Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Fighting Errors in the Modern World => Topic started by: Trinity on July 07, 2010, 08:32:16 AM
-
set up a Catholic gov't, along with His own police force to ensure that no one broke His laws or spoke any heresy?
-
What? No one knows? Or is it just too stupid a question to answer? If so then why the big bash on religious liberty? If we quash that liberty, where goes free will? How many converts would be made if people are forced to be Catholic?
-
Don't forget about the Old Testament. God himself created the laws by which the Israelites ruled their country. One of those laws says that blasphemers should be stoned to death. That's what God thinks the government should do to those who exercise their "right to religious liberty."
-
the Church was underground and presecuted, but was to be spread and society molded wihin its laws.
Jesus also gave us a Church to make Him known and to tackle questions of dogma, doctrine and social....was Louis IX kingdom a Catholic state? yes it was, was Louis IX wrong then? when he used his power to enforce Church teaching, esp with the Jews, was he wrong? no....
How about Blessed Karl? was he wrong as he was a Catholic ruler and tried to base his short reign on CST and the idea of a Catholic state? Should he opted for a secular democracy or republic like USA?
what about Salaazar? Franco? Dolfuss?
The Popes, including but not limtied to Leo XIII were clear, that Catholicism was to be spread and implemented-not just in churches, not just in hearts, but in every facet of life. Society-from economics, to politics,etc is to be permeated with Catholic truth, or it is not a true society-period, no in between.....
Have some good talks on this, book suggestions, etc for those truly wanting to know more.......I am sure some others here too that agree with me can make good suggestions and comments.......
maybe later, will try or tomorrow, try to set up a thread on this topic.......
-
Don't forget about the Old Testament. God himself created the laws by which the Israelites ruled their country. One of those laws says that blasphemers must be stoned to death. That's what God thinks the government should do to those who exercise their "right to religious liberty."
:applause:
-
Don't forget about the Old Testament. God himself created the laws by which the Israelites ruled their country. One of those laws says that blasphemers must be stoned to death. That's what God thinks the government should do to those who exercise their "right to religious liberty."
True, the Davidic Kingdom, and prior, and post, was not seperate....David was a King an a High Priest....others were King, but ruled in God's name and based on OT Jєωιѕн faith.....another good example is the Macchabees.....Book 1, Ch 1-2 seem to describe our present time........they cleansed israel and set up a Jєωιѕн state.....a real Jєωιѕн state, not the fake utopian one now....
-
Thanks for answering, matto. Also don't forget we have many martyrs because there was no religious liberty at one time. And don't forget England, where religious lack of liberty went first one way then the other.
If anyone can use force to make us what He wants, it is God. In St. James you will read that man's anger does not work God's justice. If God doesn't use force, why should we? And don't forget, Jesus came to fulfill the law and He taught something different about making converts.
-
If God doesn't use force, why should we?
Read the Book of Joshua and then tell me what God thinks about using force.
-
This quote would fit here to. Yes, God says use force if they do not follow Church law
St. Basil the Great (374): “A woman who has deliberately destroyed a fetus must pay the penalty for murder… Those also who give drugs causing abortions are murderers themselves, as well as those who receive the poison which kills the fetus.”
-
If God doesn't use force, why should we?
Read the Book of Joshua and then tell me what God thinks about using force.
Trinity-did not the Founding Fathers of the USA use force to win freedom from England? and do you not in some manner approve of this and celebrate it?
why then not a Catholic state and enforcement of laws?
God DOES USE FORCE! read the book noted above, but also, first 5 books of OT and also, Macchebees....the Mac family restored the Temple and cleansed it, then rededicated Israel to the Lord and note they were rewarded.....same too David...
did we not use force to protect Christendom from theTurks? Lepanto, Malta,etc....
-
I've read the book of Joshua. Several times. Hasn't it occured to you that if it weren't for religious liberty, we would all probably be protestant? The odds are overwhelmingly in favor of it going that way. Then we Catholics would have the choice of recanting our faith or being martyrs. Either way, no more Catholics, except perhaps for a few who hid out and or led double lives. The results of enforced religion was typically proven by the morenos. How many true Catholic souls did God garner from that experiment? Better to read the New Testament and take your cue from Jesus.
-
Religious Liberty is a condemed heresy.
Not that you will read it, but I will try again:
http://www.christorchaos.com/AHeresyisaHeresy.htm
-
I borrowed this from Myrna....
2 Corinthians chapter 3
"Now the Lord is the spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is FREEDOM".
Get it? Liberty=freedom=free will.
Show me where Jesus suggested we force people to follow Him.
-
Religious Liberty is a condemed heresy.
Not that you will read it, but I will try again:
http://www.christorchaos.com/AHeresyisaHeresy.htm[/quote
Heresies abound in our time of unparalleled chaos. The multifaceted and inter-related heresies of conciliarism (especially those of religious liberty and ecuмenism) infect the lives of most Catholics today. The Novus Ordo Missae, founded in the ethos of Protestantism and Modernism, propagates the false belief that it is normal and natural for the Mass to undergo rapid, revolutionary changes, thereby convincing Catholics that "change" is just part of normal liturgical practice. The rotten fruit of the ceaseless changes wrought in the Protestantized Mass begotten by Annibale Bugnini, who began his work of attacking the Mass in the 1950s, is the belief that doctrine itself can change, something that most Catholics today accept as a matter of course without any objection whatsoever.
-
This is a good discussion thread- :applause: to trinity for this...
Jesus is teh same that led Israel into battle in the OT-you cannto seperate the two...he is a divine warrior in both, though his purpose was different in NT, same person, same ruler!! You CANNOT seperate the "jesus of the OT" from teh "jesus of the NT" at all.....
the idea of a Catholic state was re-enforced by people like Calvin and henry VIII actually, for they did not open the flood gates to indifferentism, they kept a Catholic idea.....just Prot state....
Morenos? some were false Christians yes, soem were not........and? the alternative, just let everyone worship as they pleased? You are now sounding rather NO, V2ish....
ABL wrote a lot about the Catholic state and how the liberals behind V2 wanted to abolish that and did.....
I am taking cue for Jesus, for through His Church, he has taught and the teaching holds that there is to be no indifferent States, for how can the state then enforce His will? how can a Prot state enforce contraception laws? abortion/eugenics-most Prots in 20's and 30's supported that...how does a secular sate uphold His teaching?
does not the OT and NT give us accounts of a nation that fails to obey God's laws then is punished? is it random we in USA are under that punishment now?
and if we found ourselves in a prot state-could we not either move or become martyrs? is martyrdom an evil, then? So we live in an indifferent state, are not persecuted, but face punishments.....or we die martyrs in state of holiness....
again, was Karl wrong? Louis IX? Dolfuss? Phillip II? were they somehow not reading the NT and missing the Jesus example you note? how then do we disregard the Catholic state teaching of past saints, Popes, etc?
is Jesus the same, yesterday, today and foreever? did he not lead Israel's armies? was he not placed over Israel as a king? (Ecc 17).Again, Faith is to be infused in to all facets of life or there is not truth.....that is the USA and most nations today-how do we like it?
-
I can give you two instances, matto, where Jesus suggested we not use force.
When James and John wanted to destroy a town because it rejected Jesus, He rebuked them.
I read, a long time ago, a theory that Judas Iscariot was a political animal, and he wanted to force Jesus' hand and make Him fight and expel the Romans from Israel. I think it was Archbishop Sheen, but I'm not sure who proposed that theory. Perhaps he just wanted the silver. If that was the case, though, it didn't work. Jesus lay down His life, instead.
If you want to follow Him, you'd best be prepared to lay down your life, too, and not even consider sacrificing someone else.
Jesus also said we were to let our light shine (good deeds) so all could see and give praise to the Father. We were also told to prove we were the children of the Father who's rain and sun fall on the just and unjust.
You don't get it. Catholicism is about loving and saving souls for God's sake, not killing and forcing them.
-
António de Oliveira Salazar. That is the Salazar Belloc writes of. And, I know that Myrna and Trinity both read their Four Marks a few months ago. It contained a wonderful article on salazar written by Edmund Sheridan.
-
Okay, Trinity, I will try this. The Church has been advising governments' for well over a thousand years about what the governments duties were before God and how they should best govern without sin. What you are saying is "forget what the Church has taught for well over a thousand years. The Freemasons who supported the American and French revolutions thought differently. I agree with the freemasons. The Church has always been wrong about matters of faith and morals concerning matters of government, even when it has declared infallibly on these matters. Go Freedom!" This is a common way of thinking as it was the position of the second Vatican council, so you are not alone.
-
started a CATHOLIC STATE thread in this section....the first writer posted is Cardinal Ottiviani, the second is a Catholic author, his brother actually used to attend Mass at my Church and go the TLM off and rolling.....
Jesus rebuked as he wanted to save those towns, despite the lack of faith.....not a good example, and we still have not seen where you are reconcilling the OT and the NT-are there 2 different Jesus? is God different? or does He have different purposes at different times? he did in OT too, sometimes punishing, sometimes rewarding......
Judas was wrong, and?
as far as saying I dont get it-you fail to grasp anything we are saying at all, Jesus is not just "loving and saving souls for God's sake"
why have you noted answered about the OT and NT?
why have you not answered about the prior Catholic states and people I noted?
whay are you accusing me in other threads of "hating" and "bashing" and telling people what to listen too, yet you show the same dictitorial language in your last sentence?
NO ONE is saying forcing anyone, did you not listen-at all-to other threads, were we discussed allowing religioun minorities pragmatic practice of their religions, if it does not harm the common good and indeed, more harm would come by attacking them? do you denounce and accuse St. Louis IX of not being Catholic? or he does not understand Catholic doctrine?
so, then, were we wrongto fight Lepanto? Malta? Vienna? Belgrade? or Rhodes?
it seems, you have fashioned a self made Catholicism and are not listening at all to the rest of us, nor can you articualte a rebut to specific questions.....
so much for that great Cathecism you laud over us young no-nothings! if this is the extent of it, then we are more in trouble and more damning evidence of poor teaching prior to V2 then we thought.......you palce OT Jesus vs NT Jesus w/o discernment..
BTW-is this your MO, disgree, label others with labels and then tell them they do not understand? I have that thread started, but it is a waste of time for those with ears, that will not use them...
door laying on a floor cannot be swung.....
-
The Church has been telling PEOPLE for two thousand years how they should behave. Each one did as he jolly well pleased. The gov't is made up of people. Gov't itself has no soul to save. If you want the gov't to behave properly, then go convert the people who make up the gov't.
If you won't follow Jesus' lead in this, why expect others to. Be an example then hope they will follow you. That's what Jesus did.
-
I'm beginning to suspect, matto, that you are taking your lead from these other two, who put me on hide then read my posts anyway. What hypocrits! Tell me it isn't so, matto. Or are you not the gentle soul I thought you were.
-
Religious Liberty is a heresy. Jesus was present before the beginning of the World. He is the second person of the Blessed Trintiy. He is the God-Head in the Old Testament. He did do all of those things. Listen to Belloc. I am shouting to you and you hear not. I am warning you that you are spewing HERESY.
You are so hateful to Belloc who knows more than I do on this. And, it was not that long ago you complimented me on my knowledge of this subject.
-
I'm beginning to suspect, matto, that you are taking your lead from these other two, who put me on hide then read my posts anyway. What hypocrits! Tell me it isn't so, matto. Or are you not the gentle soul I thought you were.
Don't worry, I am not following anyone's lead. I just have a strong opinion about this issue and happen to disagree with you. I read your posts and I don't have you on hide.
-
Blast it all. I do not have you or anyone on hide.
Religious Liberty has been condemed as a heresy.
-
there is no right to do or practice wrong, but common good sometimes we have to make exceptions for minorities-hence the Jews were allowed in Papal States to practice, w/some restrictions.....but not Waldesians, Prots,etc.....or if a Catholicstate has non-Catholic peoples, may do more harm to remove them then to allow them and curtail their practices....anyone want to allow a Jack Chick fan to hand out tracks in a Catholic country? nor me either!
thanks for kind words Dawn...beginning to see Trinity and maybe others have created their own version of RCC and will not listen at all to others-she dodges majority of questions and does not address much...the last response to me that I read and responded to is obvious and damning other attitude and mindset......
thinking we are wasting our time on this and likely, should just ignore her......we are wasting precious time and energy on people that will not listen and want to exist in some vacuum-odd, her behavior is more akin to NO Catholics then trad ones.......
have that thread up, several props of Pius IX are opposed to Trinity......
-
Yes you are correct. My daughter's are telling me to quit. There is no use. That is why heresy leads to damnation.
-
Thanks, matto. That's a relief. I see you didn't respond to my post about Jesus' lead.
-
Jesus would not lead anyone to Religious liberty as it is a heresy condemed by the Church.
