such as St. Gertrude, if we can believe what we read about the Saints.
Some Saints were great sinners, but through the prayers of others, as St. Augustine they were graced with God's mercy.
May I suggest that you read what constitutes true contrition. The link to the Catechism of Trent is provided above.
Would that be sorrow for your sins? And a true mind set not to sin again?
That is part. Read the Catechism of Trent.
Thanks, I'm working on that right now in fact.
LM, don't leave me in a lurch, tell me what I was missing above. Now this is what I love, learning together as Catholics, the best discussions ever.
Starting with sin. True contrition is not only supreme sorrow/repentance for the offense to God, but includes hatred/detestment/abhorring of the sin itself that cause the offense to God.
Here temptation needs to be taken into account. Temptation is at the root of all sins. Temptation, draws us in, calls to us to commit the sin. We can stop ourselves from committing the sin, but the fact we were tempted even a smidgen says we have not raised to the level of having true hatred/detestment/etc. of the sin itself.
We also need the same hatred/detestment/etc of all the sins we have committed, not only the one we accounting for at the time.
-
Sorry...
I have not been online and, as a result, have not read any of this thread, but...
It is plain BXVI does not believe in the Resurrection, nor has he for well nigh 50 years (at least).
He is a Modernist, through and through -- end of story. His apologists may bend over this way and that, surpassing the most incredible pretzels known to man, to excuse him. So what? He does not believe what Catholics believe, nor in the way we believe it. As Sander (HMiS from FE) is fond of saying, "Basta!"
Is that what this thread was about? I had forgotten. :sign-thread-hijacked: :read-paper:
It is plain BXVI does not believe in the Resurrection, nor has he for well nigh 50 years (at least).
Then what is it that he does believe? If he doesn't believe in the Resurrection, whatever is he doing in the Vatican? What are any of us doing as Catholics? Didn't St. Paul say something to the effect that if Christ be not risen, our religion is in vain?
-
Sorry we got off the track of topic, but thanks LM for the review. I believe an examination of conscience is in order. (for me)
Getting back on topic and trying to tie this all together.
If we die in sanctifying grace we will resurrect in glory, no matter what B16 believes, therefore we better study up on our catechism. I for one do not want the errors of B16 to influence anyone.
-
My impression so far is that this book was written by a young Fr. Ratzinger, trying to think "outside the box" to discover a new "radical" understanding of the resurrection of the body hidden in the text for milennia. Maybe to impress his progressive intellectual buddies?
In the end it seems that he posited a fuzzy theory on this point decades ago. Since then even the New Catechism restated the Traditional understanding.
I don't see how a personal theory decades ago on the meaning of what resurrection of the body means = he doesn't believe in the resurrection and is not Pope.
If this were really the case and a problem I think we'd see the Neo-Caths writing voluminously to defend him. Instead I could barely find anything. In contrast, Neo-Caths have killed forests trying to reconcile DH. This circuмstantially tells me that nobody, except Prots with axes to grind, and some Trads seriously think this is an issue.
It may very well be. I'm just saying that if so, it just doesn't make sense to me that the Neo-Caths are yawning and the libs aren't trumpeting this to the Heavens. Something doesn't add up.
-
My impression so far is that this book was written by a young Fr. Ratzinger, trying to think "outside the box" to discover a new "radical" understanding of the resurrection of the body hidden in the text for milennia. Maybe to impress his progressive intellectual buddies?
In the end it seems that he posited a fuzzy theory on this point decades ago. Since then even the New Catechism restated the Traditional understanding.
I don't see how a personal theory decades ago on the meaning of what resurrection of the body means = he doesn't believe in the resurrection and is not Pope.
If this were really the case and a problem I think we'd see the Neo-Caths writing voluminously to defend him. Instead I could barely find anything. In contrast, Neo-Caths have killed forests trying to reconcile DH. This circuмstantially tells me that nobody, except Prots with axes to grind, and some Trads seriously think this is an issue.
It may very well be. I'm just saying that if so, it just doesn't make sense to me that the Neo-Caths are yawning and the libs aren't trumpeting this to the Heavens. Something doesn't add up.
I am glad that you wrote this, Stevus. Care to join me in a mug of root beer? :cheers: Some popcorn perhaps? :popcorn:
-
Here is one matter of fact explanation in a book review, not even an apologetic defense.
http://www.newoxfordreview.org/reviews.jsp?did=1208-sippo (http://www.newoxfordreview.org/reviews.jsp?did=1208-sippo)
With this in mind, Ratzinger reviews the teaching of the Church on human immortality. There was no clear guidance from patristic sources on what human immortality — especially in the intermediate state, but also in a resurrected body — actually meant. There was a strain of thought in the patristic period strongly influenced by Platonism in which the soul was treated almost like a “ghost in a machine” with a strong sense of the body/soul dichotomy. This Hellenistic attitude based immortality of the soul on something innate to the human person and separate from the “mortal” body. Ratzinger points out several theological problems with this and shows how they could be circuмvented by St. Thomas Aqui nas’s brilliant solution to the question based on Ar istot le’s notion of eternal forms as being preserved within real objects and not as members of an unchanging alternate realm. St. Thomas’s new anthropology could be summed up as anima unica forma corpus (i.e., the soul is the unifying principle of the body), and did justice to the original Hebrew understanding of man as an irreducible and integral whole.
-
More...
The intermediate state is no longer seen as the immortal soul returning to spiritual fellowship with God. Rather, it is God knowing each of us and remembering everything about us in preparation for returning each human being to full bodily life at the general resurrection. It is God’s individual love for us that grants each of us temporary life with Him apart from our bodies. In that memory, those who have loved God and joined to Him through Christ are contemplated in the light of the Savior, and God reshapes us in preparation for eternal bliss with Him after the resurrection. During that time we are granted a preparatory glance of the beatific vision in eschatological anticipation of our final end in a renewed body.
-
This circuмstantially tells me that nobody, except Prots with axes to grind, and some Trads seriously think this is an issue.
When the man who will become Pope says the resurrection means "not bodies" then it's an issue. It doesn't matter how many people are aware of it. As for Dignitatis Humanae that's a very serious matter but the crux of the problem has always been modernism.
SH: My Lord, I need you to be more specific, so we can examine the matter.
HL: Yes, sure. He has a book called Introduction to Christianity, it was in 1968. It is a book full of heresies. Especially the negation of the dogma of the Redemption.
SH: In what sense, My Lord?
HL: He says that Christ did not satisfy for our sins, did not – atone – He, Jesus Christ, on the Cross, did not make satisfaction for our sins. This book denies Christ’s atonement of sins.
SH: Ah, I’m not sure I understand…
HL: He denies the necessity of satisfaction.
SH: This sounds like Luther.
HL: No, it goes much further than Luther. Luther admits the sacrifice…the satisfaction of Christ. It is worse than Luther, much worse.
SH: My Lord, I must return to the beginning of this line of questioning: are you saying he is a heretic?
HL: No. But he has never retracted these statements.
SH: Well, then, what would you say, My Lord, that it was “suspicious,” “questionable,” “favoring heresy”?
HL: No, it is clear. I can quote him. He rejects “an extremely rudimentary presentation of the theology of satisfaction (seen as) a mechanism of an injured and reestablished right. It would be the manner with which the justice of God, infinitely offended, would have been reconciled anew by an infinite satisfaction…some texts of devotion seem to suggest that the Christian faith in the Cross understands God as a God whose inexorable justice required a human sacrifice, the sacrifice of his own Son. And we flee with horror from a justice, the dark anger of which removes any credibility from the message of love” (translated from the German version, pages 232-233).
SH: What other heresies, My Lord?
HL: Many others. Many others. He has put up doubts regarding the divinity of Christ, regarding the dogma of the Incarnation…
SH: This cannot be true…
HL: It is very true. He re-reads, re-interprets all the dogmas of the Church. This is it. This is what he calls the “hermeneutic” in his discourse of 22 December 2005.
SH: This hermeneutic is also known as the “living tradition…” It would interpret existing doctrines in new lights…
HL: Yes, exactly. According to the new philosophy, the idealist philosophy of Kant.
SH: These are very strong words, My Lord, but yet, the Society is not sedevacantist…
HL: No, no, no, no. He is the Pope…
http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/archive-2006-0430-tissier.htm
Passages like this you show why the "crypto-sede" charge is so easily made. I think if the SSPX leadership sells out then they will start accusing anyone who complains of being a sede because of statements they've made.
-
It may very well be. I'm just saying that if so, it just doesn't make sense to me that the Neo-Caths are yawning and the libs aren't trumpeting this to the Heavens. Something doesn't add up.
What is really important is often shrouded in obscurity.
-
It may very well be. I'm just saying that if so, it just doesn't make sense to me that the Neo-Caths are yawning and the libs aren't trumpeting this to the Heavens. Something doesn't add up.
What is really important is often shrouded in obscurity. Most liberal Catholics in the pews have some sort of faith. They aren't cunning agnostics posing as Christians. So obviously liberals don't want to talk about this. And neo-Caths definitely don't want to talk about it.
There are many shattering facts that are poorly known. It's not an accident that things are that way.
-
Another thing to remember is that neocaths and liberals love framing the crisis in terms of religious liberty. Attacking religious liberty is unpopular, to say the least. Explaining that it contains implicit indifferentism is very difficult. And if you argue strongly that it changes Church doctrines the liberals say "see you think the Church can change" and the conservatives say the same thing. The liberals using it to claim you are inconsistent the conservatives to condemn you.
-
There are those who will not believe that he who does not believe, does, in fact, NOT believe :)
"Dust...ciao, babe..."
MOVE ON :)
-
Stevus....
if a 'private' opinion has yet to be retracted -- as this has yet to be retracted -- is still holds. Sorry. Deal with it.
He also thinks the Jєωs are NOT waiting in vain...
fix that one and I will buy you all the Chimay you can drink :)
-
...In the end it seems that he posited a fuzzy theory on this point decades ago. Since then even the New Catechism restated the Traditional understanding.
I don't see how a personal theory decades ago on the meaning of what resurrection of the body means = he doesn't believe in the resurrection and is not Pope...
He has never publicly retracted this theory and he has caused the book to be re-published without the errors being corrected just prior to his election and it is still in print.
Your arguments that this is merely a decades old "fuzzy theory" that he really doesn't believe anymore is without foundation. Frankly, had he not been elected to the Conciliar papacy, I doubt but very few people would ever had read the book and discovered many of the heresies (that even Protestants can recognize) that it contains.
Yes, the "new and improved" Catechism does seem to teach the true doctrine on the resurrection. Since, as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Ratzinger would have had a hand in approving the text, and causing the publication of both the Cathecism and his Catechism, then one must wonder if he believes both doctrines can be true. This only leads one to conclude (though not definitively) that he believes that two mutually exclusive doctrines can be both be true.
Over the past few years, I have made the following interesting observations:
1. In arguments between Catholics and self-professed non-Catholics, Catholics are able to argue from historical facts and the actual words of Scripture, while non-Catholics must find nuances in history and Scripture to make their case.
2. In arguments between traditional Catholics and Conciliar Catholics, traditional Catholics are able to argue from historical facts and the actual words of popes, Councils (sometimes even Vatican II), and theologians over the centuries while Conciliar Catholics must ignore or find nuances in historical facts and the writings of popes, Councils, and theologians and base all their arguments only from writings after circa 1960.
3. In arguments between sedevacantists and anti-sedevacantists, sedevacantists are able to argue from the actual words of the Conciliar popes before and after their elections while anti-sedevacantists must find nuances in those very words to demonstrate that they don't mean what they say.
As I said, just an interesting observation.
-
...In the end it seems that he posited a fuzzy theory on this point decades ago. Since then even the New Catechism restated the Traditional understanding.
I don't see how a personal theory decades ago on the meaning of what resurrection of the body means = he doesn't believe in the resurrection and is not Pope...
He has never publicly retracted this theory and he has caused the book to be re-published without the errors being corrected just prior to his election and it is still in print.
Your arguments that this is merely a decades old "fuzzy theory" that he really doesn't believe anymore is without foundation. Frankly, had he not been elected to the Conciliar papacy, I doubt but very few people would ever had read the book and discovered many of the heresies (that even Protestants can recognize) that it contains.
Yes, the "new and improved" Catechism does seem to teach the true doctrine on the resurrection. Since, as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Ratzinger would have had a hand in approving the text, and causing the publication of both the Cathecism and his Catechism, then one must wonder if he believes both doctrines can be true. This only leads one to conclude (though not definitively) that he believes that two mutually exclusive doctrines can be both be true.
Over the past few years, I have made the following interesting observations:
1. In arguments between Catholics and self-professed non-Catholics, Catholics are able to argue from historical facts and the actual words of Scripture, while non-Catholics must find nuances in history and Scripture to make their case.
2. In arguments between traditional Catholics and Conciliar Catholics, traditional Catholics are able to argue from historical facts and the actual words of popes, Councils (sometimes even Vatican II), and theologians over the centuries while Conciliar Catholics must ignore or find nuances in historical facts and the writings of popes, Councils, and theologians and base all their arguments only from writings after circa 1960.
3. In arguments between sedevacantists and anti-sedevacantists, sedevacantists are able to argue from the actual words of the Conciliar popes before and after their elections while anti-sedevacantists must find nuances in those very words to demonstrate that they don't mean what they say.
As I said, just an interesting observation.
Are you absolutely certain of this, Teles? Have you thoroughly checked this out?
-
Does anyone have the book "No Crisis in the Church?"? (I put 2 question marks because the title of the book ends with a question mark.)
This book was written by Simon Galloway and is actually a compilation of quotes by the Popes of the Vatican 2 era compared with quotes from past Popes. It is organized in chapters according to different topics and I believe there is a chapter on the Ressurection of the Body.
I read it a couple of years ago but loaned my copy out and haven't seen it since. I have been trying to locate a used copy but greedy people on Amazon are trying to get $72.95 for one!!
If anyone has a copy, would you mind looking to see if there is a chapter on the ressurection of the body? Thanks much.
-
I would need more than a group of quotes taken out of context.
Forgive me, but on more than one occasion, I have found out that I can't rely on what others have written without verifying both their sources and the texts themselves.
