Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Crisis in the Church / Re: I am considering sedevacantism
« Last post by sean1846 on Today at 07:53:45 PM »
I am a revert to the faith since around 2010. I came into the church under pope Benedict 16. I have studied as much of the faith as I am able to comprehend. I am certainly no theologian and actually more of a tradesman. A couple of things have been persuading me that the sedevecantist are correct. Comparing the church we have now to what it was before V2 it seems clear that a defacto new religion was created. I know that dogma has remained the same however the actual teaching of priests and bishops ignores much pre v2 morality. There is no preaching on sexual morality including contraception or adultery, no preaching on confession or sin, no preaching on our duty as Catholics to obey church teaching. I don't see how the current church bears any resemblance to what my Catholic ancestors experienced. Now we have a pope that is sort of just rolling out policy after policy that seems to diminish the churches teachings for example Amoris Lateticia. Any thought on why you don't flee the church are welcome. God Bless!
Vatican II started a new religion, a false church. All the claimants from John XXIII to Francis were antipopes. Are you aware that a heretic cannot be the pope? Rest assured, rejecting Francis is not fleeing from the Church. Rejecting Francis is essential in remaining in communion with the true church. 
It's a crisis, the worst crisis in the history of the church, but you know that sedevacantism is the answer to this problem. You know that Francis is not the pope, abandon the opinions of others and study the principles and you will reach the right conclusion. I would like to recommend this article to you. 
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/21_Objections.pdf
Sincerely,
Sean
2

It may be of some interest to recall a certain passage taken from Archbishop Lefebvre's Consecration sermon on 30 June 1988: "Just recently, the priest who takes care of the priory of Bogota, Colombia, brought me a book concerning the apparition of Our Lady of "Buon Suceso," - of "Good Fortune," to whom a large church in Quito, Ecuador, was dedicated. They were received by a nun shortly after the Council of Trent, so you see, quite a few centuries ago. This apparition is thoroughly recognized by Rome and the ecclesiastical authorities; a magnificent church was built for the Blessed Virgin Mary wherein the faithful of Ecuador venerate with great devotion a picture of Our Lady, whose face was made miraculously. The artist was in the process of painting it when he found the face of the Holy Virgin miraculously formed. And Our Lady prophesied for the twentieth century, saying explicitly that during the nineteenth century and most of the twentieth century, errors would become more and more widespread in Holy Church, placing the Church in a catastrophic situation. Morals would become corrupt and the Faith would disappear. It seems impossible not to see it happening today.
I excuse myself for continuing this account of the apparition but she speaks of a prelate who will absolutely oppose this wave of apostasy and impiety - saving the priesthood by forming good priests. I do not say that prophecy refers to me. You may draw your own conclusions. I was stupefied when reading these lines but I cannot deny them, since they are recorded and deposited in the archives of this apparition.
3
Yes, I hope the material will help and yes, I will pray for the conversion of sinners.
4
General Discussion / Re: Sex scandals and prostitution
« Last post by Miseremini on Today at 07:25:59 PM »
unlike a working class woman who does have to put up with a lecherous boss because she needs her job to keep a roof over her head and food on the table.


I still have a problem with this.  If she keeps silent is she condoning his actions?  And also by staying is she becoming an occasion of sin for him? and thereby herself?
Should she not seek employment elsewhere?  or report him?
A damned if she does and damned if she doesn't situation.
:facepalm:
5
Yes we have St Thomas’ 5 proofs (which are undeniable by men of good will) and yet many still do not believe or at least they act as if it did not matter.

But he said: No, father Abraham: but if one went to them from the dead, they will do penance.
And he said to him: If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they believe, if one rise again from the dead.  Luke 16:30-31
"Yes, we can KNOW God exists by reason alone".

Well, that's a given, if one is Catholic. But what about the scoffers who look to science for all answers? The important point to be gained from this film is not St. Thomas' proofs but to try and educated people that what they thought they believed for decades is no longer tenable.

Did you ever once consider the possible effect a film like this might just lead someone, somewhere to embrace the Faith? Most people, even most Catholics have never even heard of Thomas' five proofs. Therefore, a film like this is indeed important from the standpoint that while 'we' may not look favourably on some of the terms employed, nevertheless, may have a great impact on others.

Incidentally, there is no need to quote scripture as I'm rather familiar with it. Nevertheless, your point is well taken. You're right, some will never believe because of the hardness of their hearts. However, many will, therefore, we need to pray for their conversion.
6

Science has found proof of God in the Big Bang?

First of all we have to know why 'science' 'proves' there was a Big Bang?

Hubble interpreted red-shifts in the light of distant galaxies as an expanding universe. They then assumed by extrapolation that an initial explosion must have caused this expansion.

