Author Topic: Could the British Prime Minister be a Daily Rosary Saying, Tridentine Mass fan? (Read 4286 times)

Matto · « **Reply #30 on:** January 18, 2019, 02:00:38 PM »

Quote from: Banezian on January 18, 2019, 01:57:08 PM

No friend, my reputation is low because I’m not a shallow nut like many on here.

I think your reputation is low because you put on airs and act better than other people as you just did here and because you post on BOD threads. Everyone who posts on BOD threads either pro or contra gets a lot of downvotes.

Banezian · « **Reply #31 on:** January 18, 2019, 02:04:37 PM »

Quote from: Matto on January 18, 2019, 02:00:38 PM

I think your reputation is low because you put on airs and act better than other people as you just did here and because you post on BOD threads.

So he can just come out and call me a non-Catholic? What do you expect me to do? If people on here politely disagreed instead of calling each other heret8cs and non-Catholics, this would be a better place

forlorn · « **Reply #32 on:** January 18, 2019, 02:36:21 PM »

Quote from: Banezian on January 18, 2019, 01:54:29 PM

No. There are various understandings on EENS. Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange says
“Theologians in general are inclined to fill out what Scripture and tradition tell us by distinguishing the means of salvation given to Catholics from those that are given men of good will beyond the borders of the Church. …If we are treating of all Christians, of all who have been baptized, Catholic, schismatic, Protestant, it is more probable, theologians generally say, that the great number is saved. First, the number of infants who die in the state of grace before reaching the age of reason is very great. Secondly, many Protestants, being today in good faith, can be reconciled to God by an act of contrition, particularly in danger of death. Thirdly, schismatics can receive a valid absolution.”

Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange was a fairly recent Priest in the grand scheme of things, seeing as the Church is 2,000 years old. To pass the "is it innovation?" test, we should see examples of the Church teaching that centuries ago. I've never heard of any theologian before the 1800s saying a Protesant or schismatic could be saved. What's also suspect is that he says "the great number is saved". Now, while I respect him, this is completely contrary to what the Church has always taught, which is that not even the great number(meaning the majority) of Catholics are saved. So it seems like innovation to me.

Matto · « **Reply #33 on:** January 18, 2019, 02:40:08 PM »

Quote from: Banezian on January 18, 2019, 02:04:37 PM

So he can just come out and call me a non-Catholic? What do you expect me to do? If people on here politely disagreed instead of calling each other heret8cs and non-Catholics, this would be a better place

I said what I said about you because I thought it to be true of you based on my experience with you on the forum from reading many of your posts and arguments. What I thought you did was basically condemn the forum in general for giving you more downvotes than upvotes and call those without a bad reputation "shallow nut"s though I don't know if you meant it that way. But what do I expect you to do? Wonder if perhaps the reason you get so many down-votes is because you are wrong about some things. I know I say wrong things all the time, perhaps GLG was not right about everything and you are mistaken in following him. Go over to Suscipe Domine and start arguments with Quaremerepulisti over GLG, though he has a very different perspective than those on Cathinfo. It would certainly be interesting. I would read those arguments glady, as I think you are relatively learned and I respect you, even though I do not agree with you about some things, and he is a sharp tack, though I am sure many on Cathinfo would not consider QMR to be a Catholic so you are in the same boat as him. But as for that quote of GLG, the same quote has been posted on Cathinfo multiple times as proof that GLG was a liberal and false conservative, and it does trouble me a bit, as I always thought that the number of those saved was small and that a protestant or orthodox would have to renounce their false religion to be saved and die as Catholics.

rum · « **Reply #34 on:** January 18, 2019, 04:39:28 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on January 17, 2019, 11:42:52 AM

While the man seems to be very strong on Catholic morals, and he would be far preferable to any other politician out there, I do suspect that his inclinations toward the Tridentine Mass may be simply a function of his overall foppish tendencies ... so, as someone else said, a smells and bells man.

Smell-and-bells is right.

Rees-Mogg wouldn't end abortion were he to become PM. He's on record stating that abortion law will not change. He's the type typical in right-wing politics who conveniently separate what they claim are their personal beliefs from public policy when it comes to anything which would jeopardize the social engineering of Jєωs.

