Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Politics and World Leaders => Topic started by: Quo vadis Domine on October 22, 2024, 11:06:26 AM
-
But but but…. Pope Ladislaus decreed that it’s a mortal sin your excellency…..:(
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archbishop-vigano-endorses-trump-tells-catholics-abstaining-means-allying-oneself-with-the-enemy/?utm_source=featured-news&utm_campaign=usa
-
But but but…. Pope Ladislaus decreed that it’s a mortal sin your excellency…..:(
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archbishop-vigano-endorses-trump-tells-catholics-abstaining-means-allying-oneself-with-the-enemy/?utm_source=featured-news&utm_campaign=usa
:laugh2:
Lad is now burning the "Vigano for Pope" sign in his front yard.
-
Funny, I was just asking whether Vigano still supports him a couple of days ago:
The Martyrs' Stand: Choosing Christ Over Compromise in Today's Political Land - page 3 - Politics and World Leaders - Catholic Info (https://www.cathinfo.com/politics-and-world-leaders/the-martyrs'-stand-choosing-christ-over-compromise-in-today's-political-land/msg957371/#msg957371)
Does he read this forum? :laugh1:
-
Correct. +Vigano is dead wrong about this issue.
-
...adding that to abstain from voting would not be “morally possible,” since “in this war declaring oneself neutral means allying oneself with the enemy.”
Ohh, how shocking.
It seems that elections have the power to take people to extremes. And Vigano is not even American.
-
Correct. +Vigano is dead wrong about this issue.
Ladislaus locuta est, causa finita est! :jester:
-
Ladislaus locuta est, causa finita est! :jester:
Sure, coming from people that have done nothing but criticize +Vigano for pretty much everything he's said and done the entire time.
See, the difference between us is that I can and have argued and explained exactly why I'm right. Rest of you just pontificate without being able to produce a single argument in your and the same is true of all the Trad clergy that have scandalously promoted "lesser evil".
Carry on laughing ... while going to the polls and committing grave sin (despite the fact that your votes mean nothing anyway).
There has been no refutation of any of my arguments, just counters with "muh Trad clergy".
-
Ohh, how shocking.
It seems that elections have the power to take people to extremes. And Vigano is not even American.
He seems to have a stronf affinity with the US, having been the Nuncio here for quite a few years.
Yeah, OK, so there's an obligation to vote ... assuming that the vote is not 100% rigged (which it is). In either case, I will be voting ... and any perceived obligation will be satisfied, as I write in an actual good candidate.
-
This is good from +Vigano. I especially liked: "Voting for Donald Trump means firmly distancing ourselves from an anti-Catholic, anti-Christian and anti-human vision of society. It means stopping those who want to create a hellish dystopia that is even worse than the one announced by George Orwell. And it also means – do not forget – giving him our vote of confidence, so that President Trump knows that the massive vote of Catholics and Christians that brought him back to the White House must become the premise for a more incisive commitment to the defense of life from conception to natural death, the traditional family, the right of parents to educate their children, and to the defense of the Christian Faith and the cultural identity of the nation."
In other words, Catholics and Evangelicals (possibly 80 MN votes right there, enough to win a presidential election) should vote for Trump en masse now, and then, once in office, push him to be more pro-life out of loyalty to us.
-
Sure, coming from people that have done nothing but criticize +Vigano for pretty much everything he's said and done the entire time.
See, the difference between us is that I can and have argued and explained exactly why I'm right. Rest of you just pontificate without being able to produce a single argument in your and the same is true of all the Trad clergy that have scandalously promoted "lesser evil".
Carry on laughing ... while going to the polls and committing grave sin (despite the fact that your votes mean nothing anyway).
There has been no refutation of any of my arguments, just counters with "muh Trad clergy".
I’ve already voted for him and don’t have a single scruple about it! ;)
-
[...]
In other words, Catholics and Evangelicals (possibly 80 MN votes right there, enough to win a presidential election) should vote for Trump en masse now, and then, once in office, push him to be more pro-life out of loyalty to us.
Novus Ordo CINOs would obey Vigano... why? And Evangelicals would listen to Vigano... how so?
As for "loyalty to us" -- and if he doesn't, what would be the real consequences for him?
-
He seems to have a stronf affinity with the US, having been the Nuncio here for quite a few years.
Yeah, OK, so there's an obligation to vote ... assuming that the vote is not 100% rigged (which it is). In either case, I will be voting ... and any perceived obligation will be satisfied, as I write in an actual good candidate.
It seems to me that even people who say that a vote for Trump is morally permissible are not claiming that one is obliged to do so.
Abp. Vigano has probably spent way too time in America and has absorbed some of its extremism.:trollface:
-
Abp. Vigano has probably spent way too much time in America and has absorbed some of its extremism.:trollface:
:confused: Where, oh where, do you get such strange ideas about Americans, GB? ;) :laugh1:
-
It seems to me that even people who say that a vote for Trump is morally permissible are not claiming that one is obliged to do so.
Abp. Vigano has probably spent way too time in America and has absorbed some of its extremism.:trollface:
Yes, 99% of us here have been saying permissible, but not obligatory. However, I recently heard a sermon by a traditional priest that also said obligatory (which surprised me). I wonder whether the shift has to do with the real and dire circuмstances/consequences of this election (again, assuming it's not rigged).
-
Yes, 99% of us here have been saying permissible, but not obligatory. However, I recently heard a sermon by a traditional priest that also said obligatory (which surprised me). I wonder whether the shift has to do with the real and dire circuмstances/consequences of this election (again, assuming it's not rigged).
Sure, the consequences are dire, but it seems to me that the chances for a real election are no more than wishful thinking. That's why it is somewhat amusing that people take something that is very likely a fraud so seriously.
-
Sure, the consequences are dire, but it seems to me that the chances for a real election are no more than wishful thinking. That's why it is somewhat amusing that people take something that is very likely a fraud so seriously.
This was my thinking in 2016 (on top of the fact that I live in a strong blue state). But I have decided that I will do what I can do and leave the rest in God's Hands.
-
Novus Ordo CINOs would obey Vigano... why? And Evangelicals would listen to Vigano... how so?