-
He has never publicly retracted this theory and he has caused the book to be re-published without the errors being corrected just prior to his election and it is still in print.
Your arguments that this is merely a decades old "fuzzy theory" that he really doesn't believe anymore is without foundation. Frankly, had he not been elected to the Conciliar papacy, I doubt but very few people would ever had read the book and discovered many of the heresies (that even Protestants can recognize) that it contains.
Yes, the "new and improved" Catechism does seem to teach the true doctrine on the resurrection. Since, as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Ratzinger would have had a hand in approving the text, and causing the publication of both the Cathecism and his Catechism, then one must wonder if he believes both doctrines can be true. This only leads one to conclude (though not definitively) that he believes that two mutually exclusive doctrines can be both be true.
Yes, this was what I was asking from the beginning.
If this was something indeed that the Pope no longer believes, could he not say (in ambiguous terms as is his custom) that his "understanding had evolved"?
Or could he not have written the text before it was republished?
It's very confusing to me, in many ways, and I am wondering, then, how it might be possible to turn the ship around so to speak if the Pope is either unwilling to correct himself or holding theological beliefs that are ambiguous and/or contrary to the Church herself.
-
...In the end it seems that he posited a fuzzy theory on this point decades ago. Since then even the New Catechism restated the Traditional understanding.
I don't see how a personal theory decades ago on the meaning of what resurrection of the body means = he doesn't believe in the resurrection and is not Pope...
He has never publicly retracted this theory and he has caused the book to be re-published without the errors being corrected just prior to his election and it is still in print.
Your arguments that this is merely a decades old "fuzzy theory" that he really doesn't believe anymore is without foundation. Frankly, had he not been elected to the Conciliar papacy, I doubt but very few people would ever had read the book and discovered many of the heresies (that even Protestants can recognize) that it contains.
Yes, the "new and improved" Catechism does seem to teach the true doctrine on the resurrection. Since, as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Ratzinger would have had a hand in approving the text, and causing the publication of both the Cathecism and his Catechism, then one must wonder if he believes both doctrines can be true. This only leads one to conclude (though not definitively) that he believes that two mutually exclusive doctrines can be both be true.
Over the past few years, I have made the following interesting observations:
1. In arguments between Catholics and self-professed non-Catholics, Catholics are able to argue from historical facts and the actual words of Scripture, while non-Catholics must find nuances in history and Scripture to make their case.
2. In arguments between traditional Catholics and Conciliar Catholics, traditional Catholics are able to argue from historical facts and the actual words of popes, Councils (sometimes even Vatican II), and theologians over the centuries while Conciliar Catholics must ignore or find nuances in historical facts and the writings of popes, Councils, and theologians and base all their arguments only from writings after circa 1960.
3. In arguments between sedevacantists and anti-sedevacantists, sedevacantists are able to argue from the actual words of the Conciliar popes before and after their elections while anti-sedevacantists must find nuances in those very words to demonstrate that they don't mean what they say.
As I said, just an interesting observation.
Are you absolutely certain of this, Teles? Have you thoroughly checked this out?
You are asking me to prove a negative. This is impossible. I have demonstrated that he has made the heretical declarations and I have demonstrated that these declarations have been republished just prior to his election as pope. Yes. I am absolutely sure that this heresy is still being propagated under his name and until these heresies are stopped being published under his name he is NOT recanting.
If you or anyone else can demonstrate that the book is being published without his permission and Ignatius Press is violated copyright laws to do so and that he has made a public declaration that this was heresy and he does not believe it, then there is nothing more to "check out".
By the way, who is "Teles"?
-
...In the end it seems that he posited a fuzzy theory on this point decades ago. Since then even the New Catechism restated the Traditional understanding.
I don't see how a personal theory decades ago on the meaning of what resurrection of the body means = he doesn't believe in the resurrection and is not Pope...
He has never publicly retracted this theory and he has caused the book to be re-published without the errors being corrected just prior to his election and it is still in print.
Your arguments that this is merely a decades old "fuzzy theory" that he really doesn't believe anymore is without foundation. Frankly, had he not been elected to the Conciliar papacy, I doubt but very few people would ever had read the book and discovered many of the heresies (that even Protestants can recognize) that it contains.
Yes, the "new and improved" Catechism does seem to teach the true doctrine on the resurrection. Since, as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Ratzinger would have had a hand in approving the text, and causing the publication of both the Cathecism and his Catechism, then one must wonder if he believes both doctrines can be true. This only leads one to conclude (though not definitively) that he believes that two mutually exclusive doctrines can be both be true.
Over the past few years, I have made the following interesting observations:
1. In arguments between Catholics and self-professed non-Catholics, Catholics are able to argue from historical facts and the actual words of Scripture, while non-Catholics must find nuances in history and Scripture to make their case.
2. In arguments between traditional Catholics and Conciliar Catholics, traditional Catholics are able to argue from historical facts and the actual words of popes, Councils (sometimes even Vatican II), and theologians over the centuries while Conciliar Catholics must ignore or find nuances in historical facts and the writings of popes, Councils, and theologians and base all their arguments only from writings after circa 1960.
3. In arguments between sedevacantists and anti-sedevacantists, sedevacantists are able to argue from the actual words of the Conciliar popes before and after their elections while anti-sedevacantists must find nuances in those very words to demonstrate that they don't mean what they say.
As I said, just an interesting observation.
Are you absolutely certain of this, Teles? Have you thoroughly checked this out?
You are asking me to prove a negative. This is impossible. I have demonstrated that he has made the heretical declarations and I have demonstrated that these declarations have been republished just prior to his election as pope. Yes. I am absolutely sure that this heresy is still being propagated under his name and until these heresies are stopped being published under his name he is NOT recanting.
If you or anyone else can demonstrate that the book is being published without his permission and Ignatius Press is violated copyright laws to do so and that he has made a public declaration that this was heresy and he does not believe it, then there is nothing more to "check out".
By the way, who is "Teles"?
Bring yourself down a couple of pegs, please. You are talking to someone of average intelligence now. And, beg millions of pardons for calling you by the wrong name. Mea culpa! Mea maxima culpa!!
Save the theological stuff for your friends. I am asking you if you are certain that Benedict XVI does not believe in the resurrection of the body. I am asking you if you are certain that this is how he thinks.
-
Bring yourself down a couple of pegs, please. You are talking to someone of average intelligence now. And, beg millions of pardons for calling you by the wrong name. Mea culpa! Mea maxima culpa!!
Save the theological stuff for your friends. I am asking you if you are certain that Benedict XVI does not believe in the resurrection of the body. I am asking you if you are certain that this is how he thinks.
Please understand that I answered with no "theological stuff". I am exactly what you are, a person of average intelligence. No one can, obviously, be certain that any human being believes or does not believe anything. Only God can truly know what is in each man's heart.
The simple faithful, on the other hand, can only go by what others tell us of themselves. If a person claims to believe in a particular doctrine, one should assume that that person believes in a particular doctrine until that person changes his mind and tells us so. This is not "judging" that person, it is merely taking a person at his word.
When it comes to religious matters, Catholics must determine if a person is Catholic when deciding whether or not to allow him to teach us the True Faith. A Catholic should not, for example, seek a better understanding of the True Faith from the Moslem Imam at the Mosque down the road or the Rabbi across town. Nor should a Catholic seek out the Jehovah Witness temple, the Baptist church, or the Masonic hall for spiritual guidance. Thus, if a person, even if he says he's Catholic, declares his rejection of a matter that is fundamental to the Faith, he must be regarded as a non-Catholic unless or until he changes his declaration.
As for Benedict XVI specifically, all I know for certain is that his book, Introduction to Christianity contains heretical doctrines that any first grade Catholic child who has been taught with a genuine catechism would know to be heretical. I know for certain that the book was republished a year before his election. I know for certain that it is still in print. I do not know for certain if he, personally, still believes in these heresies; but that is not relevant to this particular discussion.
As for the name issue, I really was not sure if you thought I was someone else you know and wanted to make sure we were discussing the same thing.
-
Thank you. I understand what you have written.
Does giving him (Benedict) the benefit of the doubt work here?
-
TKGS, do you or anyone else here know of a traditional source that has written about this particular book? I have tried to google it but have found nothing so far.
-
Bring yourself down a couple of pegs, please. You are talking to someone of average intelligence now. And, beg millions of pardons for calling you by the wrong name. Mea culpa! Mea maxima culpa!!
Save the theological stuff for your friends. I am asking you if you are certain that Benedict XVI does not believe in the resurrection of the body. I am asking you if you are certain that this is how he thinks.
Please understand that I answered with no "theological stuff". I am exactly what you are, a person of average intelligence. No one can, obviously, be certain that any human being believes or does not believe anything. Only God can truly know what is in each man's heart.
The simple faithful, on the other hand, can only go by what others tell us of themselves. If a person claims to believe in a particular doctrine, one should assume that that person believes in a particular doctrine until that person changes his mind and tells us so. This is not "judging" that person, it is merely taking a person at his word.
When it comes to religious matters, Catholics must determine if a person is Catholic when deciding whether or not to allow him to teach us the True Faith. A Catholic should not, for example, seek a better understanding of the True Faith from the Moslem Imam at the Mosque down the road or the Rabbi across town. Nor should a Catholic seek out the Jehovah Witness temple, the Baptist church, or the Masonic hall for spiritual guidance. Thus, if a person, even if he says he's Catholic, declares his rejection of a matter that is fundamental to the Faith, he must be regarded as a non-Catholic unless or until he changes his declaration.
As for Benedict XVI specifically, all I know for certain is that his book, Introduction to Christianity contains heretical doctrines that any first grade Catholic child who has been taught with a genuine catechism would know to be heretical. I know for certain that the book was republished a year before his election. I know for certain that it is still in print. I do not know for certain if he, personally, still believes in these heresies; but that is not relevant to this particular discussion.
As for the name issue, I really was not sure if you thought I was someone else you know and wanted to make sure we were discussing the same thing.
I am sure if he denied his thinking or had a change of heart. we would have heard about it because it would have made the world news. Anytime the "pope" says something Catholic, it makes the world news.
-
I am sure if he denied his thinking or had a change of heart. we would have heard about it because it would have made the world news. Anytime the "pope" says something Catholic, it makes the world news.
No, that is not true. Everything he says and does and writes makes world news. Maybe it is that your ears don't perk up until you hear something Catholic! :wink:
-
Thank you. I understand what you have written.
Does giving him (Benedict) the benefit of the doubt work here?
If there was something to doubt, I woiuld be the first one in line to give him the benefit. I just don't know what one can reasonably doubt here. If I were a juror at a trial and the prosecution plays the video of the defendant confessing to the crime and giving details only the perpetrator would have know, should I give him the benefit of the doubt because his mother also testified that he's really a good kid and would never have committed the crime? Perhaps, if the book had not been re-published in 2005 and not currently in print there might be some way to give that benefit of doubt.
By the way, I have read parts of this book (not just excerpts, but whole chapters). The quotes are, if memory serves me, accurate. I don't really know what audience the book was intended for because I found it very difficult to read, which is why I did not read it through, though I did read these passages which were given to me prior to getting it from the library. I've not read specificly traditional Catholic critique of the book.
MyrnaM is very correct. For many years, whenever the Conciliar popes have said something really Catholic that would never be said by a non-Catholic it seems to make world news headlines.
-
Thank you. I understand what you have written.
Does giving him (Benedict) the benefit of the doubt work here?
If there was something to doubt, I woiuld be the first one in line to give him the benefit. I just don't know what one can reasonably doubt here. If I were a juror at a trial and the prosecution plays the video of the defendant confessing to the crime and giving details only the perpetrator would have know, should I give him the benefit of the doubt because his mother also testified that he's really a good kid and would never have committed the crime? Perhaps, if the book had not been re-published in 2005 and not currently in print there might be some way to give that benefit of doubt.
By the way, I have read parts of this book (not just excerpts, but whole chapters). The quotes are, if memory serves me, accurate. I don't really know what audience the book was intended for because I found it very difficult to read, which is why I did not read it through, though I did read these passages which were given to me prior to getting it from the library. I've not read specificly traditional Catholic critique of the book.
MyrnaM is very correct. For many years, whenever the Conciliar popes have said something really Catholic that would never be said by a non-Catholic it seems to make world news headlines.
I did some looking around and found this little gem on a protestant site on this book:
It is alarming to think of the extent of the heresies held by those who have authority within the bounds of Rome if Ratzinger is to be considered conservative.
[/b]
Here's the link to the site: http://www.banneroftruth.co.uk/pages/articles/article_detail.php?1820
I haven't read the book. In fact, it is very hard for me to read anything written by either JPII or Benedict because I have absolutely no idea what they are saying.
-
I am sure if he denied his thinking or had a change of heart. we would have heard about it because it would have made the world news. Anytime the "pope" says something Catholic, it makes the world news.
No, that is not true. Everything he says and does and writes makes world news. Maybe it is that your ears don't perk up until you hear something Catholic! :wink:
I think you misunderstand what is meant here. Furthermore, it is what you said here is what is not really true.
Just about everything that Benedict says or does makes world news--but only in various organs of the Conciliar Catholic press. What MrynaM meant by her words (and she should correct me if I'm wrong), which is what I was intending, is that anytime Benedict XVI says something uniquely Catholic, it makes the headlines even in the secular press. The fellow at the shoe store in the Mall who only half pays attention to the half hour network broadcast two or three times a week knows about what he said. If, on the other hand, he says nothing uniquely Catholic, only those tuned into Catholic news sources know anything about it.
I am somewhat a "news junkie". I listen to news radio and watch more cable news than anything else. I also pay attention to news reported on a couple of traditional Catholic forums such as this one. (I don't get much other news on the internet as many news websites don't really come across well on my slow internet connection). When it comes to hearing about Catholic news, I'm pretty much "tuned in."
One virtually never hears anything about Benedict's weekly audiences from the Vatican. They don't make news. In fact, his recent state visit to England barely made the news and even then the only thing I saw reported was the fact of the trip. He had been in England a couple of days before the secular news even noted that fact and they did so because he had an audience with the Queen. Frankly, it was a news story about the Queen, not Benedict! I don't remember hearing anything on the secular news about anything Benedict actually said.