-
Jesus would not lead anyone to Religious liberty as it is a heresy condemed by the Church.
he would not force, but neither would he allow error to run rampant, nor would he allow it in his nations......people will answer in the next world for their sins, nations can only answer in this world!
the nation exists to support her people and help facilitate the people in their journey to heaven...that is why for instance peace is the highest common good........
-
This is unbelievable.
What has gotten into you Trinity?
-
What has gotten into you, Alexandria? If things keep on religious liberty will be gone with all of our other liberties. And then what? Do you really think that Catholicism will be the preferred religion?
Tell me, matto, why didn't Jesus get up a gang and stone the Romans? They were in a false religion. And they were the gov't.
-
Thanks, matto. That's a relief. I see you didn't respond to my post about Jesus' lead.
I don't know why Jesus did not want to destroy those cities, when at other times he did destroy wicked cities. But I do think that Jesus meant us to be soldiers who lead by force as well as by example. There are many with good in their hearts who can be converted by good example, but God also knows that most evil men will never convert and that many of these men are like scorpions who must be destroyed, or at least neutralized, lest they poison others. It is folly to have mercy on the scorpions and it is sinful to let them run wild, destroying everyone in their path, which is the effect of religious liberty.
-
Matto, well said....
-
Trinity is defending the Religious Libery of America. Now,you see this Religious Liberty when the Revolution started was the same that allowed Catholic Priests to be tarred and feathered. And, it allowed Convents to be burned to the ground. And, it allowed the "Catholics Need Not Apply" sign in all places of employement.
Of course one will rush to point out John Carroll. That is discussed in another thread. He would have been a ring-leader at Vatican II.
And, when did this Religious Liberty let up on the hatred of Catholics? When the majority of Catholics in this country started running around shouting about the heresy or Religious Freedom. And, putting America first over the Church. Look at John Kennedy's words.
What I find very sad is that I keep saying over and over again Religous Liberty and Americanism is heretical.
So, then. If I am an America Hater it stands to follow that anyone who defends the false ideal of Religous Liberty is a Catholic Church hater for not following her teachings and for being hoodwinked by the Founding Fathers.
-
Shame for trying to say that Matto cannot think for himself. He does a fine job DEFENDING THE CHURCH.
Everyone who does not agree with you is to be called crazy or the Fantistic four or some such nonsense. Then, what should you be called for preaching heresy??
-
What has gotten into you, Alexandria? If things keep on religious liberty will be gone with all of our other liberties. And then what? Do you really think that Catholicism will be the preferred religion?
Tell me, matto, why didn't Jesus get up a gang and stone the Romans? They were in a false religion. And they were the gov't.
I do not know the mind of God. You seem to be confused about religious liberty. Everyone as the right to be Catholic. This right is given by God. Nobody has the right to follow false religions. If a government takes away the right to practice Catholicism, it is sinning gravely. If the government prohibits the practice of false religions it is doing a good deed.
-
I'm beginning to suspect, matto, that you are taking your lead from these other two, who put me on hide then read my posts anyway. What hypocrits! Tell me it isn't so, matto. Or are you not the gentle soul I thought you were.
Don't worry, I am not following anyone's lead. I just have a strong opinion about this issue and happen to disagree with you. I read your posts and I don't have you on hide.
Matto, trinity tells you that I am a hypocrite, yet earlier today I offered to unhide her if she would do the same.
also, she and Myrna both stated their opposition to the hide function and the use of it, yet last week, I went in 12 hrs from having 2 people hide me to 7.....and some to come out of wood work to attack........it is rather clear she and her posse got together and hid me-doubt the newcomers would do that, that many, that short time frame and being new, likely would hide that quick......
hypocrisy? yes, there is, but not much from me.
Trinity, I responed when others qouted you or I took some time to want to try to reach you despite.....will struggle to not let that shred of compassion be shone in future....you seem not worthy of it and rather vindictive......remember, He is watching you.....
-
If religious liberty is right and a good thing, then the Church prior to the Second Vatican Council was in error and John Courtney Murray, S.J. was right.
-
If religious liberty is right and a good thing, then the Church prior to the Second Vatican Council was in error and John Courtney Murray, S.J. was right.
well stated :applause: let us recall that motto:
Traditional Catholics' Motto
We are what you once were.
We believe what you once believed.
We worship as you once worshipped.
If you were right then, we are right now.
If we are wrong now, you were wrong then.
-
What has gotten into you, Alexandria? If things keep on religious liberty will be gone with all of our other liberties. And then what? Do you really think that Catholicism will be the preferred religion?
Tell me, matto, why didn't Jesus get up a gang and stone the Romans? They were in a false religion. And they were the gov't.
I do not know the mind of God. You seem to be confused about religious liberty. Everyone as the right to be Catholic. This right is given by God. Nobody has the right to follow false religions. If a government takes away the right to practice Catholicism, it is sinning gravely. If the government prohibits the practice of false religions it is doing a good deed.
the common good may be served by banning-say for instance, the Scientologists or Satanists of LeVey
-
anyone who defends the false ideal of Religous Liberty is a Catholic Church hater for not following her teachings and for being hoodwinked by the Founding Fathers.
:applause:
-
If religious liberty is right and a good thing, then the Church prior to the Second Vatican Council was in error and John Courtney Murray, S.J. was right.
well stated :applause: let us recall that motto:
Traditional Catholics' Motto
We are what you once were.
We believe what you once believed.
We worship as you once worshipped.
If you were right then, we are right now.
If we are wrong now, you were wrong then.
-
Liberty is a right and good thing. Liberty=freedom=free will. And free will is what God gave us all and refuses to take back. I'm not sure what you mean by religious liberty, but I mean the freedom to choose and exercise our beliefs. Are you saying that only Catholics may have religious liberty? Or we may only have the liberty to be Catholics? Tell God to curtail free will, why don't you?
Two things. Show me where Jesus said we should use force to make converts. When our religious liberty goes, as it will, what church will be state preferred? I think it will be the one world church.
-
, what should you be called for preaching heresy??
well, possibly :heretic:
I like that, Religious Freedom Supporter=Catholic hater... :smirk:
-
Liberty is a right and good thing. Liberty=freedom=free will. And free will is what God gave us all and refuses to take back. I'm not sure what you mean by religious liberty, but I mean the freedom to choose and exercise our beliefs. Are you saying that only Catholics may have religious liberty? Or we may only have the liberty to be Catholics? Tell God to curtail free will, why don't you?
Two things. Show me where Jesus said we should use force to make converts. When our religious liberty goes, as it will, what church will be state preferred? I think it will be the one world church.
Show me where Jesus said in the Old Testament, "Umm, Dad that was too harsh." HE IS GOD HE WAS THERE
-
Shame for trying to say that Matto cannot think for himself. He does a fine job DEFENDING THE CHURCH.
Everyone who does not agree with you is to be called crazy or the Fantistic four or some such nonsense. Then, what should you be called for preaching heresy??
Can we say that Trinity is bashing and hounding Matto? :smirk: :wink:
yes, name calling by the supposed pious and humble...hiding by the anti-hiders....
In all of this, been trying to have some charity for Trinity, that she is meaning well, but maybe mis-informed.....that feeling is ebbing.... :furtive:
-
Are you saying that only Catholics may have religious liberty? Or we may only have the liberty to be Catholics?
Yes. This is what the Church always taught. They cannot be forced to become Catholics, but they cannot practice their false religion publicly, or spread their errors to others. If it is not possible to suppress their false religions because, perhaps their numbers are too great, then it is acceptable to tolerate their errors for the greater good, but the ideal is that false religions are suppressed.
-
Liberty is a right and good thing. Liberty=freedom=free will. And free will is what God gave us all and refuses to take back. I'm not sure what you mean by religious liberty, but I mean the freedom to choose and exercise our beliefs. Are you saying that only Catholics may have religious liberty? Or we may only have the liberty to be Catholics? Tell God to curtail free will, why don't you?
Two things. Show me where Jesus said we should use force to make converts. When our religious liberty goes, as it will, what church will be state preferred? I think it will be the one world church.
Show me where Jesus said in the Old Testament, "Umm, Dad that was too harsh." HE IS GOD HE WAS THERE
no forcing to make converts is needed, but AGAIN, what then to make of St Louis IX, Trinity??
Dawn, he did not-Trinity is engaing in a very dangerous contruct, dividing OT God from NT God.....it is Gnostic thinking......
-
And the only form of Catholicism allowed in this country is the false one of Vatican II. Trad Catholics are on the terrorist watch list.
-
Are you saying that only Catholics may have religious liberty? Or we may only have the liberty to be Catholics?
Yes. This is what the Church always taught.
evil has no rights
false worship is evil
no right to do evil
though again, at times a greater evil is committed in cracking down on error.......one has to weigh actions...we have to :thinking: before we act. For instance, does a Catholic state force out Prots-maybe so, but then, if too many or inter-marreid with Catholics, would that cause a greater harm, like breaking up families? disrupting too much of economy or social fabric?
true, Mt. St Michaels is on a hate list (1) and likely will be taken down before the NO
1. http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2006/winter/the-dirty-dozen?page=0,5
"ST. MICHAEL'S PARISH/MOUNT ST. MICHAEL
Spokane, Wash.
Formed in 1978 when radical traditionalist Francis Schuckardt bought a Tudor-Gothic building on a bluff overlooking northern Spokane, Wash., St. Michael's Parish has long been a center of extreme-right Catholic activities. Schuckardt, who argued that the liberalizing Vatican II church reforms were part of a demonic conspiracy to destroy the church and inaugurate an atheistic world order, lost control of the group in 1984 during a major scandal: Four young male acolytes accused him of sɛҳuąƖ assault right around the same time that a newspaper published an exposé that detailed abusive cruelty inside the compound, including severe beatings of children and one case where a child was fed rotten carrots and then made to eat her own vomit. Schuckardt's successor is Mark Pivarunas, who was consecrated a "bishop" in defiance of the Vatican by renegade Mexican Archbishop Moises Carmona Rivera. Under Pivarunas, St. Michael's Parish has remained an anti-Semitic organization, selling books like John Vennari's The Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita, which details a "ʝʊdɛօ-Masonic" conspiracy to destroy the church. On the group's Web site are Pivarunas writings that condemn Vatican II for "promot[ing] the work of the anti-Christ" and for its efforts to reach out to Jews and Muslims even though, he argues, those religions have "persistently attacked the Catholic Church throughout history." At a St. Michael's conference last October, Australian John Lane gave a talk earnestly recounting how he had learned "about the Protocols of Zion [a book alleging a Jєωιѕн plot to take over the world], I mean, the whole story." Lane also spoke reverently of meeting Hutton Gibson, the actor Mel Gibson's father and a hard-line αnтι-ѕємιтє. Pivarunas chimed in with a condemnation of Pope John Paul II's outreach to Jews, which included a visit to a German ѕуηαgσgυє. Such attitudes aren't new at St. Michael's. In the mid-1990s, when the religious scholar Michael Cuneo visited, his official guide told him: "We know that Freemasons and Jєωιѕн leaders have wanted for centuries to bring on a one-world government, and we know that the Church was the only thing really standing in their way." St. Michael's, which is part of the larger Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen, has 800 lay adherents, a cloistered residence for nuns, a church, and an academy for students from kindergarten through high school. "
they hate you Trinity, so much for the flag waving and the "freedoms"-recall-they have ear of Govt and a lot of TV/print time...
-
they have it out for the Mount, so they have it out for all of us-Unity in Faith.....
-
Good luck, matto. Because it is you who will be considered in the false religion.
You guys are all assuming that it is the Catholics who will come out on top. Where's the proof? You are more than willing to knock out your own safe guards to deny it to others, even when those others out number you many times to one. Boy, if I was faced with 6 guys, I wouldn't be the one yelling for the laws against battery to be removed. You cut off your nose to spite your face.
Still no one has shown me where Jesus recommended force in situation like this.
-
Are you saying that only Catholics may have religious liberty? Or we may only have the liberty to be Catholics?
Yes. This is what the Church always taught.
evil has no rights
false worship is evil
no right to do evil
though again, at times a greater evil is committed in cracking down on error.......one has to weigh actions...we have to :thinking: before we act. For instance, does a Catholic state force out Prots-maybe so, but then, if too many or inter-marreid with Catholics, would that cause a greater harm, like breaking up families? disrupting too much of economy or social fabric?
true, Mt. St Michaels is on a hate list (1) and likely will be taken down before the NO
1. http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2006/winter/the-dirty-dozen?page=0,5
"ST. MICHAEL'S PARISH/MOUNT ST. MICHAEL
Spokane, Wash.