As for "loyalty to us" -- and if he doesn't, what would be the real consequences for him?
Actually we have several neighbors who have been following Vigano since he first started speaking out and I forwarded his letters to them. They have come to understand what many in the NO still do not understand, that the vatican is occupied by a ape of the CHurch. They like Vigano.
-
LOL
https://youtu.be/RwYasZbIVsY
-
Yes, 99% of us here have been saying permissible, but not obligatory. However, I recently heard a sermon by a traditional priest that also said obligatory (which surprised me). I wonder whether the shift has to do with the real and dire circuмstances/consequences of this election (again, assuming it's not rigged).
Fear is one of the devils greatest weapons.. the evil "deep state", the WEF, the globalists......we need a savior!!! Trump save us!
"Only I can help"
Our Lady of Fatima
-
Fear is one of the devils greatest weapons.. the evil "deep state", the WEF, the globalists......we need a savior!!! Trump save us!
"Only I can help"
Our Lady of Fatima
I'm not in a state of fear. Not sure where you got that from my post. I know God is ultimately the one in control here.
-
And the reason they're all over the map, as it were ... is because not a single one has actually explained or thought through the principles involved. Instead, they're throwing out terms like "lesser evil," which are NOT valid principles of Catholic moral theology, without any nuance, distinction, nor explanation ... to the point that it's going to do damage far beyond the realm of voting, where in other scenarios Catholics will believe that one can make decisions based on the (utilitarian) consideration of doing the least damage and the most good, without considering for a second that it's all about the liceity of the means, and not simply a calculus about the final outcome. If someone wanted to explain why this is licit for reasons that do not contradict or violate Catholic principles, then I'm all ears ... but nothing of the sort has been forthcoming. Now, "double effect" is a licit Catholic principle, but no one (to my knowledge) has even attempted an application of double effect, but instead, merely double down on the liceity of "lesser evil", which is false, dangerous, and harmful.
This really isn't that complicated, and is very basic. Now, the Trad Catholics who promote lesser evil will sometimes (not always) put the term in quotes or air quotes (when speaking), realizing on one level that it is simply NOT a valid principle, but then applying it anyway without making any distinctions in terms of why suddenly it's OK when it's simply wrong.
Now, I surmise this is happening because the controllers, especially in America, have succeeded in persuading Catholics to somehow "compartmentalize" voting as if it were some kind of special animal where the normal rules don't apply. It's why you had so much Americanism, with US Catholic bishops insisting on separation of Church and State to be legitimate ideals (while then going and offering Mass on the Feast of Christ the King), or where JFK ran on the promise that his personal "Catholic" views had nothing to do with his political positions, platform, and policy. Somehow US Catholics believed that voting and politics were compartmentalized from their Catholic identities and operated on different principles and laws, rather than understanding that all human actions involve the same consideration of principles to determine their morality and liceity.
-
And the reason they're all over the map, as it were ... is because not a single one has actually explained or thought through the principles involved. Instead, they're throwing out terms like "lesser evil," which are NOT valid principles of Catholic moral theology, without any nuance, distinction, nor explanation ... to the point that it's going to do damage far beyond the realm of voting, where in other scenarios Catholics will believe that one can make decisions based on the (utilitarian) consideration of doing the least damage and the most good, without considering for a second that it's all about the liceity of the means, and not simply a calculus about the final outcome. If someone wanted to explain why this is licit for reasons that do not contradict or violate Catholic principles, then I'm all ears ... but nothing of the sort has been forthcoming. Now, "double effect" is a licit Catholic principle, but no one (to my knowledge) has even attempted an application of double effect, but instead, merely double down on the liceity of "lesser evil", which is false, dangerous, and harmful.
This really isn't that complicated, and is very basic. Now, the Trad Catholics who promote lesser evil will sometimes (not always) put the term in quotes or air quotes (when speaking), realizing on one level that it is simply NOT a valid principle, but then applying it anyway without making any distinctions in terms of why suddenly it's OK when it's simply wrong.
Now, I surmise this is happening because the controllers, especially in America, have succeeded in persuading Catholics to somehow "compartmentalize" voting as if it were some kind of special animal where the normal rules don't apply. It's why you had so much Americanism, with US Catholic bishops insisting on separation of Church and State to be legitimate ideals (while then going and offering Mass on the Feast of Christ the King), or where JFK ran on the promise that his personal "Catholic" views had nothing to do with his political positions, platform, and policy. Somehow US Catholics believed that voting and politics were compartmentalized from their Catholic identities and operated on different principles and laws, rather than understanding that all human actions involve the same consideration of principles to determine their morality and liceity.
On a retreat I once heard that we as humans will not commit an evil act as evil but we must first perceive/turn it in our mind as a good before we commit it. We first rationalize it as something good. In our present political situation the Church would never permit Catholics to vote for a pro-sodomy, pro-Israel slaughtering Palestinians, Greater Israel project, Warp Speed vaccines, pro- abortion (IVF, or health of the mother loopholes). It has been turned into a good because he is perceived to be less evil than Kamala.
-
Fear is one of the devils greatest weapons.. the evil "deep state", the WEF, the globalists......we need a savior!!! Trump save us!
"Only I can help"
Our Lady of Fatima
Might you be projecting your fear on to us? I have no fear. Mary is with those who pray her Rosary.
I am pretty sure none uf us think Trump will save us. Why do you keep implying that?
-
Might you be projecting your fear on to us? I have no fear. Mary is with those who pray her Rosary.
I am pretty sure none uf us think Trump will save us. Why do you keep implying that?
+Vigano endorses Trump, he tells Catholics "abstaining is allying with the enemy."
So Trump is not the enemy of Catholicism? Pro LGBtqrst? Pro-Israel genocide? Pro-abortion?
Isn't +Vigano grouping Catholics with the enemy and therefore an enemy, for not endorsing Trump?
Isn't this a bullying tactic?
-
What happens if people don't vote? I mean, if 50%+ citizens don't vote, does it make any difference? Will there be a new election? What does US law say?
