Author Topic: BXVIs Ecuмenism and "Significant Silence" (Read 4318 times)

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #15 on:** April 01, 2011, 01:16:21 PM »

It will not change anyone's mind, of course, but waiting for the Messias and waiting for the Judge are two very different things.

Jesus only came as the Messias ONCE, 2000 years ago. His next coming will not be as Messias, but as Judge. Those who have failed to make use of the time of mercy will be feel the heavy hand of infinite justice -- and BXVI is setting them up for destruction.

For the love of God and all that passes for sanity, stevus, do not try to twist Card. Ratzinger's obvious meaning.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #16 on:** April 01, 2011, 01:22:36 PM »

Quote from: stevusmagnus

Are you dense? The Jews expect the Messiah to come for the first time. They are wrong in this specific expectation because He already came.

Yet He, the Messiah, is coming for a second time. Thus, in this sense, we are ALL waiting for the Messiah.

You are the dense one, amigo. To say "this" sense, you are using a word that indicates the singular, yet you openly admit it really represents the plural. Your refuse to see what is right in front of your face.

Quote

Have you not yet figured out, this is what liberals do?

I know very well what they do. I just don't play into it like a dope. You do.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #17 on:** April 01, 2011, 01:37:40 PM »

Quote from: stevusmagnus

No one is judging the Pope, but you and Raoul judge he is not Pope.

You do grasp that is if he isn't Pope, it is impossible to 'judge' him as Pope, right? You also grasp that disputing one's claim to an office is entirely different from saying he did this or that after certainly assuming the office?

If you were a prosecutor somewhere, I would make sure that if I were going to commit a crime I did so in your area. My acquittal would be morally certain. Where did you go to law school? Juilliard? The University of Phoenix?

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #18 on:** April 01, 2011, 02:05:22 PM »

Quote from: gladius_veritatis

It will not change anyone's mind, of course, but waiting for the Messias and waiting for the Judge are two very different things.

No sh*t.

Quote

Jesus only came as the Messias ONCE, 2000 years ago. His next coming will not be as Messias, but as Judge. Those who have failed to make use of the time of mercy will be feel the heavy hand of infinite justice -- and BXVI is setting them up for destruction.

Libs play with words, GV. You and I know He is coming as judge. Yet He is still the Messiah and so, technically, "the Messiah" will come again, so they are not waiting in vain, in the sense that He is IS indeed coming.

Am I endorsing this ambiguously phrased statement that gives a false appearance of unity between Catholicism Judiasm? NO!!!! I'm simply pointing out how the ecuмenists operate. They operate subtlely and slyly.

You would figure them all either complete idiots or insane fools who don't even realize the meaning of "Messiah" or else believe Jesus was not the Messiah! Do you realize what you are saying? That Joseph Ratzinger, who without dispute possesses a high degree of intelligence, would be so absolutely stupid as to not even recognize what Messiah means in Catholic theology? You would turn him into a blubbering idiot to explain away his "obviously" false statements. In reality he is not an idiot and am telling you the only logical explanation in which his words make any sense.

Quote

For the love of God and all that passes for sanity, stevus, do not try to twist Card. Ratzinger's obvious meaning.

How the Hell am I twisting his "obvious" meaning? I'm stating "obvious" facts and using his exact words!

A lot of things are "obvious" to you aren't they? Oddly 99.9% of people can't see what you claim is "obvious". This would lead a rational man to question whether these things are "obvious" or not.

Raoul76 · « **Reply #19 on:** April 01, 2011, 02:18:43 PM »

You're not fooling anyone but yourself, Steve-O.

Not a single person has ever interpreted the line from the book in the way you do. Not a single solitary soul. You are nearly as bad as Ratzinger himself in your attempts to defend his every word, while condemining the sedes and calling them insane. The level of blindness is unfathomable.

You seem to think the very concept of anti-Christ is insane or crackpot material. Do you want to put St. Paul or St. John on trial next? Whether you realize it or not, you are not only attempting to bury the truth, but to deliver the death-blow to all common sense as well as to language ( words don't mean what they say, etc. ).

It's really simple.

Exhibit A: The Jews reject Christ. That is why they are spoken of as "Jews" instead of as Christians in this book. If they had converted, they wouldn't be speaking of them as Jews here. Copy that?

The Jews are said to be waiting for a Messiah, and not in vain. As seen in Exhibit A, they reject Christ. Ergo, Christ is not the Messiah spoken of here. Copy that?