Formed in 1978 when radical traditionalist Francis Schuckardt bought a Tudor-Gothic building on a bluff overlooking northern Spokane, Wash., St. Michael's Parish has long been a center of extreme-right Catholic activities. Schuckardt, who argued that the liberalizing Vatican II church reforms were part of a demonic conspiracy to destroy the church and inaugurate an atheistic world order, lost control of the group in 1984 during a major scandal: Four young male acolytes accused him of sɛҳuąƖ assault right around the same time that a newspaper published an exposé that detailed abusive cruelty inside the compound, including severe beatings of children and one case where a child was fed rotten carrots and then made to eat her own vomit. Schuckardt's successor is Mark Pivarunas, who was consecrated a "bishop" in defiance of the Vatican by renegade Mexican Archbishop Moises Carmona Rivera. Under Pivarunas, St. Michael's Parish has remained an anti-Semitic organization, selling books like John Vennari's The Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita, which details a "ʝʊdɛօ-Masonic" conspiracy to destroy the church. On the group's Web site are Pivarunas writings that condemn Vatican II for "promot[ing] the work of the anti-Christ" and for its efforts to reach out to Jews and Muslims even though, he argues, those religions have "persistently attacked the Catholic Church throughout history." At a St. Michael's conference last October, Australian John Lane gave a talk earnestly recounting how he had learned "about the Protocols of Zion [a book alleging a Jєωιѕн plot to take over the world], I mean, the whole story." Lane also spoke reverently of meeting Hutton Gibson, the actor Mel Gibson's father and a hard-line αnтι-ѕємιтє. Pivarunas chimed in with a condemnation of Pope John Paul II's outreach to Jews, which included a visit to a German ѕуηαgσgυє. Such attitudes aren't new at St. Michael's. In the mid-1990s, when the religious scholar Michael Cuneo visited, his official guide told him: "We know that Freemasons and Jєωιѕн leaders have wanted for centuries to bring on a one-world government, and we know that the Church was the only thing really standing in their way." St. Michael's, which is part of the larger Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen, has 800 lay adherents, a cloistered residence for nuns, a church, and an academy for students from kindergarten through high school. "
they hate you Trinity, so much for the flag waving and the "freedoms"-recall-they have ear of Govt and a lot of TV/print time...
Quite right, Belloc.
They better wake up and smell the coffee while we still have some time left to do so.
-
Good luck, matto. Because it is you who will be considered in the false religion.
You guys are all assuming that it is the Catholics who will come out on top. Where's the proof? You are more than willing to knock out your own safe guards to deny it to others, even when those others out number you many times to one. Boy, if I was faced with 6 guys, I wouldn't be the one yelling for the laws against battery to be removed. You cut off your nose to spite your face.
Still no one has shown me where Jesus recommended force in situation like this.
I know Catholics come out on top because I read the book. It is called the Bible.
-
Good luck, matto. Because it is you who will be considered in the false religion.
You guys are all assuming that it is the Catholics who will come out on top. Where's the proof? You are more than willing to knock out your own safe guards to deny it to others, even when those others out number you many times to one. Boy, if I was faced with 6 guys, I wouldn't be the one yelling for the laws against battery to be removed. You cut off your nose to spite your face.
Still no one has shown me where Jesus recommended force in situation like this.
I know Catholics come out on top because I read the book. It is called the Bible.
:applause:
-
Quite right, they hate us, me and you, Belloc. But they can't touch us because we have religious liberty---freedom to practice our religion. Take that away and we are toast.
-
I'm going to assume that everyone is out there finding scripture to prove that Jesus wants us to force our religion down people's throats.
Will you take the word of a priest? He said that there is liberty of conscience, too, which can't be legislating. Bottom line, gov't should be informed by the Church. It should but then we should be informed by the Church, too. So why all the long lines for the confessional?
-
Because not one of us is what we should be and we are all wretched sinners in desperate need of conversion.
-
I'm going to assume that everyone is out there finding scripture to prove that Jesus wants us to force our religion down people's throats.
Are you a protestant who believes only in scripture and rejects the teaching authority of the Church? Does the constant teaching of the Church mean anything to you? I could understand if you accepted religious liberty because it is taught by Vatican II and you did not know that Vatican II contradicted the constant teaching of the Church, but I do not think you are one of those people.
Do you agree with this: It is not justice for Catholics and non-Catholics to be treated as equals. Justice demands that Catholics are preferred and non-Catholics, if tolerated, are treated as second-class citizens.
-
Trinity said:
You guys are all assuming that it is the Catholics who will come out on top. Where's the proof? You are more than willing to knock out your own safe guards to deny it to others, even when those others out number you many times to one. Boy, if I was faced with 6 guys, I wouldn't be the one yelling for the laws against battery to be removed. You cut off your nose to spite your face.
Trinity said:
Quite right, they hate us, me and you, Belloc. But they can't touch us because we have religious liberty---freedom to practice our religion. Take that away and we are toast.
You think exactly like the Freemasons want you to think. You have accepted their reality, their rules, have accommodated yourself to their secular governments and even call them "the best."
As Telesphorus said, this is about principles, not about changing historical circuмstances. The principle here is that a Catholic government is the best form of government, that it should have the right to suppress error or heresy, tolerate or remove those in false religions according to its will, using the power it has from God. Just because we are in the Brave New World and there are no more Catholic governments doesn't mean that this principle has changed, or that in our hearts we should start celebrating the new ways of the Freemasons.
It sort of reminds me of the problems with my mother. First they put her on all these drugs so that she was brain-addled. Then they say, "Well, the drugs aren't working for depression, so we need to do more medical experiments." No -- the answer was for her to get off the drugs, to confront the truth of her past, to give God her burden and to free herself from her pride. It is the ROOT of the problem that must be attacked; instead, these people compound the original problem with more problems, and I have to sit here and helplessly watch.
Likewise, this is what we see from the recent history of the Church, this exact kind of compromise and failure to address the ROOT of the problem. Instead of standing against these new democratic ʝʊdɛօ-Masonic governments, saying that Catholics should be against them in principle, many Catholics, and especially American Catholics, celebrated them, thereby making the problem much worse. The result of this compromise -- and that is what it was -- is that eventually, the Church blended with the world. With Vatican II, the Church or "Church" itself began to encourage these Freemasonic governments and celebrate them, even to enforce them and make them a rule, exactly like Cardinal Gibbons and the American Catholics wanted. I'm not sure if Dignitatis Humanae says as much, because it's very cautious, but this was certainly the active policy of the men in the VII Church or "church."
Just because the Masons and Jews have done what they did and they temporarily have their way, having taken out the Catholic governments, does that mean that in principle we should admire their way? Should we not stand back and say "Okay, this is the way it is for now, this is a punishment for our sins, but in my heart I do not accept it, and what I want is a Catholic government?"
But no, Trinity, you say our form of government is the best. And this is unacceptable. It is your kind of thinking that produced Vatican II, yet you are a sedevacantist who is supposed to be against Vatican II. It makes no sense.
We must accept our lot, like the Jews in Babylon, because St. Paul says we have to obey all governments, no matter what kind. Apparently, we have been sent this government as a punishment. But did the Jews in Babylon celebrate Babylon? Did they say the Babylonian gov't was the best form of gov't? I seem to remember that these Negative Nellies were so morose that they refused so much as to sing psalms, since songs of victory rang hollow in exile. Well, Catholics are also in EXILE in the new Babylon, Mystery Babylon -- America -- but unlike the Jews of old, most of them don't want to face up to it. On the contrary, they are as happy as pigs in mud to live under a non-Catholic government, and think the whole world should follow their example... It is unbelievable.
And as I always say, that's why the new Babylon is called MYSTERY ( because no one talks about its true nature, it's hushed up and mysterious ).
-
Raoul, very well put.
Not only that, but this "evolution of doctrine" and accommodating it to the times, was written against by Pope St. Pious X in his encyclicals against the heresy of modernism.
-
BINGO, Alexandria. We need conversion. Especially those in gov't. They are the ones making laws not in keeping with Church teaching. As Catholics we are supposed to be the leaven. If this country has failed it is because we failed to convert our past/present/future politicians. It always, always goes back to conversion and the individual's exercise of their free will. Religious liberty only aids our exercise of our free will, for the good or for the bad, as we choose. God Himself guarantees free will.
On my other thread, matto said that we as parents don't let our children choose between poison and vegetables--we order them to eat the vegetables. But God doesn't. He lets us choose and take the consequences. He said, "I set before you life and death."
When you argue against religious liberty, you argue against God's chosen method of dealing with us. I happen to believe that He gave us this country where we have been free to be Catholics IF THAT WAS WHAT WE CHOSE, so we could convert the protestants. No use crying that they didn't convert. Where have been our holy examples?
-
What you are saying has been condemned by numerous Popes, Trinity. Do you want the truth or not?
-
Trinity said:
BINGO, Alexandria. We need conversion. Especially those in gov't. They are the ones making laws not in keeping with Church teaching
That's because it is not a Catholic country and was begun by Freemasons based on Freemasonic principles.
Do you look at a dog and think "That dog is not flying, it must be because he's not trying hard enough, we should pray for him?" No, because we know from the facts that dogs don't fly. Just like we know from the facts that America is anti-Catholic in its nature. This is called SEEING REALITY.
-
I'm going to assume that everyone is out there finding scripture to prove that Jesus wants us to force our religion down people's throats.
Are you a protestant who believes only in scripture and rejects the teaching authority of the Church? Does the constant teaching of the Church mean anything to you? I could understand if you accepted religious liberty because it is taught by Vatican II and you did not know that Vatican II contradicted the constant teaching of the Church, but I do not think you are one of those people.
Do you agree with this: It is not justice for Catholics and non-Catholics to be treated as equals. Justice demands that Catholics are preferred and non-Catholics, if tolerated, are treated as second-class citizens.
AGAIN, SHE FALLS BACK ON THE "FORCING CONVERSION/BELIEF" CANDARD........she is showing lack of discernment, she cannot make sense of what we are saying at all......for her it is either force conversion or complete freedom of worship, a Prot either/or thinking mindset....
is it me or does anyone else see Trinity is not comprehending and apepars not to want to? are we josuitng with a prone door on that floor?
-
Raoul, are you peeking? Or aren't you my 3rd ignore? If you are ignoring me AND peeking, that is very dishonest.
-
Trinity said:
BINGO, Alexandria. We need conversion. Especially those in gov't. They are the ones making laws not in keeping with Church teaching
That's because it is not a Catholic country and was begun by Freemasons based on Freemasonic principles.
Do you look at a dog and think "That dog is not flying, it must be because he's not trying hard enough, we should pray for him?" No, because we know from the facts that dogs don't fly. Just like we know from the facts that America is anti-Catholic in its nature. This is called SEEING REALITY.
those in Govt are not keeping with Church teaching-yes, 100% you go that right :rahrah: :rahrah:
but....why not? for one, they are not Catholic. They have no urge to be one...and this nation tells them they do not need to be one, as we have been saying-faulty foundation from the start. A nation built on religious indifference cannot then be magically expected to keep Church teaching....adn there is no punishment nor penalties because-drum roll please-we are not a Catholic nations and cannto then, as people nor Churchmen, hold them accountable!! :rahrah: :rahrah: :nunchaku: :applause: :good-shot:
kinda hard to do, no....
-
how can we hold non-Catholics and religious liberty Catholics in office when most do not know nor accept Catholic teaching?
and would it not be "forcing our religion" on them to do so then?
what is the penality? the motivation (think St. Ambrose vs the Catholic Emperor in the snow)..
-
I, too, am wondering where this "forced conversion" stuff is coming from.
No one here is advocating forced conversions. They never work. However, since Roman Catholicism is the only true faith, it ideally should be the sole one. If not, it's like saying that, yes, 2+2=4, but we can have 2+2=8 and 2+2=5 as well, all on the same level.
-
true, no state has to automatically allow error, let alone propagate it...
not same thing as "convert or die", nor necessarily "convert or leave".what is best for common good and propagation and protection of the Fide....
-
Raoul ----> said <<< Just like we know from the facts that America is anti-Catholic in its nature. This is called SEEING REALITY.>>>
So you advocate despair then! Reality to you means despair!
Forget the Lords Prayer, then why pray it Raoul, forget the part about "Thy Kingdom come Thy Will be done on earth as it is in Heaven. and forgive us, as we forgive those.
You have little forgiveness, and I hope God forgives you, but not the way you forgive.
George Washington converted on his death bed, but that isn't good enough for your friends, that was just a trick, Belloc said. A Trick for what?
Anything good about America is then only a trick. It takes just a special few like you, Belloc and your followers to see the truth, everyone else is a fool.
-
You are right, Alexandria, it should be the sole one. How do you propose to bring it about?
-
Trinity said:
Raoul, are you peeking? Or aren't you my 3rd ignore? If you are ignoring me AND peeking, that is very dishonest.