One argument for voting for the less bad option is that one of the candidates will be elected anyway, so you might try to elect the one who will do the less damage. If significant abstention results in the cancelling of the election, I could see a point in convincing people not to vote.
And I say this after consulting at least three Moral Theology manuals on the subject. All three say it is ok to vote in this case, "per accidens".
-
One argument for voting for the less bad option is that one of the candidates will be elected anyway, so you might try to elect the one who will do the less damage.
So, that's what is known as the "utilitarian" approach, a kind of mathematical calculus of the end result. Problem is that for Catholics HOW you achieve the result is critical, since the end does not justify the means and you cannot do an evil even to prevent a greater evil.
So, for instance, let's say you have a situation where the life of the mother is in danger and if you don't remove the infant, they will both die. So the two possible outcomes are 1) both die, and 2) the unborn child dies only. So the utilitarian calculus has the better outcome or the least bad outcome being #2, where only the unborn child dies. But, see, according to Catholic principles, this calculus regarding the end results still does not justify you going to get an abortion, for the doctor to proceed to vacuum out the unborn baby, rip him to shreds, use chemicals to kill him, or whatever. Catholic hospitals had very specific procedures they had to follow in such situations. You had take care not to DIRECTLY KILL the unborn child, since that would be doing an evil ... to prevent the greater evil, and it would be an evil means to the end. So the procedure entailed removing the infant, with the removal both saving the mother and causing the unborn child to die indirectly.
So the same thing applies here. Catholics cannot make moral decisions simply based on a calculus of the end result. It has to be determined whether it's licit to vote for Trump ... in an of itself, without any reference to how much WORSE the "other candidate" might be. It wouldn't matter if Trump were running against the Antichrist.
Now, to determine whether it's licit to vote for Trump, one can apply double effect, where a vote for Trump has some good effects, and some bad ones ... and (among other criteria) there has to be a proportionality where the good (clearly) outweights the evil. It it's licit to vote for Trump based on that analysis, then one may vote for Trump. But if a vote for Trump fails the test of double effect, then one cannot vote for Trump regardless of how evil the alternative might be.
So, one could argue that my vote has the double effect, the good of keeping hαɾɾιs out of office and the bad of whatever evils Trump will do, but that doesn't pass for double effect it actually violates one of the tests, namely, that the evil effect (in this case the election of Trump) cannot be the cause of the good effect (keeping hαɾɾιs out of office), but in this case, electing Trump is clearly the cause of keeping hαɾɾιs from being elected, and so failing this test means that it's really an end justifies the means scenario in disguise and not actually double effect.
-
What happens if people don't vote? I mean, if 50%+ citizens don't vote, does it make any difference? Will there be a new election? What does US law say?
...
In a US presidential election, one is not directly voting for the president but is actually voting for 'electors' from one's state of residence. Said electors actually cast the formal vote. So, in theory, a particular state might be able to legislate a certain percentage of voters required in order to appoint its electors, but I'm not aware that any have done so.
-
So, that's what is known as the "utilitarian" approach, a kind of mathematical calculus of the end result. Problem is that for Catholics HOW you achieve the result is critical, since the end does not justify the means and you cannot do an evil even to prevent a greater evil.
So, for instance, let's say you have a situation where the life of the mother is in danger and if you don't remove the infant, they will both die. So the two possible outcomes are 1) both die, and 2) the unborn child dies only. So the utilitarian calculus has the better outcome or the least bad outcome being #2, where only the unborn child dies. But, see, according to Catholic principles, this calculus regarding the end results still does not justify you going to get an abortion, for the doctor to proceed to vacuum out the unborn baby, rip him to shreds, use chemicals to kill him, or whatever. Catholic hospitals had very specific procedures they had to follow in such situations. You had take care not to DIRECTLY KILL the unborn child, since that would be doing an evil ... to prevent the greater evil, and it would be an evil means to the end. So the procedure entailed removing the infant, with the removal both saving the mother and causing the unborn child to die indirectly.
So the same thing applies here. Catholics cannot make moral decisions simply based on a calculus of the end result. It has to be determined whether it's licit to vote for Trump ... in an of itself, without any reference to how much WORSE the "other candidate" might be. It wouldn't matter if Trump were running against the Antichrist.
Now, to determine whether it's licit to vote for Trump, one can apply double effect, where a vote for Trump has some good effects, and some bad ones ... and (among other criteria) there has to be a proportionality where the good (clearly) outweights the evil. It it's licit to vote for Trump based on that analysis, then one may vote for Trump. But if a vote for Trump fails the test of double effect, then one cannot vote for Trump regardless of how evil the alternative might be.
So, one could argue that my vote has the double effect, the good of keeping hαɾɾιs out of office and the bad of whatever evils Trump will do, but that doesn't pass for double effect it actually violates one of the tests, namely, that the evil effect (in this case the election of Trump) cannot be the cause of the good effect (keeping hαɾɾιs out of office), but in this case, electing Trump is clearly the cause of keeping hαɾɾιs from being elected, and so failing this test means that it's really an end justifies the means scenario in disguise and not actually double effect.
Sure. This is clear enough, but what about the moralists? Are they all wrong?
-
In a US presidential election, one is not directly voting for the president but is actually voting for 'electors' from one's state of residence. Said electors actually cast the formal vote. So, in theory, a particular state might be able to legislate a certain percentage of voters required in order to appoint its electors, but I'm not aware that any have done so.
And I suppose that the electors cannot abstain or "write in" right?
Abstention is useless then. One could say that you make a statement, but politicians have clearly shown that they couldn't care less for the statements that people make.
-
In other words, Catholics and Evangelicals (possibly 80 MN votes right there, enough to win a presidential election) should vote for Trump en masse now, and then, once in office, push him to be more pro-life out of loyalty to us.
Sorry. This is a pipe dream. Trump won on being the most pro LGBT republican in history and introduced "project warpspeed".
To think he is any kind of saviour of the American people or moral leader is nonsensical. To think he will listen to Christians against his political prospects is even moreso.
-
This election is all about practical results. Both candidates are immoral to some degree. Both anti-catholic. But which candidate will persecute the Church less? Trump obviously. All those Blue states during Covid tried to shut down Masses and churches to stop prayers. If the Dems win, the next pandemic would follow nation-wide rules directly from the WHO. Blue state or red. Won’t matter.