On the other hand, use your imagination and imagine that when Benedict met with the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury, he unambiguously reaffirmed Catholic doctrine of the invalidity of Anglican orders and called upon all Anglicans to repent of their heresies and their schisms, and return to the fold of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Roman Church outside of which there is no salvation. THAT would have made the news everywhere. You could not meet anyone at the grocery story who would had not have heard about it. But back to reality.
As it was, he apparently said nothing remarkable. I don't remember hearing about anything he said, only the things he did: He met with the Anglican archbishop, warmly greeted an Anglican priestess, prayed Vespers in common with Anglican clergy, and met the Queen. I'm afraid that he did not make world news in Britain and it's not just because my ears didn't perk up.
-
There are those who will not believe that he who does not believe, does, in fact, NOT believe :)
"Dust...ciao, babe..."
MOVE ON :)
Good advice!
-
I'll probably get banned for asking this question, but here goes.
How can some still believe he is a true pope?
for all practical purposes, as it touches our traditional Catholic faith and worship, what does it matter? If we knew for a fact that he was not the pope, does the crisis suddenly go away? Our daily Catholic existence, the manner in which we worship, our prayers, our service and care of others, our Rosaries, our Sacramental life, in short, all that we experience and do as Catholics is hardly changed, is it? Again, if we firmly believe that Benedict is the pope of record, the same applies. I note only a couple of real differences between trads who believe B16 is pope and those that don't. The former, during Mass, pray all of the Te igitur. The latter do not. The former pray for B16. The latter do not. Isn't that it in a nutshell?
-
I'll probably get banned for asking this question, but here goes.
How can some still believe he is a true pope?
for all practical purposes, as it touches our traditional Catholic faith and worship, what does it matter? If we knew for a fact that he was not the pope, does the crisis suddenly go away? Our daily Catholic existence, the manner in which we worship, our prayers, our service and care of others, our Rosaries, our Sacramental life, in short, all that we experience and do as Catholics is hardly changed, is it? Again, if we firmly believe that Benedict is the pope of record, the same applies. I note only a couple of real differences between trads who believe B16 is pope and those that don't. The former, during Mass, pray all of the Te igitur. The latter do not. The former pray for B16. The latter do not. Isn't that it in a nutshell?
I do understand how people can believe he is the pope. In fact I am surprised how some sedes who used to believe in the legitimacy of him and/or and his immediate predecessors, can't understand how others can still believe he is a true pope.
Maybe they think it is so clear for all to see nowadays, unlike in the past.
But hollingsworth1, if all traditional Catholics knew for a fact that he was not the pope, do you really think everyone would act the same? -- Rosary Crusades undertaken to be presented to the non-pope? -- Discussions/negotations with the non-pope? Etc etc.
If everyone knew he was not a pope would they pray for him as pope at Mass and otherwise?
And if enough or all Catholics in the world knew he was not a pope, wouldn't he get removed from his position of illegitimate pope? Or if the power was lacking, wouldn't he at least be discarded and ignored?
Wouldn't the Catholic world refuse to put up with his Modernist heresies and deceits?
Wouldn't a real pope be voted in who would begin at once to end the crisis and restore all things in Christ?
Maybe there are very good reasons why sedes want to spread the word. It could lead to a real restoration, rather than another cunning Modernist ploy designed to deceive the elect.
-
Well said Hollingsworth. My thoughts exactly.
-
Maybe there are very good reasons why sedes want to spread the word.
[/b]
If they could. But the rest of the "Church" has pretty much ruined their reputations by repeatedly calling them names such as "stupid sedes", "empty headed sedes", "insane sedes" - you get the picture. They have discredited them so no one will even pay attention to what they have to say.
-
No, Alexandria have faith. We speak the truth and I have no fears because of that fact. Did Athanasius, or St. Thomas More, or St. John Fisher loose credibility? No, they did not the heretics around them are suffering in hell. And, the jacknapes who brayed around those heretics pretending to hold the true faith all the while dilly dallying with the heretics are most likely right next to them.
-
No, Alexandria have faith. We speak the truth and I have no fears because of that fact. Did Athanasius, or St. Thomas More, or St. John Fisher loose credibility? No, they did not the heretics around them are suffering in hell. And, the jacknapes who brayed around those heretics pretending to hold the true faith all the while dilly dallying with the heretics are most likely right next to them.
I don't think I made myself clear.
They have killed the messenger so that no one will listen to the message. Do you have any idea of how sedevacantists are derided continuously both inside and outside the church?
No can can write an article about them without getting in countless jibes. Funny thing about that, they lose me at that point. And I am sure I am not the only one that they lose. If they have to resort to personal insults to win their point, they haven't anything of worth to offer as far as I am concerned.
-
No, Alexandria have faith. We speak the truth and I have no fears because of that fact. Did Athanasius, or St. Thomas More, or St. John Fisher loose credibility? No, they did not the heretics around them are suffering in hell. And, the jacknapes who brayed around those heretics pretending to hold the true faith all the while dilly dallying with the heretics are most likely right next to them.
I don't think I made myself clear.
They have killed the messenger so that no one will listen to the message. Do you have any idea of how sedevacantists are derided continuously both inside and outside the church?
No can can write an article about them without getting in countless jibes. Funny thing about that, they lose me at that point. And I am sure I am not the only one that they lose. If they have to resort to personal insults to win their point, they haven't anything of worth to offer as far as I am concerned.
Proving even moreso the sedevacantist position is the correct one, just as Our Lord was called horrible names and mistreated so too, will be the sede. It doesn't bother me one bit what they say, because in the end everyone will know that the VII popes were enemies and therefore can not be a Vicar of Christ. They are no kind of pope, including anti unless you refer to them as anti-Christ. Since they are against Christ.
Also the Diamond brothers and Feenyites are nothing but the devils tools. Don't be influenced by their errors. The Church has spoken some time ago on things they tend to disagree with.
-
True Myrna.
If there is one thing that they are in agreement on, it is their disdain for sedevacantists.
-
Yes I see know Alexandria. Hateful speech against sedes and that is fine everyone hop on board and attack (where is Raoul anyhow? How is it he was never allowed back on while Pope Augustine can still post?)
Speculate on Christ and whether he was capable of sin and if not nothing counts that he did and all those other blasphemies in the Qualities of Christ thread and nobody threatens you.
-
Maybe there are very good reasons why sedes want to spread the word.
[/b]
If they could. But the rest of the "Church" has pretty much ruined their reputations by repeatedly calling them names such as "stupid sedes", "empty headed sedes", "insane sedes" - you get the picture. They have discredited them so no one will even pay attention to what they have to say.
The most outspoken "sedes" have done a pretty good job on their own reputations by their own actions. They are simply not taken seriously in traditionalist circles.
-
Maybe there are very good reasons why sedes want to spread the word.
[/b]
If they could. But the rest of the "Church" has pretty much ruined their reputations by repeatedly calling them names such as "stupid sedes", "empty headed sedes", "insane sedes" - you get the picture. They have discredited them so no one will even pay attention to what they have to say.
The most outspoken "sedes" have done a pretty good job on their own reputations by their own actions. They are simply not taken seriously in traditionalist circles.
And? What do you conclude from this SJB?
-
I know who is is referring too Cekada and Dolan. But, I think Alexandria you are talking more about laypersons. And, then maybe I am wrong there. I do not see C&D posting here
-
I guess I have to clarify everything I write from now on. Like Myrna said, put a disclaimer on everything. :tinfoil:
This is what I meant.
The sedes are an easy target for everyone else. Also, whenever I have read what is purportedly a rebuttal of sedevacantism, it is never written without adding a personal insult or ten. Is it necessary to ridicule the sedevacantists to prove their point? Do they really think that they can reclaim sedes for the church with insults and ridicule? Is this any way to win a soul? These articles can't be written in order to convert the sedes back to the church since I find it hard to believe that these people are that ignorant to think that insults and barbs will achieve that goal.
-
Maybe there are very good reasons why sedes want to spread the word.
[/b]
If they could. But the rest of the "Church" has pretty much ruined their reputations by repeatedly calling them names such as "stupid sedes", "empty headed sedes", "insane sedes" - you get the picture. They have discredited them so no one will even pay attention to what they have to say.
The most outspoken "sedes" have done a pretty good job on their own reputations by their own actions. They are simply not taken seriously in traditionalist circles.
And yet, others can destroy their "Catholic" reputation by praying to Allah in a Mosque, praying in common with heretic Anglicans, publicly esteeming modern Jєωs and declaring that their wait for the Messiah is not in vane, receive blessing from Pagan priests, and still those same "traditionalist circles" take them dead seriously.
These are indeed interesting times.
-
:applause:
-
I guess I have to clarify everything I write from now on. Like Myrna said, put a disclaimer on everything. :tinfoil:
This is what I meant.
The sedes are an easy target for everyone else. Also, whenever I have read what is purportedly a rebuttal of sedevacantism, it is never written without adding a personal insult or ten. Is it necessary to ridicule the sedevacantists to prove their point? Do they really think that they can reclaim sedes for the church with insults and ridicule? Is this any way to win a soul? These articles can't be written in order to convert the sedes back to the church since I find it hard to believe that these people are that ignorant to think that insults and barbs will achieve that goal.
You know that ooe of the things that really helped me make a firm decision was when I subscribed to the Remnant. Now, Christopher Ferrere did his article attacking the enterprise. And, like most who attack sedevacantism his was dripping with venom and snide comments. When I compared that to sede I knew back then, like Eamon Shea who really is the most patient man I know with all of us, it really tilted me to stop waffling and be firm in my belief that there is no Pope.
It is true that anyone I have ever met who attacks sedes can not do it without sounding like a wolf with rabies. Really, makes you wonder if we are so wrong-headed why not ignore us. We surely must not be worth the bother.
-
I guess I have to clarify everything I write from now on. Like Myrna said, put a disclaimer on everything. :tinfoil:
This is what I meant.
The sedes are an easy target for everyone else. Also, whenever I have read what is purportedly a rebuttal of sedevacantism, it is never written without adding a personal insult or ten. Is it necessary to ridicule the sedevacantists to prove their point? Do they really think that they can reclaim sedes for the church with insults and ridicule? Is this any way to win a soul? These articles can't be written in order to convert the sedes back to the church since I find it hard to believe that these people are that ignorant to think that insults and barbs will achieve that goal.
You know that ooe of the things that really helped me make a firm decision was when I subscribed to the Remnant. Now, Christopher Ferrere did his article attacking the enterprise. And, like most who attack sedevacantism his was dripping with venom and snide comments. When I compared that to sede I knew back then, like Eamon Shea who really is the most patient man I know with all of us, it really tilted me to stop waffling and be firm in my belief that there is no Pope.
It is true that anyone I have ever met who attacks sedes can not do it without sounding like a wolf with rabies. Really, makes you wonder if we are so wrong-headed why not ignore us. We surely must not be worth the bother.
I agree. The Remnant is famous for that. Now they have added John Salza. And what does he do in his first anti-sede article? He is the one that used the phrase "empty headed sedes"!
If anything makes me think that the sedevacantists are correct, it is the treatment they receive.
-
Ah, yes, the "former" Mason John Salza. How high was this guy? I think pretty high and now we are supposed to believe one day he went to the Grand PooBah and said, ya know what? I am leaving the Masons and going to defend the Catholic Faith and they said. Wow, John how fantastic is that. sure you are free to go with no repercussions.
-
Alexandria this you will like:
COMMENTS OF FATHER STEPANICH ON GRUNER-FERRARA ANTI-SEDEVACANTST STANCE. (Father Stepanich holds a doctorate in sacred theology and was formerly a professor of theology in a Franciscan seminary.)
Dear Father Gruner:
You are accustomed to sending out frequent encyclical-like letters of exhortation and appeal with the ones coming to my address having “Dear Father Stepanich” personal touches to them.
Here in return is a special “dear Father Gruner” letter, it also having a personal touch to it. To make things plain to you right from the start, this letter has a personal message for you, a message that you cannot afford to ignore. If correction is something that does no exactly appeal to you as a world-renowned celebrity, especially when coming from a 90-year-old nobody, just fasten your seat belt…, Tolle! Lege! Take and read!
In the summer 2005 issue of The Fatima Crusader, you treat readers with the misnamed article “Defend your salvation,” an article that in no way defends anyone’s salvation. If anything, the artidloe endangers the salvation of souls, because it fails to present to them the true picture of the situation in the Church when a public heretic occupies the Chair of Peter. All that your article does I to defend your mistaken notions in regard to Sede-vacantism. A more accurate title would read: “Defend Anti-Sedevacantism.”
What greatly aggrevates an already bad situation is that the other article in the same issue of The Fatima Crusader, the article brashly entitled “defending the Papacy.” That article is very plainly an ill-advised Defense of the Presence of a Public Heretic in Peter’s Chair. It’s title should in all honesty read accordingly, that is, “Defending A Public Heretic on the Chair of the Papacy.”
Sooner or later, Father Gruner, you will with embarrassment regret giving space to an article like Ferrara’s in Our Lady’s Review. Have you considered changing the title to that review to The Anti-Sedevacantist Crusader?
Curiously enough, the Ferrara article showed up also in The Catholic Family News, but with a different title, the unimaginative title “Opposing the Sede-vacantist Enterprise.” But, whatever title the Anti-sedevacantists dream up for that Ferrara article, it does not deserve to be printed in any genuine traditional Catholic publication.
Father Gruner, your outstanding and well-deserved merit for so many long years has come from your courageous promotion and defense of God’s Fatima Message, given to the world thro0ugh Our Lady and the Angel of Fatima. Why, then, have you now gone out onto the dangerous anti-sedevantist limb where you don‘t belong? As it is, that limb was already weighed down heavily by such heavyweight anti-sedevantists as Vennari, Matt and Guimaraes and Kramer and the official SSPX
Although it has been well-known for years that you are, in practice, an incorrigible anti-sedevacantist, acknowledging as you have long done, the Vatican II Ecuмenical and religious-mixing “popes’ as being real Catholic popes, why do you now have to pose as somewhat of an authority on Sede-vacantism, while neglecting to make clear just what sedevacantism really is, in its full and correct meaning?
