Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Jehanne on May 28, 2014, 06:43:15 AM
-
Look at the date:
http://archives.sspx.org/New_Catechism/new_catechism__is_it_catholic_part_1.htm
A commentary by Fr. Michel Simoulin and published in the March 1994 issue of The Angelus.
The new English edition of the Catechism, with corrections, was not published until 1997:
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/aposletr.htm
I therefore strongly urge my Venerable Brothers in the Episcopate, for whom the Catechism is primarily intended, to take the excellent opportunity afforded by the promulgation of this Latin edition to intensify their efforts to disseminate the text more widely and to ensure that it is well received as an outstanding gift for the communities entrusted to them, which will thus be able to rediscover the inexhaustible riches of the faith. Through the harmonious and complementary efforts of all the ranks of the People of God, may this Catechism be known and shared by everyone, so that the unity in faith whose supreme model and origin is found in the Unity of the Trinity may be strengthened and extended to the ends of the earth. To Mary, Mother of Christ, whose Assumption body and soul into heaven we celebrate today, I entrust these wishes so that they may be brought to fulfillment for the spiritual good of all humanity. From Castel Gandolfo, August 15, 1997, the nineteenth year of the Pontificate.
If the SSPX wants to critique the new Catechism, great! But at least they should be honest enough to use the current and official translation and not some draft which everyone agrees was poorly translated. Finally, the SSPX needs to stop cherry-picking paragraphs from the new Catechism, which states that it should be treated as a unified whole:
18 This catechism is conceived as an organic presentation of the Catholic faith in its entirety. It should be seen therefore as a unified whole. Numerous cross-references in the margin of the text (numbers found at the end of a sentence referring to other paragraphs that deal with the same theme), as well as the analytical index at the end of the volume, allow the reader to view each theme in its relationship with the entirety of the faith.
-
Setting aside the failures of SSPX analysis, even the corrected version of the CCC remains as a cabalistic tome, and as such, it is certainly a unified whole, an effective vehicle by which to transmit heretical and un-Catholic ideas.
A very dangerous book.
-
Jehanne, are you going back to the Novus Ordo?
-
Setting aside the failures of SSPX analysis, even the corrected version of the CCC remains as a cabalistic tome, and as such, it is certainly a unified whole, an effective vehicle by which to transmit heretical and un-Catholic ideas.
A very dangerous book.
Then name a single error but post the entire paragraph.
-
Jehanne, are you going back to the Novus Ordo?
I consider myself a sededoubtist, but, please, do not derail this thread.
-
Neo-Feeneyite Novus Ordoism?
-
Neo-Feeneyite Novus Ordoism?
I have been on this message board now for almost five years, and while I have not posted continuously, I haven't a clue what people mean when they use the terms "Feeneyism," "Feeneyite," etc. I've asked people to define those terms and no one, to date, has been able to do so.
-
Neo-Feeneyite Novus Ordoism?
I have been on this message board now for almost five years, and while I have not posted continuously, I haven't a clue what people mean when they use the terms "Feeneyism," "Feeneyite," etc. I've asked people to define those terms and no one, to date, has been able to do so.
Cantarella has been diagnosed with the maladie, perhaps she can shed some light on it for you?
-
Neo-Feeneyite Novus Ordoism?
I have been on this message board now for almost five years, and while I have not posted continuously, I haven't a clue what people mean when they use the terms "Feeneyism," "Feeneyite," etc. I've asked people to define those terms and no one, to date, has been able to do so.
Cantarella has been diagnosed with the maladie, perhaps she can shed some light on it for you?
Nice try, but I don't think so. You can't define the term(s), can you? In fact, I don't think that you have even read Father Feeney's The Bread of Life nor any other writing by any of his followers. But, please, do not derail this thread.
-
Matthew, is it time to boot the Neo-Feeneyite Novus Ordoist trolls?
-
What a strange combination of sects. The Feenyite with the Novus Ordo is like the Mormons joining the Jehovahs witness.
-
I am not a troll; I've been on this board for nearly 5 years, which you can verify just by looking at my profile. So, if you would, please stick to the OP.