Dishonest again? Like yesterday when you called me a liar? Why are you trying to attack my person, shouldn't you be debating the points I raise? For someone who is so magically free of hate that you live as it were in a hot-air balloon sailing through the bluest and most untroubled of skies, as blue as a day of blissful childhood, it's amazing that you have come down out of those fluffy clouds of yours long enough to stoop to calling me non-Catholic, a liar, etc.
But no, I don't have you on ignore. My rule is only to use the ignore function if someone is putting up material that incites to sin. But for the most part, the ignore function makes the site into a popularity contest. There's a difference between not reading a post and announcing to the world "I'M NOT READING YOUR POST."
-
He did not convert on his deathbed. That has been addressed.
O my goodness. You are the two that do not see the truth where it is. Can you not see you are going around in dizzy circles?
-
You are right, Alexandria, it should be the sole one. How do you propose to bring it about?
Short of Divine Intervention, it is too late now. We were sold down the river by the prelates in this country long before Vatican II.
Here's an example that I often discuss with my husband. When the SSPX moved into Post Falls, Idaho, when I say it was a sleepy town, that's what I mean. It was so sleepy, that all of the traditionals coming into it for the SSPX could have taken it completely over - especially with businesses. They didn't.
-
Raoul again <<<My rule is only to use the ignore function if someone is putting up material that incites to sin. But for the most part, the ignore function makes the site into a popularity contest. There's a difference between not reading a post and announcing to the world "I'M NOT READING YOUR POST." >>>
Which is the reason I broke my rule and had to put Belloc on hide, for some strange reason the moment I came here he was always attacking my every word, whatever I watched on T.V. whatever I read, and he couldn't stand that I had an American flag and wasn't going to burn it. He shadowed me almost on every thread. I guess I reminded him of his mother, he said, so now we know what he thinks of his mother. I guess he ignores her too.
-
now Raoul is a despairer, for advocating and defending Catholci teaching and advocating the ideal, instead of the "get along to get along" approach and freemasonic indifferentism
wonder in that vein than-is war peace, slavery freedom,etc?
Alexandria-many in SSPX are like Trinity and Myrna, that is why no take over........odd, but many others do that-Muslims, Calvinists in 16th century-they took over.......
-
George Washington converting WoW, now Dawn is God, and decides who is saved and who is not.
Time out, giving my mom her lunch now! :ready-to-eat:
-
I was just thinking that Trinity has proven herself a true-blue Americanist. I try to distinguish between Americanists and American patriots, because there are certain excuses to be an American patriot. The example I usually give is an Irishman escaping from oppressive Protestant rule in his country. To him, less-oppressive Protestant/Freemasonic rule in our country would seem like an improvement.
I think that people know I am not one to go around screaming "Heretic" at all and sundry, but I think Trinity, you are bordering on soul-damaging error. Your opinion that the American system of government is the best form of government has been expressly condemned.
Now, despite claiming to be sedevacantist, you sound like a VII mouthpiece. The CMRI would not go along with what you're saying, do you realize that? Here, let your own Bishop explain it to you.
http://www.cmri.org/95prog2.shtml
"The Doctrinal Errors of Dignitatis Humanae"
To return to the point, can man be said to have the “right” to worship God in any manner he wishes? Can man be said to have the “right” to freely promote false teachings on religious matters in society and to spread promiscuously all manner of erroneous doctrines? Can man be said to possess the “right” — the moral power — to teach and proselytize the doctrines of Atheism, Agnosticism, Pantheism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Protestantism? What about those who practice witchcraft or Satanism? Let us especially consider this in regard to Catholic countries where the religion of the country is Catholicism. Would Catholic governments be obliged to grant the “right” in civil law to propagate all forms of religion? Would Catholic governments be obliged to allow by civil right the spread of all manner of doctrines held by various religions. To answer these questions, let us review the teachings of the Popes, the Vicars of Christ on earth."
Then he continues. But that is the real kicker against DH, the part I put in italics. If you follow the false principles of DH, it means that heresy has rights. This in itself is the error or the heresy of DH... I should add this to the DH threads from yesterday. I know I said something to this effect, but it was probably buried in all my other verbiage.
-
You are right, Belloc, that it is not relegated only to the SSPX. I just used that as an example because it is one that I know. The town was dying - this was a golden opportunity for them.
-
If the truth be known, the CMRI considers Dignitatis Humanae and the error of religious liberty to be one of the worst heresies in VII.
This is what makes all of this so bizarre.
-
George Washington converting WoW, now Dawn is God, and decides who is saved and who is not.
Time out, giving my mom her lunch now! :ready-to-eat:
Never let the truth get in the way of being a fresh mouth
An article by Ben Emerson has been making the rounds on the Internet lately. It claims that on his deathbed George Washington called for a Jesuit priest, Fr. Leonard Neale, from St. Mary’s Mission across the Piscataway River. Then Washington, who had supposedly “been an Episcopalian,” was baptized into the Roman Catholic Church. Emerson’s article alleges, but provides no evidence, that “after Washington’s death, a picture of the Blessed Virgin Mary and one of St. John were found among the effects on an inventory of articles at his home.”
Hattie Burdette's portrait of Washington in his Masonic apron
The article also asserts the General used to make the Sign of the Cross before meals, based on the undocuмented testament of his servant Juba. We are also told that “he slipped into a Catholic Church several times to attend Mass” – again, no proof or even testimony.
Another amazing unproven fact ends the piece: Washington was “a student of the writings on political philosophy of St. Robert Bellarmine and St. Thomas Aquinas.” Together with Thomas Jefferson, he incorporated into the Constitution in 1787 some of the Saints' ideas in setting up the U.S. Republic. An incredible statement - indeed, all the more so as it comes to us without the indispensable evidence.
Did George Washington really convert and die a Roman Catholic?
Washington became a focal point in American history, and it is no wonder that some Catholics want to say that he converted. One can legitimately respect some of Washington’s characteristics, such as his upright character, his admiration for the aristocracy, and his military courage. However, such partial admiration should not lead one to deny the known historical facts and accept the myth that Washington secretly adhered to the Holy Faith and died a Catholic. There is simply no solid evidence for such claims. If an affirmation like this were to appear in any serious scholarly article, it would be called fraudulent and the whole work would lose its credibility.
While Washington and his family belonged to the Church of England, very early in life he seems to have begun that reduction of religion to a vague morality, like so many men whose careers prospered in the Age of the Enlightenment. Washington was not a scholar – his formal education extended only to grammar school. It is doubtful he ever read St. Thomas Aquinas or St. Robert Bellarmine – which at that time would have been available only in Latin, a language he did not read well.
Washington was, however, ambitious. His knowledge of surveying and excellence in practical mathematics won him the favor of Lord Fairfax of Virginia, and the door to the “Old Society” opened to the gangling “country boy” ready to learn the ways of polite company. Not by coincidence, it was at this period - when his star began to rise - that George Washington was initiated into the Fredericksburg Lodge (Virginia) in 1752, and one year later was raised to Master Mason. In 1788 he was made Charter Master of the Alexandria Lodge No. 22 of Virginia. These are docuмented facts. (Check evidence here)
A mural in George Washington Masonic Memorial shows him in full Masonic attire laying the cornerstone of the US Capitol in 1793
It is also uncontested that President George Washington, dressed in Masonic attire, led a procession of Masonic officers and brethren to the site in the District of Columbia for the laying of the U.S. Capitol's cornerstone in 1793. The apron and sash worn by George Washington together with the trowel he used are today preserved in the Alexandria Washington Masonic Lodge. He remained a member and patron of “The Craft” – as Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ is also called – his entire life, and 100 years after his death, the George Washington Masonic Memorial was built to commemorate him.
In his letters and addresses to Masonic bodies, Washington professed his profound esteem for their principles. In 1797, two years before his death, he addressed the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts with these words: "My attachment to the Society of which we are all members will dispose me always to contribute my best endeavors to promote the honor and prosperity of the Craft." Later in the same speech, he said that the Masonic institution was one whose liberal principles are founded on the immutable laws of truth and justice and whose grand object is to promote the happiness of the human race.
Only 13 months before his death, he declared to the Grand Lodge of Maryland, "So far as I am acquainted with the doctrines and principles of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, I conceive them to be founded in benevolence, and to be exercised only for the good of mankind. I cannot, therefore, upon this ground, withdraw my approbation from it."
Some Catholic writers who try to “redeem” Washington claim his beliefs and behavior were actually based on the Stoic philosophy because of his self-admitted admiration for the Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius. However, anyone who considers the pagan “virtues” promoted by Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ – the quest for wisdom, peace, toleration, perseverance and self-control – will note the similarity with tenets of Stoicism.
The 12 ton statue of Washington in a Roman toga expresses his admiration for the pagan philosophy
According to the Stoic philosophy, what counts is a man’s behavior, not his ideas. Before any situation of life the wise man - the model for the Stoic - was always calm and tolerant, refusing to show any emotion, which would distort his judgment. This would be the perfect man who lives according to Nature. To this fundamental religious indifferentism and moral tolerance of Stoicism, Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ added a Deist principle - the Great Architect of the Universe or Eternal Reason - that would give a vague religious sense to the pagan way of life.
The two philosophies are very similar, and Masonry assumed part of Stoicism as its own. Therefore, when one asserts that Washington was a follower of Stoicism, he is in part correct. But he is also trying to make us swallow Masonry under the appearance of Stoicism.
Washington, like his more articulate contemporary and fellow-Freemason Jefferson, summarily rejected what they called “dogmaticism.” Like Jefferson, he was a Deist, a man who follows no particular religion but only acknowledges the existence of an impersonal God, without any articles of faith. He often spoke and wrote of the need to submit to the decrees of Providence. In Washington’s public addresses, he used the word Providence, not God. In his correspondence with the Masonic Lodges, he habitually refers to the Great Architect of the Universe. But nowhere does he mention Jesus Christ.
Washington appears to have died as he lived – faithful to his Masonic principles. His death is minutely described in the personal journal of Tobias Lear, his personal secretary for many years. He took no special leave of his family; he remained calm and without emotion, resigned to death - as any Master Mason would be.
An eye-witness account
New Hampshire's Tobias Lear, former secretary to the President, was on the scene during the long slow death of Washington on December 14, 1799 at Mount Vernon. His carefully written account offers a detailed view of Washington's last moments. It is interesting to notice that nowhere does the fanciful fabrication of Ben Emerson enter this description. Here are Lear’s words:
Doctor Dick came in about 3 o'clock, and Dr. Brown arrived soon after. Upon Dr. Dick's seeing and consulting a few minutes with Dr. Craik, he was bled again. … About half past 4 o'clock he desired me to call Mrs. Washington to his bedside, when he requested her to go down into his room, and take from his desk two wills she would find there, and bring them to him, which she did. Upon looking at them he gave her one which he observed was useless, as being suppressed by the other, and desired her to burn it, which she did.
Washington's death described in detail does not make any allusion to his conversion
After this was done I returned to his bedside and took his hand. He said to me, "I find I am going, my breath cannot last long; I believed from the first that the disorder would prove fatal. Do you arrange & record all my late military letters & papers arrange my accounts and settle my books, as you know more about them than anyone else. Let Mr. Rawlins finish recording my other letters which he has begun." I told him this would be done. …
About 5 o'clock Dr. Craik came again into the Room & upon going to the bedside, the General said to him, "Doctor, I die hard; but I am not afraid to go, I believed from my first attack, that I should not survive it; my breath cannot last long. The Doctor pressed his hand but did not utter a word. He retired from the bed side & sat by the fire absorbed in grief.
Between 5 & 6 o'clock Dr. Dick & Dr. Brown came into the room, and with Dr. Craik went to the bed; when Dr Craik asked him if he could sit up in bed. He held out his hand & I raised him up. He then said to the Physicians, "I feel myself going, I thank you for your attentions; but I pray you take no more trouble about me, let me go off quietly; I cannot last long."
They found that all which had been done was without effect; he laid down again, and all retired, excepting Dr. Craik. He continued in the same situation, uneasy & restless; but without complaining; frequently asking what hour it was. When I helped him move at this time he did not speak; but looked at me with strong expressions of gratitude.
About 8 o'clock the Physicians came again into the room & applied blisters and cataplasms of wheat bran to his legs & feet; after which they went out (except for Dr. Craik) without a ray of hope. …
About 10 o'clock he made several efforts to speak to me before he could affect it, at length he said, "I am just going! Have me decently buried; and do not let my body to be put into the vault less than three days after I am dead. " I bowed assent, for I could not speak. He then looked at me again and said, "Do you understand me?" I replied Yes! " 'Tis well!" said he.
About 10 minutes before he expired (which was between 10 & 11 o'clock) he breating [sic] became easier; he lay quietly; he withdrew his hand from mine, and felt his own pulse. I saw his countenance changed I spoke to Dr. Craik who sat by the fire; he came to the bed side. The General's hand fell from his wrist I took it in mine and put it into my bosom. Dr. Craik put his hand over his Eyes and he expired without a struggle or sigh.
