Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Santo Subito on November 06, 2011, 05:43:55 PM
-
http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1349995?eng=y
The Truth about Assisi. Never-Before-Seen Words from Benedict XVI
"I will do everything I can to make a syncretistic or relativistic interpretation of the event impossible." In a letter from the pope to a Lutheran pastor, the real reason for the convocation of the encounter
by Sandro Magister
ROME, October 26, 2011 – The following is an extract from a letter written by Benedict XVI on March 4, 2011 to Lutheran pastor Peter Beyerhaus, a longtime friend who had told him about his fears over the new convocation of the day of Assisi:
"I understand very well," the pope writes, "your concern about participating in the encounter of Assisi. But this commemoration would have been celebrated in any case, and, in the end, it seemed to me the best thing to go there personally, in order to try to determine the overall direction. Nonetheless, I will do everything I can to make a syncretistic or relativistic interpretation of the event impossible, and to make it clear that I will always believe and confess what I had called the Church's attention to with 'Dominus Iesus'."
This is the original German of the passage from the letter:
"Ihre Sorge angesichts meiner Teilnahme an dem Assisi-Jubiläum verstehe ich sehr gut. Aber dieses Gedenken mußte auf jeden Fall gefeiert werden, und nach allem Überlegen erschien es mir als das Beste, wenn ich selbst dort hingehe und damit versuchen kann, die Richtung des Ganzen zu bestimmen. Jedenfalls werde ich alles tun, damit eine synkretistische oder relativistische Auslegung des Vorgangs unmöglich wird und klar bleibt, daß ich weiterhin das glaube und bekenne, was ich als Schreiben 'Dominus Jesus' der Kirche in Erinnerung gerufen hatte."
These never-before-seen words from pope Joseph Ratzinger were made public last October 1, with the authorization of the recipient of the letter, Pastor Beyerhaus, at the beginning of a conference organized in Rome by the association "Catholica Spes" on the meaning of the encounter in Assisi.
And previously, Beyerhaus had referred to it in an interview with the German newspaper "Kirchliche Umschau" last April.
But the matter went unnoticed. Only on the eve of the October 27 encounter was it revisited and reissued by a few traditionalist websites.
One of the speakers at the conference was Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke, prefect of the supreme tribunal of the apostolic signatura, who said among other things:
"There are a number of dangers that such an encounter could bring in terms of the mass media communication of the event, of which – as it is clear – the pontiff is well aware. The means of mass media communication will say, even with the images alone, that all religions have come together to ask God for peace. A poorly formed Christian could draw from this the gravely mistaken conclusion that one religion is as good as another, and that Jesus Christ is one of the many mediators of salvation."
For an overview of the day to be celebrated tomorrow in Assisi, see the following article from www.chiesa:
-
A poorly formed Christian could draw from this the gravely mistaken conclusion that one religion is as good as another
For example, the mass of people who go to NO masses are poorly formed because they go to NO masses and hear the sermons there.
Double talk from the double tongued.
-
Actions speak louder than words.
Ratzinger could say he will make sure the Traditional Latin Mass is said in all churches for all time, and say he will abolish the Vatican II council's teachings.... BUT if he still lets the church continue on as it is doing without enforcing his words, he is worthless.
Which is exactly what is going on here.
Nice try , you serpent you, Santo Subito.
-
And it was just a pilgrimage. Why cannot the Pope walk with non-Christians in a friendly manner and support peace together? Have you seen any news reports which confuse this with syncrenism? If not, maybe you shouldn't jump to conclusions
Your approval of false worship in a Catholic venue under the auspices of the so-called Pope proves the contempt you have for the First Commandment. You have already argued that God can accept idolatry. You are a vile apologist for religious indifferentism. Catholics don't call upon St. John the Baptist to protect Islam, and they don't pray in Mosques, showing approval for false worship.
You really shouldn't be tolerated on this forum, truth and error don't deserve the same rights, the same venues. This forum is for Catholics, not for indifferentists.
-
If the "Pope" really doesn't approve of religious indifferentism and sycretism, he should tell those present that they must convert to Catholicism or they face damnation.
But he's interested in praising Luther, etc, and if his words "Never before seen" - it's entirely his fault.
People to whom words mean nothing will call agnostics "Pilgrims of Truth" They will pretend to adhere to all the dogmas of the Church but they prove by their actions they have simply redefined all the terms so as to tolerate and accept any belief. And their actions prove that that is what they do.
-
Sorry Telesphorus but you don't pay attention to arguments you just talk. So let me redirect this discussion to good Catholic question. The SSPX said they were going to say 1000 masses in reparation for Assisi III. I don't agree with them, but it got me thinking: if Jesus's sacrifice was perfectly sufficient in itself, why do we offer masses in reparation. "Applying the fruits of the sacrifice" is one thing, but reparation is another. How do we as fellow Catholics explain this? How many times does the Father have to receive the same sacrifice??
This proves you don't have a Catholic theology of the mass.
-
And look up the word "Islam" on the internet. The first definition is "the people of the Muslim faith". John Paul II asked St. John to protect the people of that faith from evils
You approve the Pope calling on the greatest Catholic prophet to protect an anti-Catholic movement follows a false prophet and that rejects Christ because you're an indifferentist who approves of idolatry and false worship and pretends they can be pleasing to God.
Real Catholics tell non-Catholics they must convert. False Catholics call on Catholic saints to protect anti-Catholic religions.
-
I haven't found an answer to that question that satisfied me. Catholic should always deepen their understanding of their faith.
You mean you don't believe in Catholic theology. If you don't believe in masses offered in reparation you're not Catholic.
-
I haven't found an answer to that question that satisfied me. Catholic should always deepen their understanding of their faith.