Or they’ll just unleash antifa/migrant pagans on churches in terror attacks.
The coming cινιℓ ωαr will be the godless vs the believers. I’d rather have Trump, even if he’s a fake, because he’d have to play along on our side. I don’t think he’d close churches. Or support antifa.
You can all whine and moan that Trump isn’t catholic but when the rubber meets the road, and there’s fire in the streets or attacks on churches, or groceries have food shortages or migrants start bombing buildings, … who would you rather have as President? Kamala or Trump?
-
It wouldn't matter if Trump were running against the Antichrist.
Now, to determine whether it's licit to vote for Trump, one can apply double effect
:facepalm: The bolded shows you are misunderstanding double effect as it applies to voting. Of course it would matter if Trump were running against the Antichrist, and 99% of Catholics and the trad clergy know that and would tell you. But you think you know better than them, so ...
Let's begin. Let's start with the example of double effect you agreed with on the other thread, that of killing a terrorist while minimizing civilian deaths/collateral damage. The bolded is like saying, "of course I can kill a terrorist if I want to. It doesn't matter if one person dies near him, OR ONE MILLION PEOPLE DIE". That's zionist israel's reasoning and its as false as the above. Of course the number of people that die matter because that is factored into the "proportionality condition" of double effect. Let's recap double effect.
Double effect: "This set of criteria states that, if an action has foreseeable harmful effects that are practically inseparable from the good effect, it is justifiable if the following are true:
- the nature of the act is itself good, or at least morally neutral;
- the agent intends the good effect and does not intend the bad effect, either as a means to the good or as an end in itself;
- the good effect outweighs the bad effect in circuмstances sufficiently grave to justify causing the bad effect and the agent exercises due diligence to minimize the harm.[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_double_effect#cite_note-2)"
Since, as even you agreed on another thread, the good of gaining a pro life victory would sufficiently outweigh the effect of even an otherwise pro life candidate being for birth control, it clearly follows the good of supporting a moderately pro-life platform like Trump-Vance outweighs "the Antichrist" and the same applies to hαɾɾιs' pro-abort platform. I agree with you double effect is the operative principle. One doesn't need any other principle.
-
Novus Ordo CINOs would obey Vigano... why? And Evangelicals would listen to Vigano... how so?
Well, as Cera mentioned, a good number of Evangelicals and even mainstream Catholics do listen to Vigano, read Lifesitenews etc. Vigano is doing his job as a good bishop and a faithful shepherd admonishing Catholics how to vote and the operative principles of pushing their elected representatives to be more pro life. As to how many millions that impacts or doesn't impact, that is up to God. Vigano did his job by giving guidance and those who want to be led by its light can be. For others, discuss with your confessor and go with what he says. I bet 99% of trad clergy would agree with Vigano on this. And, last time, once in office, Trump in fact allowed Catholics at the federalist society like Leonard Leo to do whatever they want to and appoint whichever judge they wanted to, and he appointed them. https://www.propublica.org/article/we-dont-talk-about-leonard-leo-supreme-court-supermajority That's what overturned Roe v Wade. Trump, by wishing Mother Mary on her birthday on Twitter, by posting a prayer to St. Michael the Archangel, by praising a Polish Catholic priest who died under Communism, and empowering those like Leonard Leo, has sufficiently demonstrated pro life Catholics will continue to have great influence and power in his administration, like they did in the earlier one that led to the great victory of Roe v Wade being overturned.
-
PDF version - https://exsurgedomine.it/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Open-Letter-to-American-Catholics-Presidential-Election-2024.pdf
Very good letter and I completely agree.
"Our Lady of Victory, Ark of the New Covenant, Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate, Pray for us."
God Bless
-
Ohh, how shocking.
It seems that elections have the power to take people to extremes. And Vigano is not even American.
Well… being the Papal Nuncio to America… it means he’s likely CIA.
Now, you may think I’m teasing, but Vigano is Opus Dei and they are CIA linked.
Think for a moment, which US spy agency had inside reports on the 1958 Conclave?
Coincidentally, Jose (jew) Escriva scouted out Sr. Lucia and mocked her after his visit to her convent.
She was highly agitated in 1957, warning Catholics not to wait for the Pope on Our Lady of Fatima’s requests and then she disappeared shortly after that.
That was a CIA/Opus Dei operation.
-
Well… being the Papal Nuncio to America… it means he’s likely CIA.
Now, you may think I’m teasing, but Vigano is Opus Dei and they are CIA linked.
Think for a moment, which US spy agency had inside reports on the 1958 Conclave?
Coincidentally, Jose (Jєω) Escriva scouted out Sr. Lucia and mocked her after his visit to her convent.
She was highly agitated in 1957, warning Catholics not to wait for the Pope on Our Lady of Fatima’s requests and then she disappeared shortly after that.
That was a CIA/Opus Dei operation.
Do you think that all this secret destruction of the Catholic Church has a counterpart? Wouldn't God set up something counter to the bad guys per se? Does any one think that God has?
Or has God just left us to the whims of those who hate Catholicism?
-
Yes, I too believe that +Vigano is an operative ...another leader of the controlled opposition ...to deceive, if possible, even the elect.
-
+Vigano endorses Trump, he tells Catholics "abstaining is allying with the enemy."
So Trump is not the enemy of Catholicism?
No he is a man living in the current world. I don't think he is trying to bring down Catholicism.
Pro LGBtqrst?
We live in a world where this ideology is rampant. It didn't pop up over night and it will not go away over night. How exactly is Trump supporting them through government?
Pro-Israel genocide?
The USA has supported Israel for years. Why would this change overnight?
Pro-abortion?
This issue currently doesn't belong to the federal government. It is back in the hands of the states.
Isn't +Vigano grouping Catholics with the enemy and therefore an enemy, for not endorsing Trump?
Exactly who is the enemy? I believe the enemy is Satan, and he is very good at getting people to divide. This is just an election in the country God had us be born. We have an obligation to our civic duty. I think that at this point God will not condemn those who choose to abstain or those who choose to vote for Trump, because there are so many conflicting responses, and no authority to follow.