Just how confused and one-sided your thinking is on sedevacantism is glaringly evident in the first sub-title in your article which reads: “The ‘Sede-vacantist’ Theory is False.” There you come up with a categorical and blatantly untruthful declaration that sede-vacantism is nothing more than a “theory” when it is in reality an undeniable fact in all its three meanings.
Father Gruner, you had the chance to explain to readers in what ways the Chair of Peter can become vacant, and actually has become vacant many times. There are three instances in which Peter’s Papal Chair can become vacant, and non one should have to tell you what those three instances are, but since you did not do the necessary explaining, let us do it for you.
You presumably agree that when a pope dies, the Chair of Peter becomes vacant. This is an undeniable fact, wouldn’t you say? It’s not just a “theory,” is it? It isn’t just an “enterprise” that anti-sedevacantists oppose, is it?
The plain fact is, as you well know, that the vacancy of Peter’s Chair caused by the death of a pope is sedevacantism in all its undeniable reality. It is the first of three instances.
The second instance in which the Papal Chair becomes vacant is when a pope resigns from the papacy. That is what Pope St. Celestine V did in 1294. He resigned. Do you agree that here you have sede-vacantism again, in all its undeniable reality? You wouldn’t say that it only a “theory” that resignation by a pope causes vacancy of Peter’s Chair, would you?
The third instance in which the Chair of Peter shows up to be vacant is when it is occupied by a public heretic and mixer of religions.
Believe it or not, it is consideration of this third instance of the vacancy of Peter’s Chair that brings about a complete spin-around of the minds of anti-sedevacantists. They simply ignore the first two instances of vacancy of that Chair, as if they were not undeniable instances of Sedevacantism. All that the word Sedevacantism means to them is the vacancy of Peter’s Chair caused by public heresy – and that is the kind of Sedevacantism they vehemently reject, with pertinacy and obstinacy.
Father Gruner, let’s make things perfectly clear right here. To Sedevacantists the central and unquestionable issue in all this is the true and unchanged Catholic Faith.
To Sedevacantists, a true Catholic Pope is one who professes and teaches and defends any mixing with other so-called “Faiths” or religions.
Have you ever heard any anti-Sedevacantist saying it as definitely and clearly as that?
What you have heard, over and over again, and what you yourself keep saying, is that the Vatican II occupants of the Chair of Peter, despite being the public and scandalous heretics that you have long known hem to be,
For anti-Sedevacantists, that is the central issue in their wrong-way opposition to Sedevacantists.
And what, Father Gruner, are the rationalizations of Anti-Sedevacantists use when insisting that Vatican II heretics o the Chair of Peter have all been legitimate Catholic Popes?
One of the favorite rationalizations of Anti-Sedevacantists is “Don’t Judge the Pope!” In that not too careful judgment of Sedevacantists, you make them look as though they judge genuine Catholic Popes who profess the true and unchanged Catholic Faith of all times. To be truthful and accurate about this matter of “Judging the Pope”, you know you would have to accuse Sedevacantists of judging an occupant of the Chair of Peter who does not profess the traditional and unchanged Catholic Faith, while the Anti-Sedevacantists wrongly imagine such a man to be a real Catholic Pope, despite what he does and teaches that is contrary to the Catholic Faith.
You anti-sedevacantists carelessly make it look as if any and all judgments about a pope are automatically wrong. No one needs to tell you that God gave men in general the ability to judge between right and wrong, good and evil, virtue and vice, truth and error. You also know that, with the gift of the Catholic Faith, God gave us the ability to judge the difference between what is in accord with the Catholic Faith and what is contrary to the Catholic Faith.
You also know very well that we are obliged to profess the Catholic Faith fully without holding back, and state frankly what we see to be contrary to that Faith, even in one who sits on the Chair of Peter. Anti-sedevacantists, to their shame, hold back on professing the faith fully when they refuse to declare that the Vatican II occupants of Peter’s Chair have been professing a new, ecuмenical and un-Catholic religion, and cannot therefore possibly be even Catholics, much less Catholic Popes.
As you can plainly see, Father Gruner, your “Don’t judge the Pope” argument is a dead argument, useless in defense of anti-sedevacantism.
Another dead argument of anti-sedevacantists is the “visble church” argument. For anti-sedevacantists, the visibility of the church requires that someone must occupy the Chair of Peter, even if he be a public heretic and mixer or religions.
The truth is that Our Lord did indeed establish His Church as a visible Church, but what anti-sedevacantists don’t tell you is that His visible Church is one that professes and practices the unchanged one and only true Catholic Faith.
No one should need to remind you that Protestant churches, Jєωιѕн ѕуηαgσgυє, Hindu temples and Moslem mosques are all highly visible. But of what use is that kind of visibility if the one and only True Faith is missing in such places?
A public heretic and mixer of religions on the Chair of Peter is also highly visible. But of what use is his kind of visibility for the salvation of men if he does not profess nor practice the traditional and unchanged Catholic Faith?
Still another dead argument of anti-sedevacantists is the mistaken notion that the Church would stop existing if the Chair of Peter remained unoccupied for an extralong period of time. So, supposedly, in order to safeguard the Church’s continued existence, anti-sedevacantists strangely insist that even a scandalous public heretic on the Chair of Peter must be recognized a legitimate Catholic Pope, just so the Papal Chair does not remain vacant for too long a time.
Father Gruner, who decides when the Chair of Peter has been vacant for too long a time for the Church to keep existing? Are the anti-sedevacantists the ones to decide this?
The fact is, Father Gruner, that men cannot destroy the Church. Men cannot make the Church stop existing. To use the technical term, men cannot destroy the indefectibility of the Church. The most that men can do is to help destroy the faith of the individual members of the Church, even to the point – as you yourself admit – that there would remain only a “remnant” of those faithful to Our Lord. Wherever the True Faith would still be professed and practiced, even if there were no Pope on the Chair of Peter, that is where the essential nucleus of the True Church would be.
No matter how long the Chair of Peter may remain vacant, and no matter how may fall away from Our Lord’s Church, nothing can possibly prevent God from restoring His True Church and the True Faith, nor, in fact, can anything prevent God from even raising up new members “from the very stones” if He so willed.
When Our Lord promised, “I will be with you all days…,” He surely meant that He would be with those professing the traditional and unchanged Catholic Faith. He could not possibly have promised to be with a public heretic and mixer of religions occupying Peter’s Chair, as if acknowledging such a one to be a genuine Catholic Pope.
It isn’t Our Lord, but the anti-sedevacantists who unthinkingly insist that a public heretic on Peter’s Chair is “still the Pope.” To anti-sedevacantists, he may still be the “Pope” and dress like a Pope, but he cannot possibly be a genuine Catholic Pope. Such a “Pope” is really nothing but the “Our kind of Pope” that the Freemasons were dreaming about long, long ago, and, in fact, actually predicted that the day would come when “our kind of Pope” would occupy the Chair of Peter.
Anti-sedevacantists get themselves tangled up talking about a “Formal” Pope and a “Material” Pope. By a “Formal” Pope they presumably mean a genuine Catholic Pope. But what in the world is a “Material” Pope? If the man on Peter’s Chair is not a true Catholic Pope, then he simply is not a Pope, period! The only place you could be sure to find a “Material” Pope is in a coffin.
Anti-Sedevacantists also like to refer to a heretic “Pope” as “The Holy Father.” What do they now call him, seeing that he addresses them as “Dear brothers and sisters”? Shouldn’t they call him “the Holy Brother”?
Father Gruner, if hyou have the idea that sedevacantists are obstructing or delaying the consecration of Russia to Mary’ Immaculate Heart by a Pope, that is nothing but a slanderous misjudgment on your part. Our Lady could not possibly have asked for Russia’s consecration to e done by a public heretic and mixer of religions, who himself needs conversion to the true Catholic Faith, one who does the scandalous things that you complain about while still calling him “the Pope”.
But enough is enough! All the foregoing is more than enough to give you a chance to know and understand the real sedevacantist position on the Vatical II occupants of the Chair of Peter, something that your readers of The Fatima Crusader will not get the chance to do.
Father Gruner, if you are still there reading this “Dear Father Gruner” letter, maybe you might welcome th recommendation that you andyour devoted ollowers frequently recite the following prayer attributed to Our Lady in The Mystical City of God (Coronation Volume, page 244): “I ask, O my Son, that Thou look upon the affliction of thy Church and that, like a loving Father, Thou hasten the relief of Thy children engendered by Thy most Precious Blood.”
Dated August l6, 2005 and signed by Father Martin Stepanich, O.F.M., S.T.D.
-
Ah, yes, the "former" Mason John Salza. How high was this guy? I think pretty high and now we are supposed to believe one day he went to the Grand PooBah and said, ya know what? I am leaving the Masons and going to defend the Catholic Faith and they said. Wow, John how fantastic is that. sure you are free to go with no repercussions.
My thoughts exactly and the two traditional newspapers scooped him right up. Not only that, but he sure did become an expert on everything in record time.
-
Yes, this is a very good article. Even if Fr. Gruner in his heart knows that Fr. Stepanich is right, it takes money to run his "Fatima enterprise" and money is, most unfortunately, the bottom line for many.
John Salza was a 32nd degree mason I think. I would have to check that to make certain.
But what, many of you may ask, has this to do with Benedict and the resurrection of the body? Why, nothing! :sign-thread-hijacked: :tinfoil:
-
Ah, yes, the "former" Mason John Salza. How high was this guy? I think pretty high and now we are supposed to believe one day he went to the Grand PooBah and said, ya know what? I am leaving the Masons and going to defend the Catholic Faith and they said. Wow, John how fantastic is that. sure you are free to go with no repercussions.
My thoughts exactly and the two traditional newspapers scooped him right up. Not only that, but he sure did become an expert on everything in record time.
Not speaking about you two, but me thinks we have some of those types right here on this forum. Seemingly experts in all Catholic doctrine but always instilling doubt in a very clever mo.
-
Yes sorry for the thread hijacking. However, I must point out that even knowing that Benedict held this heresy as recently as 2004 and has never abjured his error in any way, It is interesting that more have not come to our side. Like I said. You either hold the faith 100% or you do not. You are for Christ 100% or not. Your choice people
-
Ah, yes, the "former" Mason John Salza. How high was this guy? I think pretty high and now we are supposed to believe one day he went to the Grand PooBah and said, ya know what? I am leaving the Masons and going to defend the Catholic Faith and they said. Wow, John how fantastic is that. sure you are free to go with no repercussions.
My thoughts exactly and the two traditional newspapers scooped him right up. Not only that, but he sure did become an expert on everything in record time.
Not speaking about you two, but me thinks we have some of those types right here on this forum. Seemingly experts in all Catholic doctrine but always instilling doubt in a very clever mo.
I know that you said you weren't speaking about us, but if I happen to instill any doubts in anyone's mind, it is not intentionally done to trip anyone up. Being quite confused myself, I often use this board to try to straighten things out and look at something from all angles. :tinfoil:
-
Although I haven't always agreed with you Alexandria, and sometime can't quite figure out where you are, I know you are sincere.
-
Although I haven't always agreed with you Alexandria, and sometime can't quite figure out where you are, I know you are sincere.
That's all right Myrna, I can't figure out where I am either. Only a miracle of grace can help me at this point. Pray for it, and for me too.
-
Myrna said:"
Not speaking about you two, but me thinks we have some of those types right here on this forum. Seemingly experts in all Catholic doctrine but always instilling doubt in a very clever mo. " And, Myrna I agree
-
Thats funny Dawn! I hope you are not saying I am one of those pretenders. I know I come across strong with some of my beliefs at times, but those are the ones I feel certain, others teachings I either forgot and need a review.
-
Maybe there are very good reasons why sedes want to spread the word.
[/b]
If they could. But the rest of the "Church" has pretty much ruined their reputations by repeatedly calling them names such as "stupid sedes", "empty headed sedes", "insane sedes" - you get the picture. They have discredited them so no one will even pay attention to what they have to say.
The most outspoken "sedes" have done a pretty good job on their own reputations by their own actions. They are simply not taken seriously in traditionalist circles.
And yet, others can destroy their "Catholic" reputation by praying to Allah in a Mosque, praying in common with heretic Anglicans, publicly esteeming modern Jєωs and declaring that their wait for the Messiah is not in vane, receive blessing from Pagan priests, and still those same "traditionalist circles" take them dead seriously.
These are indeed interesting times.
I was speaking of reputations as merely decent men.
-
Thats funny Dawn! I hope you are not saying I am one of those pretenders. I know I come across strong with some of my beliefs at times, but those are the ones I feel certain, others teachings I either forgot and need a review.
No I said I agree with that statment. It is clear some here are either pretenders or.......
-
Thats funny Dawn! I hope you are not saying I am one of those pretenders. I know I come across strong with some of my beliefs at times, but those are the ones I feel certain, others teachings I either forgot and need a review.
No I said I agree with that statment. It is clear some here are either pretenders or.......
:detective:
-
True Myrna.
If there is one thing that they are in agreement on, it is their disdain for sedevacantists.
I do not disdain SV as SV, but will disagree with opinions or attitudes,etc....at times. Some are cultish, most are not, some are angry a lot, most are not....I rather ally with most of you all-and agree to disagree on SV position-then most NO, Neocons,etc....
-
Some are cultish, most are not, some are angry a lot, most are not
[/b]
Sedes don't have the market on that - cultish mentalities and anger abound all over no matter where you go - inside or outside the Church.
Have you ever tried to talk to a Medjugorge fanatic?
-
Maybe there are very good reasons why sedes want to spread the word.
[/b]
If they could. But the rest of the "Church" has pretty much ruined their reputations by repeatedly calling them names such as "stupid sedes", "empty headed sedes", "insane sedes" - you get the picture. They have discredited them so no one will even pay attention to what they have to say.
The most outspoken "sedes" have done a pretty good job on their own reputations by their own actions. They are simply not taken seriously in traditionalist circles.
the McLucas talk rings true here....in trad circles, there is too much anger, resentment,etc.....states it is due to abusive behaviors by Church and Churchmen, trads react by anger, rebellion, venom,etc. Seen it, done it, been there...
-
Thank you. I understand what you have written.