You say they are waiting for the Second Coming of Christ rather than an anti-Christ type of Messiah. This is embarrassing and shameless on two levels:

( 1 ) The Christ who comes the second time is the same one who came the first time. You don't get saved by the second coming while rejecting the first. Not to mention, as gladius points out, He comes back the second time as wrathful judge. Heard of the Dies Irae?

If you are so completely ignorant of Catholic theology that you are actually trying to put it out there that Jews who reject Christ's first coming can be saved by His second coming, you need to stop talking and cease humiliating yourself. You are not even at the level of the average trad catechumen. Christ does not come the second time to save anyone, that work was already done on the Cross. He comes back to punish those who reject His salvific work on the Cross, through disbelief or rebellion.

What you are saying is that they are unconsciously waiting for the same God they have already rejected, and as soon as they see Him a second time they'll convert. But don't you see, it's too late to convert at that point. God does not come back to say "Hey, guys, I know I came and did these miracles and suffered and died and was resurrected, and you still didn't believe, worse, you screamed for my blood, but this time I'm gonna show you something that's REALLY cool, I'm hoping you'll like it and maybe give me a chance!" He comes back to get vengeance on those who disdained His incarnation as the man-God.

( 2 ) If what you're saying is correct -- though it's galling to say that even for the purpose of a hypothesis, considering you're not even in the ballpark of rational discourse -- then the Jews won't be saved until the Second Coming. Therefore, by not trying to convert the Jews, we're condemning all of them except that last batch at the last moment of time to almost certain damnation. Or does the Second Coming somehow retroactively save all Jews?

I don't even know why I bother to respond, sometimes you just have to walk away.

Raoul76 · « **Reply #20 on:** April 01, 2011, 02:23:24 PM »

StevusMagnus said:

Quote

You would figure them all either complete idiots or insane fools who don't even realize the meaning of "Messiah" or else believe Jesus was not the Messiah! Do you realize what you are saying? That Joseph Ratzinger, who without dispute possesses a high degree of intelligence, would be so absolutely stupid as to not even recognize what Messiah means in Catholic theology?

Do you think JPII, who rose to the rank of supposed "Pope," who spoke seven languages or more, was so absolutely stupid that he didn't know what he was saying when he said "The Old Covenant has never been revoked"?

No one ever said they were stupid. I said they were heretics and Judaizers, as could not possibly be more obvious.

What does possessing knowledge of theology have to do with being a heretic? You don't think some of the Monophysites or Arians sounded intelligent and like they knew a lot about theology? You think heretics just go out there and say "Gaaaahhh, I love Satan"? Would that make a strong enough case against them for you? I doubt it, you'd say "By Satan he means Lucifer before he fell, when he was the brightest angel in heaven."

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #21 on:** April 01, 2011, 02:41:10 PM »

Quote from: stevusmagnus

That Joseph Ratzinger, who without dispute possesses a high degree of intelligence, would be so absolutely stupid as to not even recognize what Messiah means in Catholic theology? You would turn him into a blubbering idiot to explain away his "obviously" false statements.

Actually, that is the essence of Bp W's and others' idea -- he is not mentally capable of being a heretic. I would not go that route, as it is contrary to reason, evidence, and justice.

I think he knows the precise meaning of what he says, and that he says what he means. It is his apologists, yourself included, who imitate pretzels as they try to explain away the latest nonsense.

So, if he knows what Messias means, and knows what 'wait', 'in vain', etc., mean, where does that leave you as you stumble in the dark, explaining away his real meaning?

The most favorable interpretation possible is this: "Yeah, the Messias is coming all right...coming to destroy your blind, heard-hearted asses, pulverizing your perfidious souls for all eternity!" Does this interpretation make you feel better?

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #22 on:** April 01, 2011, 02:46:22 PM »

Quote from: Raoul76

Do you think JPII, who rose to the rank of supposed "Pope," who spoke seven languages or more, was so absolutely stupid that he didn't know what he was saying when he said "The Old Covenant has never been revoked"?

Are you stupid, Mike? Don't you know the way libs use "revoked" in a double-meaning kind of way?

Or maybe it is "old" that provides the hermeneutical skeleton key?

Quote

No one ever said they were stupid.

Well, some of their apologists claim they do not have the mental ability to be heretics (which makes one wonder how they can hold the Faith, either).

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #23 on:** April 01, 2011, 03:03:04 PM »

Quote from: StevusMagnus

Do you realize what you are saying? That Joseph Ratzinger, who without dispute possesses a high degree of intelligence, would be so absolutely stupid as to not even recognize what Messiah means in Catholic theology?