This isn't to say people shouldn't vote for Jєω-chosen frauds. When it's the only game in town then you can vote for the Jєω-chosen fraud who is more to your liking. I did vote for Trump, after all, knowing well before I did so that he's as much a tool of the Jєωs (if not a crypto) as the next guy.

Banezian · « **Reply #35 on:** January 18, 2019, 05:04:05 PM »

Quote from: rum on January 18, 2019, 04:39:28 PM

Smell-and-bells is right.

Rees-Mogg wouldn't end abortion were he to become PM. He's on record stating that abortion law will not change. He's the type typical in right-wing politics who conveniently separate what they claim are their personal beliefs from public policy when it comes to anything which would jeopardize the social engineering of Jєωs.

This isn't to say people shouldn't vote for Jєω-chosen frauds. When it's the only game in town then you can vote for the Jєω-chosen fraud who is more to your liking. I did vote for Trump, after all, knowing well before I did so that he's as much a tool of the Jєωs (if not a crypto) as the next guy.

He’s such a Jєω-tool that he allowed his daughter to marry a Jєω and convert to Judaism. How much more of a Jєωtool can one be?

JezusDeKoning · « **Reply #36 on:** January 18, 2019, 05:06:12 PM »

To be fair, he wouldn't get anywhere politically if he ever said that his daughter isn't allowed to marry a Jєωιѕн guy. He had political aspirations for a while -- he ran in 2000 with the Reform Party (Pat Buchanan and Ross Perot's party).

Nadir · « **Reply #37 on:** January 18, 2019, 06:52:45 PM »

Quote from: JezusDeKoning on January 18, 2019, 05:06:12 PM

He had political aspirations for a while -- he ran in 2000 with the Reform Party (Pat Buchanan and Ross Perot's party).

Umm?! The guy's a Pom!

JezusDeKoning · « **Reply #38 on:** January 18, 2019, 07:07:05 PM »

Quote from: Nadir on January 18, 2019, 06:52:45 PM

Umm?! The guy's a Pom!

No, I'm talking about Trump whose daughter married a Jєω, per Banezian's comment. And Trump did run for president in 2000 under a very small party.

Will Rees-Mogg ever become Prime Minister of the UK? We'll see. We'll see especially after the 29th of March if Brexit happens, if there's a second referendum, if they cancel it, whatever.

Banezian · « **Reply #39 on:** January 18, 2019, 07:44:12 PM »

Quote from: Matto on January 18, 2019, 02:40:08 PM

I said what I said about you because I thought it to be true of you based on my experience with you on the forum from reading many of your posts and arguments. What I thought you did was basically condemn the forum in general for giving you more downvotes than upvotes and call those without a bad reputation "shallow nut"s though I don't know if you meant it that way. But what do I expect you to do? Wonder if perhaps the reason you get so many down-votes is because you are wrong about some things. I know I say wrong things all the time, perhaps GLG was not right about everything and you are mistaken in following him. Go over to Suscipe Domine and start arguments with Quaremerepulisti over GLG, though he has a very different perspective than those on Cathinfo. It would certainly be interesting. I would read those arguments glady, as I think you are relatively learned and I respect you, even though I do not agree with you about some things, and he is a sharp tack, though I am sure many on Cathinfo would not consider QMR to be a Catholic so you are in the same boat as him. But as for that quote of GLG, the same quote has been posted on Cathinfo multiple times as proof that GLG was a liberal and false conservative, and it does trouble me a bit, as I always thought that the number of those saved was small and that a protestant or orthodox would have to renounce their false religion to be saved and die as Catholics.