Isn't this a bullying tactic?
It might feel that way, but I am not sure he intended to be a bully. I just think those who will vote for Trump feel like they will at least know what the next 4 years will look like. With Kamala as president, things will probably get very anti-religious.
I know we are all tired of the slippery slope that is taking people further and further away from God, but as you have said in other posts we need to double down on prayer and penance.
I was meaning to answer, but life got busy.
Prayers for all!!!:pray::pray::pray:
-
Yes, I too believe that +Vigano is an operative ...another leader of the controlled opposition ...to deceive, if possible, even the elect.
If faithful Catholics could grasp the psychological tactics and really understand that satan will employ every means using his human instruments to wipe the faith(dogma) from the earth. To deceive the elect, he will tell 99 truths to get in one lie.
Saul Alinsky was once asked how he managed to manipulate the Catholics in Chicago. He replied by saying, he would first align himself with their needs, problems and concerns, like working conditions in the factories and fare wages, etc, and once he gained their trust he would slowly and incrementally inject his liberal views like birth control into their minds to slowly change them.
Communist subversion agent, Yeri Bemenzov said the same thing.
"Be wise as a serpent but simple as a dove"
-
Communist subversion agent, Yeri Bemenzov said the same thing.
He also said that subversion was a two way street.
Constantine the Great and his father had to abide by the decrees of Diocletian during the Diocletian persecutions, but they did so as mildly as possible, condemn them? If so, there goes the early Church, over before it even begins.
"Our Lady of Victory, Ark of the New Covenant, Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate, Pray for us."
God Bless
-
He also said that subversion was a two way street.
Constantine the Great and his father had to abide by the decrees of Diocletian during the Diocletian persecutions, but they did so as mildly as possible, condemn them? If so, there goes the early Church, over before it even begins.
"Our Lady of Victory, Ark of the New Covenant, Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate, Pray for us."
God Bless
This argument is the same the logic the Novus Ordo use to defend their “communion” in their hand. “Well a bunch of guys did it in their hand early era (it was condemned) so we can do it too!
Your conscience is grasping at straws so that you don’t have to convert, we convert daily, give this anxiety of your economy etc. to Our Lady, you can stop advocating for abortion now, and choose the Catholic alternative.
-
This argument is the same the logic the Novus Ordo use to defend their “communion” in their hand. “Well a bunch of guys did it in their hand early era (it was condemned) so we can do it too!
Your conscience is grasping at straws so that you don’t have to convert, we convert daily, give this anxiety of your economy etc. to Our Lady, you can stop advocating for abortion now, and choose the Catholic alternative.
Yes it is, only their argument was not genuine, because of course, even in a N.O. they could receive on the tongue themselves, so if they are choosing not to of free choice, then they are not genuine, they are lying.
You talk about conversions, but look around, you are losing more and more ground every day to the point there is the usurper Bergoglio. Am I to wait another 50 years, another 100 years? when do you reflect on yourself?
"Our Lady of Victory, Ark of the New Covenant, Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate, Pray for us."
God Bless
-
Yes it is, only their argument was not genuine, because of course, even in a N.O. they could receive on the tongue themselves, so if they are choosing not to of free choice, then they are not genuine, they are lying.
You talk about conversions, but look around, you are losing more and more ground every day to the point there is the usurper Bergoglio. Am I to wait another 50 years, another 100 years? when do you reflect on yourself?
"Our Lady of Victory, Ark of the New Covenant, Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate, Pray for us."
God Bless
1)The NO “sacraments” are dubious and doubtful. I personally hold the opinion they are now completely invalid.
2) Our Lady prophesied what is happening in our days, and when she did, she didn’t say compromise on the Catholic faith.
-
2) Our Lady prophesied what is happening in our days, and when she did, she didn’t say compromise on the Catholic faith.
You don't compromise on the faith by working toward common goals, I know life begins at conception, but something has to be done to turn this around and nobody goes to bed a sinner and wakes up a saint, not on the individual level or the societal level... I will obviously jump at any opportunity to prevent and limit this wholesale and barbaric slaughter of innocents, and in light of the alternative... what do I have to lose by trying?
Constantine the Great and his father knew the Diocletian Persecutions were wrong (St Helena), but there was nothing they could do at the time other than what they did do, which was to implement Diocletian's decrees as mildly as possible in their portion of the Empire until Constantine the Great got his chance... to spurn such graces is madness and if you do so, then you will deserve judgement IMO.
"Our Lady of Victory, Ark of the New Covenant, Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate, Pray for us."
God Bless
-
You don't compromise on the faith by working toward common goals, I know life begins at conception, but something has to be done to turn this around and nobody goes to bed a sinner and wakes up a saint, not on the individual level or the societal level... I will obviously jump at any opportunity to prevent and limit this wholesale and barbaric slaughter of innocents, and in light of the alternative... what do I have to lose by trying?
Constantine the Great and his father knew the Diocletian Persecutions were wrong (St Helena), but there was nothing they could do at the time other than what they did do, which was to implement Diocletian's decrees as mildly as possible in their portion of the Empire until Constantine the Great got his chance... to spurn such graces is madness and if you do so, then you will deserve judgement IMO.
"Our Lady of Victory, Ark of the New Covenant, Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate, Pray for us."
God Bless
Gradualism, incrementalism are all forms of comprimise, liberalism has infected many souls to think they are doing the right thing in the form of liberty.
The Rosary said properly and with pure intention is how we restore Christ The King, it is not by giving your John Hancock on a Candidate who endorses early child sacrifice.
You know this in your heart already, and you are posting this nonsense to try and convince yourself, but you know it is wrong in your heart.
-
He also said that subversion was a two way street.
Constantine the Great and his father had to abide by the decrees of Diocletian during the Diocletian persecutions, but they did so as mildly as possible, condemn them? If so, there goes the early Church, over before it even begins.
"Our Lady of Victory, Ark of the New Covenant, Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate, Pray for us."
God Bless
You keep confusing the part where God can take good from evil, like Constantine but Catholics can never commit or endorse evil for good to come of it.