This is the essence of the R & R position -- he just doesn't know what he is saying.

While no one expects you to concede anything, you just told us you believe that these Modernists know the meaning of what they are saying. That is all SVs are saying, too.

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #24 on:** April 01, 2011, 03:21:41 PM »

Raoul,

Not a single solitary soul has EVER interpreted that line to mean what I said? REALLY?

Has ANYONE (besides you and GV and other Sedes) interpreted that line to mean BXVI doesn't believe Jesus Christ is the Messiah? PLEASE give me one example of anyone in their right mind claiming this.

Unless you are a blind idiot you would recognize I'm not defending the Pope's "every word". I'm simply pointing out to you what he said and pointing out your interpretation of what he said is absolutely ridiculous as it flies in the face of all of the evidence. The Pope has repeatedly referred to Christ as the Messiah. So saying he went suddenly dumb and converted to Judaism before that sentence and then reconverted afterwards is the heighth of illogical stupidity.

I think the concept of anti-Christ is crackpot material? SERIOUSLY? Because I disagree BXVI believes the anti-Christ will be the messiah?

I suppose this is consistent with Sede thinking. If someone disagrees with you on a sub point simply assume he denies the overriding concept altogether!

I am trying to deliver the "death blow" to language? That words don't mean what they say? Do you even read what I write or do you take 2 seconds to skim it, form an absolutist caricature of it, and then blather out 6 paragraphs of arguments refuting strawmen?

If you actually read what I wrote and have any capability to make distinctions whatsoever, you will see that I am explaining to you the way the EcuмENISTS distort language and use double meanings and ambiguity. This is nothing new, they've done it for years. They did it in Vatican II and the New Mass. Your mistake is denying the ambiguity, interpreting it in the worst way possible and then admitting of NO other interpretation, and as proof someone is a heretic.

Do you really think thousands of pre-VCII Bishops would sign off on VCII docuмents that were clearly and obviously heretical? Of course not! That was the trick and the swindle. The liberals wrote genericisms that mean different things to different people, promised a Catholic interpretation and then pulled the bait and switch. By your standards every Bishop who signed a VCII docuмent is a heretic.

Quote

Exhibit A: The Jews reject Christ. That is why they are spoken of as "Jews" instead of as Christians in this book. If they had converted, they wouldn't be speaking of them as Jews here.

Agreed.

Quote

The Jews are said to be waiting for a Messiah, and not in vain. As seen in Exhibit A, they reject Christ. Ergo, Christ is not the Messiah spoken of here. Copy that?

Copy.

Quote

You say they are waiting for the Second Coming of Christ rather than an anti-Christ type of Messiah. This is embarrassing and shameless on two levels:

WRONG!

This is not at ALL what I'm saying. They are waiting for the coming of the Messiah for the FIRST time. They do not believe Christ is the Messiah.

Quote

( 1 ) The Christ who comes the second time is the same one who came the first time. You don't get saved by the second coming while rejecting the first. Not to mention, as gladius points out, He comes back the second time as wrathful judge. Heard of the Dies Irae?

No sh*t.

Quote

If you are so completely ignorant of Catholic theology that you are actually trying to put it out there that Jews who reject Christ's first coming can be saved by His second coming, you need to stop talking and cease humiliating yourself. You are not even at the level of the average trad catechumen. Christ does not come the second time to save anyone, that work was already done on the Cross. He comes back to punish those who reject His salvific work on the Cross, through disbelief or rebellion.

No sh*t.

Quote

What you are saying is that they are unconsciously waiting for the same God they have already rejected, and as soon as they see Him a second time they'll convert. But don't you see, it's too late to convert at that point. God does not come back to say "Hey, guys, I know I came and did these miracles and suffered and died and was resurrected, and you still didn't believe, worse, you screamed for my blood, but this time I'm gonna show you something that's REALLY cool, I'm hoping you'll like it and maybe give me a chance!" He comes back to get vengeance on those who disdained His incarnation as the man-God.

What?? When the Hell did I say that? I have no freaking clue when the Jews with convert en masse as the Bible predicts. I never said anything you just recited.

Quote

( 2 ) If what you're saying is correct -- though it's galling to say that even for the purpose of a hypothesis, considering you're not even in the ballpark of rational discourse -- then the Jews won't be saved until the Second Coming. Therefore, by not trying to convert the Jews, we're condemning all of them except that last batch at the last moment of time to almost certain damnation. Or does the Second Coming somehow retroactively save all Jews?