And there, sir, is your problem. The answer is not supposed to satisfy you , primarily. It should be assented to as truth, and if you don't "feel" it, then your feelings need to change.
Just saying it how it is.
-
He prayed that the PEOPLE be protected from EVIL.
People who are willingly choosing to worship evil cannot be protected from evil. Thus all the stories and accounts of people who worship the devil, or do seances, or Ouiji board junk etc etc become demonically oppressed/possessed and experience symptoms of such.
What sort of world do you live in? I seriously wonder, when I hear people like you speak its almost as if their brains were checked-in at the door.
-
I believe in it, but I have trouble understanding that one point. Why can't you ever give a charitable interpretation of someone's statement? You JUDGE OUR HOLINESS THE POPE?
Why don't you answer my mass question that
And did you look up that verse in Acts or not?
No one is judging your holiness the Pope. All sedevacantists do is recognize who he is not, and go off that. We aren't going to his door step with a paper judgment against his so-called reign to the papacy.
Ipso facto one is removed from their office by heresy, anyways...with or without proclamation by any Church official. Do you know of the SSPV, CMRI, or independent chapels that have been existing ever since Vatican II bloomed? They are places of safety in this storm of evil that has been rocking the world for 50 years now.
-
I haven't found an answer to that question that satisfied me. Catholic should always deepen their understanding of their faith.
And there, sir, is your problem. The answer is not supposed to satisfy you , primarily. It should be assented to as truth, and if you don't "feel" it, then your feelings need to change.
Just saying it how it is.
Its not about feelings, it about reason. I assent to it but don't understand it perfectly. Why don't you explain it
What are you asking?
-
It shouldn't be surprising that people who approve of false worship approve of calling on saints to protect the worshippers of a false religion, and confirming them in that religion, by suggesting St. John the Baptist will protect them in that false worship. What's surprising is that they call themselves Catholic. No true Catholic could ever do that. No quibbling over words can change that. It's false Christianity. It's indifferentism.
-
Go back and read my question
You asked so many questions, and your posts have been jumbled, I'm not really sure what you are asking anymore.
-
And Tele, I really like your sig.
-
I call on St. John the Baptist to protect violators of the First Commandment.
It's absurd to suggest that's acceptable. And calling for the protection of Islam is to approve of Islam. There's no way around it.
-
He did NOT say "protect them from conversion" but "take care of them". Why won't you see that? Especially when we are talking about your Pope.
You are the one who refuses to admit that he confirmed them in their false religion. Which he did. Calling on the protection of them in their false religion. As Muslims. Not as people called to convert to Christianity. As Muslims.
St. Alphonsus Liguori: "It is a mortal sin to have contempt for ones superiors"
It's a mortal sin to approve of false worship. Which is what you do. But no Pope can do it and expect real Catholics to consider him to be a real Pope.
-
Goodwilled people who really believe in the First Commandment can't believe God accepts the worship of false Gods, or that it's acceptable to call on saints to protect false religions.
People who ceaselessly quibble over the meaning of words in order to defend the indefensible are bad-willed people.
-
Dictionary
Is·lam (s-läm, z-, släm, z-)
n.
1. A monotheistic religion characterized by the acceptance of the doctrine of submission to God and to Muhammad as the chief and last prophet of God.
2.
a. The people or nations that practice Islam; the Muslim world.
b. The civilization developed by the Muslim world.
Other dictionaries have "The people or nations that practice Islam; the Muslim world" as the first definition. Learn some respect. BTW the sin of schism is a sin against charity
Hell-bound intransigent defenders of false religions need to learn respect of God.
No one can call on St. John the Baptist to protect Islam without committing a mortal sin of scandal, no "Pope" can without scandalizing the whole world, without committing apostasy.
-
It is apparent that you do not worship the Christian God.
-
Douay-Rheims Bible
Acts 17:23:
For passing by, and seeing your idols, I found an altar also, on which was written: To the unknown God. What therefore you worship, without knowing it, that I preach to you
Take it up with St. Paul
He certainly didn't mention any pagan Gods, did he?
You have already said that God will accept prayers to false deities, to idols.
It proves you are not a Christian.
-
So I can't say to a Muslim family "I hope God protects you and your loved ones from harm". That is all the Pope did
Now you're lying. He said Islam. He specifically grouped them according to their false religious practice.
-
Telesphorus, many Popes (papa) have said they are the father of all people. He was being a FATHER to them, saying "St. John, watch over their cares and worries, keep them from harm". Why are you insulting your father for saying that??
The only people Benedict is father of is the modernists.
-
Sorry Telesphorus but you don't pay attention to arguments you just talk. So let me redirect this discussion to good Catholic question. The SSPX said they were going to say 1000 masses in reparation for Assisi III. I don't agree with them, but it got me thinking: if Jesus's sacrifice was perfectly sufficient in itself, why do we offer masses in reparation. "Applying the fruits of the sacrifice" is one thing, but reparation is another. How do we as fellow Catholics explain this? How many times does the Father have to receive the same sacrifice??
He showed his hand here.
He's a Protestant, and I don't mean that he has some Prot-leaning ideas.
He's a PROTESTANT.
There are NO faithful Roman Catholics who phrase their questions like he just did.
I could show you comment after comment on other forums by Protestants who say the EXACT same thing he just did, in just about the EXACT same way.
This I know, because I used to BE a Protestant and I used to rail and rant against Holy Church with all my might.
Words like those I quoted are the 'bread and butter' of the anti-Catholic groups within fundamentalist Protestant organizations.
Besides, anyone who knows Catholic theology knows that 'applying the fruits of the Sacrifice' is THE SAME THING as 'making reparation'.
The fruit of the Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross IS reparation to God for the offenses of men.