Washington laying the cornerstone of the National Capitol
Another painting at George Washington Masonic National Memorial
Sources:
•D’Elia, Donald, The Spirit of ’76: A Catholic Inquiry (Christendom Publications:1983), pp. 72-85.
•Bowler, Paul, “George Washington and Religion Liberty, in James M. Smith, etc., George Washington: A Profile (NY: Hill and Wang 1969)
•George W. Nordham, The Age of Washington, Chicago: Adams Press, 1989
•George Washington Papers online, Library of Congress
•George Washington Masonic Memorial
•Bessel, Paul M., George Washington's Writings About Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ and Attendance at Masonic Meetings and Events
•Henriques, Peter R. The Death of George Washington: He Died as He Lived, Mt. Vernon, VA: The Mount Vernon Ladies' Association, 2000
-
Haven't you noticed, Myrna, they are all God, or at the very least, the pope. They can even tell us who we can listen to. Not a humble bone among them.
Alexandria, listen to your own words. If it is too late, then the revocation of religious liberty is too late to do any good. I want to keep my Church, thank you, and the sacraments. Whatever protects it, protects me, and you, and even Belloc.
-
You are right, Belloc, that it is not relegated only to the SSPX. I just used that as an example because it is one that I know. The town was dying - this was a golden opportunity for them.
true, it was and maybe, sometime in future.....hopefully....
-
Myrna, Dawn and others stated Washington did NOT convert, not whether he is or is not in Heaven......but that no conversion happened......that was the point...
Dawn is not God, nor claims to be....try to read and catch up on todays discussions....oops, thats right, she usually does not burden to read up..... :read-paper:
-
How can you deny that she called me God for me saying that Washington did not convert on his deathbed. There is not proof for that only the opposite.
And, why are we being called names for defending the Churches teaching against the heresy of religious liberty. It is a heresy that you continue to deny.
-
You are right, Alexandria, it should be the sole one. How do you propose to bring it about?
Short of Divine Intervention, it is too late now. We were sold down the river by the prelates in this country long before Vatican II.
Here's an example that I often discuss with my husband. When the SSPX moved into Post Falls, Idaho, when I say it was a sleepy town, that's what I mean. It was so sleepy, that all of the traditionals coming into it for the SSPX could have taken it completely over - especially with businesses. They didn't.
Dine Intervention could be Chastisement, likely to bring a lot of Europe back, so there is hope for USA.....
-
I'm tired of the name calling too. It is totally uncalled for.
-
How can you deny that she called me God for me saying that Washington did not convert on his deathbed. There is not proof for that only the opposite.
And, why are we being called names for defending the Churches teaching against the heresy of religious liberty. It is a heresy that you continue to deny.
she did imply clearly you were God, very snide about it-I see her mask is falling off......
we are being called names as this is obviously not very comfortable for them, truth and all.....they refuse to listen and refuse to research....very cult-like anti-intellectualism......recall, cults get people to listen onlyto them...perhaps Bishop Mark needs to do some investigations of the Mount...Raoul has pointed out how Mark is vs Trinity/Myrna and their posse......instead of reading and taking a break and doing the work, they prefer to :argue: instead of :reporter: and :read-paper:
-
As for the George Washington conversion story, the first time I ever heard that one was in the nineties. And then I read that it is a pious tale.
I've yet to get to the truth of the matter.
-
I'm tired of the name calling too. It is totally uncalled for.
true.....like Fantastic Four, haters, etc.....
-
God alone knows who is saved and who isn't, so don't worry your head, Alexandria. You won't know this side of the divide, which is what Myrna was pointing out. If Dawn wants to play God, then she can expect to be called on it.
For you it is enough to decide if you want your liberties taken away or not.
-
Truth Alexandria, What is that? No matter just carry on like all rest. It is a pretty story isn't it.
How bout this one, And then the prince rode in and kissed Snow White and she awoke and all lived happily ever after. Even the evil queen because Snow White showered her with LUV. And, now let me get back to what I was dong :smoke-pot:
We need kissy face and smurf icons please
Peace love
-
For you it is enough to decide if you want your liberties taken away or not.
I would like to understand what you are trying to say here, but I do not. Could you explain what you mean here?
-
Trinity, are you that obstinate or that dense? which one, ma'am?
you said:
"God alone knows who is saved and who isn't, so don't worry your head, Alexandria. You won't know this side of the divide, which is what Myrna was pointing out. If Dawn wants to play God, then she can expect to be called on it.
For you it is enough to decide if you want your liberties taken away or no"
1. Yes God knows who is and is not saved-THAT IS NOT WHAT WAS BEING DISCUSSED AT ALL!!!! what was noted was the the Washington conversion story is a myth, on par with that Cherry tre!
2. Dawn never said she is God, nor plays God! No once, that is a myth you have concocted and are riding full throttle!
3. Liberties taken away? what is that to do with this discussion? how would a Catholic state take your liberties away when you claim the Faith anyway? Further, your liberties were taken away at the Republic's founding, the seeds of the destruction were built in then! That is what we have been :argue: about for days and days now...
begining to fear that you may not be mentally healthy and no, that is not a slam or insult, but really wondering.......if so, then maybe neither is answer to my first question above.....
-
For you it is enough to decide if you want your liberties taken away or not.
I would like to understand what you are trying to say here, but I do not. Could you explain what you mean here?
good luck with that!
-
That is because you aren't giving the benefit of a doubt. Alexandria and I are talking about liberty---the religious kind to be exact. Who was or was not saved is not our province.
-
Belloc thank you for pointing out what I said. You begin to think you are loosing your mind with the way the spin.
Soon, you will be home for the evening. So, rest adn talk to you tomorrow
-
Belloc thank you for pointing out what I said. You begin to think you are loosing your mind with the way the spin.
Soon, you will be home for the evening. So, rest adn talk to you tomorrow
note-it is either fantasy land or they attack........wonder who else they will recruit from The Mount to ignore me-might come in tomorrow and have more than Classicom!! :roll-laugh2:
-
Well, there must be an error in here somewhere if you are so stuck on it, Alexandria. But I have invited people several times to show where scripture shows there should be no liberty to practice your faith. It's a case of sauce for the goose being sauce for the gander.
-
Gregory XVI (http://www.traditioninaction.org/religious/n037rp_ReligiousLiberty.htm)
Pius VI (http://www.traditioninaction.org/religious/n051rp_ReligiousLiberty.htm)
I don't know scripture very well so I don't know where to look to find good quotes from the bible condemning religious liberty. But Here are a couple of Popes if you care what they have to say.
-
why from the Bible alone do we need quotes, ask her, Matto-we have a teaching Magesterium....
also, question was already answered, just apparently not to her satisfaction.....hint, King David for one...
-
The thing about religious liberty is that not only do the popes reject it as an error, they reject very strongly as a dangerous insanity.
-
I'm beginning to see their point. We should none of us have the liberty to be talking about this or anything else. Those who spit on liberty shouldn't have it.
-
Where are those quotes, matto?
-
Where are those quotes, matto?
You mean from the popes?
Here they are again:
link (http://www.traditioninaction.org/religious/n037rp_ReligiousLiberty.htm)
link (http://www.traditioninaction.org/religious/n051rp_ReligiousLiberty.htm)
-
Here you go....
Don't forget about the Old Testament. God himself created the laws by which the Israelites ruled their country. One of those laws says that blasphemers must be stoned to death. That's what God thinks the government should do to those who exercise their "right to religious liberty."
True, the Davidic Kingdom, and prior, and post, was not seperate....David was a King an a High Priest....others were King, but ruled in God's name and based on OT Jєωιѕн faith.....another good example is the Macchabees.....Book 1, Ch 1-2 seem to describe our present time........they cleansed israel and set up a Jєωιѕн state.....a real Jєωιѕн state, not the fake utopian one now....
-
I don't have the energy to continue in this labyrinth anymore.
Now its branching off into yet another realm - just plain liberty.
-
Look at the opening post, Alexandria. It was always about liberty.
-
I think it is important to understand that "rights" come from God. And no one ever has the "right" to commit any sin. Ever. God allows man to sin but to say he has a "right" to sin would be mistaken. One only can only have a "right" to do good. One can never have a "right" to do a wrong like worshiping a false God.
(I am not 100% sure that this it correct. If someone who knows better knows that I am wrong, please correct me.)
-
Oh, for crying out loud, Matto. Just paste the pertinent quotes.
-
Oh, for crying out loud, Matto. Just paste the pertinent quotes.
Okay, sorry.
Both of these are from Tradition in Action:
Pope Gregory XVI
Now we arrive at another cause of the evils with which we suffer at seeing the Church afflicted at this moment, to wit, this “indifferentism,” or this perverse opinion spread everywhere by the devious action of bad men. According to it, one could achieve eternal salvation by any profession of faith, as long as the customs are upright and honest.
It will not be difficult for you, in such a clear and evident matter, to drive so fatal an error from the midst of the peoples under your care. Indeed, since the Apostle had warned us that “there is but one God, one faith, one baptism” (Eph 4:5), those who believe that all religions offer the means to reach eternal salvation must fear and comprehend that, according to the testimony of the Savior Himself, “those who are not with Christ are against Him” (Luke 11:23); and that they scatter in sadness, since they do not gather with Him. Consequently, there is no doubt that “they who do not profess the Catholic Faith and maintain it whole and inviolate will be eternally lost” …
From this infected source of “indifferentism” flows that absurd and erroneous maxim, or rather this delirium, that it is necessary to grant everyone “freedom of conscience.” This most pernicious error has its way prepared by a full and immoderate freedom of opinion that is widely spread for the ruin of religious and civil society. Some repeat with extreme impudence that it brings an advantage for religion. However, St. Augustine asked: “What could be a worse evil for the soul than the liberty of error?”
Once one removes the restraints that keep men within the path of truth, their nature, which is already inclined to evil, opens to “the bottomless pit,” from which John saw smoke ascending that obscured the sun, and grasshoppers coming forth that devastated the earth. From this comes transformation of souls, profound corruption of youth, contempt for sacred things and the most respectable laws, which is spread among the people. In a word, it is a most deathful scourge for society, since experience shows that the States which shone for their riches, power, and glory perished as a result of this evil, namely, immoderate liberty of opinions, the relaxation of customs, and the love of novelties.
(Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos in
Receuil des Allocution consistoriales,
Encycliques et autres Lettres Apostoliques Citées
in the Encyclical and Syllabus of December 8, 1864
Paris: Adrien Le Clere, 1865, n. 13, p. 163)
Pope Pius VI
The necessary effect of the constitution decreed by the Assembly is to annihilate the Catholic Religion and, with her, the obedience owed to Kings. With this purpose it establishes as a right of man in society this absolute liberty that not only insures the right to be indifferent to religious opinions, but also grants full license to freely think, speak, write and even print whatever one wishes on religious matters – even the most disordered imaginings. It is a monstrous right, which the Assembly claims, however, results from equality and the natural liberties of all men.
But what could be more unwise than to establish among men this equality and this uncontrolled liberty, which stifles all reason, the most precious gift nature gave to man, the one that distinguishes him from animals?
After creating man in a place filled with delectable things, didn’t God threaten him with death should he eat the fruit of the tree of good and evil? And with this first prohibition didn’t He establish limits to his liberty? When, after man disobeyed the command and thereby incurred guilt, didn’t God impose new obligations on him through Moses? And even though he left to man’s free will the choice between good and evil, didn’t God provide him with precepts and commandments that could save him “if he would observe them”? …
Where then, is this liberty of thinking and acting that the Assembly grants to man in society as an indisputable natural right? Is this invented right not contrary to the right of the Supreme Creator to whom we owe our existence and all that we have? Can we ignore the fact that man was not created for himself alone, but to be helpful to his neighbor? …
Man should use his reason first of all to recognize his Sovereign Maker, honoring Him and admiring Him, and submitting his entire person to Him. For, from his childhood, he should be submissive to those who are superior to him in age; he should be governed and instructed by their lessons, order his life according to their laws of reason, society and religion. This inflated equality and liberty, therefore, are for him, from the moment he is born, no more than imaginary dreams and senseless words.
Pius VI, Brief Quod aliquantum, of March 10, 1791,
in Recueil des Allocutions, Paris: Adrien Leclere, 1865, pp. 53-55.
-
Look at the opening post, Alexandria. It was always about liberty.
It's about religious liberty.
If I understand you right, you are asking why didn't Our Lord set up a Catholic government when He walked among us if that is what He wanted.
Is this correct?
-
Lay off Matto. He is doing fine. I am sorry we Catholics are not Sola Scriptura. We go by what the Popes have said as well. And, they have called your line of thinking heresy.
But, that aside the quotes have been put up. Many times by Belloc and I think Raoul.
Stop pushing Matto around. He said he does not know specific quotes and there place in the Bible.