-
You keep confusing the part where God can take good from evil, like Constantine but Catholics can never commit or endorse evil for good to come of it.
You keep condemning the modern day Constantine's making it over before it even begins. I neither commit an abortion, nor endorse abortion in order to pray for and vote for those who are making progress and working toward common goals.
"For the sake of His sorrowful passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world."
God Bless
-
You know this in your heart already, and you are posting this nonsense to try and convince yourself, but you know it is wrong in your heart.
Doctor, heal thyself first... if what you say is so good, why is it 60 years since Vatican II and now you've got the usurper Bergoglio and a million divisions, if what the Vendee did was the example to follow why has it been over 200 years and France has never recovered? Are we to repeat this and wait another 200 years? Best out of 3?... the remnant of the remnant of the remnant... I was born into this... when do you stop and reflect on yourself? When do you stop and go back to the early Christians such as with Constantine the Great or those like Charlemagne etc (also not perfect, but worked)... Pope Benedict XVI was not perfect, but he was our Holy Father whether you like it or not and he was trying to bring back tradition and was surrounded on all sides making his usurpation easy.
"For the sake of His sorrowful passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world."
God Bless
-
You keep condemning the modern day Constantine's making it over before it even begins. I neither commit an abortion, nor endorse abortion in order to pray for and vote for those who are making progress and working toward common goals.
"For the sake of His sorrowful passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world."
God Bless
You are neither hot or cold, this is the liberal spirit, and I pray for your conversion.
-
Doctor, heal thyself first... if what you say is so good, why is it 60 years since Vatican II and you've got Bergoglio and a million divisions, if what the Vendee did was the example to follow why has it been over 200 years and France has never recovered?... the remnant of the remnant of the remnant... I was born into this... when do you stop and reflect on yourself? When do you stop and go back to the early Christians like Constantine the Great or those like Charlemagne etc (also not perfect)... Pope Benedict XVI was not perfect, but he was our Holy Father whether you like it or not and he was trying to bring back tradition and was surrounded on all sides making his usurpation easy.
"For the sake of His sorrowful passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world."
God Bless
Benedict XVI was a modernist, and infiltrated the SSPX. Created division and a false sect of “TLMers” gave them the smells and bells without the validity. You do not have the faith, you too are a modernist spewing Novus Ordo filth and secular propaganda and poisoning the people on these forums, and I can’t understand how the moderators on here let you continue to talk the way you do.
Is this not the Catholic Resistance forum?
-
You are neither hot or cold, this is the liberal spirit, and I pray for your conversion.
Conversion to what? I just told you I agree that life begins at conception and I will never waver on that, but to then sabotage and spurn graces and opportunities because they aren't perfect? And especially in light of the alternative? Not even Christ did this when he dinned with sinners and tax collectors.
"For the sake of His sorrowful passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world."
God Bless
-
Conversion to what? I just told you I agree that life begins at conception and I will never waver on that, but to then sabotage and spurn graces and opportunities because they aren't perfect? And especially in light of the alternative? Not even Christ did this when he dinned with sinners and tax collectors.
"For the sake of His sorrowful passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world."
God Bless
The conciliar church is not the Catholic Church.
The SSPX has compromised but by the grace of God this SSPX Priest did not in his condemnation of the novus ordo devotion you keep using as your sign off.
https://youtu.be/IQuJF70AX3I (https://youtu.be/IQuJF70AX3I)
-
The conciliar church is not the Catholic Church.
The SSPX has compromised but by the grace of God this SSPX Priest did not in his condemnation of the novus ordo devotion you keep using as your sign off.
https://youtu.be/IQuJF70AX3I (https://youtu.be/IQuJF70AX3I)
Thanks for posting this and properly connecting it to the N.O. troll among us.
-
Pope Benedict XVI was not perfect, but he was our Holy Father whether you like it or not and he was trying to bring back tradition and was surrounded on all sides making his usurpation easy.
:laugh1:
You are like Bp. Fellay. The things you say are so absurd that there are only two options:
a) you are really really evil
b) you are really really naive
I sincerely hope that you are "b".
-
The conciliar church is not the Catholic Church.
The SSPX has compromised but by the grace of God this SSPX Priest did not in his condemnation of the novus ordo devotion you keep using as your sign off.
https://youtu.be/IQuJF70AX3I (https://youtu.be/IQuJF70AX3I)
Tell me you haven't read St Faustina's Diary without telling me you haven't read St Faustina's Diary... Magenta LOL, dude... The answer is literally in the chaplet. It's laugh or cry at such ignorance and tells me straight up he is not being honest.
"For the sake of His sorrowful passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world."
Furthermore, something else I would like to mention, so he talks about Pope John XXIII, the Pope who launched and presided over Vatican II and yet you reject Vatican II but the Pope who launched and presided over it you believe had perfect advisors and thus got it all totally right?
Furthermore, when does the Papacy end and how long are you to be orphans? How long do you leave the Papacy for and yet somehow expect to get back into the Papacy? 60 years? 100 years? 200 years? Is there a time limit on this? Any self reflection? And on what grounds do you do so? I reject Bergoglio not because of what he has said and done for I don't have authority over the Pope, but because we already had a validly elected Pope who was clearly usurped.
God Bless
-
Faustina's "Diary," complete with pre- and post-V2 versions, is as phony as Anne Frank's "Diary."
-
Trump received the Silver Crown of Jerusalem, back in July 2023, and was declared their Crowned Prince.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhj4XPsHU-U
-
Trump received the Silver Crown of Jerusalem, back in July 2023, and was declared their Crowned Prince.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhj4XPsHU-U
What Trump says at the end of this speech, talking about the upcoming election, "If we don't win, Israel is in a lot of trouble."
Shows where his priorities lie.
-
What Trump says at the end of this speech, talking about the upcoming election, "If we don't win, Israel is in a lot of trouble."
Shows where his priorities lie.
It's also a lie. Israel also controls hαɾɾιs (and can eliminate anyone they please if they don't play along). hαɾɾιs is "married" to her controller Emhoff (Jew). Biden's White House Staff was like 95% Jєωιѕн, and people who left his adminsitration say that his Jєωιѕн Chief of Staff actually ran the country, told Biden what to do ... and his former Chief of Staff was also a Jew. So it's Jews if you win, Jews if you lose.