I do think this forum would be a better place if we stopped condemning one another over these disagreements. Many on here ( including myself) are too quick to say others don’t have the Faith. To me, this is the danger of online forums. We interact with one another in an impersonal way, so condemning each other is easy. As I meet more people personally( whether they be Resistance or even Sedevacantists] i regret the way I and others have acted on these forums. I know Fr. Ortiz and am on very good terms with him? Even someone like Bp. Donald Sanborn ought to be commended for his excellent cultural commentary. Outside of the question of the Papacy, I doubt I disagree with him on anything. It’s one thing to disagree with one another or to say that someone is in error. It’s quite another thing to say someone doesn’t have the Faith

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #40 on:** January 19, 2019, 02:12:38 PM »

Quote from: forlorn on January 18, 2019, 02:36:21 PM

Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange was a fairly recent Priest in the grand scheme of things, seeing as the Church is 2,000 years old. To pass the "is it innovation?" test, we should see examples of the Church teaching that centuries ago. I've never heard of any theologian before the 1800s saying a Protesant or schismatic could be saved. What's also suspect is that he says "the great number is saved". Now, while I respect him, this is completely contrary to what the Church has always taught, which is that not even the great number(meaning the majority) of Catholics are saved. So it seems like innovation to me.

That is correct, that is why I said Banezian is not a Catholic. Banezian has his beliefs and he picked Garrigou-Lagrange because he reflects what Banezian believed in the first place, what 99% of Novus ordo Catholics believe today, that anyone who is good, will be saved. He can't quote John Paul II or Vatican II which both teach the same thing as G-L, because he'd be laughed off CI. He can't quote any saint teaching what he believes, so he grabs ahold of Garrigou-Lagrange, a man who was a one eyed theologian in a time of blind theologians.

Banezian · « **Reply #41 on:** January 19, 2019, 03:03:49 PM »

Quote from: Last Tradhican on January 19, 2019, 02:12:38 PM

That is correct, that is why I said Banezian is not a Catholic. Banezian has his beliefs and he picked Garrigou-Lagrange because he reflects what Banezian believed in the first place, what 99% of Novus ordo Catholics believe today, that anyone who is good, will be saved. He can't quote John Paul II or Vatican II which both teach the same thing as G-L, because he'd be laughed off CI. He can't quote any saint teaching what he believes, so he grabs ahold of Garrigou-Lagrange, a man who was a one eyed theologian in a time of blind theologians.

You know nothing about how Catholic theology works. There are various schools of thought when it comes to EENS( Fenton, Garrigou, Muller, etc) Who are you to call people non-Catholics when the Church has said no such thing? Your attitude is Protestant, not Catholic. There are people on here who I disagree with but respect ( like Ladislaus) I cant say the same about you. Also, I don’t believe that “Anyone who is good” is saved. I’m not responsible for your inability to make distinctions

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #42 on:** January 19, 2019, 04:14:08 PM »

Quote from: Banezian on January 19, 2019, 03:03:49 PM

There are various schools of thought when it comes to EENS ( Fenton, Garrigou, Muller, etc)

Fenton - a theologian of the 1950's-1960's
Garrigou - Lagrange - a theologian of the 1940's -1960's
Muller - (Muller did not teach what Banezian expressed on this thread ) he wrote in the 1890's

The three above are not "schools of thought" of EENS.

- The dogmatic decrees as they are written do not teach what Banezian expressed
- No Saint teaches what Banezian expressed.

Banezian · « **Reply #43 on:** January 19, 2019, 04:33:59 PM »

Quote from: Last Tradhican on January 19, 2019, 04:14:08 PM

Fenton - a theologian of the 1950's-1960's
Garrigou - Lagrange - a theologian of the 1940's -1960's
Muller - (Muller did not teach what Banezian expressed on this thread ) he wrote in the 1890's

The three above are not "schools of thought" of EENS.

- The dogmatic decrees as they are written do not teach what Banezian expressed
- No Saint teaches what Banezian expressed.

There can be development of doctrine. Read Newman. You have zero basis for calling me a non-Catholic

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #44 on:** January 19, 2019, 06:13:14 PM »

Quote from: Banezian on January 19, 2019, 04:33:59 PM

There can be development of doctrine. Read Newman. You have zero basis for calling me a non-Catholic

Newman, from the late 1800's, an Anglican priest and later a Catholic priest.

It seems that the writer only knows modern theologians.

