Author Topic: BXVIs Ecuмenism and "Significant Silence" (Read 4308 times)

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #45 on:** April 01, 2011, 04:52:17 PM »

Quote from: gladius_veritatis

Quote from: stevusmagnus
3.) Have no ability to comprehend English.

This is a LAUGHER, considering your propensity to apply SINGULAR terms in a way that can ONLY refer to a PLURAL meaning.

I admire your spunk, but you are wasting defending men who are not worthy of your time and energy.

I used what singular term to refer to what plural meaning?

Do you understand I'm demonstrating how liberals use singular terms for multiple meanings as a matter of course and that I'm not endorsing this?

Do you understand that taking your opponents words for what they actually say is not defending your opponent? In fact it is the first necessary step in refuting them. Otherwise you are creating a strawman.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #46 on:** April 01, 2011, 04:57:17 PM »

Quote from: stevusmagnus

I used what singular term to refer to what plural meaning?

You used "this" and "that" in a plural sense. Go over the last couple of pages if you need to -- it should not be too hard to locate.

Quote

Do you understand I'm demonstrating how liberals use singular terms for multiple meanings as a matter of course and that I'm not endorsing this?

I DO -- and I am more than ready to give credit where it is due.

Quote

Do you understand that taking your opponents words for what they actually say is not defending your opponent?

Of course. However, you seem to think I am NOT taking them for what they say. I see it differently; I am taking them for what they say, while you take them for what you want them to be saying.

Again, the BEST case scenario is that Card Ratx and the PBC were telling the Judaics that the Messias IS coming, but ONLY to SMASH their perfidious asses. What good is that?

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #47 on:** April 01, 2011, 05:01:00 PM »

Quote from: gladius_veritatis

All other nonsense aside, do you agree these statements give the Judaics a rather FALSE understanding of their present situation?

Of course! That's the whole point. The Commission and ecuмenists are playing word games trying to be nicey, but reality stays the same. The Church teaching on salvation remains and this Commission changed nothing of it. It's all fluff.

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #48 on:** April 01, 2011, 05:04:45 PM »

My paragraphs were separated by a line and meant to be read indepenently of each other. In "this sense" refers to the immediately preceding sentence.

The Commission does not see Christ coming back to smite them because they see the Jєωιѕн nation will already be converted en masse before Christ comes again. Thus when He returns, they will be converted and He will be their Messiah in the true sense.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #49 on:** April 01, 2011, 05:10:57 PM »

The V2 anti-Church takes this as a dogmatic matter. Fluff or not, souls are being led astray by following what purports to be the Bride of Christ.

As for your sig quote, do you not see how the V2 cult of personality could also be its fulfillment? I do NOT think the Pope needs to be a Saint, nor that all he says needs to be mega. He could have concubines out the wazoo for all I care, but I don't think the Bride of Christ can use her teaching authority (infallibly or otherwise) to lead souls to perdition, which the V2 anti-Church is surely doing.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #50 on:** April 01, 2011, 05:14:53 PM »

Quote from: stevusmagnus

My paragraphs were separated by a line and meant to be read indepenently of each other. In "this sense" refers to the immediately preceding sentence.

The Commission does not see Christ coming back to smite them because they see the Jєωιѕн nation will already be converted en masse before Christ comes again. Thus when He returns, they will be converted and He will be their Messiah in the true sense.

A fine cover. What good will it do for those individuals alive NOW, should they not live to see the conversion of the Jєωιѕн Nation?

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #51 on:** April 01, 2011, 05:26:27 PM »

First, 90% of Catholics and 99% of non-Catholics could give a crap what the Vatican says anyway as they have lost all relevance issuing boring pablum statements for the last 50 years.

The only ones who even pay attention to what the Vatican and Popes say are the Neo-Caths who treat him and the Vatican as a god.

I do not think the official Church takes this as a dogmatic matter because they are at their core opposed to dogma and dogmatic definitions. They want everything to be malleable and subject to reinterpretation. So their aversion to dogma ironically prevents them from defining error. In my opinion this is God guarding the indefectability of the Church. These Popes and Commisions say a lot of meaningless crap, but none of it is dogmatic or being imposed as obligatory.

I have always found Fr. Le Floch's quote prophetic. I believe this Crisis may have been allowed precisely to have the Church, in the future, define the limits to Papal infallibility and right the ship from VCI. After VCI Catholics began to place all trust in the Pope and see him as almost inerrant in all respects because we had such great Popes after VCI and VCI stressed Papal authority. Catholics, buying into this "heresy" as Fr. Le Floch put it, were set up for the Crisis. Look at all of the Pre-VCII Bishops, a vast majority orthodox, who caved in to a lot of the ambiguous VCII docuмents after the Pope expressed his wishes. Look at all of these great orthodox prelates and priests who "obeyed" the Pope and shut their mouths after VCII. This was all a result of the problem Fr. Le Floch speaks of. The Pope had become a King who had absolute power. It was the Devil's preparation for the Crisis. Using an overinflated respect and obedience to the Pope to cause the destruction of Faith. The cure to this crisis, I believe, will be a return to the proper understanding of the Papacy subordinate to the Faith.