NO Catholic would seriously ask 'how many times does the Father have to receive the same Sacrifice'.
Besides, if you look at aquinas' posts, and romantheology's posts, they all bear a distinct character: that of an unwillingness, or refusal, or even ignorance of the proper way to write about the central ideas of the Catholic Faith.
First, it's the Sacrifice, capital S.
It's the Cross, capital C.
It's the Mass, capital M.
See what I mean? So ready to argue about this nuance and that doctrine, but unwilling to even show the proper respect for the holy words that we use to describe and identify the most revered and sacred aspects of the one true Faith.
Oh, and 'faith' as a generic concept or as something general possessed by people, small f.
THE Faith, the Roman Catholic Faith, capital F, because it is THE Faith, not just A faith.
Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon.
Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us.
-
I'm actually not a sedevacantist. Though I saw on Bellarmine that you said you had doubts about the papacies of JPII and Benedict. Did I read that right?
Popes can't walk with non-Christians and support peace because there can be no true peace unless everyone follows the Social Kingship of Christ. No surprise that Santo Subito starts a dumb thread preaching to us about home hidden good intention of Benedict.
-
You don't accept the Pope as your father so you are in schism.
I don't really think he's the Pope. I just don't got as far as to declare the Chair empty because it's not my place as a layman to do so, but I believe he and the other Vatican II "Popes" will likely be declared antipopes by the Church one day. Oh, and you don't know the real meaning of schism.
And I was confused by certain quotes from those two Popes, but now I found out those sedevacantists took them out of context as usual
Kind of like how you take the words of Saints out of context? Double standards.
-
[He said that in a sense he was preaching about someone they ALREADY WORSHIPED. Learn to read
You're the one who needs to learn to read. The one they didn't know. The unknown God, not their false deities.
-
You don't accept the Pope as your father so you are in schism.
I don't really think he's the Pope. I just don't got as far as to declare the Chair empty because it's not my place as a layman to do so, but I believe he and the other Vatican II "Popes" will likely be declared antipopes by the Church one day. Oh, and you don't know the real meaning of schism.
And I was confused by certain quotes from those two Popes, but now I found out those sedevacantists took them out of context as usual
Kind of like how you take the words of Saints out of context? Double standards.
Exactly my point. You can cherry pick quotes from saints just as easily as you can with our Popes. You give wiggle room to the saints for statements, but not charity for your fathers
You have it backwards. You said the writings of Saints could be interpreted as this or that in an attempt to wiggle your way out of your own heretical beliefs. You are just like the typical modernist, full of double standards and you can't even realize it.
-
I've already read that quote. It does nothing to back up your point, it only makes you look like you don't know what you're talking about.
And ZENIT news? LOL.
-
What question?
And didn't I post like 15 quotes from Saints who said non-Catholics cannot be saved? If they can't be saved, why should we kiss up to their false religions?
-
If the Pope wants to say these people are without God and headed for destruction unless they find the Truth he should say so. Instead he praises them as "Pilgrims of Truth" because he promotes agnosticism, as he does in his works by casting doubt on all the meanings of the scripture.
People defend the praise of agnosticism, who defend prayers for false religions that God will protect the community of a false religion in that religion, defend "good faith" idolatry, question the efficacy of the mass don't belong on this forum.
-
Big deal.
You sarcastically say "Big deal" to minimize the gravity of praising false religions, defending false religions, because you minimize the First Commandment and the necessity for unbelievers to be converted.
-
These things done by the post-conciliar "Popes" have no precedent in the Catholic religion, because they aren't Catholic. They don't adhere to Catholic teaching and tradition. Either Catholic Tradition was correct for 19 centuries and these supposed Catholic religious leaders are in error, or it was never right.
-
No I don't. We must preach the Gospel or be condemned. But your view that only Christians can pray is HARMFUL to our message because it is so wrong and it puts people off
I never said only Christians can pray. Your bad faith is apparent.
-
No I don't. We must preach the Gospel or be condemned. But your view that only Christians can pray is HARMFUL to our message because it is so wrong and it puts people off
Non-Christians shouldn't bother praying if their prayers aren't offered to God.
And what's harmful is your views. Hopefully any Catholics who read your posts have enough to sense to know you're wrong.
-
When is a non-Christians prayer NOT idolatry
Prayers to God, not their false worship. This isn't hard to understand.
-
http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1349995?eng=y
The Truth about Assisi. Never-Before-Seen Words from Benedict XVI
"I will do everything I can to make a syncretistic or relativistic interpretation of the event impossible." In a letter from the pope to a Lutheran pastor, the real reason for the convocation of the encounter
by Sandro Magister
ROME, October 26, 2011 – The following is an extract from a letter written by Benedict XVI on March 4, 2011 to Lutheran pastor Peter Beyerhaus, a longtime friend who had told him about his fears over the new convocation of the day of Assisi:
"I understand very well," the pope writes, "your concern about participating in the encounter of Assisi. But this commemoration would have been celebrated in any case, and, in the end, it seemed to me the best thing to go there personally, in order to try to determine the overall direction. Nonetheless, I will do everything I can to make a syncretistic or relativistic interpretation of the event impossible, and to make it clear that I will always believe and confess what I had called the Church's attention to with 'Dominus Iesus'."
This is the original German of the passage from the letter:
"Ihre Sorge angesichts meiner Teilnahme an dem Assisi-Jubiläum verstehe ich sehr gut. Aber dieses Gedenken mußte auf jeden Fall gefeiert werden, und nach allem Überlegen erschien es mir als das Beste, wenn ich selbst dort hingehe und damit versuchen kann, die Richtung des Ganzen zu bestimmen. Jedenfalls werde ich alles tun, damit eine synkretistische oder relativistische Auslegung des Vorgangs unmöglich wird und klar bleibt, daß ich weiterhin das glaube und bekenne, was ich als Schreiben 'Dominus Jesus' der Kirche in Erinnerung gerufen hatte."
