Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
General Discussion / Re: JPaul banned
« Last post by MyrnaM on Today at 12:07:49 PM »
A lack of a true pope does not excuse the power-hungry, control-freak, movement-growing attitude of 95% of trad bishops/priests.  It’s a pervasive problem which filters down to the laity, and destroys families, chapels and, for some, their souls.  Blaming this on the lack of a good pope is overly simplistic.  
I didn't say it was an excuse, it is a fact when there is no earthly head, as you rightly say, that power-hungry, control-freak attitude comes into play and the devil dances.  
Not overly simplistic just what happens, something like when the teacher leaves the room and the students have a "party."  When the parents are gone and leave the kids at home alone, anything goes.
When we have a True Pontiff again, you will see Catholics will fall in line.  There will be One Fold and One Shepherd, that is God's promise.  
Don't worry, just pray, as the Bible says, "Watch and Pray."
2
SSPX Resistance News / Re: Who else should be banned?
« Last post by Meg on Today at 12:06:26 PM »
Angelqueen was very much an SSPX forum. Just imagine if the SSPX hadn't fallen how many more members CI would have if I didn't have to ban all those who fiercely bashed the Resistance.

And the SSPX was the 800 lb. gorilla in the Trad world. If Traditional Catholicism were Retail Merchandising, the SSPX would be Amazon.com, Wal-Mart, and Target combined. And probably a few others. The other 20% of the market would be divided up among all the other groups. There's a reason why Rome is trying to absorb the SSPX.

And that's another reason why the fall of the SSPX is such a big deal. Most Catholics in the USA (which is all I have any knowledge of; I'll admit that) can drive to an SSPX chapel within 2 hours or so. There are exceptions, like certain states in the Deep South, but you get the idea. But once you eliminate the SSPX as an option (and certainly the Indult wouldn't be an option either, if you're crossing off the SSPX) you're talking THE VAST MAJORITY not being close to a place for Mass. There simply aren't many Resistance, independent, or sedevacantist chapels. Probably 1/5 as many as the SSPX has in this country. It depends on where you live -- some geographic locations have Trad Mass options coming out their ears. Others have next to nothing.

Sean Johnson bringing up AQ is funny though -- that whole "Bleep" thing was ridiculous. In America at least, Sedevacantism is a thing, known by all, and you're not going to squash it by not mentioning its name.  People will look at the actions of a Pope Francis and many will consider the position WITH or WITHOUT a ban on it.

You can't treat the whole body of American Traditional Catholics like I would treat my children under 10 (more or less complete sheltering). Young children, yes. You shelter them from opposing viewpoints and opinions until they learn their Faith -- until they learn what truth is, and until they are familiar with our family's position on the Crisis. But grown adults living on their own? That's ridiculous. They can make their own prudential decision about how to deal with the Crisis in the Church.

And I know what some are going to say (or think): "The Church used to have the Index of Forbidden Books -- the Church is all about censorship of dangerous errors which could damage our Faith"

I would respond: "Ok, then show me where the Catholic Church clearly condemns sedevacantism, and THEN I will consider it a dogmatic error, and require all members to be free from that error."

But you can't. Sedevacantism is a disputed point, a debated point of theology arising from the unprecedented Crisis in the Church. No Pope or Council has ruled on this issue, so it's open season, fair game.

Okay, I see what you're saying. But you mention above that...."They can make their own prudential decision about how to deal with the Crisis in the Church."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you believe that sedevacantism is a viable and prudential option to take. But I don't think that's how the Resistance bishops think about the matter. Maybe I'm wrong about that. But even Fr. Chazal, who is quite understanding about why Catholics sometimes choose the sedevacantism route, has himself said that it should be discussed in order to show how it (sedevacantism) is wrong. And some of us do try to do that. But at some point we have to draw the line.

How much time should we spend with arguing/debating sedevacantism when we could be doing something more useful? And what about the division it causes?
3



So what are these "mysteries of the Faith which MUST necessarily be known and believed" that St. Pius X was referring to here?

So how does this mesh with Our Lady of Fatima's message that most souls go to hell due to sins of the flesh?

[hint:  I know the answer, and the key rests with St. Thomas.]
4
Vatican I puts that nail in the coffin of Rewarder God theory by defining supernatural faith as something that has for its object a truth that can be known ONLY by Revelation.
5
Like what exactly? A God who rewards the good and punishes the evil?  ::) (Jews, Moslems, Hindu, basically all religions and sects agree with this)

No point at all in God having revealed Himself to us in the Person of Jesus Christ if this vagueness would suffice.