Despite the fact that a HUGE percentage of the Leftist "base" are strongly opposed to the Jew genocide, notice how Biden and hαɾɾιs have STILL had to kiss up to Israel. During the Walz/Vance debate (I didn't watch the other one and only 15 minutes of this one), they were litterally tripping over each other to see who could kiss Israeli butt the hardest. So, every once in a while, you'll see Biden make some slightly-tentative of cautionary statement about the Israeli situation, but it's all for public consumption ... whereas in reality the message to Bibi is, "Hey, I'm going to say some critical stuff about you, but it's just for our own political purposes. You keep on keeping on with your genocide over there and we'll get you funding and weapons."
-
Kamala has Jєωιѕн roots from the slave traders in her family history, and I also read thatt she personally converted to Judaism to marry the "nanny-molester" Emhoff.
-
Tell me you haven't read St Faustina's Diary without telling me you haven't read St Faustina's Diary... Magenta LOL, dude... The answer is literally in the chaplet. It's laugh or cry at such ignorance and tells me straight up he is not being honest.
"For the sake of His sorrowful passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world."
Furthermore, something else I would like to mention, so he talks about Pope John XXIII, the Pope who launched and presided over Vatican II and yet you reject Vatican II but the Pope who launched and presided over it you believe had perfect advisors and thus got it all totally right?
Furthermore, when does the Papacy end and how long are you to be orphans? How long do you leave the Papacy for and yet somehow expect to get back into the Papacy? 60 years? 100 years? 200 years? Is there a time limit on this? Any self reflection? And on what grounds do you do so? I reject Bergoglio not because of what he has said and done for I don't have authority over the Pope, but because we already had a validly elected Pope who was clearly usurped.
God Bless
You'll find that many if not most traditional Catholics reject Faustina and her false mercy. The novus ordo folks really like Faustina, because they believe that they get the mercy without repentance, and going to confession is not something the novus ordo crowd likes to do.
As Fr. Burfitt mentions, Faustina's diary was condemned three times by two different popes before Vatican ll, until JP2 promoted it. But then, Sr. Faustina was Polish, so I think that had something to do with it.
-
You'll find that many if not most traditional Catholics reject Faustina and her false mercy. The novus ordo folks really like Faustina, because they believe that they get the mercy without repentance, and going to confession is not something the novus ordo crowd likes to do.
The irony (especially because I think it has one of the best pieces for confession I have read). I know why many traditionalists reject it, guilty by association, which is why I would need a new thread to discuss it all, these are mostly just character assassinations instead of refuting what I said and thus not serious discussions, furthermore, I can tell whether someone is being honest or not by the criticism they use, as I know what's fabricated and what's not.
Furthermore, it's private revelation so one doesn't have to believe it, some day it'll be an interesting discussion to have and even if you still disagree you will at least understand it, but others bringing it up here is mostly just for character assassination IMO.
There are two things I have read regarding St Faustina's diary that have shaken me before... but there is something else that has greatly reaffirmed me, so there is some legitimate criticism, but I am certainly sure enough and there is a whole bunch of just bogus criticism.
God Bless
-
Pope Benedict XVI was not perfect, but he was our Holy Father whether you like it or not and he was trying to bring back tradition and was surrounded on all sides making his usurpation easy.
No. If he wanted to bring back tradition, he would've condemned V2 and the new mass. But he didn't, because those are his theological accomplishments, having been at V2 and helping to usher in the 'updating' of the Church.
Benedict helped to bring back the TLM, but the Traditional liturgy cannot survive without Traditional doctrine (i.e. pre-V2 orthodoxy).
Doctrine/Faith > Liturgy.
Benedict brought back the "smells and bells" of the liturgy, but he never wavered on his commitment to Modernism/V2.
-
The irony (especially because I think it has one of the best pieces for confession I have read). I know why many traditionalists reject it, guilty by association, which is why I would need a new thread to discuss it all, these are mostly just character assassinations instead of refuting what I said and thus not serious discussions, furthermore, I can tell whether someone is being honest or not by the criticism they use, as I know what's fabricated and what's not.
Furthermore, it's private revelation so one doesn't have to believe it, some day it'll be an interesting discussion to have and even if you still disagree you will at least understand it, but others bringing it up here is mostly just for character assassination IMO.
God Bless
I read most of Faustina's diary many years ago. I don't recall any great writing on confession. What is your understanding of why two popes condemned Faustina's diary?
-
What is your understanding of why two popes condemned Faustina's diary?
It's not even about St Faustina's Diary... lets get real... it's about who we think are valid Popes and who we think are not.
In terms of the condemnations, as said, one of them was Pope John XXIII who launched and presided over Vatican II which we all agree was a serious problem, so I don't know what to make of them all, but there was certainly darkness and infiltration going on.
In any case, the USA Church Committee, assassination of JFK, RFK and more were all the same time period as Vatican II and they absolutely had a hand in all that, so this is bigger than just the Church, all the more reason why the USA Deep State needs to go down and the full truth come out IMO.
God Bless
-
It's not even about St Faustina's Diary... lets get real... it's about who we think are valid Popes and who we think are not.
In terms of the condemnations, as said, one of them was Pope John XXIII who launched and presided over Vatican II which we all agree was a serious problem, so I don't know what to make of them all, but there was certainly darkness and infiltration going on.
In any case, the USA Church Committee, assassination of JFK, RFK and more were all the same time period as Vatican II and they absolutely had a hand in all that, so this is bigger than just the Church, all the more reason why the USA Deep State needs to go down and the full truth come out.
God Bless
That's not an answer. I asked about why two popes before Vatican ll condemned Faustina's diary. I don't see that it has anything to do with the validity of popes. They are all valid IMO. All the Popes during and after Vll were Modernists though. Do you agree that they were Modernists? JP2 was the worst of the bunch until Francis came along.