Here's Vincent of Lerins on development of doctrine:

ST. VINCENT OF LERINS [ A. D. 434 ]

With great zeal and closest attention, therefore, I frequently inquired of many men, eminent for their holiness and doctrine, how I might, in a concise and, so to speak, general and ordinary way, distinguish the truth of the Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical depravity. I received almost always the same answer from all of them, that if I or anyone else wanted to expose the frauds and escape the snares of the heretics who rise up, and to remain intact and sound in a sound faith, it would be necessary, with the help of the Lord, to fortify that faith in a twofold manner: first, of course, by the authority of the divine law; and then, by the Tradition of the Catholic Church. [Here, perhaps, someone may ask: “If the canon of the Scriptures be perfect, and in itself more than suffices for everything, why is it necessary that the authority of ecclesiastical interpretation be joined to it?” Because, quite plainly, Sacred Scripture, by reason of its own depth, is not accepted by everyone as having one and the same meaning. The same passage is interpreted in one way by some, in another by others, so that it can almost appear as if there are as many opinions as there are men. Novatian explains a passage in one way, Sabellius in another, Donatus in another; Anus, Eunomius, Macedonius in another; Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian in another; Jovinian, Pelagius, Caelestius in another; and afterwards in still another, Nestorius. And thus, because of so many distortions of such various errors, it is highly necessary that the line of prophetic and apostolic interpretation be directed in accord with the norm of the ecclesiastical and Catholic meaning. In the Catholic Church herself every care must be taken that we may hold fast to that which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all. For this is then truly and properly Catholic. That is what the force and meaning of the name itself declares, a name that embraces all almost universally. This general rule will be correctly applied if we pursue universality, antiquity, and agreement. And we follow universality in this way, if we confess this one faith to be true, which is confessed by the whole Church throughout the whole world; antiquity, however, if we in no way depart from those interpretations which, it is clear our holy predecessors and fathers solemnized; and likewise agreement, if, in this very antiquity, we adopt the definitions and theses of all or certainly of almost all priests and teachers.

To announce, therefore, to Catholic Christians something other than that which they have received has never been permitted, is nowhere permitted, and never will be permitted. And to anathematize those who announce anything other than that which has been received once and for all has never been unnecessary, is nowhere unnecessary and never will be unnecessary. <p>

He is a true and genuine Catholic who loves the truth of God, the Church, and the Body of Christ; who puts nothing else before divine religion and the Catholic Faith, neither the authority nor the love nor the genius nor the eloquence nor the philosophy of any man whatsoever, but, despising all that and being fixed, stable, and persevering in his faith, is determined in himself to hold and believe that only which he knows the Catholic Church has held universally and from ancient times.

"Guard" he says, "what has been committed." What does it mean, "what has been committed”? It is what has been faithfully entrusted to you, not what has been discovered by you; what you have received, not what you have thought up; a matter not of ingenuity, but of doctrine; not of private acquisition, but of public Tradition; a matter brought to you, not put forth by you, in which you must be not the author but the guardian, not the founder but the sharer, not the leader, but the follower. "Guard," he says, "what has been committed. "Keep the talent of the Catholic Faith inviolate and unimpaired. What has been faithfully entrusted, let it remain in your possession, let it be handed on by you. You have received gold, so give gold. For my part I do not want you to substitute one thing for mother; I do not want you impudently to put lead in place of gold, or, fraudulently brass. I do not want the appearance of gold, but the real thing. O Timothy, O priest. O interpreter, O teacher, if a divine gift has made you suitable in genius, in experience, in doctrine to be the Beseleel of the spiritual tabernacle, cut out the precious gems of divine dogma, shape them faithfully, ornament them wisely, add splendor, grace and beauty to them! By your expounding it, may that now be understood more clearly which formerly was believed even in its obscurity. May posterity, by means of you, rejoice in understanding what in times past was venerated without understanding, Nevertheless,teach the same that you have learned, so that if you say something anew, it is not something new that you say.