Now, deal with Belloc or Raoul or myself. We will not be bullied.
You are a scandal to those reading this site. RELIGIOUS LIBERTY is a heresy. Pope Leo XIII on it Pope Pius X and others. If that is not good enough for you, you are again placing yourself outside the Church.
-
Yes, that and why he did nothing to indicate that we should ban any other religions. Why did he stick to conversions?
Maybe we should define our terms. When I say religious liberty I mean the liberty to practice our religion without persecution, etc. Do you think that should be taken away from us?
-
Yes, that and why he did nothing to indicate that we should ban any other religions. Why did he stick to conversions?
Maybe we should define our terms. When I say religious liberty I mean the liberty to practice our religion without persecution, etc. Do you think that should be taken away from us?
Yes or no, Was Queen Isabella committing a sin when she expelled the Muslims and Jews out of Catholic Spain?
Everyone has the "right" to practice the true religion. Nobody has the "right" to practice a false religion. Ever. Even if the Government allows it, it is not, and cannot be a "right" because "rights" come from God and he does not condone sin.
-
Got tired of waiting for you to paste that, Matto, so I went to the link to Gregory XVI. I'm so glad it was an excerpt.
That was about indifferentism which this thread is not about. The cat was already out of the bag when this country was started thanks to Luther and company. At that point they needed to be gotten back into the true religion. Religious liberty gave us the opportunity to convert them back.
I do not advocate indifferentism.
-
well said Matto
-
Yes, that and why he did nothing to indicate that we should ban any other religions. Why did he stick to conversions?
Maybe we should define our terms. When I say religious liberty I mean the liberty to practice our religion without persecution, etc. Do you think that should be taken away from us?
Yes or no, Was Queen Isabella committing a sin when she expelled the Muslims and Jews out of Catholic Spain?
Everyone has the "right" to practice the true religion. Nobody has the "right" to practice a false religion. Ever. Even if the Government allows it, it is not, and cannot be a "right" because "rights" come from God and he does not condone sin.
[/b]
Matto is 100% on this. I very clearly remember a sermon from a CMRI priest about two summers ago saying this very thing. He told a story about how he sat next to an FSSP seminarian on a plane and they started talking. The seminarian wanted to know where the heresy was in DH. Father told him it is because it used the word "right" when it referred to others practicing non-Catholic religions. No one has the "right" to be wrong strictly speaking.
-
I've always been for the expulsion, but I figure God lost a few souls that way. Then the missionaries had to go to far lands to win them back.
You just can't get it, can you, Matto. In the case of America it would have been the Catholics expelled. Can't you at least be grateful that we had the chance to win back our lost brothers??????
-
Got tired of waiting for you to paste that, Matto, so I went to the link to Gregory XVI. I'm so glad it was an excerpt.
That was about indifferentism which this thread is not about. The cat was already out of the bag when this country was started thanks to Luther and company. At that point they needed to be gotten back into the true religion. Religious liberty gave us the opportunity to convert them back.
I do not advocate indifferentism.
It talks about indifferentism, but it also condemns religious liberty as a "most pernicious error" and a "delerium":
From this infected source of “indifferentism” flows that absurd and erroneous maxim, or rather this delirium, that it is necessary to grant everyone “freedom of conscience.” This most pernicious error has its way prepared by a full and immoderate freedom of opinion that is widely spread for the ruin of religious and civil society. Some repeat with extreme impudence that it brings an advantage for religion. However, St. Augustine asked: “What could be a worse evil for the soul than the liberty of error?”
-
:confused1:
Umm, we were when the Protestants pushed the Catholics out, and down into what is now New Orleans area. And, pushed them out of their lands in Mexico. And, we had all of our land that had been claimed for Christ and Monarch stolen and then the Prots started yelling about Religous Liberty.-
-
I read Pius XI and he seems to be saying that there should be no recognition of free will. There's something wrong with that.
-
:whistleblower: :whistleblower: :whistleblower:
What do you mean with that statment on Pius IX
-
Do you honestly think that by making laws you sway consciences? Even if people don't commit a sin because they are afraid of the law, they have still committed it in their hearts.
-
I've always been for the expulsion, but I figure God lost a few souls that way. Then the missionaries had to go to far lands to win them back.
You just can't get it, can you, Matto. In the case of America it would have been the Catholics expelled. Can't you at least be grateful that we had the chance to win back our lost brothers??????
It is a good thing for a nation to grant religious freedom to Catholics. It is better than forcing everyone to accept a false religion. But it is best for a nation to grant freedom to Catholics and suppress false religions. What you are doing is sacrificing the truth that every nation has the duty to uphold the rights of God and his Church, in hopes that by denying that truth you will win leniency from your slavemasters.
-
Explain what you mean about Pius IX
-
Do you honestly think that by making laws you sway consciences? Even if people don't commit a sin because they are afraid of the law, they have still committed it in their hearts.
But it is a greater sin to carry out that sin in the world.
Here is an example: by making laws banning the printing of books supporting false religions, you are preventing those vicious errors from poisoning the minds and destroying the souls of the people under your government.
Did Pope Saint Pius V sin when he was head of the Holy Inquisition which punished Heretics, sometimes even putting them to death?
-
I read Pius XI and he seems to be saying that there should be no recognition of free will. There's something wrong with that.
What did Pius XI write that you are referring to here.
-
Hmm looks like you are on ignore too.
-
Excuse me, it was Pius VI. You can read it on page 6 of this thread.
-
Get the cart behind the horse, Matto. First things should come first. This gov't was founded by protestants. From then on, they held the reins. It wasn't Catholics in charge giving religious liberty to protestants, but the other way around. If any books were going to be banned it would have been ours. We Catholics are the ones who made out on this deal, and for the moment still do.
-
Excuse me, it was Pius VI. You can read it on page 6 of this thread.
The necessary effect of the constitution decreed by the Assembly is to annihilate the Catholic Religion and, with her, the obedience owed to Kings. With this purpose it establishes as a right of man in society this absolute liberty that not only insures the right to be indifferent to religious opinions, but also grants full license to freely think, speak, write and even print whatever one wishes on religious matters – even the most disordered imaginings. It is a monstrous right, which the Assembly claims, however, results from equality and the natural liberties of all men.
It is true that Pope Pius VI proclaims that people do not have the right to even think freely about religion. This is the teaching of the Church. Because to think freely about religion is a sin, and sin has no rights and can never have rights. Is that what you object to?
-
Quote from your second excerpt:
even though he left to man’s free will the choice between good and evil, didn’t God provide him with precepts and commandments that could save him “if he would observe them”? …
This alone makes my point. This is what God did, he left us to choose. You would take that choice away. Sure it would be easier if we didn't have all this trash to sort through, but we have this trash because too many people made the wrong choices. All the more merit for us in choosing good over evil and persisting in searching for the truth. The precepts and commandments of God are still there for those who want them. They would be despised by those who don't no matter what.
It seems to me that this was written because of the French Revolution.
-
It sounds like you would never submit your will to the authority of a good leader, and would never give up an ounce of your precious "liberty". There is your error. Do you really think that just because it is possible to sin, the government has no right to prevent you from sinning? Is that "liberty"?
-
The Catholic religion was annihilated in America. Religious liberty allowed Catholics to be here. The Catholic religion was annihilated during the protestant revolt. And that was before religious liberty. Take a look at which came first.
What is this we're not even free to think about religion stuff? You can't stop people from thinking. All of the saints thought about religion. A sin is a sin and it is God who deals with sin. And when it comes to sinful thoughts only God can deal with them, because only He knows them.
I never said the gov't has no right to stop me from sinning. Why don't you give up your liberties right now, Matto? You lead the way.
-
Why don't you give up your liberties right now, Matto? You lead the way.
I am not asking anyone to give up their liberties. I am saying that you are creating imaginary liberties when there are none. I am asking people to give up their false liberties, such as the pernicious error of "freedom of conscience." You are saying that by opposing false "rights" I am opposing true ones.
-
You do not have a "right" to think freely about religion! You only have a "right" to think properly, Catholicly, about religion.
-
Trinity said:
This gov't was founded by protestants. From then on, they held the reins. It wasn't Catholics in charge giving religious liberty to protestants, but the other way around. If any books were going to be banned it would have been ours. We Catholics are the ones who made out on this deal, and for the moment still do.
Trinity said before --
God created civil gov't. Of all of them, ours is the best---or it was until it was usurped by the devils in power.
The confusion here is immense. You are saying that a Protestant government is the best form of government, and that under it, Catholics are the ones who have made out. Actually it is Freemasonic and Freemasons serve the devil. So what is this "usurpation" you keep talking about? The first and greatest usurper was named George Washington, but you probably are talking about Obama.
And no, we haven't made out. This country was and is full of delusional people who claimed to serve God ( because they claim to be Catholic ) while really following the devil. They shared a philosophy with their Freemasonic overlords, supporting them against other true Catholic countries, wanting all countries to have the separation of Church and state that we do. The result is chaos.
Trinity said:
The Catholic religion was annihilated in America. Religious liberty allowed Catholics to be here.
What on Earth are you talking about? Dawn has already told you in this thread that America was colonized by French and Spanish Catholics. They had the government stolen from them through the plotting of the secret societies. When was the Catholic religion "annihilated" in America? If anyone annihilated it, it is the government that you love so much, because it was flourishing before your beloved Founding Fathers reared their ugly periwigged heads.
I understand very well why her mind is gnarled up, because I have observed it in my older friend Brian. She wants to love her country and consider it the best while at the same time acknowledging the glaring faults. But this is impossible -- the glaring faults reveal that this is not the best country, not the best system of government.
The quotes from the Popes are legion. Leo XIII especially.
Libertas --
"There are others, somewhat more moderate though not more consistent, who affirm that the morality of individuals is to be guided by the divine law, but not the morality of the State, for that in public affairs the commands of God may be passed over, and may be entirely disregarded in the framing of laws. Hence follows the fatal theory of the need of separation between Church and State. But the absurdity of such a position is manifest. Nature herself proclaims the necessity of the State providing means and opportunities whereby the community may be enabled to live properly, that is to say, according to the laws of God. For, since God is the source of all goodness and justice, it is absolutely ridiculous that the State should pay no attention to these laws or render them abortive by contrary enactments."
Since America separates Church and state, that means Leo XIII is calling our system of government an absurdity and absolutely ridiculous. Yet you call it the best.
When a state equalizes all religions and there is freedom of worship, when Catholicism is not the guiding religion, only chaos can result. The Masons knew this very well. Obviously they couldn't have banned Catholicism outright, because it would have started a counter-Revolution. Instead the long-range plan was to separate Church and state in the governments they could control; αssαssιnαtҽ and depose through treachery the Catholic leaders to get control of the rest of the world; then control the minds through the media. Now they have gotten into the Vatican and turned what appears to be the Church into an ape, a counterfeit. That's where we are, that's the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr, in a nutshell.
Trinity is not saying she approves of separation of Church and state, I will grant you. She's not sure what she's saying, for the reason I outlined above. She just keeps repeating the word "liberty" without understanding what she means. It's Pavlovian, it's a brainwashed mantra of Americans. Remember Masonic Mel Gibson with the blue face? FREEEE-DDD-O-O-O-MMMM! And yeah, his movies are almost all Freemasonic, don't let Passion of the Christ fool you. Another disillusionment, Trinity!
-
All you have to give up is the first amendment and the gov't would be telling you what you could say and write and where you would be going to church, if you got to go at all. Go for it, Matto, I dare you. Put your money where your mouth is. You live out your fantasy.
-
Mel Gibson the Freemason? I've never heard that one before. I thought the main reason he's been getting so much bad press is because he is definitely on the side of the Church.
-
All you have to give up is the first amendment and the gov't would be telling you what you could say and write and where you would be going to church, if you got to go at all. Go for it, Matto, I dare you. Put your money where your mouth is. You live out your fantasy.
Of course there should be no first Amendment. People should not have the right to publish anything that opposes the true religion. Such materials should be burned and the writers should be punished severely. And I think the government should tell everyone where to go to Church. To the Catholic Church. I would be happy to live in such a place, but there has been no Catholic country since before I was born because they were all destroyed by the revolution.
-
All you have to give up is the first amendment and the gov't would be telling you what you could say and write and where you would be going to church, if you got to go at all. Go for it, Matto, I dare you. Put your money where your mouth is. You live out your fantasy.
Of course there should be no first Amendment. People should not have the right to publish anything that opposes the true religion. Such materials should be burned and the writers should be punished severely. And I think the government should tell everyone where to go to Church. To the Catholic Church. I would be happy to live in such a place, but there has been no Catholic country since before I was born because they were all destroyed by the revolution.
I'd be happy to live in such a country, too. Sign me up.
