Author Topic: Beck: Restore Americas Honor at the memorial of a white supremacist? (Read 4311 times)

Belloc · « **Reply #30 on:** September 02, 2010, 01:22:01 PM »

It is an interesting topic, some say that Calvary was at the western edge of Garden of Eden,etc..

of note, teh Neocaths and mainstream liberrs are active-went to my email account at catholic.org and they are off their giddiness over Chaput and now praising some fellow or another that was catholic and spoke at Beck's sideshow:

http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=38079

that giddy, band wagon schitick is more offensive to me then a Mormon is in general....a lot of empty action and hold-hands ecuмenism....no Catholic Action

Belloc · « **Reply #31 on:** September 02, 2010, 01:28:26 PM »

Looking at the comments made me physcially ill, I me, I am now feeling drained-almost posted a response, but really, most of these people have not a clue of Catholicism,really.

A mix of ecuмenism, buy-the-coprorate-media hype and Americanism....

is it me or are the rest of you sick of it???

I wish I could ignore these sites and others...especially as I get emails for of crap like this often enough......whether Obama is a Muslim, Beck,etc,etc....

I am I gues the only one that thinks that the solution to the problems is not a a___monkey like Beck, but CSO and is application......guess, I am truly alone! :smash-pc: :cry:

(pity party to be announced later!)

Alexandria · « **Reply #32 on:** September 02, 2010, 01:29:30 PM »

Belloc, check this out: http://www.christorchaos.com/ApostasyContinuestoHaveConsequences.html

You may not care for the author, but I think you will like the article.

Belloc · « **Reply #33 on:** September 02, 2010, 01:45:02 PM »

Quote from: Alexandria

Belloc, check this out: http://www.christorchaos.com/ApostasyContinuestoHaveConsequences.html

You may not care for the author, but I think you will like the article.

wil lread on break-true, not a fan of his per se, but he is to me far better then many an will give him a open hearing and read.thanks!!

Roman Catholic · « **Reply #34 on:** September 02, 2010, 08:40:54 PM »

Quote from: Belloc

Looking at the comments made me physcially ill, I me, I am now feeling drained-almost posted a response, but really, most of these people have not a clue of Catholicism,really.

A mix of ecuмenism, buy-the-coprorate-media hype and Americanism....

is it me or are the rest of you sick of it???

I wish I could ignore these sites and others

I can't comment on this one , because that's what I did this time - ignored.

There is only so much time in each day.

Roman Catholic · « **Reply #35 on:** September 04, 2010, 04:14:58 AM »

Quote from: innocenza

But, Classicom,

How would it wash, to have as the Vicar of Christ on Earth, a man fallible in matters of faith and morals, when speaking as Christ's Vicar?

Yes, would God and the Church demand that Catholics submit their consciences to someone who is falllible in these matters?

Nothing changed.

The Dogmatic definition of 1870 is not a creation of the Church. It is the dogmatic pronouncement of a Truth about the Papal Magisterium. Papal teachings made prior to the 1870 proclamation can, if they meet the criteria set out in the dogmatic definition, be considered infallible.

We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable.
So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema. (see Denziger §1839