These never-before-seen words from pope Joseph Ratzinger were made public last October 1, with the authorization of the recipient of the letter, Pastor Beyerhaus, at the beginning of a conference organized in Rome by the association "Catholica Spes" on the meaning of the encounter in Assisi.
And previously, Beyerhaus had referred to it in an interview with the German newspaper "Kirchliche Umschau" last April.
But the matter went unnoticed. Only on the eve of the October 27 encounter was it revisited and reissued by a few traditionalist websites.
One of the speakers at the conference was Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke, prefect of the supreme tribunal of the apostolic signatura, who said among other things:
"There are a number of dangers that such an encounter could bring in terms of the mass media communication of the event, of which – as it is clear – the pontiff is well aware. The means of mass media communication will say, even with the images alone, that all religions have come together to ask God for peace. A poorly formed Christian could draw from this the gravely mistaken conclusion that one religion is as good as another, and that Jesus Christ is one of the many mediators of salvation."
For an overview of the day to be celebrated tomorrow in Assisi, see the following article from www.chiesa:
So let me get this straight, a "Catholic" "Pope" is justifying himself to a Lutheran Minister, presumably to avoid giving him offense?
That's Indifferentism right there, to seek to placate the enemies of the Church!!!!
Sorry, benny doesn't get to win.
-
Telesphorus, read this
http://www.womenpriests.org/teaching/therese.asp
Modernists can use saints to justify their agendas just like the use the writings of Vatican II. That was my point on the Bellarmine forum
Why did you post that heretical website?
-
Its not about feelings, it about reason.
It is amusing to see statements such as this. If it were about "reason" than you wouldn't purport to know people's "feelings" when they say or write something that is objectively wrong. But you seem to understand what they "really" meant by parsing words and sentences to mean some form that can, by some stretch, possibly approach an orthodox and valid meaning.
The fact is that both John Paul 2 and Benedict 16 have praised the Islamic religion by their actions and by their words. A person basing anything these men have said on reason will look to consistency in their words and actions and come to a conclusion. A person basing what these men have said on feelings will do as you do: find some way to interpret what they say in a way that does not make them look like heretics and apostates.
-
Not only do you lack knowledge in the theology department, but you aren't a good speller either, as John Lane pointed out.
-
Telesphorus has been saying that we must immediately try to convert non-Christians instead of encouragning what "little" good they have. Well, as he says, take it up with Pius XII and St. Basil:
Once again I never said that at all. I said that you may not approve of idolatry. You cannot permit idolatrous worship in a Catholic venue, you may not invite those people there without telling them they should convert. The question of how one approaches seeking to convert unbelievers is a completely separate issue than the question of confirming them in their worship, praising them as "Pilgrims of Truth" when they are sunk in errors.
Your approval of idolatry is totally foreign to the Catholic Faith. It's something that was never seen before the conciliar revolution.
Your approval of false worship and contempt for the First Commandment puts you in a different religion than the Fathers of the Church.
-
There's no excuse that can justify bringing unbelievers to offer their false worship. Doing so is collaborating in their violation of the First Commandment. It's heretical indifferentism, no amount of talking out of both sides of their mouths can change that.
And it's something with absolutely no justification in the teaching of 19 centuries of the Church before the so-called Second Vatican Council.
-
This is the reason why the Catholic Church has neither scorned nor rejected the pagan philosophies.
Philosophies, not religions. You can only advance your position by abusing the meaning of words. Just as all modernists and modernist sympathizers do.
-
Not only do you lack knowledge in the theology department, but you aren't a good speller either, as John Lane pointed out.
I know how to spell, I just write quickly. And my spelling skills have nothing to do with the substance of what I say anyway. John Lane couldn't respond to what I wrote so he started attacking me for my spelling and age. He's got issues. I heard him speak before
Trust me, he's not the one with the issues.
-
How is the wood of devils cleared away, unless He who is above them all be preached? All nations then had devils for their gods: those whom they called gods, were devils, as the Apostle more openly says, The things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice unto devils, and not to God. 1 Corinthians 10:20 Since therefore they were in captivity, because they sacrificed to devils, and on that account the whole earth had remained woody; He is declared to be great, and above all worldly praise.
You reject St. Paul and St. Augustine because you reject Catholic Tradition.
-
Thats it. I'm going on an anti troll campaign... Cathinfo is just not fun with them here...
aquinasg=(http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSLhVeACBeto9a6RT07sL1T4O7GrohGNENIlA_cWTDXmlL_Ifv6tDtkZolD)
-
Buddhism, for example, is NOTHING BUT PHILOSOPHY (plus exercises)
First of all, that isn't true. People don't meditate in front of idols of Buddha because it is just a philosophy. The Church does reject anti-Christian philosophies.
But you don't, because you're in a different religion.
-
THe Popes were NOT praising the prayers of other religions as if they were perfect.
As if they were perfect. Are Catholic prayers always perfect? They are not true prayers, they are false worship. Which you approve of. And idolatry cannot be approved of. That you approve of it shows you reject the First Commandment, and reject the Catholic religion.
They were called on the pray to GOD, and to bear witessthat they can be religious in front of each other without violence.
If Catholics are unwilling to defend their sanctuaries from desecration then they no longer have the Catholic Faith.
Why can't we legitimately differ in our opinion of this matter? Why call us nn-Catholics?
Those who believe the Catholic Faith do not have a different opinion on this matter.
Those who don't promote indifferentism.
-
BTW- Tele- thank you for taking this troll on. You're making excellent points...