Right, this is why Johnson's analysis of Rahner is completely wrong.

Implicitists hold that the explicit belief in a truth that can be known also through natural reason suffices for supernatural faith.  In other words, they believe that people can be saved without knowledge of God's revelation.  No different than Rahner.

So Johnson fails on that point also.
6
What an odd bunch those Mormons are. Barring Salt Lake City, they've kept Utah relatively conservative. They dress very modestly and have large families, but their theology is weird. Started by a crazy guy who thought that Christ came to Missouri.

They are a masonic sect.
7
.
The Mormon Tabernacle Choir is a great choir, with a great sound, but it seems to me that "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints' Choir" doesn't have quite the same ring to it.
Something to consider IMHO.
8
.
What an odd bunch is right.
.
Quote
"Mormon is a long-standing nickname for the church and for the movement, but the church leadership has always been concerned that the nickname has obscured the fundamentally Christian nature of the church and the religion," Mason told CNN. "Especially since they're so many people who've criticized the church and have done so historically for not being Christian or orthodoxly Christian. The church leadership really wants to emphasize the fact that it is a Christian church."
.
Problem is, it's not Christian, "orthodoxly" or otherwise. How could anyone who thinks "Jesus and Satan are brothers" be Christian? (It's just a case of sibling rivalry, you see.) They teach young Mormons that Mormon men who live upright lives, when they die, become "God the Father" in their own universe out there somewhere. IOW the idea of the "multiverse" has roots in Mormonism! 
.
9



So what are these "mysteries of the Faith which MUST necessarily be known and believed" that St. Pius X was referring to here?
10
SSPX Resistance News / Re: Who else should be banned?
« Last post by Matthew on Today at 11:47:26 AM »
You're right. I had forgotten about that. And that forum still had a LOT of traffic, despite the ban on sedevacantism. That is, until the forum owner did that expose on Malachi Martin. The forum lost a lot of members over that.

But maybe it had a lot of traffic because there were many SSPX-friendly people who posted there.

Angelqueen was very much an SSPX forum. Just imagine if the SSPX hadn't fallen how many more members CI would have if I didn't have to ban all those who fiercely bashed the Resistance.

And the SSPX was the 800 lb. gorilla in the Trad world. If Traditional Catholicism were Retail Merchandising, the SSPX would be Amazon.com, Wal-Mart, and Target combined. And probably a few others. The other 20% of the market would be divided up among all the other groups. There's a reason why Rome is trying to absorb the SSPX.

And that's another reason why the fall of the SSPX is such a big deal. Most Catholics in the USA (which is all I have any knowledge of; I'll admit that) can drive to an SSPX chapel within 2 hours or so. There are exceptions, like certain states in the Deep South, but you get the idea. But once you eliminate the SSPX as an option (and certainly the Indult wouldn't be an option either, if you're crossing off the SSPX) you're talking THE VAST MAJORITY not being close to a place for Mass. There simply aren't many Resistance, independent, or sedevacantist chapels. Probably 1/5 as many as the SSPX has in this country. It depends on where you live -- some geographic locations have Trad Mass options coming out their ears. Others have next to nothing.

Sean Johnson bringing up AQ is funny though -- that whole "Bleep" thing was ridiculous. In America at least, Sedevacantism is a thing, known by all, and you're not going to squash it by not mentioning its name.  People will look at the actions of a Pope Francis and many will consider the position WITH or WITHOUT a ban on it.

You can't treat the whole body of American Traditional Catholics like I would treat my children under 10 (more or less complete sheltering). Young children, yes. You shelter them from opposing viewpoints and opinions until they learn their Faith -- until they learn what truth is, and until they are familiar with our family's position on the Crisis. But grown adults living on their own? That's ridiculous. They can make their own prudential decision about how to deal with the Crisis in the Church.

And I know what some are going to say (or think): "The Church used to have the Index of Forbidden Books -- the Church is all about censorship of dangerous errors which could damage our Faith"

I would respond: "Ok, then show me where the Catholic Church clearly condemns sedevacantism, and THEN I will consider it a dogmatic error, and require all members to be free from that error."

But you can't. Sedevacantism is a disputed point, a debated point of theology arising from the unprecedented Crisis in the Church. No Pope or Council has ruled on this issue, so it's open season, fair game.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10