Latest topics
» Rethink "Feeneyism"?
Thu Jul 13, 2017 4:24 pm by tornpage

» Brother Andre Marie MICM, the Prior at the St. Benedict Center does not correct Frs.Brian Harrison and Cekada,Bishops Sanborn,Pirvanus,Kelly and Fellay
Wed Jun 28, 2017 4:24 pm by MRyan

» Revisiting Diocese/Parish Screening Policy
Wed Jun 28, 2017 4:03 pm by MRyan

» When sedes and trads can accept that Pius XII made a mistake then popes since John XXIII are no more in heresy
Wed Jun 28, 2017 3:08 pm by MRyan

» Doctrinal talks were conducted with Fr.Gleize on 'the other side'
Mon Jun 26, 2017 9:08 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Pope Benedict permitted Fr. Jean Marie Gleize to lead in doctrinal talks since he was a liberal ?
Mon Jun 26, 2017 8:59 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Padre Pio told Fr.Gabriel Amorth," It is Satan who has been introduced into the bosom of the Church and within a very short time will come to rule a false Church" -Bishop Richard Williamson
Sun Jun 25, 2017 9:14 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Mons. Brunero Gherardini misled the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary and many traditionalists
Sun Jun 25, 2017 7:18 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Official statement from SSPX awaited : Fr.Gleize and other theologians have got it wrong
Sat Jun 24, 2017 10:10 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Brother Andre Marie MICM too is teaching error : Bishop Sanborn cannot report at the Chancery office
Sat Jun 24, 2017 8:50 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Magsiterial Heresy ?
Sat Sep 26, 2015 8:36 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Magisterium should apologise to the SSPX for the excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre
Sat Sep 26, 2015 8:34 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Brother Francis MICM made a mistake on Vatican Council II
Sat Sep 26, 2015 5:14 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Legion of Christ universities in Rome adapt to leftist laws
Fri May 22, 2015 7:53 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» CM, SSPX, MICM deny the Faith to please superiors
Thu May 21, 2015 4:44 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» SSPX and Church Militant are using the same liberal theology and are unaware of it
Wed May 20, 2015 9:54 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Michael Voris uses liberal theology and yet critcizes Michael Coren
Tue May 19, 2015 10:10 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Fr.John Zuhlsdorf condones Mass for suicide
Tue May 19, 2015 9:18 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Vatican Council II is traditional or liberal depending on how you interpret the Letter of the Holy Office
Mon May 18, 2015 5:57 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Church Militant unable to answer questions on extra ecclesiam nulla salus
Sun May 17, 2015 5:55 am by Lionel L. Andrades


OUR GOD OR THEIRES (SHORT STORY).

View previous topic View next topic Go down

OUR GOD OR THEIRES (SHORT STORY).

Post  Guest on Thu Feb 10, 2011 11:44 am

A wee short story that will take you under 5 minutes if even to read, written by an Irish Roman Catholic.

At least there is one person out there that knows whats going on.

I wonder if this lad agrees with the sedes?

http://ourgodortheirs.blogspot.com/

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: OUR GOD OR THEIRES (SHORT STORY).

Post  simple Faith on Thu Feb 10, 2011 12:38 pm

Sounds like a really great guy, why not meet up with him Fatima and you both can start you own church (just make sure you don't let the Dimond brothers find out).
avatar
simple Faith

Posts : 164
Reputation : 179
Join date : 2011-01-19

Back to top Go down

Re: OUR GOD OR THEIRES (SHORT STORY).

Post  Guest on Thu Feb 10, 2011 12:51 pm

simple Faith wrote:Sounds like a really great guy, why not meet up with him Fatima and you both can start you own church (just make sure you don't let the Dimond brothers find out).

Hahaha, your a funny guy...

Keep praying Simple Faith. As time goes by, reality will strike home, then they will find out that they were being deceived all along. silent You'll see!


Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: OUR GOD OR THEIRES (SHORT STORY).

Post  Allie on Thu Feb 10, 2011 1:03 pm

Yeah and maybe upon his/her death if the Lord holds up that picture He can ask him/her: "You see this man here dressed all in white? He was my representative on earth despite any real or perceived failings he may have committed...and instead of trusting in my words and serving me in Faith, Hope, and Charity- you failed in all three and instead chose to crucify me all over again by your hatred for my Vicar and your encouragement of others to hate him instead of praying for him... you spent all your time trying to expose his errors rather than praying and sacrificing even more for him"

Wouldn't that be cool? I wonder if he is a sede???

I don't think this is the way to change hearts and re-unify, convert or strengthen the Faith of the people...I apologize for my lack of charity but I just find this really sad that so many people are not doing what Our Lady of Fatima truly asked us to do particularly...prayer, penance and make sacrifices for the conversion of sinners...and pray much for the Holy Father.

That doesn't mean pray for sinners and the Holy Father in the morning and then shoot him/them in the evening- if you catch my drift.
avatar
Allie

Posts : 100
Reputation : 116
Join date : 2010-12-20
Location : southern Ohio, USA

Back to top Go down

Re: OUR GOD OR THEIRES (SHORT STORY).

Post  Guest on Thu Feb 10, 2011 1:25 pm

Why do sedes never provide the full text of what was actually said at Assisi? Photos don't really prove much.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: OUR GOD OR THEIRES (SHORT STORY).

Post  Guest on Thu Feb 10, 2011 3:30 pm

Allie wrote:
you spent all your time trying to expose his errors

I Thank God for bringing me to the knowledge of his errors. God only knows what state my soul would have been in if He didn't. I would still be going along with it all, believing what was being said to me. It has made me allot stronger in my Catholic faith. At least now I am praying the Rosary every day, sacrificing myself for sinners, trying to walk upright and follow in the footsteps of Christ. I am allot more happier in life.

I think it is a very charitable thing to do, exposing false doctrine. Let people know what is being taught in the Church, bring these souls to the full knowledge of the Truth. Stop telling these poor souls that everything is fine. At Mass on Sunday educate the faithful in Sound Catholic doctrine, Speak about morality, and what the Catholic Church is about instead of blabbering about the football game. Call all nations to conversion, including Catholics. Tell these poor souls were they are headed for, if they do not convert to the Catholic faith. Stop telling these poor people that their religions are great, and pure, that we all pray to the same god, that there is a place in Heaven for them too. This is pure evil.

Tell the Catholics who don't know any better to stop going into the Jewish synagogues, stop going into the mosques, stop praying with the Buddhists on Sundays. Tell these poor Catholics that they are sinning mortally when they do these things. Tell them that they are committing grave offences against their Creator when they do it knowingly or unknowingly. They think all this is fine because the Pope does it.

Well hay, the Pope does it. Our Bishop does it. Our priest does it, it cant be all that bad. Everything is fine, don't worry, we are all going to Heaven anyway. Sad is what it is.

Preach to the people about the reality of Hell, that many souls go there, the pains of Hell and its torments.

Preach to the people on how to avoid occasions of sin, the definition of sin, the punishment due to sin, the consequence of not repenting of sin. All these things are never mentioned. At least i was never taught these things by my Pastor growing up. Right up to the day i never hear about these things. Only certain priests that i know of speak on these facts, while at the same time mixing truth with falsehood.

I don't think this is the way to change hearts and re-unify, convert or strengthen the Faith of the people...


Sorry Allie, i disagree. We need to expose false doctrine and defend Our Lords dogmas, especially Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus which is being attacked left, right and center in today's society. If only the people knew about this truth, Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. The sad fact is that even among the people that do know about this dogma, don't believe in it.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: OUR GOD OR THEIRES (SHORT STORY).