-
I know how to spell, I just write quickly. And my spelling skills have nothing to do with the substance of what I say anyway. John Lane couldn't respond to what I wrote so he started attacking me for my spelling and age. He's got issues. I heard him speak before
He doesn't have the issue that you have, of heretically believing that idolatry, the worship of false gods, can be pleasing to God. That puts you outside the Catholic Faith.
-
It's just a philosophy, that's why they put Buddha on a Catholic altar! (http://www.traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A430rcAssisi1986.html)
Sane people can see it is sacrilege, indifferentism and apostasy.
This sort of thing would never have been accepted in earlier times, because they knew (as does any Catholic who has the Catholic Faith) that it is abominable to do such a thing.
-
MOST Buddhist do not worship Buddha at all so his statues aren't idols but reminders on what they consider a great meditator.
If they're trying to achieve Nirvana then they're doing evil, imitating an evil teacher venerating his idol.
And those Buddhists were told that they could meditate and relax in a church, a holy place,
You mean they were told to practice this false religion in a holy place and desecrate it.
where maybe God would touch their hearts by the art on the walls, the holy Presense, ect. They were told to take the statue off the altar once the Catholics found out about it.
A likely story. You give over a church to idolaters and are surprised they desecrate it? No, the authorities knew what they were doing. They knew they were handing over a Christian sanctuary for false worship, to desecrate it, because they're indifferentists and didn't care about it. They routinely desecrate churches.
And St. Paul says in acts 17:23 that the Greeks pagan worship was a forshadowing of their latter Christian worship. Stop ignoring the Bible
That's not what St. Paul says at all. He says there is an unknown God - not their pagan gods that they worshipped.
You are the one ignoring the Bible and all of Catholic Tradition to defend the desecration of churches. They promote sacrilege because they don't believe in the Catholic religion.
You're clearly misrepresenting St. Paul to say that their "pagan worship" was foreshadowing Christian worship. That's not what he said at all. As I've said before you consistently try to twist the meanings of words, because that's the only way to defend modernism, which is based on semantic games.
-
Not all meditation is evil and not all statues are idols.
Statues used for non-Christian worship are idols.
There are various ways of interpreting Buddhism because it is an Asian belief system which not as clear and "cut and dry" as ours.
And none of them acknowledge the Lord Jesus Christ as the only way to salvation. All those who practice those religions are rejecting the Lord Jesus Christ. They are rejecting God. They are practicing a religion, seeking salvation in themselves and in the obliteration of their conscious selves. Their practices in approved of in a Holy place desecrates that place.
It kinda depends on the person. Some buddhists worship themselves through their beliefs. Others merely use buddhism to learn legitimate meditative states and how to cope with a world they have trouble understanding.
And you still ignore that verse. I broke it down for you before. He says that he is preaching to them a God whom they already know and worship in some vague way
No, you keep misrepresenting it. You claimed before that there pagan worship foreshadowed the worship of the true God and that St. Paul is saying that. No, St. Paul is not saying that about any of their deities, but the deity they claim they don't know.
-
He said "THAT which you worshipped, THAT I preach to you". Just read it.
You said it was their pagan worship. It was not. It was the unknown God.
And Buddhist don't necessarily reject God.
Yes they do. If you don't accept Christ you reject him. There's no middle way.
They don't understand Him. But John Paul II called on them to pray to GOD at Assisi!
Did he call on them to pray to Our Lord or not?
And they don't worship statues so they ain't idols
Buddha is an idol because he represents the goal of their false religion: and they practice their false religion which is idolatry, the belief in achieving Nirvana. The religion is in its essence the rejection of God and his Creation. The rejection of human existence.
You apologize for these evil false religions and their use to desecrate Catholic churches because you do not have the Catholic Faith, you do not believe what the Church taught for nineteen hundred years, you believe in a totally different religion, which pretends that false worship is acceptable to God.
-
And those who don't know of Christ are NOT rejecting him.
the Buddhists in a Catholic Church practicing their false religion are unaware of the religion of Christ?
Why would you say something so nonsensical
What you are saying is nonsensical. The concept of Nirvana rejects God and Creation. They reject Christ, full stop. They know all about the Catholic religion, and they reject it.
And you approve of their rejection, pretending they can't be blamed no matter what insane ideas they have about ending their cycle of lives and seeking the destruction of their conscious selves.
While I will not speculate on how culpable each individual is - the practice of that worship is intolerable in a Catholic sanctuary, and those who permitted absolutely are culpable for the sacrilege that resulted.
-
St. Paul said that they had already be PRAYING to the Unknown God.
You're arguing with a straw man here, I never said otherwise. You earlier twisted St. Paul's words to say he was saying their pagan worship was prefiguring true worship. That is odious misrepresentation, but that's what I expect from bad-willed indifferentists who apologize for sacrilege and idolatry.
-
People who contort scriptures to mean whatever they want them to mean are bad-willed individuals. That's why all neo-modernists (not everyone who picks up some of their ideas are bad-willed, but those who come up with those ideas certainly are) are bad-willed. They are doing exactly the opposite of what Christ said: Say yes when you mean yes and No when you mean no, and it's deliberate, the deliberate corruption and contamination of the Faith with their lies.
-
Real Catholics follow the traditions the Church has always taught. They follow scripture according to the Fathers of the Church and the Doctors of the Church. They don't approve of false worship under the auspices of supposed Catholic authorities, sacrilegiously violating the sanctuaries of Our Lord.
-
You just won't read the verse honestly will you????
You are the dishonest one. They worshipped the God they didn't know - because they didn't know God, and there's only one God, precisely the one they didn't know.