-
What a strange combination of sects. The Feenyite with the Novus Ordo is like the Mormons joining the Jehovahs witness.
Then you must be a dogmatic sede, a position completely unheard of prior to Vatican II. Father Feeney died in full communion with the Holy See (that is, Pope Paul VI) and was given a public Mass of Christian Burial by his Bishop. He was, by the way, one of the first clergy to celebrate the Tridentine Mass exclusively, unlike Archbishop Lefebvre, who himself celebrated the Novus Ordo Mass for nearly 18 months before abandoning it. By the way, Archbishop Lefebvre even signed all 16 docuмents of the Second Vatican Council.
-
You claim to not be a troll; then you insist on attacking the founder of the SSPX of whom this subforum is titled.
Lies....
-
You claim to not be a troll; then you insist on attacking the founder of the SSPX of whom this subforum is titled.
Lies....
Citing historical facts is not a lie. How could such ever be a lie?
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/archbishop_lefebvre_signed_every_one_of_vatican_iis_docuмents/
P.S. Archbishop Lefebvre also gave the Holy Eucharist to Brother Francis:
http://catholicism.org/feeney-doctrine.html
-
I am not a troll; I've been on this board for nearly 5 years, which you can verify just by looking at my profile. So, if you would, please stick to the OP.
5 years a troll then!
-
On Obama
Democracy gave us abortion, contraception, women in pants (oh, sorry, cheap shot!), etc. Don't get me wrong, I am an American and fully support the American democratic system. It is just that the American system, based upon the Enlightenment philosophers (Kant, Hume, etc.) gave us relativism, and the rest, as they say, is history... Democracy is not, I think, intrinsically evil, just that it ends up with intrinsically evil outcomes.
Now, all of you might hate me, but I voted for Obama. I think the Republican's party "pro-life" attitude is not at all sincere, at least as "professed" by their politicians. They are, IMHO, using the pro-life religious voters as cheap political hookers.
We are stuck with abortion, and contraception, also. (I won't mention that 'other' thing.) It's murder, plain and simple, the destruction of innocent, human life. We still have to mow our laws, go to work, and stay out of jail, no matter how much we distaste all of it. I do not say the Pledge of Allegiance, but I do vote.
Voting for Obama, I believe, has resulted in fewer abortions. There are no pro-life candidates in America, none of which, to a moral certitude, could ever be elected to the Presidency. Besides, Roe v. Wade is here to stay, at least until the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. Until then, we can only limit abortion, especially, by helping low-income mothers.
On "global warming"
I agree with that latter sentence, 100%! I, too, think that the World would be a better place with the Catholic monarchies. Speaking strictly from a scientific point of view, our present Civilization is not sustainable. We are going to "drown" in our own greenhouse gas emissions, and the "free market," republican (small 'R') capitalism will guarantee that we sink toward the lowest common denominator, which is fossil fuels. They are the cheapest and most reliable form of energy, which is why we are guaranteed to continue to use them, because if we do not, someone else will, which means that we will get beat, badly, in the free market. It is the Tragedy of the Commons, which did not occur under feudalism.
If and until then, I, as a private citizen, am stuck with what I got. And, I do care about other issues, like my family's healthcare, which would suffer under Republican rule. As I said before, the Republican party is using the Religious Right, like a cheap...
On NFP
Are you going to say that with NFP that there is no attempt to prevent propagation? You yourself admit that it is your intent, Jehanne.
Yes, that is my intent. Nothing in Catholic teachings says that Catholic couples are to reproduce like a bunch of maggots, and I am not aware of any "kid quotas" for Catholic couples. I love my wife, and while we would welcome a new life, we cannot afford another child. It would devastate us, and especially, her.
I don't think he's a troll. He's just a modernist, and doesn't realize it; not to mention, ignorant. Please pray for him. :sad: :pray:
-
On Obama
Democracy gave us abortion, contraception, women in pants (oh, sorry, cheap shot!), etc. Don't get me wrong, I am an American and fully support the American democratic system. It is just that the American system, based upon the Enlightenment philosophers (Kant, Hume, etc.) gave us relativism, and the rest, as they say, is history... Democracy is not, I think, intrinsically evil, just that it ends up with intrinsically evil outcomes.