Post  Allie on Thu Feb 10, 2011 4:28 pm

Fatima for our times wrote:
Allie wrote:
you spent all your time trying to expose his errors

I Thank God for bringing me to the knowledge of his errors. It has made me allot stronger in my Catholic faith. At least now I am praying the Rosary every day, sacrificing myself for sinners, trying to walk upright and follow in the footsteps of Christ. I am allot more happier in life.

You don't have to be a sede or against the pope to do these things. They are what are required of us all. I am sorry that you think the only way to actually LIVE your faith is to be against the pope.

Fatima for our times wrote:[I think it is a very charitable thing to do, exposing false doctrine. Let people know what is being taught in the Church, bring these souls to the full knowledge of the Truth. Stop telling these poor souls that everything is fine. At Mass on Sunday educate the faithful in Sound Catholic doctrine, Speak about morality, and what the Catholic Church is about instead of blabbering about the football game. Call all nations to conversion, including Catholics. Tell these poor souls were they are headed for, if they do not convert to the Catholic faith. Stop telling these poor people that their religions are great, and pure, that we all pray to the same god, that there is a place in Heaven for them too. This is pure evil.

First of all, when has the pope said that everything is fine? When has he encouraged the clergy NOT to educate the people in sound doctrine? I think you are mistaken if you really think that the pope thinks everything is fine in the world and especially in the Church. It is clear that there are problems, serious problems. You don't have to be a sede to notice that.

Fatima for our times wrote:[Tell the Catholics who don't know any better to stop going into the Jewish synagogues, stop going into the mosques, stop praying with the Buddhists on Sundays. Tell these poor Catholics that they are sinning mortally when they do these things. Tell them that they are committing grave offences against their Creator when they do it knowingly or unknowingly. They think all this is fine because the Pope does it.

and these same people then think it is ok to be disobedient to the teachings of the Church because they have been encouraged by sede's that our current Holy Father isn't really the current Holy Father (where the real one is is anyone's guess- so much for the VISIBLE Church) and therefore, does not require our respect, obedience, etc

Fatima for our times wrote:[Well hay, the Pope does it. Our Bishop does it. Our priest does it, it cant be all that bad. Everything is fine, don't worry, we are all going to Heaven anyway. Sad is what it is.

Preach to the people about the reality of Hell, that many souls go there, the pains of Hell and its torments.

Preach to the people on how to avoid occasions of sin, the definition of sin, the punishment due to sin, the consequence of not repenting of sin. All these things are never mentioned. At least i was never taught these things by my Pastor growing up. Right up to the day i never hear about these things. Only certain priests that i know of speak on these facts, while at the same time mixing truth with falsehood.

I am sorry that you have had such bad experiences with priests not preaching the Truth to you- you are not alone. I am in no way condoning lukewarm clergy. I recognize that there are many problems and that souls are in danger and scandalized because they are not receiving sound teaching and example. I do not believe the answer to this is to abandon the Holy Father and the Catholic Church. Which is what you are doing if you are not subject to the Roman Pontiff-whether you call yourself Catholic or not. I think, again, we must fulfill what our Lady has asked of us: to repent, pray and offer sacrifices on behalf of poor sinners (ourselves included) and particularly the Holy Father. We are also to blame for some of the problems we see for not making enough reparation, for not praying enough, for pointing out the flaws of our priests and pope without making sacrifices for them...
I don't think this is the way to change hearts and re-unify, convert or strengthen the Faith of the people...


Fatima for our times wrote:Sorry Allie, i disagree. We need to expose false doctrine and defend Our Lords dogmas, especially Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus which is being attacked left, right and center in today's society. If only the people knew about this truth, Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. The sad fact is that even among the people that do know about this dogma, don't believe in it.

you won't be doing the Lord any favors- no matter how loudly you proclaim the dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus or any other doctrines/dogmas- if you steer people AWAY from the Holy Father and the Catholic Church.

