Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Not even close.  Cantate Domino nowhere uses the term membership.  MUCH less does it teach that non-members cannot at least materially hold office in the Church.

Heretics and Schismatics are not living withing the Catholic Church and must be added to the flock. If they need to be added, then they are not one of the flock. They are not a member. To be a member is to be one of the flock. It's sad that I even need to explain this.

It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church. (Pope Eugene IV - from Cantate Domino)
Laura Ingraham is a convert to Catholicism

of course calling someone Catholic.. What the heck does that even mean anymore?

to me a true Catholic is a traditionalist who rejects Vat 2
It was a question and implied a suggestion, not presumption.
I have not seen you post on topics related to the saints but I've seen many threads started by you about American politicians related to party politics.
By the way, graceseeker, I didn't downthumb you!
don't even know what downthumb really means but I don't care about popularity anyway. There is too much work to be done fighting the lib influence... to care about popularity
Politics and World Leaders / Re: another lawyer joke
« Last post by graceseeker on Today at 02:16:31 PM »
                                                    Long story, short version
A young couple were on their way to the courthouse to get married when they got involved in a fatal accident.
They immediately found themselves on a cloudy pathway leading to pearly gates with St. Peter coming out to greet them.
They hesitated and asked him if they could have some time first to think about this because it was all so sudden.
He said, "Sure, how much time would you like?"
They replied, "We want to think about getting married in heaven, since that's what we were just about to do when 'it' happened."
St. Peter held his clipboard in his left hand and scratched his chin with his right, saying, "I'm not really sure if you can GET married in heaven."
The couple looked at each other, and the young man blurted out, "Well -- could you ask someone inside whether it's possible?"
St. Peter: "Okay, I'll go see if I can find anyone. Just you two wait right here." He jabbed his clipboard downward toward the cloud.
"Okay, we'd like a few minutes anyway to talk."
St. Peter returns, disheveled, bags under his eyes, clip board in hand: "All right. I found someone," catching his breath, "Yes, you can get married in heaven."
"Hmm...," the young couple said in unison, looking into each other's eyes. "We had plenty of time to discuss this, so while you were away, we began to wonder, what if it doesn't work out later on, would we be able to get a divorce in heaven too?"
St. Peter abruptly paused his breath then started to hyperventilate, threw his clipboard down on the cloudy surface and cried, "It just took me THREE WEEKS to find a PRIEST in there -- Do you have any idea how long it'll take me to find a LAWYER?!
that's pretty funny
slams both priests & lawyers
not undeservedly either
Politics and World Leaders / DC should be changed to PT
« Last post by graceseeker on Today at 02:14:37 PM »
DC should be changed to PT

pig trough
Not even close.  Cantate Domino nowhere uses the term membership.  MUCH less does it teach that non-members cannot at least materially hold office in the Church.
This reminds me of the ole BOD argument, "Well it doesn't say "absolutely" necessary, only necessary". This is quite a silly argument above.

And yet there have been heretical popes in the past. How do account for that?

One must be notoriously heretical. He must publicly teaching heresy to the whole Church. Not an opinion (such as John XXII). Not a private letter (Such as Honorius I).
That is in line with the Thesis of Des Lauriers: From the very first moment of heresy, he loses Authority over the faithful and the people are not obliged to listen to him. He ceases to be Pope. The Council of Bishops (because no one else can do it) could then depose him for heresy. However, because this has not happened yet, the office is still materially occupied.

Des Lauriers advanced a heretical proposition (if that is what he said). V1 condemns the idea of a material Papacy. Once one is considered to be a Roman Pontiff, full and supreme jurisdiction comes with it. Period. To depose him, just means to depose a heretic. The word "him" refers to "him" the heretic and not "him" the Pope. For after he says that "the Council of Bishops could depose him", he says "for heresy, for from the moment he becomes a heretic."

"the Council of Bishops could depose him for heresy, for from the moment he becomes a heretic he is not the head or even a member of the Church"

Notice that they are not deposing a Pope, but a heretic. For the Pope had already become a heretic (by his heresy), and is alien to the Church.
I'm afraid the only thing that will accomplish this is an absolute catastrophe, magnitudes more disastrous than any of the scandals to date. (Don't just "tsk tsk"-Pray and sacrifice for Frs P and H and the seminarians at OLMC! PtM too!)
Wonder how supporters of fr. Pfeiffer are going to defend this.  Wonder how fr. Hewko can stand this.
From the Roman Catechism:
It seems there is a reason why the prayer is worded the way it is.

Maybe so, but its statement is linguistically not compelling.

I've repeatedly read in recent years how Latin provides wonderfully precise expression of ideas, thus being superior to expressing them in vernacular languages (which continually change, whether evolving or decaying).  So I've developed a gut-level rebellion against what seems like an exercise in explaining away what the Latin words plainly say [‡].

Surely the learned St. Jerome could provide the Vulgate with a translation to Latin that accurately expressed the thought of his ancient sources?   The explanation presented a posteriori by the cited catechism seems to require twisting the wording that's enshrined in the Ordinary of the traditional Mass.

From the Roman Catechism:
There is much more to this Sixth Petition of the Lord's Prayer in the Roman Catechism but this is sufficient. [....]

Be the above as it may, I've excerpted more of what seems to be among the more plausible of that catechetical "explaining away":

Quote from: Catechism of The Council of Trent per
A still more conspicuous example is the conduct of the Prince of the Apostles.  He who a short time before loudly protested his courage and special loyalty to Christ the Lord, he who had been so confident in himself as to say, Though I should die with thee, I will not deny thee, became so affrighted at the voice of a poor maid­servant that he declared at once with an oath that he knew not the Lord.  Doubtless his courage was not equal to his good­will. [....]  Temptation has a good purpose, when someone's worth is tried, in order that when it has been tested and proved he may be rewarded and honoured, his example proposed to others for imitation, and all may be incited thereby to the praises of God.  This is the only kind of tempting that can be found in God.  Of it there is an example in Deuteronomy: The Lord your God tries you, that it may appear whether you love him or not.  In this manner God is also said to tempt His own, when He visits them with want, disease and other sorts of calamities.  This He does to try their patience, and to make them an example of Christian virtue.  Thus we read that Abraham was tempted to immolate his son, by which fact he became a singular example of obedience and patience to all succeeding times. [×]

Note ‡: Which quickly brings to mind the distressingly frequent published exercises by Neocon apologists to "explain away" what "Frances" Bergoglio plainly said in Italian or Cono-Sur Spanish in one interview or another ("but who am I to judge?").

Note [×]: "The Sixth Petition of the Lord's Prayer: 'And Lead Us Not Into Temptation'", §§ "Human Frailty" & "'Temptation'".  <> (previously linked from "The Catechism of the Council of Trent"--but not actually cited--in this topic by An even Seven, Reply #8 December 08, 2017, 14:00:03).
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10