Does giving him (Benedict) the benefit of the doubt work here?
we cannot fully know, so yes, would have to give him the benefit of the doubt, even if one views him as no higher ranking than a priest.....
-
I am sure if he denied his thinking or had a change of heart. we would have heard about it because it would have made the world news. Anytime the "pope" says something Catholic, it makes the world news.
No, that is not true. Everything he says and does and writes makes world news. Maybe it is that your ears don't perk up until you hear something Catholic! :wink:
doubtful what he says in privat and esp, confessional would make "world news".esp if it were to contradict world opinions, they may just black-out what he says.....
-
In fact, it is very hard for me to read anything written by either JPII or Benedict because I have absolutely no idea what they are saying.
true, a lot of floating in the clouds banality and pie-in-sky, mixed in with metamystical fluff,etc.....I miss the older Popes, they were fairly clear on what they were trying to say.....
reading Jp2, one is left say "oh, what the ___ was that about!!"
that said, except for occ encylcial for certain research, I do not read much of Post-1958 papal writings.....
-
In fact, it is very hard for me to read anything written by either JPII or Benedict because I have absolutely no idea what they are saying.
true, a lot of floating in the clouds banality and pie-in-sky, mixed in with metamystical fluff,etc.....I miss the older Popes, they were fairly clear on what they were trying to say.....
reading Jp2, one is left say "oh, what the ___ was that about!!"
that said, except for occ encylcial for certain research, I do not read much of Post-1958 papal writings.....
Neither do I. Like I said, I have no idea what they are talking about. The pre-John XXIII pontiffs wrote so clearly that it left you with no doubt whatsoever as to what they meant. Even when a speech of Benedict's is transcribed, I still can't make heads or tails out of what he's saying, and if I do understand what he is saying, I am not certain that the definitions of the terms he uses match with mine. So, I understand him in the traditional sense, but he means an entirely different thing.
-
Often JP2, esp B16, seem to try to straddle the road between 2 viewpoints, but it never comes together.....in the end, you are left no clearer than before reading/hearing..
-
Some are cultish, most are not, some are angry a lot, most are not
[/b]
Sedes don't have the market on that - cultish mentalities and anger abound all over no matter where you go - inside or outside the Church.
Have you ever tried to talk to a Medjugorge fanatic?
oh, I agree with you 100%-the Medj-fake fans are rather scary and go beyond most NO at times....or the mentality that Mark Shea, Dave Armstrong, Jimmy AKin has "what?? you dont agree 100% with whatever the Pope says!!! what are you, some sort of nutty Traddie knuckle dragger or something!! wantto dial back to Trent or something!!"
true, I think trads in general, maybe SV in particular have too much trench mentality, a quick temper and snappiness that comes with being underground and under seige so long.....understandable, but sad
-
Yes I see know Alexandria. Hateful speech against sedes and that is fine everyone hop on board and attack (where is Raoul anyhow? How is it he was never allowed back on while Pope Augustine can still post?)
Speculate on Christ and whether he was capable of sin and if not nothing counts that he did and all those other blasphemies in the Qualities of Christ thread and nobody threatens you.
Raoul wigged out and wwent off teh deep end. As far as Augustine goes, not sure, up to Matthew.
-
I guess I have to clarify everything I write from now on. Like Myrna said, put a disclaimer on everything. :tinfoil:
This is what I meant.
The sedes are an easy target for everyone else. Also, whenever I have read what is purportedly a rebuttal of sedevacantism, it is never written without adding a personal insult or ten. Is it necessary to ridicule the sedevacantists to prove their point? Do they really think that they can reclaim sedes for the church with insults and ridicule? Is this any way to win a soul? These articles can't be written in order to convert the sedes back to the church since I find it hard to believe that these people are that ignorant to think that insults and barbs will achieve that goal.
goes both way, like saying that if you are not a SV, you are damned...or the Mas you go to is not valid...or your priest is bad as he is not a SV...
or like a group of SV that were, briefly, attending my church-they came aroundnad after Mass one day, they came to tell Father that he could, with their help, become a real priest and really have priestly orders,etc....very condenscending.
-
Thank you. I understand what you have written.
Does giving him (Benedict) the benefit of the doubt work here?
we cannot fully know, so yes, would have to give him the benefit of the doubt, even if one views him as no higher ranking than a priest.....
Belloc,
Can you explain what you mean here? What is the doubt that you wish to give him?
It seems that you are saying that in order to give him a benefit of the doubt, you must declare that you will not believe him when he tells you what he believes. You must project your beliefs upon him.
I take him at his own word, which is why I believe he has defected from the faith.
-
I guess I have to clarify everything I write from now on. Like Myrna said, put a disclaimer on everything. :tinfoil:
This is what I meant.
The sedes are an easy target for everyone else. Also, whenever I have read what is purportedly a rebuttal of sedevacantism, it is never written without adding a personal insult or ten. Is it necessary to ridicule the sedevacantists to prove their point? Do they really think that they can reclaim sedes for the church with insults and ridicule? Is this any way to win a soul? These articles can't be written in order to convert the sedes back to the church since I find it hard to believe that these people are that ignorant to think that insults and barbs will achieve that goal.
goes both way, like saying that if you are not a SV, you are damned...or the Mas you go to is not valid...or your priest is bad as he is not a SV...
or like a group of SV that were, briefly, attending my church-they came aroundnad after Mass one day, they came to tell Father that he could, with their help, become a real priest and really have priestly orders,etc....very condenscending.
That's most unfortunate, but again, I can tell my own tales from the novus ordo church. My point is that it is not just one group, it is all over. The novus ordo church has a multitude of subculture groups within the it (San Egidio, Neo-Cats, Opus Dei, that Chiara Lubich group...and then there are all of the alleged apparition devotees not to mention many obnoxious Fatima devotees as well). And if that isn't bad enough, there are the ecuмaniacs who have rendered it meaningless to belong to any church since we are all "one".
Chaos reigns supreme. No wonder why Our Lord is silent.
-
to be clear, you do not have the gift of discerning who is and is not a valid cleric, no more than I....it becomes at times a study in gnosticisms, whereas everyone seems to presume intelligence by readinga few books or tapes,CD's,etc listened to and poof, they "know" who is a real Pope, priest,etc.....
there is no allowance for misinformation, mistranslation, misunderstanding,etc....
no "projecting" at all, but as he is a 80+ yr old German, writing either in Latin and/or German, not sure if every nuance, wording,etc is correctly translated, as I neither speak German nor Latin and know many older than I might use some wording differently...
I take most people by their clear words and actions, but a cleric has extra space from me before I throw them under a bus......
sooo, unless you know either or preferably, both foreign languages, nuances of language and time frame,etc....may be msitaken...As I speak and read only English, willing to give some benefit...
also, I lack the apparent gifts of knowing who said what in confessional,etc....so, cannot be 100% on some.....
Truth be told, really, I only think of B16 when on forums like this, otherwise, could really care what he says most of time.I attend Mass and sacremnts, see the transformation around me of people truly trying to live a catholic life and am happy for what I have.....dont even really pay much attention to what our Bishop says/does....have been in the trenches too long to really care...
a former friend of mine, even after attending the SSPX chapels, used to get all worked up daily over what soo and so said, did,etc....read too much of AQ,etc.....and got too wigged out, drove people off (eventually, me too)....instad of being happy where he was and waiting for either death or the Chastisement to come....should have prayed more, read less....
have another friend currently, he read himself into being a baptist, then into atheism, then into the Catholic Church, now he has a mix of different beelifs and he admits, he does not know what the heck to think....
too much reading and leaning on one's own judgment.......
so, hope this clears up some or most issues.
-Belloc could care less most of time what B16 says/does
-Belloc is happy a sane, holy TLm is available to him
-Belloc endures for yrs a priest, though he is improving and working mightly on changing, a priest that is often distant and cold
-Belloc does not mourn the fact he has few freinds left and more importantly, could care less to make new ones!!! happier alone, really, then endless and stupid arguements going nowhere..and solving nothing....
-Belloc is happy to agree at times and other, disagree w/SV's, seeing them most of the time as allies more then enemies....
-Belloc really tires, truth be told, of playing that old "whose the Pope" game....Solange Hertz notes this is largely counter-productive in her talk I posted sometime ago about the 3 Plagues of Apostasy...
thanks for listening......
-
I guess I have to clarify everything I write from now on. Like Myrna said, put a disclaimer on everything. :tinfoil:
This is what I meant.
The sedes are an easy target for everyone else. Also, whenever I have read what is purportedly a rebuttal of sedevacantism, it is never written without adding a personal insult or ten. Is it necessary to ridicule the sedevacantists to prove their point? Do they really think that they can reclaim sedes for the church with insults and ridicule? Is this any way to win a soul? These articles can't be written in order to convert the sedes back to the church since I find it hard to believe that these people are that ignorant to think that insults and barbs will achieve that goal.
goes both way, like saying that if you are not a SV, you are damned...or the Mas you go to is not valid...or your priest is bad as he is not a SV...
or like a group of SV that were, briefly, attending my church-they came aroundnad after Mass one day, they came to tell Father that he could, with their help, become a real priest and really have priestly orders,etc....very condenscending.
That's most unfortunate, but again, I can tell my own tales from the novus ordo church. My point is that it is not just one group, it is all over. The novus ordo church has a multitude of subculture groups within the it (San Egidio, Neo-Cats, Opus Dei, that Chiara Lubich group...and then there are all of the alleged apparition devotees not to mention many obnoxious Fatima devotees as well). And if that isn't bad enough, there are the ecuмaniacs who have rendered it meaningless to belong to any church since we are all "one".
Chaos reigns supreme. No wonder why Our Lord is silent.
true, plenty of slop to go around!!
-
The point is another Dimond brother victim has arrived.
You know, I just had a thought about those two (the Dimond Bros.). I bet that at least one if not both of them wind up getting themselves ordained and starting their own "sect".
I think they have already started their own sect.......they give off very bad "vibes" if you will....
-
The point is another Dimond brother victim has arrived.
You know, I just had a thought about those two (the Dimond Bros.). I bet that at least one if not both of them wind up getting themselves ordained and starting their own "sect".
I think they have already started their own sect.......they give off very bad "vibes" if you will....
They influence a lot of people. Read their e-exchange section some time.
-
can I indulge in alcohol first, then read it :dancing-banana: :wine-drinking: :roll-laugh1: :read-paper:
-
They influence a lot of people. Read their e-exchange section some time.
I was influenced by the Dimond Brothers very much. Their website was my introduction to traditional Catholicism. They frightened me very much. They probably made me more afraid than I have ever been in my entire life (thinking there are only a few dozen people on earth that are not hell-bound and that I was not one of those few dozen). I no longer read their website and am no longer frightened, but I have to give them credit because they got me to start praying the rosary daily and if I never came across their website, I would probably not be the happy SSPX faithful that I am now.
-
A few pages back, I asked if anyone has a copy of the book "No Crisis in the Church?" by Simon Galloway. If so, would you mind looking to see if there is a chapter on the Resurrection of the Body and letting us know what quotes are there?
This book was written by Simon Galloway and is actually a compilation of quotes by the Popes of the Vatican 2 era compared with quotes from Popes before Vatican 2. It is organized in chapters according to different topics and I believe there is a chapter on the Ressurection of the Body.
I read it a couple of years ago but loaned my copy out and haven't seen it since. I believe that there was just one printing of the book and I was told that Simon Galloway has been ailing.
If anyone has a copy, would you mind looking to see if there is a chapter on the ressurection of the body and posting it here? If so, thank you in advance.
-
Often JP2, esp B16, seem to try to straddle the road between 2 viewpoints, but it never comes together.....in the end, you are left no clearer than before reading/hearing..
Yes, and this is why I started this thread!! I am really trying to figure this out, really.
I like to deal with facts, not necessarily feelings.
When I was involved in NO, it was often hard to distinguish the Truth from the lies. But the more I looked at the facts, the docuмents, and the statements, the clearer it became to me that something was quite wrong with the Church after VII.
Now, I'm still trying to sort this out. All this bickering and fighting over whose position is correct doesn't help, not really.
-
A few pages back, I asked if anyone has a copy of the book "No Crisis in the Church?" by Simon Galloway. If so, would you mind looking to see if there is a chapter on the Resurrection of the Body and letting us know what quotes are there?
Sorry for the delay. I did see the post but I couldn't find my copy of the book and later forgot why I had been looking for it. Page 190-191 of No Crisis in the Church? by Simon Galloway is Chapter 5 of Part E, "What Does the Catholic Church Teach on the Resurrection?"
All bold emphasis is as published in the Galloway book.
Pre-Vatican II Council Teaching:
Pope St. Pius X:
Condemned: #36 - The Resurrection of the Saviour is not properly a fact of the historical order. It is a fact of merely the supernatural order (neither demonstated nor demonstrable) which the Christian Conscience gradually derived from other facts. (Pope Saint Pius X, Lamentabili Sane Exitu (#36), July 3, 1907)
Post-Vatican II Council Teaching:
Pope Benedict XVI:
Thus the Resurrection cannot be a hisotrical event in the same sense as the Crucifixion is. For that matter, there is no account that depicts it as such, nor is it circuмscribed in time otherwise than by the eschatological expression "the third day." (Pope Benedict XVI, the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 186)
Pre-Vatican II Council Teaching:
Pope St. Pius X:
Condemned: #37 – In the beginning, faith in the Resurrection of Christ was not so much in the fact itself of the Resurrection as in the immortal life of God. (Pope Saint Pius X, Lamentabili Sane Exitu (#37), July 3, 1907)
Post-Vatican II Council Teaching:
Pope Benedict XVI:
It now becomes clear that the real heart of faith in the resurrection does not consist at all in the idea of the restoration of bodies, to which we have reduced it in our thinking. (Pope Benedict XVI, the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Principles of Catholic Theology (1004), p. 349)
Pre-Vatican II Council Teaching:
Pope St. Pius X:
Condemned: #36 - The Resurrection of the Saviour is not properly a fact of the historical order. It is a fact of merely the supernatural order (neither demonstated nor demonstrable) which the Christian Conscience gradually derived from other facts. (Pope Saint Pius X, Lamentabili Sane Exitu (#36), July 3, 1907)
Post-Vatican II Council Teaching:
Pope Benedict XVI:
The biblical pronouncements about the resurrection: their essential content is not the conception of a restoration of bodies to souls after a long interfval…. (Pope Benedict XVI, the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Principles of Catholic Theology (2004), p. 353)
Pre-Vatican II Council Teaching:
Pope Gregory X:
The same most holy Roman Church firmly believes, and firmly declares that nevertheless on the day of judgment all men will be brought together with their bodies before the tribunal of Christ to render an account of their own deeds. (Pope Gregory X, Council of Lyons II, 1274, Henry Denzinger, Enchiridion Symbolorum, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, B. Herder Book Co., Thirtieth Edition, 1957, #464)
Post-Vatican II Council Teaching:
Pope Benedict XVI:
Paul teaches not the resurrection of the physical bodies but of persons… (Pope Benedict XVI, the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Introduction to Christianity, republished in 1990, p. 277)
WHICH COLUMN IS CATHOLIC TEACHING? THEY BOTH CAN’T BE!