-
No. If he wanted to bring back tradition, he would've condemned V2 and the new mass. But he didn't, because those are his theological accomplishments, having been at V2 and helping to usher in the 'updating' of the Church.
Benedict helped to bring back the TLM, but the Traditional liturgy cannot survive without Traditional doctrine (i.e. pre-V2 orthodoxy).
Doctrine/Faith > Liturgy.
Benedict brought back the "smells and bells" of the liturgy, but he never wavered on his commitment to Modernism/V2.
Ganswein later admitted that Benedict's intention in issuing the Motu was in fact to lure Traditional Catholics back into the Conciliar Church.
-
Ganswein later admitted that Benedict's intention in issuing the Motu was in fact to lure Traditional Catholics back into the Conciliar Church.
Like I said though, Ganswein absolutely had that intention because he betrayed Pope Benedict XVI also, you cannot trust anything Ganswein told you.
God Bless
-
you cannot trust anything Ganswein told you.
Who cares what this guy said? We know exactly what +Benedict said in his "motu" letter to all the bishops...he said (paraphrasing): "Yes, I'm expanding the TLM. Don't worry, i'm not abandoning V2 or the new mass."
Benedict had all the time in the world, and all the power in the Church, to condemn V2 and the new mass. He never did. He was NOT a traditionalist, nor was he orthodox.
-
The irony (especially because I think it has one of the best pieces for confession I have read). I know why many traditionalists reject it, guilty by association, which is why I would need a new thread to discuss it all, these are mostly just character assassinations instead of refuting what I said and thus not serious discussions, furthermore, I can tell whether someone is being honest or not by the criticism they use, as I know what's fabricated and what's not.
[...]
There are two things I have read regarding St Faustina's diary that have shaken me before... but there is something else that has greatly reaffirmed me, so there is some legitimate criticism, but I am certainly sure enough and there is a whole bunch of just bogus criticism.
Yes, please do start another thread so as not to continue to derail multiple other threads.
Yet before you start that new thread, perhaps it would be helpful for you to read this older and more comprehensive thread carefully (especially since you claim somehow to "know what's fabricated and what's not" -- by what means do you possess this knowledge?): https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/investigation-of-the-divine-mercy-devotion/ (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/investigation-of-the-divine-mercy-devotion/)
-
Yes, please do start another thread so as not to continue to derail multiple other threads.
Maybe you should read the thread before you accuse me of something I'm not guilty of.
-
Maybe you should read the thread before you accuse me of something I'm not guilty of.
:confused: The title of THIS here thread happens to be: "Archbishop Viganò endorses Trump"
Please stay on topic. Take the DM/Faustina stuff elsewhere.
-
:confused: The title of THIS here thread happens to be: "Archbishop Viganò endorses Trump"
Please stay on topic. Take the DM/Faustina stuff elsewhere.
To be fair, it wasn't Josh who started the divine mercy subject. The new forum member oxenandaves started the subject, as a response to Josh putting the Faustina quote in his posts. I do hope that Josh will start a new thread on what seems to be his favorite subject.
-
To be fair, it wasn't Josh who started the divine mercy subject. The new forum member oxenandaves started the subject, as a response to Josh putting the Faustina quote in his posts. I do hope that Josh will start a new thread on what seems to be his favorite subject.
Yes, in fairness that's true. But there's a defendable difference between, on one hand, oxenandaves citing josh's DM fandom in order to question josh's political arguments vs., on the other hand, josh taking oxen's skepticism as an irresistible prompt to go galloping on and on again here on this thread after his favorite subject indeed.... :cowboy:
-
Yes, in fairness that's true. But there's a defendable difference between, on one hand, oxenandaves citing josh's DM fandom in order to question josh's political arguments vs., on the other hand, josh taking oxen's skepticism as an irresistible prompt to go galloping on and on again here on this thread after his favorite subject indeed.... :cowboy:
True!
-
Like I said though, Ganswein absolutely had that intention because he betrayed Pope Benedict XVI also, you cannot trust anything Ganswein told you.
God Bless
Ratzinger was very much a fan of the Hegelien dialectic. His agenda was to merge the novus ordo with the tradionalists. Today there are many "latin mass" Catholics. They believe modernist lies but love the beauty of the Mass. Compromise is what leads us down this road.
-
https://youtu.be/5zuwnC3GrGs?si=pcpbWhcsxApiGZ_Q
-
Ratzinger was very much a fan of the Hegelien dialectic.
Like I said, now you'll never know, surrounded on all sides Pope Benedict XVI was then easy to depose and usurp... you've got the usurper and antipope Bergoglio to deal with now, how's that working? The remnant of the remnant of the remnant will eventually become the irrelevant and non-existent.
As said before, if the early Christians were like this, then Constantine the Great would have been over before he even begun... the Diocletian Persecutions however provided them with clarity and thankfully they did not spurn such graces all because a fallible human being lacked perfection.
God Bless
-
Like I said though, Ganswein absolutely had that intention because he betrayed Pope Benedict XVI also, you cannot trust anything Ganswein told you.
God Bless
Yeah, that's the old "copium" about the "Pope" not being a bad guy, just surrouded by bad advisors. Ganswein was fiercely loyal to Ratzinger and they had been "besties" (to use modern slang) for years. Of course, their entire relationship was somewhat, ahem, suspicious. Ratzinger himself made comments perfectly consistent with this, regarding a Hybrid Mass, or Reform of the Reform ... which is precisely an articulation of the old Hegelian dialectic. Ratzinger needed that Trad pole available to work the old dialectic.
-
Ratzinger needed that Trad pole available to work the old dialectic.
So where is the grace of the Holy Spirit on the validly elected Pope in any of that? But you will never know anyway because it wasn't tried, so surrounded on all sides and with the help of Ganswein, they deposed and usurped Pope Benedict XVI to install the antipope Bergoglio.
"For the sake of His sorrowful passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world."
God Bless
-
So where is the grace of the Holy Spirit on the validly elected Pope in any of that?
If you believe that Benedict was validly a pope and protected by the Holy Ghost, then how can you blame anything on Ganswein's betrayal? Is the Holy Ghost unable to protect a pope against Ganswein or anyone else? Can any man/men overcome God?