Now, all of you might hate me, but I voted for Obama. I think the Republican's party "pro-life" attitude is not at all sincere, at least as "professed" by their politicians. They are, IMHO, using the pro-life religious voters as cheap political hookers.
We are stuck with abortion, and contraception, also. (I won't mention that 'other' thing.) It's murder, plain and simple, the destruction of innocent, human life. We still have to mow our laws, go to work, and stay out of jail, no matter how much we distaste all of it. I do not say the Pledge of Allegiance, but I do vote.
Voting for Obama, I believe, has resulted in fewer abortions. There are no pro-life candidates in America, none of which, to a moral certitude, could ever be elected to the Presidency. Besides, Roe v. Wade is here to stay, at least until the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. Until then, we can only limit abortion, especially, by helping low-income mothers.
On "global warming"
I agree with that latter sentence, 100%! I, too, think that the World would be a better place with the Catholic monarchies. Speaking strictly from a scientific point of view, our present Civilization is not sustainable. We are going to "drown" in our own greenhouse gas emissions, and the "free market," republican (small 'R') capitalism will guarantee that we sink toward the lowest common denominator, which is fossil fuels. They are the cheapest and most reliable form of energy, which is why we are guaranteed to continue to use them, because if we do not, someone else will, which means that we will get beat, badly, in the free market. It is the Tragedy of the Commons, which did not occur under feudalism.
If and until then, I, as a private citizen, am stuck with what I got. And, I do care about other issues, like my family's healthcare, which would suffer under Republican rule. As I said before, the Republican party is using the Religious Right, like a cheap...
On NFP
Are you going to say that with NFP that there is no attempt to prevent propagation? You yourself admit that it is your intent, Jehanne.
Yes, that is my intent. Nothing in Catholic teachings says that Catholic couples are to reproduce like a bunch of maggots, and I am not aware of any "kid quotas" for Catholic couples. I love my wife, and while we would welcome a new life, we cannot afford another child. It would devastate us, and especially, her.
I don't think he's a troll. He's just a modernist, and doesn't realize it; not to mention, ignorant. Please pray for him. :sad: :pray:
I have no idea why you're trying to dig-up "dirt" on me:
1) The Republican party is pro-choice and pro-gαy. Their strategists are simply "using" the pro-life and anti-gαy lobby to garner votes. For them, it's all about winning elections.
2) Our present civilization is not sustainable. If you don't believe this, then keep watching the following webpage:
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/Sea_Ice_Extent_v2_L.png
Come back to talk with me about this issue in 5 or 10 years.
3) NFP is not intrinsically evil:
http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt103.html
Finally, I do not deny BoD/BoB, that is, that there are folks in Paradise who, since the Day of Pentecost, who have ended their lives without the sacramental character of Baptism. I view the quotes below as being theological opinions.
-
I'm not "digging up dirt." These are things you said, and you never retracted.
You advised people to go back and read your long posting history. I remember these specific things about what you said that disturbed me.
Obama is the worst disaster we've ever seen. Pretty much everyone, even some of his most ardent supporters, realize their tragic mistake in voting for him. (But, as I've maintained, it wouldn't have made that much of a difference with Romney, anyway)
You forget about Antarctic sea ice, as well. Lookie here. RECORD amount back in late 2013 (which was just two seasons ago)
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=82160
(http://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/82000/82160/spseaice_am2_2013265.jpg)
This "manmadeglobalwarmingcoolingclimatechangeharrykrishna" stuff is a religion to the environmentalists.
YOU KNOW WHO FUNDS THIS CRAP? THE PEOPLE WITH MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF LAND, and the GIANT CORPORATIONS THAT ARE REALLY POLLUTING STUFF... one of the biggest offenders is Monsanto. I encourage you to look them up! It's not because of "consumers" and "overpopulation" that this manufactured crisis (because that's what it is) is happening to the world.
Using the expression "reproduce like a bunch of maggots" is not only repulsive, but when talking about HUMAN SOULS THAT HAVE BOUNDLESS WORTH IN THE EYES OF GOD, it makes what you said even more repulsive.