-
All you have to give up is the first amendment and the gov't would be telling you what you could say and write and where you would be going to church, if you got to go at all. Go for it, Matto, I dare you. Put your money where your mouth is. You live out your fantasy.
Of course there should be no first Amendment. People should not have the right to publish anything that opposes the true religion. Such materials should be burned and the writers should be punished severely. And I think the government should tell everyone where to go to Church. To the Catholic Church. I would be happy to live in such a place, but there has been no Catholic country since before I was born because they were all destroyed by the revolution.
Dignitatis Humanae (the docuмent on religious liberty) took care of any remaining Catholic country left in the word.
-
Raoul76 said:
When a state equalizes all religions and there is freedom of worship, when Catholicism is not the guiding religion, only chaos can result.
Actually that's not quite true. Freedom of worship under the Jews and Masons is planned chaos, but not all non-Catholic governments would necessarily be chaotic.
Trinity has got my brain all tangled up. I need to take a break.
-
I'd be happy to live in such a country, too. Sign me up.
Sadly, it is not possible today and will never be possible again until the Church comes to her senses and rejects religious liberty. Remember, it was the Church that ordered the dismantling of the remaining Catholic States.
-
I'd be happy to live in such a country, too. Sign me up.
Sadly, it is not possible today and will never be possible again until the Church comes to her senses and rejects religious liberty. Remember, it was the Church that ordered the dismantling of the remaining Catholic States.
Isn't that what I wrote above?
-
Isn't that what I wrote above?
Yes, I did not see your post.
-
Henry said:
Mel Gibson the Freemason? I've never heard that one before. I thought the main reason he's been getting so much bad press is because he is definitely on the side of the Church.
I'm not saying he's a Mason, I'm saying his movies are Masonic-themed. In the same way, rock musicians are not Freemasons, but they channel the devil in their lyrics.
He is owned lock, stock and barrel by the Jews. The bad press is just their way of tormenting him. You know how it works. The devil promises you that he will give you fame and fortune, and then it's time to collect the bill. That is what is happening to Mel now. The devil is taking him apart piece by piece. His family is falling part, his career is falling apart, and his precious looks are falling apart. He could try to fall back on his faith but is it really there, in his heart? We'll see.
-
Reality is that we are living in this country, now, today, just the way it is. Give up your first amendment freedoms and see what happens.
Ok, but in the real world, Matto, today, now, you give up your first amendment rights. YOU, Matto, are no longer allowed to speak or write without gov't permission or go to a Church of your choice without gov't permission.
-
Reality is that we are living in this country, now, today, just the way it is. Give up your first amendment freedoms and see what happens.
Ok, but in the real world, Matto, today, now, you give up your first amendment rights. YOU, Matto, are no longer allowed to speak or write without gov't permission or go to a Church of your choice without gov't permission.
That's not how it works. I am telling you what the Catholic ideal is. If you disagree with that ideal, then you disagree with the Church and are in error and possibly heresy. Once we agree on that ideal, then we can worry about what to do in a particular situation if the ideal is not possible. I know it would require a miracle for the ideal to be reached in the world today, but you seem to be rejecting the ideal.
You are telling me that I must accept tyrrany because I demand justice.
-
Henry said:
Mel Gibson the Freemason? I've never heard that one before. I thought the main reason he's been getting so much bad press is because he is definitely on the side of the Church.
I'm not saying he's a Mason, I'm saying his movies are Masonic-themed. In the same way, rock musicians are not Freemasons, but they channel the devil in their lyrics.
He is owned lock, stock and barrel by the Jews. The bad press is just their way of tormenting him. You know how it works. The devil promises you that he will give you fame and fortune, and then it's time to collect the bill. That is what is happening to Mel now. The devil is taking him apart piece by piece. His family is falling part, his career is falling apart, and his precious looks are falling apart. He could try to fall back on his faith but is it really there, in his heart? We'll see.
In what ways are any of his movies Masonic-themed?
If he is owned completely by the Jews they wouldn't try to torment him. Sure, the Jews own all of us to some extent, but I would think they own him less than the majority of people in the country. Some people are so successfully under the thumb of the Jews that they never do or say anything that would make the Jews go after them.
-
Matto, I still think you are Augustine, but playing along, are you sedevacantist/SSPX/recognize-and-resist or what?
-
henry said:
If he is owned completely by the Jews they wouldn't try to torment him. Sure, the Jews own all of us to some extent, but I would think they own him less than the majority of people in the country. Some people are so successfully under the thumb of the Jews that they never do or say anything that would make the Jews go after them.
Do you think those who make a pact with the devil are not going to be tormented by the devil when they get to hell?
-
Matto, I don't believe Trinity or anyone here is rejecting the ideal, but her reality is different than Raoul's, actually so is mine, different than Raouls.
Reality to me is, "it is what it is" I have that bumper sticker on my car, and I except it for now, Raoul doesn't.
Sure who wouldn't want to live in a Catholic government, except for a pagan, Protestant or atheist. A Catholic world, that would even be better. The perfect Catholic Ideal.
Yet, Christ said, His kingdom was not of this world, and we would be persecuted, so why the big SURPRISE! when we are persecuted. When I was growing up, I could never understand why in my history book it said, a Catholic could never be President of the U.S.A. and I was angry.
-
henry said:
If he is owned completely by the Jews they wouldn't try to torment him. Sure, the Jews own all of us to some extent, but I would think they own him less than the majority of people in the country.
No, he owes his fame and fortune to them, he is the company boy. That is why when he went on Jimmy Kimmel, Kimmel made him say "Shalom." It's why his films are filled with Masonic themes, with cursing and perversion and sadistic violence ( taking pleasure in violence ), the constant theme of vigilante revenge in his films -- which is nothing less than stoking people up to commit murder -- and all kinds of non- or anti-Catholic things. The idea that he calls himself "Catholic" is so confusing, it makes it look like what he does is acceptable for a Catholic, but it's not.
The Passion of the Christ does not magically wipe away all his other abominations, before and after. People need to realize that you don't just get to call yourself Catholic, as if that solves everything, while you then go out and do the opposite of what a Catholic should do. You actually have to do the will of God. This is part of the reason why you are seeing so few role models, henry. The devil has us all twisted up, we have lost our common sense and decency.
-
I never said that. I said the Church has been telling people how to behave for 2,000 years. And each man did as he jolly well pleased. I never rejected the ideal. I said the gov't should be informed by the Church as each man should be informed by the Church. And since gov't is made up of individuals, we should be converting the individuals to get the gov't informed by the Church.
Read my lips. I am not talking about an ideal situation here, but the real situation we are in. THE REAL SITUATION WE ARE IN. Where did this ideal come in? Go ahead and demand justice. I dare you to do that, too. You'll get no further than you would get waiting for the gov't to give you permission to say the things you're saying now
-
Matto, I still think you are Augustine, but playing along, are you sedevacantist/SSPX/recognize-and-resist or what?
I go to an SSPX mass. I would not be surprised if sedevacantism were true, but I don't necessarily believe it is. I am in doubt because I am very confused.
-
Speaking of doubt, who said, "A doubtful pope is no pope"?
-
Speaking of doubt, who said, "A doubtful pope is no pope"?
That's a good question. Who did?
-
Read my lips. I am not talking about an ideal situation here, but the real situation we are in. THE REAL SITUATION WE ARE IN. Where did this ideal come in? Go ahead and demand justice. I dare you to do that, too. You'll get no further than you would get waiting for the gov't to give you permission to say the things you're saying now
In the real situation we are in, I see little hope for improvement without the miraculous conversion of the elite who rule us. Right now, all the power is in the hands of evil men. For things to get better, God will have to miraculously convert some of those evil men to his side, or raise up good men to power, who will then do battle against the forces of evil in a great war. Kind of like Franco on a massive scale. We will certainly not improve anything by electing Republicans.
-
Trinity said:
Read my lips. I am not talking about an ideal situation here, but the real situation we are in. THE REAL SITUATION WE ARE IN. Where did this ideal come in?
You said our form of government was the best. Now you're saying it's not ideal. Enough is enough.
Just know that the Popes have said that it is an error to believe that the American system of government, which separates Church and state, is a desirable form of government.
-
Matto said:
"We will certainly not improve anything by electing Republicans."
You can say that again.
-
THREAD REBOOT
The problem in this whole thread is that the terms are not defined. We all have to stop using "religious liberty" as shorthand, because that one term covers a multitude of different concepts.
Here are just three ways that the term "religious liberty" has been understood in this thread. Let's break it down like Bishop Pivarunas into True and False Religious Liberty.
( a ) That people should be not be forced to convert to Catholicism -- true This could be called True Religious Liberty
( b ) That the government should allow different religious groups to exist side-by-side -- true or false depending on the circuмstances, but mostly a decision of each government This could occasionally fall under True Religious Liberty also.
( c ) That everyone is free to follow the wrong religion, that they have a right to error -- false This is False Religious Liberty
All of these concepts are getting mixed together in a big blender of confusion.
Trinity, it is ( c ) that is the error or heresy. This is False Religious Liberty. Another term for it would be the The Right to Religious Error ( a right that doesn't exist ). You may say that to deny ( c ) is to deny free will, but it isn't. We are allowed by God to err, but we don't have the RIGHT to err.
Here is a simple syllogism to help you understand:
Rights come from God --
But error does not come from God --
Therefore the right to error does not come from God.
When you speak about "religious liberty," it is usually ( a ), but other things you say drift into the territory of ( b ) and ( c ). Whereas when Dawn speaks of "religious liberty" as a heresy, she is always talking about ( c ).
Putting it all together, there is at least a vague Americanism to your thought process. But often the kind of religious liberty you defend is the TRUE religious liberty rather than the FALSE religious liberty, and you use this against the rest of us, trying to make it sound like we are against True Religious Liberty when we are not.
I hope people will use these terms from now on, because otherwise we're going to be stuck in this Babel forever.
-
That's how I meant it - (c).
"We are allowed by God to err, but we don't have the RIGHT to err. "
-
I keep forgetting that Trinity has me on ignore and isn't even seeing my posts :rolleyes:
-
henry said:
If he is owned completely by the Jews they wouldn't try to torment him. Sure, the Jews own all of us to some extent, but I would think they own him less than the majority of people in the country.
No, he owes his fame and fortune to them, he is the company boy. That is why when he went on Jimmy Kimmel, Kimmel made him say "Shalom." It's why his films are filled with Masonic themes, with cursing and perversion and sadistic violence ( taking pleasure in violence ), the constant theme of vigilante revenge in his films -- which is nothing less than stoking people up to commit murder -- and all kinds of non- or anti-Catholic things. The idea that he calls himself "Catholic" is so confusing, it makes it look like what he does is acceptable for a Catholic, but it's not.
The Passion of the Christ does not magically wipe away all his other abominations, before and after. People need to realize that you don't just get to call yourself Catholic, as if that solves everything, while you then go out and do the opposite of what a Catholic should do. You actually have to do the will of God. This is part of the reason why you are seeing so few role models, henry. The devil has us all twisted up, we have lost our common sense and decency.
I remember John Lennon saying at a press conference that the Jews invented showbiz. It is true that just about anyone who makes it in showbiz is a tool of the Jews, so in that sense I understand where you're coming from. I just thought you meant something more concrete, like he is a knowing agent of the Masons and Jews. That's what threw me off.
-
Raoul said:
"I keep forgetting that Trinity has me on ignore and isn't even seeing my posts."
Pity.
-
henry
:sign-thread-hijacked:
Why don't you go and start a new thread?
-
In the real situation we are in, I see little hope for improvement without the miraculous conversion of the elite who rule us. Right now, all the power is in the hands of evil men. For things to get better, God will have to miraculously convert some of those evil men to his side, or raise up good men to power, who will then do battle against the forces of evil in a great war. Kind of like Franco on a massive scale. We will certainly not improve anything by electing Republicans.
And I say it is up to us to convert them by prayer and example. We have been given over 200 years to do this, and so far we have failed. But it was religious liberty which bought us this time. And whatever time we have left. Throw that out and our time is up.
But you finally hit the nail on the head, Matto. Conversion is the answer, just as Jesus said and showed us. That' why He didn't set up a Catholic gov't with a police force to ensure our compliance. He wanted our hearts.
-
henry, I think the expression is "There's no business like shoah business." Meaning the h0Ɩ0cαųst.
-
But you finally hit the nail on the head, Matto. Conversion is the answer, just as Jesus said and showed us. That' why He didn't set up a Catholic gov't with a police force to ensure our compliance. He wanted our hearts.
But you seem to be rejecting conquest. God set up his Pope to be a religious leader, but also to be a King above all other kings. The Muslim who owns the deli by my house remembers this, he calls Benedict the Pope-King. When God saw the Crusaders conquering Jerusalem by the sword, he smiled and blessed them. When God saw the Spanish conquering Mexico, he showed his approval by giving them Our Lady of Guadalupe, one of the world's greatest recorded miracles, and many other miracles. God leads his armies into battle and is happy when they are victorious, just as the devil leads his armies and are happy when they are victorious.