-
Often JP2, esp B16, seem to try to straddle the road between 2 viewpoints, but it never comes together.....in the end, you are left no clearer than before reading/hearing..
Yes, and this is why I started this thread!! I am really trying to figure this out, really.
I like to deal with facts, not necessarily feelings.
When I was involved in NO, it was often hard to distinguish the Truth from the lies. But the more I looked at the facts, the docuмents, and the statements, the clearer it became to me that something was quite wrong with the Church after VII.
Now, I'm still trying to sort this out. All this bickering and fighting over whose position is correct doesn't help, not really.
NO is all about "feelings", intellect and grace take a back seat
-
Often JP2, esp B16, seem to try to straddle the road between 2 viewpoints, but it never comes together.....in the end, you are left no clearer than before reading/hearing..
Yes, and this is why I started this thread!! I am really trying to figure this out, really.
I like to deal with facts, not necessarily feelings.
When I was involved in NO, it was often hard to distinguish the Truth from the lies. But the more I looked at the facts, the docuмents, and the statements, the clearer it became to me that something was quite wrong with the Church after VII.
Now, I'm still trying to sort this out. All this bickering and fighting over whose position is correct doesn't help, not really.
I have been reading and contributing to this topic from its inception. I've read various points made coming from various perspectives. I've seen facts presented and I've seen feelings presented. But, frankly, I've not seen this as "bickering and fighting." but only a difference of opinion. None of us on this forum, after all, have the authority to bind anyone's conscience in this matter of Benedict XVI's status in the Church. So if, after reading others' opinions on the matter, simply use your sense of what is Catholic and go with it. This particular issue is not a matter of eternal life or death.
Belloc is right about one thing, Neither Benedict nor your local Conciliar bishop will really have any impact on your life if you simply hold to the Catholic faith and to Tradition.
Problems only seem to present themselves when individuals decide to personally excommunicate anyone who does not agree with their opinions. If the matter upsets you, leave it be. If you personally must have an answer, look at the arguments presented and determine what seems to be the best answer and follow that answer whether it leads you to the SSPX, the CMRI, independent priests, or to an indult community. The only thing I plead is that you stay away from those who teach you heresy and sacrilege (which is what you get from Novus Ordo clergy).
It truly has seemed to me that this topic has been very civil.
-
Civil and clear. Benedict does not hold the same teaching on the Resurrection as the True Church has always held. I can not imagine what else it would take to show this point. It is right there and it is what it is, heresy.
-
It truly has seemed to me that this topic has been very civil.[/b]
It has been quite civil and although it has gotten off topic a few times ( :rolleyes:), it has gotten on track again.
CM7, I pity you if you came here for a definitive answer. Talk to a good priest instead.
-
Ratzinger denies the Resurrection of the Body...
“Paul [St. Paul] teaches not the resurrection of physical bodies but of persons…”
Source: Joseph Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity, (republished in 1990 with Ratzinger’s approval), p. 277
“The same most holy Roman Church firmly believes, and firmly declares that nevertheless on the day of judgment all men will be brought together with their bodies before the tribunal of Christ to render an account of their own deeds.” (Denz. 464)
Source: Pope Gregory X, Council of Lyons II, 1274, ex cathedra
How much more plain can it be? Now, perhaps people do not like to deal with truth and in that case will call the person bearing the message nasty and mean spirited but does that change the fact that plain and simple and clear as a bell Benedict holds a heresy.
-
“Paul [St. Paul] teaches not the resurrection of physical bodies but of persons…”
Is there anyone here that has this book that can post the entire paragraph that this quote is from? I would like to read it in context before I say anything. Not that I doubt he would have such ideas...
In the meantime, would someone here please tell me what the difference is between "physical bodies" and "persons". How do you have a "person" without a body?
-
Here is the chapter in question:
Introduction to Christianity (http://books.google.com/books?id=VwwtInC5fwAC&pg=PA349&lpg=PA349&dq=introduction+to+christianity+%22not+bodies%22&source=bl&ots=cNm-HuGwjV&sig=5lsuMYzPVcWAYIqoJeVD7OsJOZM&hl=en&ei=YqPRTLdzjKmdB-7y2ZgM&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false)
Bishop Tissier de Mallerais: Well, for instance, that this Pope has professed heresies in the past! He has professed heresies! I do not know whether he still does.
http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/archive-2006-0430-tissier.htm
Now in the SSPX there is a serious problem of obscurantism. You have former seminarians unaware of Pope John Paul's encyclical on the dignity of women, and that it contradicts St. Paul and calls his teaching a product of his time, for example.
-
“Paul [St. Paul] teaches not the resurrection of physical bodies but of persons…”
Is there anyone here that has this book that can post the entire paragraph that this quote is from? I would like to read it in context before I say anything. Not that I doubt he would have such ideas...
In the meantime, would someone here please tell me what the difference is between "physical bodies" and "persons". How do you have a "person" without a body?
Not sure if this will help:
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity, 2004, p. 349: “It now becomes clear that the real heart of faith in the resurrection does not consist at all in the idea of the restoration of bodies, to which we have reduced it in our thinking; such is the case even though this is the pictorial image used throughout the Bible.”
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity, p. 353: “The foregoing reflections may have clarified to some extent what is involved in the biblical pronouncements about the resurrection: their essential content is not the conception of a restoration of bodies to souls after a long interval…”
Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity, 2004, pp. 357-358: “To recapitulate, Paul teaches, not the resurrection of physical bodies, but the resurrection of persons…”
-
The Assumption of the Blessed Mother, her physical body and her person. Look to her for an answer.
She wanted to experience death, and she did, but God took her body and soul to heaven before judgement day.
If we die in the State of Grace, we too will rise in glory.
-
Telesphorus, I am shocked. I couldn't even finish reading it. He is even throwing under the bus the concept of a "soul".
Do you know if anyone in the Church has ever spoken like this before? This is a serious question; I am not being sarcastic.
What always gets me to no end with him and his predecessor is the pride and audacity of both - they know better than what the Church always taught, and they're going to correct all of our misconceptions now.
-
The Assumption of the Blessed Mother, her physical body and her person. Look to her for an answer.
She wanted to experience death, and she did, but God took her body and soul to heaven before judgement day.
If we die in the State of Grace, we too will rise in glory.
I'm really slow. I didn't even think of that Myrna, but you are absolutely correct.
-
“Paul [St. Paul] teaches not the resurrection of physical bodies but of persons…”
Is there anyone here that has this book that can post the entire paragraph that this quote is from? I would like to read it in context before I say anything. Not that I doubt he would have such ideas...
In the meantime, would someone here please tell me what the difference is between "physical bodies" and "persons". How do you have a "person" without a body?
Not sure if this will help:
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity, 2004, p. 349: “It now becomes clear that the real heart of faith in the resurrection does not consist at all in the idea of the restoration of bodies, to which we have reduced it in our thinking; such is the case even though this is the pictorial image used throughout the Bible.”
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity, p. 353: “The foregoing reflections may have clarified to some extent what is involved in the biblical pronouncements about the resurrection: their essential content is not the conception of a restoration of bodies to souls after a long interval…”
Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity, 2004, pp. 357-358: “To recapitulate, Paul teaches, not the resurrection of physical bodies, but the resurrection of persons…”
I still would like to know the difference with this line: “To recapitulate, Paul teaches, not the resurrection of physical bodies, but the resurrection of persons…”
-
Just wanted to add that I do find him very hard to read. It takes too much concentration and, no matter how hard I concentrate, I wind up losing his train of thought, or getting confused as to what it is he is trying to say before I even finish the sentence.
-
Just wanted to add that I do find him very hard to read. It takes too much concentration and, no matter how hard I concentrate, I wind up losing his train of thought, or getting confused as to what it is he is trying to say before I even finish the sentence.
It is evil obscurantism.
-
“Paul [St. Paul] teaches not the resurrection of physical bodies but of persons…”
Is there anyone here that has this book that can post the entire paragraph that this quote is from? I would like to read it in context before I say anything. Not that I doubt he would have such ideas...
In the meantime, would someone here please tell me what the difference is between "physical bodies" and "persons". How do you have a "person" without a body?
Not sure if this will help:
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity, 2004, p. 349: “It now becomes clear that the real heart of faith in the resurrection does not consist at all in the idea of the restoration of bodies, to which we have reduced it in our thinking; such is the case even though this is the pictorial image used throughout the Bible.”
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity, p. 353: “The foregoing reflections may have clarified to some extent what is involved in the biblical pronouncements about the resurrection: their essential content is not the conception of a restoration of bodies to souls after a long interval…”
Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity, 2004, pp. 357-358: “To recapitulate, Paul teaches, not the resurrection of physical bodies, but the resurrection of persons…”
I still would like to know the difference with this line: “To recapitulate, Paul teaches, not the resurrection of physical bodies, but the resurrection of persons…”
My thinking is there is no difference except to instill doubt.
They are not even Catholic, I wonder now how God will judge those who know this, checked it out and found it to be true, yet still insist they are popes?
Now if this is all a lie, the vatican should come out and say something, even I am shocked and I don't even believe they are popes.
:stare:
-
They are not even Catholic, I wonder now how God will judge those who know this, checked it out and found it to be true, yet still insist they are popes?
[/b]
If He is as you claim He is, there is nothing to worry about now is there?
-
“Paul [St. Paul] teaches not the resurrection of physical bodies but of persons…”
Is there anyone here that has this book that can post the entire paragraph that this quote is from? I would like to read it in context before I say anything. Not that I doubt he would have such ideas...
In the meantime, would someone here please tell me what the difference is between "physical bodies" and "persons". How do you have a "person" without a body?
Not sure if this will help:
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity, 2004, p. 349: “It now becomes clear that the real heart of faith in the resurrection does not consist at all in the idea of the restoration of bodies, to which we have reduced it in our thinking; such is the case even though this is the pictorial image used throughout the Bible.”
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity, p. 353: “The foregoing reflections may have clarified to some extent what is involved in the biblical pronouncements about the resurrection: their essential content is not the conception of a restoration of bodies to souls after a long interval…”
Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity, 2004, pp. 357-358: “To recapitulate, Paul teaches, not the resurrection of physical bodies, but the resurrection of persons…”
I still would like to know the difference with this line: “To recapitulate, Paul teaches, not the resurrection of physical bodies, but the resurrection of persons…”
thats what I meant earlier, are they being purposely vague or are they that vague in their thinking?/ if so, that is scarier :facepalm: :scared2: then being purposely vague..
thanks, too to Myrna, for reviving the old "non-SV are not Catholic" mantra too, for you as usual prove a point and not even trying to!! :applause:
-
“Paul [St. Paul] teaches not the resurrection of physical bodies but of persons…”
Is there anyone here that has this book that can post the entire paragraph that this quote is from? I would like to read it in context before I say anything. Not that I doubt he would have such ideas...
In the meantime, would someone here please tell me what the difference is between "physical bodies" and "persons". How do you have a "person" without a body?
To us, the simple faithful, there may not be a difference between "persons" and "physical bodies". The way Benedict used these words, however, in his book tells us that the terms are entirely different things. The Modernist never defines terms so that they can be understood from one moment to the next.
In Alice in Wonderland, one character, I think it was the Cheshire Cat, noted that words mean exactly what he wants them to mean, no more and no less. (I don't have a printed copy of the book handy so I can't give you the exact quote.) The character goes on to suggest that just because he wanted to use a word to mean one thing today does not preclude him from having a different meaning tomorrow. This confused Alice, but she was in a make-believe land. The problem today is that we live in reality and have people doing exactly the same thing.
What is there not to be confused with?
-
“Paul [St. Paul] teaches not the resurrection of physical bodies but of persons…”
Is there anyone here that has this book that can post the entire paragraph that this quote is from? I would like to read it in context before I say anything. Not that I doubt he would have such ideas...
In the meantime, would someone here please tell me what the difference is between "physical bodies" and "persons". How do you have a "person" without a body?
To us, the simple faithful, there may not be a difference between "persons" and "physical bodies". The way Benedict used these words, however, in his book tells us that the terms are entirely different things. The Modernist never defines terms so that they can be understood from one moment to the next.
In Alice in Wonderland, one character, I think it was the Cheshire Cat, noted that words mean exactly what he wants them to mean, no more and no less. (I don't have a printed copy of the book handy so I can't give you the exact quote.) The character goes on to suggest that just because he wanted to use a word to mean one thing today does not preclude him from having a different meaning tomorrow. This confused Alice, but she was in a make-believe land. The problem today is that we live in reality and have people doing exactly the same thing.
What is there not to be confused with?
Do you happen to know if anyone in the Church ever understood the resurrection of the "body" in this sense before? If not, what gives Benedict the right to change a teaching of the Church as it has always been understood?
If you are now thinking, this lady isn't very bright at all, you would be correct. :tinfoil:
-
far as I know, works like this:
you die and are immediately judged, going to heaven, hell or Purgatory....
your body is planted in ground, vault,etc.
At Christ's return, the just are given new bodies, joined with their immortal souls.
the damned, their souls and bodies, likely those they died with, rotten, diseased infested, arthritic,etc.