And buddhism is VERY subjective. You can't make generalizations about it like you do. It is very much depends on the individual
Buddhism rejects Christ and God's Creation and seeks a false form of "salvation" called Nirvana.
That's not subjective at all, that's the reality, and it makes it inimical to the Gospels.
Your apologies for that perverse "philosophy" as you call it shows to me you respect their false belief far more than you respect the First Commandment or the Gospels.
You are apparently indifferent to sacrilege, the violation of the sanctuaries of the Lord.
Because fundamentally you're an indifferentist.
-
Christian charity does not extend to going round in round circles with someone who clearly argues in bad faith as you do.
Twisting the meanings of words, misrepresenting scripture, flat out rejecting scripture and the Church Fathers when they say pagan gods are devils, defending the sacrilegious violation of Catholic sanctuaries - you are not Catholic.
-
So pagans worship God.
That does not follow. They worshipped God in venerating the God they didn't know. That's a far cry from the conclusion, "So pagans worship God" I never denied that a pagan could worship God, when I'm speaking of pagan worship, I'm speaking of their false deities, which you have tried to say represent angels or God himself, when the scriptures say they are devils.
Thank you
You show a lot of smug satisfaction for having proven nothing and having never argued against my actual position.
But what you have argued, is that God accepts prayers to false deities, that Buddhists don't reject Christ when their religion rejects human existence as being evil, that it wasn't sacrilege to have them practice their vile false religion in a Catholic sanctuary. You simply reject the First Commandment as a dead letter that can only ever condemn real Catholics who actually have the Catholic Faith and resist false teachers - but excuses the rest of humanity from any true obligation to worship. That is what happens when one takes your "presumption of good faith" to its logical conclusion.
But you're not fooling anyone here. People who approve of sacrilege as you do, do not have the Catholic Faith.
-
And you can't interprete Buddhism with a Western mindset. It is not about doctrines at all, but purely experience. Its like they say "think this, do this, feel this, and this can happen if you are pure of heart" without claiming to have objective philosophical knowledge. They think it is a waste of time to contemplate the world because there is so much pain around. They are in error, but at least let's understand them
You finally admit they're in error, so how are they in error? Because they reject God and seek a false salvation. But you approve of their false religion being practiced in a Catholic sanctuary, because you have no reverence at all for the Catholic religion, just for false religions.
You pretend to understand the false religions that you refuse to admit someone actually describing the religion is able to do so because it's convenient for you to take refuge in obscurity - You understand all these false religions and their adherents, but you refuse to understand the Catholic religion or the Catholic who really believes, those are the people you claim to not understand.
It is wickedly perverse and absolutely anti-Christian.
You're going to be damned if you adhere to your apologies for sacrilege.
-
I really don't like this idiot that is mocking the name of St. Thomas.
Tele he is bad willed, and you are right on that. I think I admitted it a couple days ago but he has probably buried it with his idiotic posts.
The worst part is, I think my having to up-vote you on these threads is cancelling out my down-votes from all our arguments :P
-
The certain sign of a bad-willed false Catholic is that they respect all religions except for the Faith that is handed down from Catholic Tradition. They never cease to undermine the Catholic Faith with their insincere and dishonest arguments but they invariably defend all manner of those who reject the Catholic Faith.
-
The Athenians had many gods, as saint Paul says in Acts 17. So they worship devils and God?
They did not have the true religion. It is certainly possible for people to cry out to God and to worship idols and to be inconsistent. Since they didn't know God, they were not practicing the true religion.
Once again, you can't worship a devil unless you have an evil in your heart.
That is certainly debatable. I've already pointed out that the early Christians would not commit idolatry even though it would only have been a symbolic act that didn't reflect their true beliefs. Would they not have been worshipping if they offered sacrifice to those idols? They would have been worshipping the idols.
It is not a physical thing that goes anywhere.
They are outward acts towards a false concept of God. Towards an idol. It seems God takes offense at it, but you don't. l
Again, what exits? The words and he intentions. That is all. The devil can't take words and use them,
Says who? Claiming the devil can't make use of false worship has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.
nor can he use good intentions. So pagans can pray to God even when their minds have false ideas, as long as their heart are in the right place.
If there heart is set on an idol then their hearts are bad. Salvation requires Faith, not just the heart. Without Baptism pagans are in bondage to sin.
You think you are defending GOd, but you are not.
Real Catholics oppose sacrilege and idolatry, you approve of them, because you don't have the Catholic Faith.
You are acting humanity which He created
It appears we've come to the point where you have nothing but nonsense to say.
If you believe idolatry is pleasing to God so long as the "heart is in the right place" then you don't believe in the Catholic Faith.
-
Who am I supposed to defend the faith against on here? We are all Catholics! lol. besides I have been on yahoo forums MANY times defending purity and the faith against who say we are nαzιs. Stop judging me
You are really no different than the people who call us nαzιs, and I dare say you seek their approval more than you seek the approval of those who actually believe the Catholic Faith. It's more important for you to not be "nαzι" than to be Catholic.
-
And Buddhists don't believe existence is evil the way you think.
Oh, you know how I think of what they think? Your presumption knows no bounds. They reject Creation. They reject God. They reject Christ.
They say "think the world is evil". They don't make judgments, they just act. It is hard for Westerners to understand.
Taking refuge in obscurity again. "Oh, westerners cannot understand our religion"
But people raised on Buddhism sometimes can't even understand what accepting Jesus means on that level. Once you meditate like that you get almost a different brain wave.
Which shows it's an evil practice that darkens the intellect.
If the Catholics at Assisi assesed them and thought they were good willed, it is not necessarily sacrilage to let them use a church for a little while.
What part don't you understand of the fact that practicing a false religion in a Holy place is sacrilegious? Why do you pretend not to understand the First Commandment? Why do you have more respect for false religions than for God's Holy places?