Ironically the liberal Popes despise their own authority and never use it, except in disciplinary matters to "keep the peace".

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #52 on:** April 01, 2011, 05:30:01 PM »

Quote from: gladius_veritatis

Quote from: stevusmagnus
My paragraphs were separated by a line and meant to be read indepenently of each other. In "this sense" refers to the immediately preceding sentence.

The Commission does not see Christ coming back to smite them because they see the Jєωιѕн nation will already be converted en masse before Christ comes again. Thus when He returns, they will be converted and He will be their Messiah in the true sense.

A fine cover. What good will it do for those individuals alive NOW, should they not live to see the conversion of the Jєωιѕн Nation?

BXVI basically says that is in God's hands because He has foreseen the great majority of them will not convert until the end times anyway. So has God damned them all to Hell because of this prophecy? BXVI most likely will say no. The Jews now will be judged on what they know and will either be saved as a result of invincible ignorance or damned. That's my best guess as to his view. But who knows!

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #53 on:** April 01, 2011, 06:40:02 PM »

Not to beat a long-dead, thoroughly-rotten horse, but you do know ignorance, invincible or otherwise, does not do anything POSITIVE for anyone, right?

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #54 on:** April 01, 2011, 06:41:37 PM »

Lord knows what nickname I will get next, but I cracked up when I saw you are "The Jew", stevus!

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #55 on:** April 01, 2011, 06:47:26 PM »

Quote from: stevusmagnus

In my opinion this is God guarding the indefectability of the Church.

I totally understand where this idea is coming from, although I disagree with it. As I said, it is part of justice to give credit where it is due. On top of that, I am a Libra, the sign for which is the scales -- justice and a balanced take are part of my nature.

You may think sedes, et alii, are "nuts", but you would be stunned if you met some of us and talked at length, especially to those who have been around for a while. The "the other side is nuts" crap is part of the desired antagonism of the infiltrators. Do not fall for it, even if you never agree with me on certain specifics.

Caraffa · « **Reply #56 on:** April 01, 2011, 09:09:08 PM »

Quote from: stevusmagnus

I have always found Fr. Le Floch's quote prophetic. I believe this Crisis may have been allowed precisely to have the Church, in the future, define the limits to Papal infallibility and right the ship from VCI. After VCI Catholics began to place all trust in the Pope and see him as almost inerrant in all respects because we had such great Popes after VCI and VCI stressed Papal authority. Catholics, buying into this "heresy" as Fr. Le Floch put it, were set up for the Crisis. Look at all of the Pre-VCII Bishops, a vast majority orthodox, who caved in to a lot of the ambiguous VCII docuмents after the Pope expressed his wishes. Look at all of these great orthodox prelates and priests who "obeyed" the Pope and shut their mouths after VCII. This was all a result of the problem Fr. Le Floch speaks of. The Pope had become a King who had absolute power. It was the Devil's preparation for the Crisis. Using an overinflated respect and obedience to the Pope to cause the destruction of Faith. The cure to this crisis, I believe, will be a return to the proper understanding of the Papacy subordinate to the Faith.

Stevus, you've pointed one of the major problems with the Neo-Catholic position and approach to the faith. Hugh of Pisa, an influential canonist/theologian and teacher to Pope Innocent III may have foreseen this Neo-Catholic position centuries ago: "If the pope were a heretic...simpletons and idiots would follow the heresy with ease because they would believe it not to be a heresy" (Summa ad Decretum Gratiani).

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #57 on:** April 01, 2011, 11:06:23 PM »

Caraffa,

You are the master of finding these gems.

Can you give me a cite or link to that?

Thanks!

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #58 on:** April 01, 2011, 11:13:20 PM »

Quote from: gladius_veritatis

Not to beat a long-dead, thoroughly-rotten horse, but you do know ignorance, invincible or otherwise, does not do anything POSITIVE for anyone, right?

What do you mean by "positive"?

It allows for a chance at salvation, I'd say that is pretty positive. The alternative is certainty of Hell. One would still have to live a moral life though, according to one's conscience.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #59 on:** April 01, 2011, 11:19:22 PM »

Ignorance is the lack of a due good...knowledge. It is no more positive than blindness...which is also a lack of a due good...sight.

Ignorance can NEVER do anything for anyone, although it MAY, in some cases, prevent a man from being guilty of a crime he did not KNOW was a crime.