Those alive and walking the earth when Christ come back are judged then in General Judgment, as is the race of man in general...the just get their glorified bodies after teh dead get theirs, the evil, same thing, they get what they have....
simple, really and nto sure what mumbo-jumbo b16, et al are saying...
havea friend that has left the Fide, he gets hung up on all these metaphysical, mystic nuances.....right now, troubled over "is hell eternal" and "is the soul naturally immortal vs natural vs naturally immortal"...my response, wh ocares!! hell is eternal, for all time you go there or the opposite direction...who really cares if your sould was eternal prior to your body created or not....I have a soul, it goes on for ever, even after death because God says so...
Him, B16,et al getting that hung up in nuances and trying to wear everythign down to some atomic level, geesh.....
-
far as I know, works like this:
you die and are immediately judged, going to heaven, hell or Purgatory....
your body is planted in ground, vault,etc.
At Christ's return, the just are given new bodies, joined with their immortal souls.
the damned, their souls and bodies, likely those they died with, rotten, diseased infested, arthritic,etc.
Those alive and walking the earth when Christ come back are judged then in General Judgment, as is the race of man in general...the just get their glorified bodies after teh dead get theirs, the evil, same thing, they get what they have....
simple, really and nto sure what mumbo-jumbo b16, et al are saying...
havea friend that has left the Fide, he gets hung up on all these metaphysical, mystic nuances.....right now, troubled over "is hell eternal" and "is the soul naturally immortal vs natural vs naturally immortal"...my response, wh ocares!! hell is eternal, for all time you go there or the opposite direction...who really cares if your sould was eternal prior to your body created or not....I have a soul, it goes on for ever, even after death because God says so...
Him, B16,et al getting that hung up in nuances and trying to wear everythign down to some atomic level, geesh.....
Yes, I know all of that as that is what I was taught. What I am asking is whether any Catholic before B16 and the VII debacle ever thought like this.
I agree with you...who cares? Will it make a difference in the end, all of these nuances and distinctions? What is B16's point in doing all of this? Has it helped clarify the faith for anyone? All it does it fog things up all the more. Better to be a simpleton that to be an intellectual, at least that is the conclusion that I have come to.
-
Hey Belloc
thanks, too to Myrna, for reviving the old "non-SV are not Catholic" mantra too, for you as usual prove a point and not even trying to!!
How do you even know what I am trying to do?
Maybe wake YOU up?!
:sleep:
-
Hey Belloc thanks, too to Myrna, for reviving the old "non-SV are not Catholic" mantra too, for you as usual prove a point and not even trying to!!
How do you even know what I am trying to do?
Maybe wake YOU up?!
:sleep:
Belloc, I think she is trying to wake me up! :wink:
Myrna, I would be terrified to be so certain as you are. For a Catholic to be saved, he/she must submit to the Pope. What if there is a chance you are wrong? In order to be so certain, you would have to sit down with Benedict and have a chat with him and ask him pointed questions regarding what he really believes and what he actually meant. I tell you these things as this is what stops me from being a paid up, card carrying sede.
I agree with you, Myrna, that it does not look good for him at all. But I find it very hard to believe that he is doing this with a malicious intent. Only someone controlled by Satan would do a thing like that.
-
Alexandria, I am certain because I was taught that one Pope can not contradict a previous Pope in matters of Faith and Morals, and this is what you see over and over with these guys.
malicious intent. Only someone controlled by Satan would do a thing like that.
You said it!
-
Alexandria, I am certain because I was taught that one Pope can not contradict a previous Pope in matters of Faith and Morals, and this is what you see over and over with these guys.
malicious intent. Only someone controlled by Satan would do a thing like that.
You said it!
Exactly right Alexandria. Souls are being lost. I for one would love the opportunity to get to Rome.
-
Alexandria, I am certain because I was taught that one Pope can not contradict a previous Pope in matters of Faith and Morals, and this is what you see over and over with these guys.
malicious intent. Only someone controlled by Satan would do a thing like that.
You said it!
Exactly right Alexandria. Souls are being lost. I for one would love the opportunity to get to Rome.
So neither one of you even entertains the possibility that you may be wrong? You are that certain?
-
I can only speak for myself, and I feel for Catholics that are uncertain.
The Catholic church was never meant to be complicated.
One doctrine flows into another, and when you know your catechism you can see that. This is why I love to study catechism, it isn't suppose to be ambiguous where words can change with the wind. The Chuch is absolute! This is absolutely wrong, this is absolutely right.
-
Do you happen to know if anyone in the Church ever understood the resurrection of the "body" in this sense before? If not, what gives Benedict the right to change a teaching of the Church as it has always been understood?
If you are now thinking, this lady isn't very bright at all, you would be correct. :tinfoil:
I, personally, do know know if anyone in the church ever understood the resurrection of the "body" in the sense that Benedict understands it. Of course, the fact that I do not know has absolutely no standing as I am not a theologian and could not read the works of most theologians because they didn't write in modern English.
What I do know is that it seems very clear that the doctrine of the resurrection of the body is pretty straight forward in all the old catechisms and in all pre-Vatican II Church docuмents to which I have access.
I also know that Benedict XVI has violated the Oath Against Modernism by proclaiming a teaching of the Church in a way inconsistent with the way the Church has previously understood it.
On an unrelated note, I am absolutely dumbfounded that someone has taken such offense to my comments on this topic as to "ignore" my comments. I cannot see how this ignore function belongs on a Catholic forum. If what I say does not have merit, then one need not heed them and if one knows a good counter-argument, the Catholic thing to do is to make that argument so that I do not continue in ignorance. Individuals who exercise the ignore function are modern-day Pilates who simply wash their hands of people who cause them some discomfort and just walk away. Such an attitude is very disquieting.
-
On an unrelated note, I am absolutely dumbfounded that someone has taken such offense to my comments on this topic as to "ignore" my comments. I cannot see how this ignore function belongs on a Catholic forum. If what I say does not have merit, then one need not heed them and if one knows a good counter-argument, the Catholic thing to do is to make that argument so that I do not continue in ignorance. Individuals who exercise the ignore function are modern-day Pilates who simply wash their hands of people who cause them some discomfort and just walk away. Such an attitude is very disquieting.
[/b]
Not to :sign-thread-hijacked:, but there is one member who made it quite clear a few months ago that he would put everyone whom he suspected of being a sede on ignore. That may be the source of yours.
-
What I do know is that it seems very clear that the doctrine of the resurrection of the body is pretty straight forward in all the old catechisms and in all pre-Vatican II Church docuмents to which I have access.
I also know that Benedict XVI has violated the Oath Against Modernism by proclaiming a teaching of the Church in a way inconsistent with the way the Church has previously understood it.
That is why I asked the question. I know what I was taught, and it is not what Benedict has written.
-
I can only speak for myself, and I feel for Catholics that are uncertain.
The Catholic church was never meant to be complicated.
One doctrine flows into another, and when you know your catechism you can see that. This is why I love to study catechism, it isn't suppose to be ambiguous where words can change with the wind. The Chuch is absolute! This is absolutely wrong, this is absolutely right.
I grew up in the midst of the Vatican II revolution. I went to CCD classes every week from first grade through high school. Upon graduation, I can honestly say that I was mostly ignorant of the Catholic religion. I knew more about various Protestant religions from my friends than I knew about the Catholic religion. In fact, I truly believed that the Catholic religion was just another way to worship God, just as the Baptists have their way, the Lutherans have their way, the Jєωs have their way. If Islam had been in the news, I'm sure I would have thought the same way about Muslims. We did a lot of art in those days, drawing pictures of "God's Love"--even in high school.
Only after essentially abandoning the practice of the faith while in the army and having some Protestant friends try to save my soul, did I decide to try to find out a little about the faith. The Post Exchange book store happened to have a copy of "The Catechism of the Council of Trent" on the shelf (I still can't figure out why they would have had it!) and I picked it up. The new and improved Catechism had not even been written yet.
To my surprise, I discovered that the Catholic religion made sense. In fact, it made more sense than the Protestant religions. This only spurred me on to learn more. I've been trying to learn more every year since. The one real difference between Catholic doctrine and all other doctrines is that Catholic doctrine is simple and fits together like puzzle pieces. All the other doctrines have to find nuances here and there and they have to cut some of the puzzle pieces to make them fit.
-
The one real difference between Catholic doctrine and all other doctrines is that Catholic doctrine is simple and fits together like puzzle pieces. All the other doctrines have to find nuances here and there and they have to cut some of the puzzle pieces to make them fit.
Thats it exactly!
-
I can only speak for myself, and I feel for Catholics that are uncertain.
The Catholic church was never meant to be complicated.
One doctrine flows into another, and when you know your catechism you can see that. This is why I love to study catechism, it isn't suppose to be ambiguous where words can change with the wind. The Chuch is absolute! This is absolutely wrong, this is absolutely right.
I grew up in the midst of the Vatican II revolution. I went to CCD classes every week from first grade through high school. Upon graduation, I can honestly say that I was mostly ignorant of the Catholic religion. I knew more about various Protestant religions from my friends than I knew about the Catholic religion. In fact, I truly believed that the Catholic religion was just another way to worship God, just as the Baptists have their way, the Lutherans have their way, the Jєωs have their way. If Islam had been in the news, I'm sure I would have thought the same way about Muslims. We did a lot of art in those days, drawing pictures of "God's Love"--even in high school.
Only after essentially abandoning the practice of the faith while in the army and having some Protestant friends try to save my soul, did I decide to try to find out a little about the faith. The Post Exchange book store happened to have a copy of "The Catechism of the Council of Trent" on the shelf (I still can't figure out why they would have had it!) and I picked it up. The new and improved Catechism had not even been written yet.
To my surprise, I discovered that the Catholic religion made sense. In fact, it made more sense than the Protestant religions. This only spurred me on to learn more. I've been trying to learn more every year since. The one real difference between Catholic doctrine and all other doctrines is that Catholic doctrine is simple and fits together like puzzle pieces. All the other doctrines have to find nuances here and there and they have to cut some of the puzzle pieces to make them fit.
Yes, Myrna. I cannot believe the One, Holy, Universal Church is supposed to be so nuanced and subtle that only a handful of enlightened modern theologians can possibly understand it.
That's Gnosticism, pure and simple.
TKGS--everything you said, that's exactly what happened to me. When I started reading Traditional material everything began to make sense. The Faith I had been raised with and had never understood suddenly made sense, so much sense in fact that I realized that no other explanation could possibly be true.
If Benedict were just another Joe Catholic in the Novus Ordo pews, I wouldn't be so upset by these posts, especially TKGS's in which he compares, blow by blow, the Eternal Teachings of Our Holy Church with the blithering modernist balderash of Benedict XVI. I would simply figure it was the musings of another confused, poorly catechised post-V2 victim.
But when it's the man whom 99% of all Catholics recognize as the "Holy Father"? Then what? Is he just another victim too, of modernist seminaries, liturgical experiments, indifferentist ecuмenism, and obfuscating superiors? To what extent can a man in his position be judged to be a mere "victim"?
I wish I knew. Or maybe I already do.
-
That's Gnosticism, pure and simple.
This may interest you.
There is a novus ordo priest in my diocese who has said that the sedevacantists are gnostic. That was about three years ago. Since then, others have jumped on the sede=gnostic bandwagon. I have read others calling sedes gnostics on forums, as well as heard it on the bastion of orthodoxy radio show Catholic Answers.
-
Is he just another victim too, of modernist seminaries, liturgical experiments, indifferentist ecuмenism, and obfuscating superiors? To what extent can a man in his position be judged to be a mere "victim"? I wish I knew. Or maybe I already do.
he was born in Germany in the 20's, sa-yes, likely he was from youth indoctrinated by modernists ideas, as Germany seems to always lead the way in heretical ideas.....hence, his now middle of the road appraoch to things...strengthened by the 60's,etc
-
sedes are gnostics? Ya okay how do they come up with that?
-
sedes are gnostics? Ya okay how do they come up with that?
Yes, that is what the priest called them. I printed out a copy of the email correspondence that the person had put on the now defunct forum. That is what he called sedevacantists: gnostics.
The priest said that they think they have a "secret knowledge". :scared2:
-
sedes are gnostics? Ya okay how do they come up with that?
Yes, that is what the priest called them. I printed out a copy of the email correspondence that the person had put on the now defunct forum. That is what he called sedevacantists: gnostics.
The priest said that they think they have a "secret knowledge". :scared2:
Don't pay any attention, the day will come when they too will accept the sede position.
I have a feeling B16 will be going to his eternal reward soon, and the next guy will be more obvious. That is my opinion, I have no secret knowledge. :idea:
-
while I am sure all sides might have members prone toward gnosticsm, todays NewChurch is heavily influenced by those ideas, mainly the branch that says "why bother, do what thou wilt", as opposed to the more gloomy "everything is evil" gnostic branch, mostly seen today in prot funamentalism and calvinism...
B16 not likely long for worl, true, if based on his age alone....at some point in future, we likely will have a Pope to flee and be murdered,etc and a vacant seat...though note sure timing and who/what happens for sure in between, but if prophecies about the future holy Pope to die are accurate, then:
-we will indeed have a Pope at that time
-he will die
so, either we have a real pope now and succesor(s) or, no Pope now, but at some point, we have a Pope, though, he would be elected by mostly New Church bishops....how that would happen, who knows and no SV has ever told me how, if all the bishops are heretical, where then do we get a real Pope and who elects him---that is always, oddly, unanswereable, only that "God will provide" answer.......
Maybe the 4 SSPX will elect him......then again, many SV do not either recognize their true title to bishop or, feel they too are heretical and hence, lost or never gained the office of Bishop....yet again, too many ?? for me to except the SV position....
though, myrna is right, per prophecy of future times, we will have a vacant seat:
The pope will change his residence and the Church will not be defended for twenty-five months or more because, during all that time there will be no Pope in Rome... After many tribulations, a Pope shall be elected out of those who survived the persecutions. -John of Vitiguerro (13th Century)
and:
John of the Cleft Rock (14th Century)
Towards the end of the world, tyrants and hostile mobs will rob the Church and the clergy of all their possessions and will afflict and martyr them. Those who heap the most abuse upon them will be held in high esteem.
