Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Wow.

I guess Matthew has found the “loud and
proud” sedes he was looking for.

Enjoy your sedes Matthew: They are now your primary contributors.

Hasta luego.

I can't help but laugh at this one ^^^

Sean Johnson and Samuel have proven that they can't handle any type of discourse - so instead, like little children they pick up their toys and leave.  

What a bunch of babies...  
2
General Discussion / Re: Graceseeker banned
« Last post by forlorn on Today at 02:06:28 PM »
She appeared to be NO rather than Trad and her understanding of the faith was incredibly limited. She kept making blog threads about drivel and clearly never read anything anyone else posted as she learned nothing her entire stay here.

More fitted for Catholic Answers clearly. 
3
The earth is provably not a globe.  This entry you provided is based on a false notion of modern pagan science. The answer given is erroneous.  
The Church condemned Galileo for heliocentrism, not globe-earthism you tool. The Church at the time, including St. Bellarmine and the Pope, believed in a geocentrism and a globe-Earth.
4
General Discussion / Re: Graceseeker banned
« Last post by 1st Mansion Tenant on Today at 01:59:57 PM »
Poor lady. I think she's lonely. Oftentimes her posts just seemed to be looking for interaction for it's own sake. But no, CI was definitely not the right place for her.
5
I was just thinking about this today.  The same action behind money laundering appears to be the same action behind these so called licit side contracts for church approved usury.  In laundering, if you have dirty money, you move it around through other peoples hands directly or indirection(likely indirectly) one way or another so that their hands get dirty, and your money gets clean from the handling.  Those with initially clean hands are likely unsuspecting people.  The same seems to be occurring with these side contracts.  If you have enough side contracts(movement of the interest), or enough hands in the dirty pot, the pot becomes less dirty.  Meaning, the more peoples hands you get dirty by all these contracts, the cleaner the pot becomes.  In this case, the pot is the interest on a loan which by itself is condemned by the church.  The surrounding side contracts are like the whirlwind similar to the motion of a clothing laundry mat, which is where the word money laundering comes from.  The NY mob moved their dirty money through their laundry mat cash only(untraceable) side business.  

I was reading ezekiel ch 18 yesterday, and there is this amazing section where for about three repeated paragraphs, God mentions the condemning of usury.  The sentence goes like this.  "Hath not lent upon usury, nor taken any increase".  What is significant is that God decided that this manipulation of transaction required these two separate descriptions.  Why do you think this is?  Do you think it is because the effect the loan has on he one receiving, meaning it sort of turns them into a shark like the loan shark?  Meaning, the one who has taken the loan will now have more of an incentive to go out and in turn rip off his neighbor in order just to repay the loan.  And, obviously the final taking of this loan(the action increase) is bad because it gives more ammunition to the person who initiated this process in the first place.  Do you follow?  Or, do you think the mentioning "nor taken any increase" is referring to the money laundering phenomenon that has even tricked the hierarchy of the church?  Because, outside of this passage in Ezekiel, where is the condemnation of the laundering method in scripture? 

I actually like my first understanding of that passage of ezekiel, because I do not agree with thomas aquinas' approval of participating in a usurious loan so long as you are not the one loaning, and if the loan is for a so called "good cause".  And, this passage now gives me an argument against it.   
6
Debunked:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/11/23/the_long_strange_history_of_the_9_11_celebrations_meme.html
We give them endless amounts of money and we were their first ally - it would be odd and perturbing that they'd attack the US at all. It turns out that it was people watching the event from Jersey City. We have to stop blaming the Jews for everything and the Protocols of the Elder of Zion is a hoax. Let's work on our own salvation first and worry about the Jews second. The way people talk about them here perturbs me sometimes. Has me scared that someone is going to shoot up a synagogue.

Not odd at all. The Mosad is the best intelligence agency in the world. It is and would not be surprising that they knew what Bin Laden was up too and knew what the 19 suicide terrorists were up to.  Why did they tag along? To monitor the situation. Why let it happen? Easy. Israel had become more and more isolated from and by the world by 2001. With 9/11 they had the US on their side fighting "terrorism". The rest is history.
7
SSPX Resistance News / Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
« Last post by Mr G on Today at 01:45:26 PM »
It is not uncommon for a writer to refer to himself in the 3rd person.
Hello Fr. Kramer,
What is your take on Father Ringrose's new position which (if I understand correctly) he seems to recognize Pope Francis as a Pope without valid jurisdiction, a Pope in name only.
8
Aw, yes, the brilliant Sungenis who will lead us to the promised land of geocentrism.

The same one who left the Catholic faith for 19 years and was a follower of Harold Camping (yes that Harold Camping of the end of the world on May 21, 2011). The one who has "theological" degrees from Protestant "colleges". A truly brilliant man who couldn't figure out for 19 LONG years that Protestantism was false.  :jester: 
9

Every great social movement in the US has been pushed and funded by the Jews. The importing and promoting of third world types over the now indigenous North American population has been going on since 1945 for a purpose. To destroy Christian civilization.
10
SSPX Resistance News / Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
« Last post by Stubborn on Today at 01:24:05 PM »
There's no probably about it.  Someone who didn't believe in the Immaculate Conception before its definition would most certainly not on that account have been a formal heretic.

So the question is WHY?

You guys keep evading the question of what exactly the role of the Magisterium is if it's not the Proximate Rule of Faith.  You reduce the non-infallible Magisterium to nothing more than a man or a group of men opining about various doctrinal matters.  Stubborn here said that he would give "submission" to some anonymous poster here on CI as much as he would to the Magisterium ... because what he was submitting to was the truth and not to the teaching authority.  How absurd!  Some of you guys have completely lost any concept of what Catholic Magisterium actually is.
What is absurd is that you word for word contradict Pope Pius IX's teaching on the matter, ignore correction, site NO doctrines as if they are dogma, and call being bound to truth absurd. That's what is absurd.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10