Give them exposure to Catholic art, smells, ect.
As opposed to the Gospel. I think we're starting to see what you really think of the Catholic religion. It's art and smells, not the Gospel, they don't need the Gospel, they need exposure to art and smells for "appreciation."
It's just indifferentism pretending to be Catholic.
-
These Assisi meetings are in no way evangelical, despite the phony excuses for sacrilege we're hearing here. They are intended to show "Catholic" approval for false religions, not to spread the Gospel. Maybe the pagans and heretics will appreciate the art and the smells! They won't think we're nαzιs!
It's all so disgusting. It's the rejection of the Catholic Faith for religious indifferentism.
-
You already admitted that the Athenian had a idol to the unknown God who they worshipped somehow before St. Paul got there!
Idol has two meanings. I can mean the object of worship, or it could just be the statue of a god. The first case is a clear violation of natural law. To say that the second cannot be used by pagans who don't know Christ is also a violation of nature because we are visual beings.
This is all just nonsense. It was not an idol but an altar. St. Paul was passing idols and saw an altar.
For passing by, and seeing your idols, I found an altar also, on which was written: To the unknown God. What therefore you worship, without knowing it, that I preach to you:
And you use your faith to condemn the good intentions of other human beings.
No, I condemn false worship. False worship is against the natural law inscribed on the human heart. Now I don't deny there are varying degrees of culpability, but it must be call an evil, because it is an evil.
You step on their hearts because you don't understand them.
God rejects false worship. This has nothing to do with the heart, except for the attachment certain people have for idols because they are in the chains of the devil. You really make Baptism totally unnecessary - it all depends "on the heart" - well, then what's the point of Catholic worship?
The prayers consists of words and intention. NOTHING ELSE.
Directed towards false gods, not the true God. So it is violating God's law.
That is what exists. Demons use SINS to bring people to hell, not external things.
False worship is a sin. False deities and false religions are sins that multiply sins, as St. Paul says, because of idolatry people delivered themselves to unnatural vices. If external things don't matter, what's the point of worship at all? Why not just say whenever someone does something immoral that "it's what's in their heart that counts" we should "respect" them. It's only when you make Faith relative and somehow consider it to be less "real" that someone starts to make this distinction between sins against Faith and other sins, that somehow the former is inculpable, but the latter is not. It simply reflects the attitudes of people in a religious indifferent society, it makes religion a private matter that doesn't really matter "because it's the heart that counts"
God is not worshiping by superficial prayers and neither is the demons. If a pagan has a good heart, Good God will hear him. The End
If he has a good heart he will reject idolatry, because it violates the natural law.
You defend these evil religions with far more determination than you seek to be Catholic. You come to this forum to harass us precisely because we are Catholics, not false liberals.
-
Man needs stories;
Man needs God, not stories about false gods. As St. Augustine says, the whole world worshipped devils.
the true stories of the Bible satisfies that need, but for pagans who don't know Christ, myths fill that void. It is natural.
It is human nature to be sinful, to be born in sin. Idolatry isn't about satisfying human needs. We worship God because we owe him worship as the true God. Not because we need something to worship.
One does not necessarily "delivere themselves to unnatural vices" because of it.
The abominable practices of the pagans refutes that view.
Truth does matter, external worship does matter. But the words the use to refer to their God or gods is irrelevant;
Words have meanings. False gods are not based on Revelation.
their false concepts are unfortunate but doesn't mean their hearts are in the wrong place.
They are born in sin and their false worship is against God.
I didn't say they don't need baptism because I didn't say their prayers justify them. I merely said God can hear their prayers.
You are saying what is tantamount to it, that false worship is pleasing to God and can save "so long as their heart is right."
-
Nobody has to read what I post; I post to protect my Papa from your narrow attacks.
No, you post to spew heresy.
As I said before, there are two ways to use your term idolatry. To worship a statue as a god in itself is clearly contrary to natural law. To venerate it as a statue of a god is something different, and so is believing a spirit is in the statue. As Catholic apologists have pointed out for centuries, man wasn't satisfied with philsophical knowledge of God (however true it was). Man needs stories; the true stories of the Bible satisfies that need, but for pagans who don't know Christ, myths fill that void. It is natural.
That is all incredibly stupid. First of all you seem to think it's ok if non-Catholics venerate a statue of a false god. That is a heretical belief. If they are not venerating the God of the Trinity then they are not saved. And it's not about what fits the needs of such people. It's about them doing what's right rather than selfishly focusing on their own needs.
But the words the use to refer to their God or gods is irrelevant; their false concepts are unfortunate but doesn't mean their hearts are in the wrong place.
It doesn't matter if they have good intentions. You just don't know what you're talking about. If their prayers are not offered to God, then He does not answer their prayers and they are not saved unless they repent.
-
He is so deluded by the modernism he thinks he's helping his Papa by defending his heresy. In reality he is aiding the devil in condemning his Papa, he will find this out at judgment that he could have saved him, but CHOSE not to and it will be too late.
-
Again, apologies for my very hasty spelling
Your spelling should be the least of your worries.
Its your understanding of theology that needs to be honed.
-
aquinasq, THIS is why we do not take seriously the "Pope's" pretentions to "orthodoxy."
Read AUCTOREM FIDE by Pope Pius VI: Heretics use ambiguity to inculcate heresy.
POPE PIUS VI TELLS US THAT HERETICS HAVE ALWAYS USED AMBIGUITY TO INCULCATE HERESIES AND THAT CATHOLICS MUST CONDEMN THE HERETICAL STATEMENT DESPITE THE AMBIGUITY UNDER WHICH IT MAY BE CAMOUFLAGED!