At that time, the Pope with his cardinals will have to flee Rome in tragic circuмstances to a place where they will be unknown. The Pope will die a cruel death in his exile. The sufferings of the Church will be much greater than at any previous time in her history. But God will raise a holy Pope, and the Angels will rejoice. Enlightened by God, this man will rebuild almost the whole world through his holiness. He will lead everyone to the true Faith. (Yves Dupont, Catholic Prophecy, Tan Books and Publishers, 1973)
-
sedes are gnostics? Ya okay how do they come up with that?
I have across this phenomenon among both sedes and anti-sedes who reel out tons of medieval encyclicals and docuмents from obscure 7th century councils and then anathematize any and everyone who is unaware of these same docuмents and/or does not come to the same conclusions as they do. When you protest that to be a good Catholic one does not have to be an expert in Canon Law they accuse you of promoting "invincible ignorance." I have been told that it is the duty of every Catholic to spend many hours every day sifting through two thousand years of paperwork in order to come up with the "right answers" to the current crisis. I have also noticed that those same people who promote this legalistic version of Catholicism often have little or no time for, or interest in, prayer, worship, and acts of mercy and charity.
Right here on li'l ol' Cathinfo we have and have had some of these people, on both sides of the aisle.
-
Is he just another victim too, of modernist seminaries, liturgical experiments, indifferentist ecuмenism, and obfuscating superiors? To what extent can a man in his position be judged to be a mere "victim"? I wish I knew. Or maybe I already do.
he was born in Germany in the 20's, sa-yes, likely he was from youth indoctrinated by modernists ideas, as Germany seems to always lead the way in heretical ideas.....hence, his now middle of the road appraoch to things...strengthened by the 60's,etc
Undoubtedly so, Belloc, and again, if he were just an average Sunday pew-warmer I wouldn't be surprised that he holds the beliefs that he does. I myself at one time believed things so absurd that now it would give me great shame to even mention them.
But...I'm not the Pope. I have to wonder to what extent is his ignorance willful and malicious or just casual and innocent. That God is using him to achieve some end I have no doubt. I don't mean to throw stones at the man, or his predecessor, but some of the things they've said and done really call into question their integrity, and that of the hundreds of cardinals who voted for them. Are all of these people really that ignorant of the Faith? Do they all have such feeble prayer lives that none has had his mind opened by the Holy Spirit? I prayed a little bit for guidance, after years of sin and stupidity, and the Holy Ghost and the BVM came quickly to my aid, and steered me to the True Church. Why don't They do the same for men who purport to lead millions of others in the Faith?
-
I think both innocent and willful ignorance. Remember what the enemy thinks-get a hold of children yougn and indoctrinated them, do that for 2-3 generations, and no one will know another way, but the one given to them.
that said, B16 I think has seen the effects of his gnerations ways and those before, but I think he is now flumoxed as t o what to do....he cannot throw out V2, the greatest event of his life and his generation..yet sees the devastation. Wants tradition in many areas, but wants to reform the NO, instead of phasiing it out and promoting only the TLM,etc....
very double minded....
JP2 would have been better to be a mystic monk, then a leader.....too wishy washy, too willing to "just be folks" instead of making the hard decisions....Williamson said of him "he has a weak grasp of Catholicism" and would have to agree....often, he sounded more "spirit within" new agery then Catholic and militantcy was largely non-existant....perhaps,s JP2 should be viewed as a Pope given to us to punish us.......why we have Obama and Mccain,et al now.....
-
Is he just another victim too, of modernist seminaries, liturgical experiments, indifferentist ecuмenism, and obfuscating superiors? To what extent can a man in his position be judged to be a mere "victim"? I wish I knew. Or maybe I already do.
he was born in Germany in the 20's, sa-yes, likely he was from youth indoctrinated by modernists ideas, as Germany seems to always lead the way in heretical ideas.....hence, his now middle of the road appraoch to things...strengthened by the 60's,etc
Undoubtedly so, Belloc, and again, if he were just an average Sunday pew-warmer I wouldn't be surprised that he holds the beliefs that he does. I myself at one time believed things so absurd that now it would give me great shame to even mention them.
But...I'm not the Pope. I have to wonder to what extent is his ignorance willful and malicious or just casual and innocent. That God is using him to achieve some end I have no doubt. I don't mean to throw stones at the man, or his predecessor, but some of the things they've said and done really call into question their integrity, and that of the hundreds of cardinals who voted for them. Are all of these people really that ignorant of the Faith? Do they all have such feeble prayer lives that none has had his mind opened by the Holy Spirit? I prayed a little bit for guidance, after years of sin and stupidity, and the Holy Ghost and the BVM came quickly to my aid, and steered me to the True Church. Why don't They do the same for men who purport to lead millions of others in the Faith?
These guys were hand picked, they are sheeps in wolves clothing, who said, "You will know them by their fruits"...?
The fruits are results of THEM....
-
handpicked, then, by who?? if not picked by God tp punish and afflict us....nor by Holy Ghost as Pope, then who.???
recall in secular, Obama, Peℓσѕι, they see themselves as players and most see them as such, but they were long ago indoctrinated and dumbed down....Peℓσѕι is direct result of upbringing in Americanism, modernism,etc....
so, are we saying B16, etc were indoctrinated in youth? in seminary?? or...do we think they are openly coniving, like those Jack CHick comics, wherein he has characters-usually hideous looking, openly talking about folling and lying to people.???
again, who did the handpicking and for what end?
-
Right here on li'l ol' Cathinfo we have and have had some of these people, on both sides of the aisle.
:scared2:
-
Is he just another victim too, of modernist seminaries, liturgical experiments, indifferentist ecuмenism, and obfuscating superiors? To what extent can a man in his position be judged to be a mere "victim"? I wish I knew. Or maybe I already do.
he was born in Germany in the 20's, sa-yes, likely he was from youth indoctrinated by modernists ideas, as Germany seems to always lead the way in heretical ideas.....hence, his now middle of the road appraoch to things...strengthened by the 60's,etc
Undoubtedly so, Belloc, and again, if he were just an average Sunday pew-warmer I wouldn't be surprised that he holds the beliefs that he does. I myself at one time believed things so absurd that now it would give me great shame to even mention them.
But...I'm not the Pope. I have to wonder to what extent is his ignorance willful and malicious or just casual and innocent. That God is using him to achieve some end I have no doubt. I don't mean to throw stones at the man, or his predecessor, but some of the things they've said and done really call into question their integrity, and that of the hundreds of cardinals who voted for them. Are all of these people really that ignorant of the Faith? Do they all have such feeble prayer lives that none has had his mind opened by the Holy Spirit? I prayed a little bit for guidance, after years of sin and stupidity, and the Holy Ghost and the BVM came quickly to my aid, and steered me to the True Church. Why don't They do the same for men who purport to lead millions of others in the Faith?
The majority of the cardinals in the Vatican, as well as the current pope and his VII predecessors, know the faith. Benedict in particular is well aware of the traditional Catholic faith. They have chosen to improve upon it with their brilliancy and avant garde theology rather than hand down what they were given.
I have no qualms about saying this because it is a fact that all of the VII popes were trained in the "old school" theology. They all knew/know better. I often think, too, what pride to exchange the tried and true for your wacky ideas thought up by some theologians who were too smart for their own good.
And now, this dilettante (thank you, Caminus http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=12894&f=9&min=20&num=20, for putting us all in our places!), will step down from her box. :soapbox:
-
Is he just another victim too, of modernist seminaries, liturgical experiments, indifferentist ecuмenism, and obfuscating superiors? To what extent can a man in his position be judged to be a mere "victim"? I wish I knew. Or maybe I already do.
he was born in Germany in the 20's, sa-yes, likely he was from youth indoctrinated by modernists ideas, as Germany seems to always lead the way in heretical ideas.....hence, his now middle of the road appraoch to things...strengthened by the 60's,etc
Undoubtedly so, Belloc, and again, if he were just an average Sunday pew-warmer I wouldn't be surprised that he holds the beliefs that he does. I myself at one time believed things so absurd that now it would give me great shame to even mention them.
But...I'm not the Pope. I have to wonder to what extent is his ignorance willful and malicious or just casual and innocent. That God is using him to achieve some end I have no doubt. I don't mean to throw stones at the man, or his predecessor, but some of the things they've said and done really call into question their integrity, and that of the hundreds of cardinals who voted for them. Are all of these people really that ignorant of the Faith? Do they all have such feeble prayer lives that none has had his mind opened by the Holy Spirit? I prayed a little bit for guidance, after years of sin and stupidity, and the Holy Ghost and the BVM came quickly to my aid, and steered me to the True Church. Why don't They do the same for men who purport to lead millions of others in the Faith?
These guys were hand picked, they are sheeps in wolves clothing, who said, "You will know them by their fruits"...?
The fruits are results of THEM....
It matters not how they were "picked", God allowed it. He could have stopped it, but He did not.
-
That is the plain and simple truth Alexandria. God allows this for His own purpose. The vision of Pope Leo saw Satan asking for power and God answered yes, but for so long only. So, Satan's minions are controlling Rome. But, look closely. We will see that they are not controlling the REAL CHURCH. No, in fact that could not happen. So, they created a New Religion at Vatican II. Where they REAL faith is Christ centered, the new religion the ape of the true Church being run by satan's hand-picked spawn in man centered. The True Faith is there for anyone to see, being carefully guarded by the very few True Priests and Bishops in the world.
-
Post-Vatican II Council Teaching:
Pope Benedict XVI:
The biblical pronouncements about the resurrection: their essential content is not the conception of a restoration of bodies to souls after a long interfval…. (Pope Benedict XVI, the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Principles of Catholic Theology (2004), p. 353)
Pre-Vatican II Council Teaching:
Pope Gregory X:
The same most holy Roman Church firmly believes, and firmly declares that nevertheless on the day of judgment all men will be brought together with their bodies before the tribunal of Christ to render an account of their own deeds. (Pope Gregory X, Council of Lyons II, 1274, Henry Denzinger, Enchiridion Symbolorum, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, B. Herder Book Co., Thirtieth Edition, 1957, #464)
This is quite serious then.
Very grateful to you TKGS (and you, too, Ora Pro Me for asking him) for this.
-
Yes, Thank you to TKGS for looking that up for us. I wish I had my copy since it would help me out with a few more things I have been looking into. If anyone is interested in reading this informative book, No Crisis in the Church? compiled by Simon Galloway you can find one at http://www.miqcenter.com/books/0-problems.shtml
To see a review on it go to:
http://www.traditioninaction.org/bkreviews/A_023br_CrisisInChurch_Somerville.htm
I got this book a couple years ago and couldn't put it down, even though it was disheartening for me to read how differently the past few Popes have taught on Catholic doctrines than the Popes before Vatican 2. I loaned my book out and haven't seen it since, so I recently began searching for a used copy and wonder if it is out of print because the few copies that I found online are priced at $72.95 and up. (It makes me wonder if people who DON"T want us to read this have bought up copies but maybe that's being paranoid!) In my search for this book, I then thought of the CMRI bookstore online and they have it listed new for $21.95 (see the above link). Has anyone else read this book?
-
sedes are gnostics? Ya okay how do they come up with that?
Yes, that is what the priest called them. I printed out a copy of the email correspondence that the person had put on the now defunct forum. That is what he called sedevacantists: gnostics.
The priest said that they think they have a "secret knowledge". :scared2:
He mistakes a private judgment based on public knowledge with a "secret knowledge." He is confused.
-
sedes are gnostics? Ya okay how do they come up with that?
Yes, that is what the priest called them. I printed out a copy of the email correspondence that the person had put on the now defunct forum. That is what he called sedevacantists: gnostics.
The priest said that they think they have a "secret knowledge". :scared2:
He mistakes a private judgment based on public knowledge with a "secret knowledge." He is confused.
Don't tell him that. You'll knock down his sede sandcastle and he might have to look at the facts. :wink:
-
Has anyone else read this book?
OPM, no, but I would love to borrow a copy. Will see if I can wrest a copy of the book from my priest!
-
1.- The SSPX has been in talks for some time now. Don't you think that if they were negotiating, they would have already bought in to some agreement thrown out by Rome? When negotiating with Rome, their stance is pretty simple. "You have either this option or the other, take your pick." That's usually how it is.
It is not logical to assume they would have come to an agreement already. We can say that the excommunications have been lifted and there is some shift in society rhetoric.
2.- Those catechism classes mean nothing in this particular discussion. Who really expected the SSPX to be just as good if not better without LeFebvre?
No, they have to do with the attitude that the society wants sspx goers to have towards the conciliar bishops: ie to defend them against the accusations in the abuse scandal.
3.- Still not buying it. I think some of the extreme sedes went overboard when they first heard that the SSPX was in talks with Rome.
Not buying what? You said:
It's nothing more than a false rumor put out by a bunch of extreme sedes or extremists.
I showed you that it isn't just extreme sedes talking about it.
You know it's rather amusing, many sspx priests and bishops are accused by NO types of being crypto-sedes. Maybe the moment they are no longer in favor this will be a way to banish them, by suddenly discovering they must be sedes because they are saying the same things the society has always said, and you couldn't say those things without really being a sede.
bump
-
I'll probably get banned for asking this question, but here goes.
How can some still believe he is a true pope?
I don't think you'll get banned for that question. So why do I think he's true Pope? Well, as I said a few days ago, there are Popes and there are anti-popes, no in-between. This could have been stuff that he wrote or said before he even became Pope. I still don't think he meets enough criteria to be named anti-pope. Is he a Traditional Pope? No. Is he what I would call a good Pope? No. However, I don't think he's an anti-pope.
But if he held Heretical Views prior - then his election is invalid. A heretic cannot be elected Pope as he is not a member of the Church
-
I'll probably get banned for asking this question, but here goes.
How can some still believe he is a true pope?
I don't think you'll get banned for that question. So why do I think he's true Pope? Well, as I said a few days ago, there are Popes and there are anti-popes, no in-between. This could have been stuff that he wrote or said before he even became Pope. I still don't think he meets enough criteria to be named anti-pope. Is he a Traditional Pope? No. Is he what I would call a good Pope? No. However, I don't think he's an anti-pope.
But if he held Heretical Views prior - then his election is invalid. A heretic cannot be elected Pope as he is not a member of the Church
That was an old post of mine. My beliefs are different these days. :)