If you wanna tell people to look at your posting history, then you shouldn't be ashamed of what you posted, and you shouldn't accuse people of "digging up dirt" if you asked them to read what you wrote.
I'm the type of person to call a spade a spade, and I really and truly believe that you're a modernist and have fallen for the subtle traps they lay. I will continue to pray for you. :pray:
-
You forget about Antarctic sea ice, as well. Lookie here. RECORD amount back in late 2013 (which was just two seasons ago)
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=82160
(http://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/82000/82160/spseaice_am2_2013265.jpg)
Just who are you going to believe? Jehanne or satellite photos? Clearly, the extra ice at the South Pole is due to all the heat being sucked out of Antarctica by all the greenhouse gases pumped into the atmosphere by parentsfortruth's automobile.
In fact, I seem to remember that they made a movie in Hollywood about how global warming was going to cause a flash ice age and New York City would be covered in 1000 foot thick glaciers that spontaneously formed and froze everyone but the scientist star's son. Thank goodness all the Americans could emigrate to Mexico!
Hollywood wouldn't lie about something that important, would they?
-
Believe the data:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
Especially,
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
As I said, come back in 5 or 10 years. As far as Antarctica goes, large chunks of it are sliding into the sea:
http://sciencefriday.com/segment/05/16/2014/antarctic-ice-sheet-slipping-into-the-sea.html
As for the Antarctic ice sheet overall, it was never predicted to melt first; rather, the Arctic sea ice sheet was predicted to go first. In another 20 to 30 years, the Antarctic ice sea will start to decline rapidly. As I said, come back in 5 or 10 years and we'll talk about this issue again. Until then...
-
Look at the date:
http://archives.sspx.org/New_Catechism/new_catechism__is_it_catholic_part_1.htm
A commentary by Fr. Michel Simoulin and published in the March 1994 issue of The Angelus.
The new English edition of the Catechism, with corrections, was not published until 1997:
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/aposletr.htm
I therefore strongly urge my Venerable Brothers in the Episcopate, for whom the Catechism is primarily intended, to take the excellent opportunity afforded by the promulgation of this Latin edition to intensify their efforts to disseminate the text more widely and to ensure that it is well received as an outstanding gift for the communities entrusted to them, which will thus be able to rediscover the inexhaustible riches of the faith. Through the harmonious and complementary efforts of all the ranks of the People of God, may this Catechism be known and shared by everyone, so that the unity in faith whose supreme model and origin is found in the Unity of the Trinity may be strengthened and extended to the ends of the earth. To Mary, Mother of Christ, whose Assumption body and soul into heaven we celebrate today, I entrust these wishes so that they may be brought to fulfillment for the spiritual good of all humanity. From Castel Gandolfo, August 15, 1997, the nineteenth year of the Pontificate.
If the SSPX wants to critique the new Catechism, great! But at least they should be honest enough to use the current and official translation and not some draft which everyone agrees was poorly translated. Finally, the SSPX needs to stop cherry-picking paragraphs from the new Catechism, which states that it should be treated as a unified whole:
18 This catechism is conceived as an organic presentation of the Catholic faith in its entirety. It should be seen therefore as a unified whole. Numerous cross-references in the margin of the text (numbers found at the end of a sentence referring to other paragraphs that deal with the same theme), as well as the analytical index at the end of the volume, allow the reader to view each theme in its relationship with the entirety of the faith.
When they cherry pick individual paragraphs does that mean that they are in agreement with everything else?
-
Believe the data:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
Especially,
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
As I said, come back in 5 or 10 years. As far as Antarctica goes, large chunks of it are sliding into the sea:
http://sciencefriday.com/segment/05/16/2014/antarctic-ice-sheet-slipping-into-the-sea.html
As for the Antarctic ice sheet overall, it was never predicted to melt first; rather, the Arctic sea ice sheet was predicted to go first. In another 20 to 30 years, the Antarctic ice sea will start to decline rapidly. As I said, come back in 5 or 10 years and we'll talk about this issue again. Until then...
So, if you would, please stick to the OP.