But perhaps someone is saying: "Will there, then, be no progress of religion in the Church of Christ?" Certainly there is, and the greatest. For who is there so envious toward men and so exceedingly hateful toward God, that he would try to prohibit progress? But it is truly progress and not a change of faith. What is meant by progress is that something is brought to an advancement within itself, by change, something is transformed from one thing into another. It is necessary, therefore, that understanding, knowledge, and wisdom grow and advance strongly and mightily as much in individuals as in the group, as much in one man as in the whole Church, and this gradually according to age and the times; and this must take place precisely within its own kind, that is, in the same teaching, in the same meaning, and in the same opinion. The progress of religion in souls is like the growth of bodies, which, in the course of years, evolve and develop, but still remain what they were. . . . For example: Our fathers of old sowed the seeds of the wheat of faith in this field which is the Church. Certainly it would be unjust and incongruous if we, their descendants, were to gather, instead of the genuine truth of wheat, the noxious error of weeds. On the contrary, it is right and logically proper that there be no discrepancy between what is first and what is last and that we reap, in the increment of wheat from the wheat of instruction, the fruit also of dogma. And thus, although in the course of time something evolved from those first seeds and has now expanded under careful cultivation, >nothing of the characteristics of the seeds is changed. Granted that appearance, beauty, and distinction has been added, still, the same nature of each kind remains.May it never happen that the rose garden of the Catholic sense be turned into thistles and thorns. May it never happen, I say, that darnel and monk's hood suddenly spring up in the spiritual paradise of shoots of cinnamon and balsam.

We must most studiously investigate and follow this ancient agreement of the holy fathers, not in all the lesser questions of the divine Law, but certainly and especially in the rule of faith. . . . But only those opinions of the fathers are to he brought forward which were expressed by those who lived, taught, and persevered wisely and constantly in the holy Catholic faith and communion, and who merited either to die faithfully in Christ or to be killed gloriously for Christ. Those men, moreover, are to be believed, in accord with the rule that only that is to be held as undoubted, certain, and valid, which either all or most of them have confirmed by receiving, holding, and handing on in one and the same sense, manifestly, frequently, and persistently, as if by a council of teachers in mutual agreement. But whatever was thought outside of or even against the opinion of all, although it be by a holy and learned man, or although by a confessor and martyr, must be removed from the authority of the common and public and general opinion, as being among his personal and peculiar and private views. In this way we shall not, as is the sacrilegious custom of heretics and schismatics, reject the ancient truth of universal dogma, to pursue, with great danger to our eternal salvation, the novel error of one man.

Author Topic: Could the British Prime Minister be a Daily Rosary Saying, Tridentine Mass fan? (Read 4286 times)

Matto

Re: Could the British Prime Minister be a Daily Rosary Saying, Tridentine Mass fan?

Banezian

Re: Could the British Prime Minister be a Daily Rosary Saying, Tridentine Mass fan?

forlorn

Re: Could the British Prime Minister be a Daily Rosary Saying, Tridentine Mass fan?

Matto

Re: Could the British Prime Minister be a Daily Rosary Saying, Tridentine Mass fan?

rum

Re: Could the British Prime Minister be a Daily Rosary Saying, Tridentine Mass fan?

Banezian

Re: Could the British Prime Minister be a Daily Rosary Saying, Tridentine Mass fan?

JezusDeKoning

Re: Could the British Prime Minister be a Daily Rosary Saying, Tridentine Mass fan?

Nadir

Re: Could the British Prime Minister be a Daily Rosary Saying, Tridentine Mass fan?

JezusDeKoning

Re: Could the British Prime Minister be a Daily Rosary Saying, Tridentine Mass fan?

Banezian

Re: Could the British Prime Minister be a Daily Rosary Saying, Tridentine Mass fan?

Last Tradhican

Re: Could the British Prime Minister be a Daily Rosary Saying, Tridentine Mass fan?

Banezian

Re: Could the British Prime Minister be a Daily Rosary Saying, Tridentine Mass fan?

Last Tradhican

Re: Could the British Prime Minister be a Daily Rosary Saying, Tridentine Mass fan?

Banezian

Re: Could the British Prime Minister be a Daily Rosary Saying, Tridentine Mass fan?

Last Tradhican

Re: Could the British Prime Minister be a Daily Rosary Saying, Tridentine Mass fan?