Pope Pius VI, condemning the Synod of Pistoia, Bull “Auctorem fidei," August 28, 1794: “[The Ancient Doctors] knew the capacity of innovators in the art of deception. In order not to shock the ears of Catholics, they sought to hide the subtleties of their tortuous maneuvers by the use of seemingly innocuous words such as would allow them to insinuate error into souls in the most gentle manner. Once the truth had been compromised, they could, by means of slight changes or additions in phraseology, distort the confession of the faith which is necessary for our salvation, and lead the faithful by subtle errors to their eternal damnation. This manner of dissimulating and lying is vicious, regardless of the circuмstances under which it is used. For very good reasons it can never be tolerated in a synod of which the principal glory consists above all in teaching the truth with clarity and excluding all danger of error.
"Moreover, if all this is sinful, it cannot be excused in the way that one sees it being done, under the erroneous pretext that the seemingly shocking affirmations in one place are further developed along orthodox lines in other places, and even in yet other places corrected; as if allowing for the possibility of either affirming or denying the statement, or of leaving it up the personal inclinations of the individual – such has always been the fraudulent and daring method used by innovators to establish error. It allows for both the possibility of promoting error and of excusing it.
"It is as if the innovators pretended that they always intended to present the alternative passages, especially to those of simple faith who eventually come to know only some part of the conclusions of such discussions which are published in the common language for everyone's use. Or again, as if the same faithful had the ability on examining such docuмents to judge such matters for themselves without getting confused and avoiding all risk of error. It is a most reprehensible technique for the insinuation of doctrinal errors and one condemned long ago by our predecessor Saint Celestine who found it used in the writings of Nestorius, Bishop of Constantinople, and which he exposed in order to condemn it with the greatest possible severity. Once these texts were examined carefully, the impostor was exposed and confounded, for he expressed himself in a plethora of words, mixing true things with others that were obscure; mixing at times one with the other in such a way that he was also able to confess those things which were denied while at the same time possessing a basis for denying those very sentences which he confessed.
"In order to expose such snares, something which becomes necessary with a certain frequency in every century, no other method is required than the following: WHENEVER IT BECOMES NECESSARY TO EXPOSE STATEMENTS WHICH DISGUISE SOME SUSPECTED ERROR OR DANGER UNDER THE VEIL OF AMBIGUITY, ONE MUST DENOUNCE THE PERVERSE MEANING UNDER WHICH THE ERROR OPPOSED TO CATHOLIC TRUTH IS CAMOUFLAGED.”
You have fallen victim to this kind of deception. This is what Vatican II did and what all the "Popes" since then have done.
-
You keep trying to turn my words into modernism.
No, your words are already filled with modernism.
But it's not so. We must worship God BOTH because we have the need to and because it is owed to Him. THomas Aquinas says so, and so does the whole Catholic tradition.
No one ever denied that. You kept talking about people worshipping whoever based on their needs, which is possibly the dumbest argument I have ever read.
Many pagans are raised with those myths by which they make sense of the world. Many of them probably don't believe in them the way we do about our faith. They accept them as stories. At night when its cold, and the sun is far away, they may turn to prayer, and naturally they'll use names and titles they know of.
You just aren't making sense here.
They don't know Aristotle, Aquinas, and Plato,
Aristotle WAS a pagan, Plato wasn't Christian either. And I think it's ridiculous that you put them and Aquinas all in the same group. Thomas Aquinas was way smarter than either of them.
nor has the Church defined what attributes of God or angels must be believed as a necessity of means before one can prayer fruitfully. You may think I am wrong, but unless you can use Church teaching to refute me, stop calling me a heretic publicly
You're wrong here. The Church HAS defined it, and this statement from you only shows your lack of knowledge regarding theology and Church history.
-
Pope Pius VI, condemning the Synod of Pistoia, Bull “Auctorem fidei," August 28, 1794: "Or again, as if the same faithful had the ability on examining such docuмents to judge such matters for themselves without getting confused and avoiding all risk of error..."
This is why we have a Magisterium. You think the faithful have the right to judge councils of matters of theology
THIS IS the magisterial teaching of the Pope. The laity THEN did not have the kind of training or education or availability that we have today. He is saying heretics take advantage of the relative ignorance of the laity: AND THEY DO!
And of course you don't address the issue, you just take one sentence you try to use (wrongly) to support your own notion.
Nope, this is the teaching of the church, and we can say how it applies.
-
Don't you just LOVE Newchurch?
When it's time to 'venerate' 'Mother' Agnes/Teresa the heretic or the UnBlessed Wojtyla, they crank up the PR machine and everybody gets misty-eyed.
As soon as it's time to take your faith seriously, they get all secretive and act as though you should just go home and let them 'take care of things'.
That's how they insinuated themselves into the parishes in the first place... it was little by little, and by encouraging all of the SECONDARY responsibilities and/or benefits of parish life, like attendance at CCD for the kids, or a Ladies' Sodality, or K of C, they were able to get people believing that they had pretty much exhausted their duty to the Church, and their pastors and Bishops were handling the 'big, important stuff'.
Meanwhile, that little leaven Our Lord warned us about was doing its work.
Newchurch reminds me of the Pharisees...
"If he were not a criminal, we would not have brought him to you."
In short, if Newchurch says +Lefebvre is wrong, it MUST be because he IS, right?
If +Williamson is ordered to stop pretty much all his public ministry until +Fellay is finished hobnobbing with Ratzinger, then he MUST be doing something wrong!
Otherwise, Newchurch wouldn't be going after them like they have over all these years!
Isn't it OBVIOUS? Just go read Faustina's book and pray the Ludicrous Miseries and let us take care of the [strikethrough]spin[/strikethrough], I mean 'work of the church'.
Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon.
Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us.