-
But you finally hit the nail on the head, Matto. Conversion is the answer, just as Jesus said and showed us. That' why He didn't set up a Catholic gov't with a police force to ensure our compliance. He wanted our hearts.
But you seem to be rejecting conquest. God set up his Pope to be a religious leader, but also to be a King above all other kings. The Muslim who owns the deli by my house remembers this, he calls Benedict the Pope-King. When God saw the Crusaders conquering Jerusalem by the sword, he smiled and blessed them. When God saw the Spanish conquering Mexico, he showed his approval by giving them Our Lady of Guadalupe, the world's greatest recorded miracle, and many other miracles. God leads his armies into battle and is happy when they are victorious, just as the devil leads his armies and are happy when they are victorious.
You know, Matto, our enemies know more about what we should be than we do (I'm referring to your Muslim deli friend). No wonder they laugh us to scorn.
-
In that case you lead us into conquest, Matto, just the way Jesus did. Should be a wonderful war, Catholic Americans against all other Americans.
-
henry, I think the expression is "There's no business like shoah business." Meaning the h0Ɩ0cαųst.
Good one!
-
henry
:sign-thread-hijacked:
Why don't you go and start a new thread?
Mea culpa, I'll try to stay on topic in the future.
-
I think it was Raoul who took you off. Anyway, your subtopic is ok with me. I will say, though, that Raoul is one of the gloomy gusses who seem to be in a lot of anger and get all bent out of shape if you step outside the line they think you should be inside of.
-
In that case you lead us into conquest, Matto, just the way Jesus did. Should be a wonderful war, Catholic Americans against all other Americans.
Exsurgat Deus et dissipentur inimici eius et fugiant qui oderunt eum a facie eius
Sicut deficit fumus deficiant sicut fluit cera a facie ignis sic pereant peccatores a facie Dei
Et iusti epulentur exultent in conspectu Dei delectentur in laetitia
Let God arise, and let his enemies be scattered: and let them that hate him flee from before his face.
As smoke vanisheth, so let them vanish away: as wax melteth before the fire, so let the wicked perish at the presence of God.
And let the just feast, and rejoice before God: and be delighted with gladness.
That is a song of victory given by God to King David. I am no leader of armies. I am not a judge, like Samson. I merely hope God raises one up to save his people once again. Some people dream of the Great Monarch. I would be happy to see him arise. Do you think the devil's men will abandon their power over us peacefully? It would require many miraculous conversions.
-
Alexandria said:
henry
:sign-thread-hijacked:
Why don't you go and start a new thread?
No, his topic is more interesting. I'll cut and paste my definitions of religious liberty in another thread. But Trinity is not listening.
henry said:
I just thought you meant something more concrete, like he is a knowing agent of the Masons and Jews. That's what threw me off.
I am saying that, pretty much. I don't see how he can't know. Even his little drunken speech about the Jews could have been a sort of pre-planned "revelation of the method" kind of event. Just like the film Conspiracy Theory, which admits that certain cօռspιʀαcιҽs are real, but doesn't tell you how to solve them -- Catholicism.
Not to mention that he blasphemes Christ in that film -- no Catholic should ever, EVER, use Christ's name in vain in a film. If I even said that by accident, I would be in agony of guilt, but Mel said it in a FILM for everyone to hear, setting a horrible example. Because of things like this it wouldn't surprise me if he made a pact with Satan himself, let alone the Jews, just to get his pretty mug up there.
But I know people will defend him and say maybe he was non-practicing at that point, bla bla bla, there's always a defense. Never mind that after POTC he made another bloody revenge film glorifying vigilante murder. I didn't watch it, Edge of Darkness, maybe someone can tell me if he blasphemes again. This guy never changes.
Another way people defend Mel Gibson is to say he somehow infiltrated Hollywood and made a Catholic film, he beat the Jews at their own game. This makes me chuckle a little under my breath, because at one time, this is how I thought -- I thought I was going to turn the system against the Jews and be this great film-star prophet.
Let me just say this. The Jews don't just own production. They own all the DISTRIBUTION. That means they own all the theaters where the films play, they control which films will screen in which theaters. So it's all very well that Mel Gibson paid for POTC out of his own pocket -- that doesn't change the fact that it would never have been seen if, for some reason, the Jews didn't want it to be seen. James Cameron could have made Avatar for eight billion dollars, everyone on Earth could have wanted to see it, but without that distribution, he'd be playing it on his home computer.
Now, Passion of Christ opened on 2,000 screens. How do you think that was possible, henry? Did he buy all those theaters himself? He's rich, but not that rich.
Besides, is POTC really the great Catholic film people think? Before I was Catholic, I saw bits and pieces of it and found it soulless and repulsive in the way it turns Jesus into an inarticulate slab of meat. Just the way it is filmed is ugly, and the soundtrack is loud and abrasive. There may be a place for a film that goes farther than older ones into showing what Jesus suffered, but Mel, with his sadomasochistic fixation, is the last person on Earth who should ever make such a film, in my opinion. The film comes across as if Gibson is relishing pain and suffering. The last thing I want to watch is Lethal Weapon 5: The Passion of the Mel-Christ. But I realize art is subjective, and that others are inspired by the film.
-
The saints are known for bringing about many miraculous conversions. In truth, all conversions are miraculous.
-
Hey, I'll go you one better, Matto. God has been known to scare entire armies away. That would be a great way to get the gov't out of their hands. But the problem would be, where would we find good Catholics to replace them?
-
Your army wouldn't need guns, they would just blow kisses at the soldiers on the other side. We need both conversion AND conquest. Many men have hardened hearts and will never convert.
-
All things are possible with God. Read my last post. That would be much neater than blood shed.
-
Trinity said:
"But the problem would be, where would we find good Catholics to replace them?"
Good question.
As Catholics, we have failed Him.
-
That's been my point all along, Alexandria. WE failed. We wonder why there aren't any saints any more. We need look no further than the mirror. The saints would have turned this country around a long time ago. WE failed. And I, for one, am glad that I'm protected by the law, even if it isn't the ideal law. For an ideal law we would need ideal people. WE failed to be ideal.
-
THREAD REBOOT
The problem in this whole thread is that the terms are not defined. We all have to stop using "religious liberty" as shorthand, because that one term covers a multitude of different concepts.
Here are just three ways that the term "religious liberty" has been understood in this thread. Let's break it down like Bishop Pivarunas into True and False Religious Liberty.
( a ) That people should be not be forced to convert to Catholicism -- true This could be called True Religious Liberty
( b ) That the government should allow different religious groups to exist side-by-side -- true or false depending on the circuмstances, but mostly a decision of each government This could occasionally fall under True Religious Liberty also.
( c ) That everyone is free to follow the wrong religion, that they have a right to error -- false This is False Religious Liberty
All of these concepts are getting mixed together in a big blender of confusion.
Trinity, it is ( c ) that is the error or heresy. This is False Religious Liberty. Another term for it would be the The Right to Religious Error ( a right that doesn't exist ). You may say that to deny ( c ) is to deny free will, but it isn't. We are allowed by God to err, but we don't have the RIGHT to err.
Here is a simple syllogism to help you understand:
Rights come from God --
But error does not come from God --
Therefore the right to error does not come from God.
When you speak about "religious liberty," it is usually ( a ), but other things you say drift into the territory of ( b ) and ( c ). Whereas when Dawn speaks of "religious liberty" as a heresy, she is always talking about ( c ).
Putting it all together, there is at least a vague Americanism to your thought process. But often the kind of religious liberty you defend is the TRUE religious liberty rather than the FALSE religious liberty, and you use this against the rest of us, trying to make it sound like we are against True Religious Liberty when we are not.
I hope people will use these terms from now on, because otherwise we're going to be stuck in this Babel forever.
I agree many misunderstandings, that seems to be a big problem on this board everywhere.
-
This might be a good time to turn this thread over to Raoul and henry to further discuss the ins and outs of Hollywood. :alcohol:
-
Alexandria said:
This might be a good time to turn this thread over to Raoul and henry to further discuss the ins and outs of Hollywood. :alcohol:
I've said my piece.
Since Myrna has brought up my post about the various flavors of religious liberty, maybe Trinity will read it and we can make some headway.
-
Myrna said:
I agree many misunderstandings, that seems to be a big problem on this board everywhere.
It doesn't help when you're put on ignore :wink:
-
I would rather discuss that Catholic country with Matto, which we shall have once God runs the present incuмbents out of office. Hey, Matto. Let's cut back on gov't so we won't need so many Catholic politicians. Let's have more priests than politicians.
-
Roaul not sure if you addressed that to me, but I don't have you on ignore, or is this another misunderstanding on my part, of course.
Maybe we should all take each other off ignore and start all over.
You first. :judge:
-
I'm disappointed that Matto hasn't gotten back to me. I had some good ideas, too.
But I will take up another subject I've been chewing on over night. First, though, I must say that I didn't mean to use it against you. Religious liberty is a misnomer in the sense you are using it. But that's a hazard in the modern world because SOMEONE has been changing the meaning of words.
For instance, the word "right" doesn't cut it with me like "justice" does. Error doesn't have rights vs. error is an injustice against the Holy Ghost. So and so doesnt' have the right to attack me, vs. I have the right to not be attacked. Then you get the word "power" mixed in there and it really gets confusing.
-
Trinity said:
Read my lips. I am not talking about an ideal situation here, but the real situation we are in. THE REAL SITUATION WE ARE IN. Where did this ideal come in?
You said our form of government was the best. Now you're saying it's not ideal. Enough is enough.
Just know that the Popes have said that it is an error to believe that the American system of government, which separates Church and state, is a desirable form of government.
too many want to wallow in "reality", but will not get out of the mire by aiming for the ideal.......
a drug addict in a cheap hotel room needs to get out and get help, that is the ideal....not sit there and say "hey, its my reality"....the door opens, an angel offers a hand to take the addict out and to the hospital, all he has to do is reach out......and he_____?
-
But you finally hit the nail on the head, Matto. Conversion is the answer, just as Jesus said and showed us. That' why He didn't set up a Catholic gov't with a police force to ensure our compliance. He wanted our hearts.
But you seem to be rejecting conquest. God set up his Pope to be a religious leader, but also to be a King above all other kings. The Muslim who owns the deli by my house remembers this, he calls Benedict the Pope-King. When God saw the Crusaders conquering Jerusalem by the sword, he smiled and blessed them. When God saw the Spanish conquering Mexico, he showed his approval by giving them Our Lady of Guadalupe, one of the world's greatest recorded miracles, and many other miracles. God leads his armies into battle and is happy when they are victorious, just as the devil leads his armies and are happy when they are victorious.
Trinity seems to ignore or condemn Catholic history, for some inner conversion of the heart, to hide in the Church and pray-fine, but action is needed as well......nothing changed with prayer alone, but action and prayer in concert
-
But you finally hit the nail on the head, Matto. Conversion is the answer, just as Jesus said and showed us. That' why He didn't set up a Catholic gov't with a police force to ensure our compliance. He wanted our hearts.
But you seem to be rejecting conquest. God set up his Pope to be a religious leader, but also to be a King above all other kings. The Muslim who owns the deli by my house remembers this, he calls Benedict the Pope-King. When God saw the Crusaders conquering Jerusalem by the sword, he smiled and blessed them. When God saw the Spanish conquering Mexico, he showed his approval by giving them Our Lady of Guadalupe, the world's greatest recorded miracle, and many other miracles. God leads his armies into battle and is happy when they are victorious, just as the devil leads his armies and are happy when they are victorious.
You know, Matto, our enemies know more about what we should be than we do (I'm referring to your Muslim deli friend). No wonder they laugh us to scorn.
that is what Jean Ousett says in his book, though wrong headed, communists at least act and have the will to act (book written in 60's)....why do we lose he asks? because we pray, but do nothing....
-
BTW-there is a Hollywood thread, Henry:
http://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?a=topic&t=11915#p12
-
OK, Raoul, we'll take one more crack at this. I will take you off hide if you will suspend your disbelief in me and quit accusing me of being someone/thing other than what I am.
Let me tell you what I am about. I am about building love and letting hate die for want of exercise. I do not believe in force as the means to convert people. The two attributes I like the most about God are His patience and His kindness. Jesus is always kind and gentle.
To whoever it was that worried about God giving up on his wavering. Jesus will not quench a smouldering wick. Keep smouldering until you burst into flames.
-
Good, and I will take the only one I have off of hide, Belloc, you are free to go.
-
thanks al for this stimulating conversation, but maybe out of charity, we should let this one die down a bit-thanks for talk
-
I will wait for proof of good will before I take Dawn and Belloc off hide. I don't want to deal with hard headed hatred anymore.