Had any of them Read Copernicus's book they would have seen him speculate that if the universe was geocentric then it would expand like a carnival swing ride.

So the Big Bang theory as portrayed today proves nothing, certainly not the Trinity.

‘Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that we can refer “not improperly” to the initial singularity [the Big Bang] as an act of creation. What conclusions can we draw from it? That a Creator exists? Suppose still, for the sake of argument, that this, too, is conceded. The problem now is twofold. Is this creator theologically relevant? Can this creator serve the purpose of faith?
My answer to the first question is decidedly negative. A creator proved by [Big Bang] cosmology is a cosmological agent that has none of the properties a believer attributes to God. Even supposing one can consistently say the cosmological creator is beyond space and time, this creature cannot be understood as a person or as the Word made flesh or as the Son of God come down to the world in order to save mankind. Pascal rightly referred to this latter Creator as the “God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, not of philosophers and scientists. To believe that cosmology proves the existence of a creator and then to attribute to this creator the properties of the Creation as a person is to make an illegitimate inference, to commit a category fallacy. My answer to the second question is also negative. Suppose we can grant what my answer to the first question intends to deny. That is, suppose we can understand the God of [Big Bang] cosmologists as the God of theologians and believers. Such a God cannot (and should not) serve the purpose of faith, because, being a God proved by cosmology he [or it] should be at the mercy of cosmology. Like any other scientific discipline that, to use Pope John Paul II’s words, proceeds with “methodological seriously,” cosmology is always revisable. It might then happen that a creator proved on the basis of a theory will be refuted when that theory is refuted. Can the God of believers be exposed to the risk of such an inconsistent enterprise as science?’[1]



[1] Marcello Pera: The god of theologians and the god of astronomers, as found in The Cambridge Companion to Galileo, Cambridge University Press, 1998, pp.378, 379.

Science cannot prove God exists. If it did then faith would be unnecessary.

Yes, we can KNOW God exists by reason alone. Probably the only 'proofs' of God's existence known to man were those who witnessed Jesus's miracles.
"So the Big Bang theory as portrayed today proves nothing, certainly not the Trinity."

I believe you missed the whole point. While the so-called "Big Bang" theory was mentioned, if you go back and listen closely, you will find that at the end of the day, many of the scientists concluded that the universe was not the result of some "Big Bang"--which some scientists use as a pejorative term--but rather that the universe was created from nothing.

As far as the Trinity is concerned, the objective was not to engage in theological debate but to explain the origins of the universe. Therefore your comment about the Trinity is rather out of place.
7
General Discussion / Re: Sex scandals and prostitution
« Last post by 1st Mansion Tenant on Today at 06:43:15 PM »
Where does this stuff end though? The lecherous dirtbags need to be smacked down, yet the whole thing is taking on the flavor of a witch hunt. A person's whole reputation and career ruined because he's accused of goosing a gal decades ago? And with no proof? (Not talking Weinstien here) I'm not sure how justice can be doled out in many of these cases.
8
Art and Literature for Catholics / Re: Catholics and Hitler
« Last post by Gwaredd Thomas on Today at 06:39:28 PM »

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here but my assumption is that you're trying to demonstrate the foolishness of the Third Reich. If this is the case, you have missed the mark by a considerable distance. If you will read one of my earlier posts you will find that I wrote that these types of displays are ridiculous. These people are clowns dressing like "Nazi's." It has to do, I'm sure, with all these crazy white power movements. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the history of National Socialism as it played out in the Third Reich. None of this is Catholic much less Christian.
9
General Discussion / Re: Sex scandals and prostitution
« Last post by Jaynek on Today at 06:34:06 PM »
If I be correct, I do recall that Bishop Moreno, former  dioceses Bishop of Tucson, is no longer, for he was caught managing a prostitution ring.  When victims came, the dioceses claimed bankruptcy.  So rotten!!
I think you are remembering this incorrectly.  According to publicly available information, Bishop Moreno retired at 72 due to ill health and died three years later.   Everyone seems to agree that he was a good man but poor administrator who did not deal well with cases of sexual abuse by priests.  Settlements with victims were a major cause of the bankruptcy. They paid out a huge amount.  There were serious problems in the diocese, but I cannot find any accounts of him managing a prostitution ring.  It seems greatly out of character with everything else known about him.
10
Crisis in the Church / Re: I am considering sedevacantism
« Last post by GJC on Today at 06:18:46 PM »
Anyone know whatever happened with Nishant?  Is he on other boards under a new moniker?
Not sure, last we talked on the boards were about the Thomist vs. Molinist debate. I PM'd him and he never responded, almost a year ago.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10