You must be on acid. I'm all for trying to convert EVERY SOUL here and now to Jesus Christ.

Quote

I don't even know why I bother to respond, sometimes you just have to walk away.

If you are going to take the time to respond, then at least take the time to READ WHAT I WROTE and comprehend what I'm saying as you have just wasted precious time responding to positions I don't even hold!

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #25 on:** April 01, 2011, 03:31:52 PM »

Quote from: stevusmagnus

Has ANYONE (besides you and GV and other Sedes) interpreted that line to mean BXVI doesn't believe Jesus Christ is the Messiah? PLEASE give me one example of anyone in their right mind claiming this.

FWIW, I do not claim those with whom I disagree are not in their "right mind" -- that is a tactic of stevus, legal counsel for the soon-to-be-incarcerated.

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #26 on:** April 01, 2011, 03:34:37 PM »

Quote from: gladius_veritatis

You are the dense one, amigo. To say "this" sense, you are using a word that indicates the singular, yet you openly admit it really represents the plural. Your refuse to see what is right in front of your face.

You've answered my question. You are not only dense
you have zero reading comprehension.

Quote

Quote
Have you not yet figured out, this is what liberals do?

I know very well what they do. I just don't play into it like a dope. You do.

You don't have a clue what they do. You are not even playing the game. You don't even understand the game. You are on the outside in your own reality. Don't worry. Just leave the crisis to the Trads who know the enemy and they'll carry on the fight alone.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #27 on:** April 01, 2011, 03:36:41 PM »

Quote from: stevusmagnus

Not a single solitary soul has EVER interpreted that line to mean what I said? REALLY?

Any evidence to the contrary, from sources remotely acceptable to all present?

Did the SSPX, or Cath Fam News, etc., interpret it that way?

You applied the singular form to a plural meaning. Can you explain this?

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #28 on:** April 01, 2011, 03:42:30 PM »

Quote from: Raoul76

Do you think JPII, who rose to the rank of supposed "Pope," who spoke seven languages or more, was so absolutely stupid that he didn't know what he was saying when he said "The Old Covenant has never been revoked"?

Of course he knew what he was saying. He was saying it had never been revoked and he was right. It had been FULFILLED. It no longer exists but that was not done by revocation! Sneaky ain't he?

Ecuмenists play word games! I'm not sure how many ways I can explain this to you. It is public relations, "politics",
"political correctness", "ecuмenical sensitivity", whatever you want to call it.

The post-VCII Popes speak like politicians trying to please everybody. This is where we should criticize them; on their misleading and ambiguous statements and their "significant silence". This is where the credible arguments against them are.

Not taking an ambiguous statement, insisting against reality it has only ONE POSSIBLE interpretation that is DEFINITELY heretical and then drawing extreme and insane conclusions from it. That is Dimond territory and is why they are written off as kook-nutters and have zero influence or credibility.

Raoul76 · « **Reply #29 on:** April 01, 2011, 03:55:53 PM »

StevusMagnus said:

Quote

WRONG!

This is not at ALL what I'm saying. They are waiting for the coming of the Messiah for the FIRST time. They do not believe Christ is the Messiah.

StevusMagnus said:

Quote

Are you dense? The Jews expect the Messiah to come for the first time. They are wrong in this specific expectation because He already came.

Yet He, the Messiah, is coming for a second time. Thus, in this sense, we are ALL waiting for the Messiah.

Ah, crystal-clear now. So they think they are waiting for the first coming of the Messiah, who is not Jesus, but are really waiting for the Second Coming of the Messiah, who is Jesus...

Of course, that doesn't change anything, because ultimately, the way you interpret this line, the Jews are still waiting for the Second Coming without knowing that's what they're waiting for. That was the silly interpretation of the line about "Jєωιѕн messianic expectation" not being in vain that I attacked in the post you are responding to.

Now you're trying to make it look like you never said that the book said the Jews were waiting for the Second Coming, but you did, as I just proved in the quotes above.

The reason you are saying that is because you have no other possible explanation of this line. That is because the real meaning of the line is obvious. So first you grasp at straws, then when that doesn't work, you play with words and create confusion. Now the whole thread is lost in a fog, which always seems to happen when you're around... Hmmm.

If I were you, I'd really leave off using the aggressive icons that show you beating some sense into me. Like I said, you're not fooling anyone but yourself.