Correct and educate people on the dogmas, yes, but blaspheme and reject the Holy Father? Unacceptable. You must be very careful here in thinking that your present actions are working for God and a noble cause- Mt 12:24-37 comes to mind.
avatar
Allie

Posts : 100
Reputation : 116
Join date : 2010-12-20
Location : southern Ohio, USA

Back to top Go down

Re: OUR GOD OR THEIRES (SHORT STORY).

Post  MRyan on Fri Feb 11, 2011 5:12 pm

Allie wrote:Yeah and maybe upon his/her death if the Lord holds up that picture He can ask him/her: "You see this man here dressed all in white? He was my representative on earth despite any real or perceived failings he may have committed...and instead of trusting in my words and serving me in Faith, Hope, and Charity- you failed in all three and instead chose to crucify me all over again by your hatred for my Vicar and your encouragement of others to hate him instead of praying for him... you spent all your time trying to expose his errors rather than praying and sacrificing even more for him"
What she said!

Allie, thank you; you nailed it.

avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2257
Reputation : 2429
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: OUR GOD OR THEIRES (SHORT STORY).

Post  Guest on Sat Feb 12, 2011 2:47 am

Pope John Paul II day of prayer for peace in the world.

Assisi I and II addresses:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/2002/january/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_20020124_discorso-assisi_en.html

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/messages/peace/documents/hf_jp-ii_mes_20011211_xxxv-world-day-for-peace_en.html

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: OUR GOD OR THEIRES (SHORT STORY).

Post  Forum Janitor on Sun Feb 13, 2011 8:29 am

I read through all those Assisi texts. I don't see anything heretical there. Mainly it is just ambiguous language like everything else is nowadays. The only thing that you see in certain parts is an overemphasis on "humanity." In a court of law I don't think you could find anything explicitly heretical in it though.

Also, that blog article just rambles on and on.


For any Catholic layman to do what John Paul II has done as evidenced by the picture above would merit the wrath of Almighty God. For someone posing as Supreme Head of the Catholic church to do so is incomprehensible. It is first and foremost a mortal sin. What Karol Wojtyla the man from a far (out) country has done here is declare that the life, passion, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ was unnecessary.

First of all, as I said before pictures are tricky and cannot be used to prove heresy. What if the Pharisees took a picture of Our Lord eating with the publicans?

Declared that the life, passion, death and resurrection of Jesus was unnecessary?
Is that really what he has done? Based on the texts above could you place your hand on the Bible and say that is what he has done?

avatar
Forum Janitor
Admin

Posts : 235
Reputation : 565
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Forum Janitor

http://catholicforum.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: OUR GOD OR THEIRES (SHORT STORY).

Post  Guest on Sun Feb 13, 2011 1:53 pm

Forum janitor
I read through all those Assisi texts. I don't see anything heretical there. Mainly it is just ambiguous language like everything else is nowadays. The only thing that you see in certain parts is an overemphasis on "humanity." In a court of law I don't think you could find anything explicitly heretical in it though.

One does not need to find a particular heresy in the address which he gave. This Assisi prayer gathering has been totally condemned by the Catholic Church. The great John Paul II ignored the 2000 year teaching of the Catholic Church that has outlawed prayer with false religions.


For any Catholic layman to do what John Paul II has done as evidenced by the picture above would merit the wrath of Almighty God. For someone posing as Supreme Head of the Catholic church to do so is incomprehensible. It is first and foremost a mortal sin. What Karol Wojtyla the man from a far (out) country has done here is declare that the life, passion, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ was unnecessary.

This quote above is putting it lightly.

First of all, as I said before pictures are tricky and cannot be used to prove heresy.


The picture that you have seen is even worse than heresy; it is a picture of apostasy. That picture was taken on October 27, 1886. The picture only shows John Paul II with a handful of false religious leaders, there was at least another 100 different false religious leaders present that day, including Animists, Jainists, Shintoists, Islamic muftis and others.

What if the Pharisees took a picture of Our Lord eating with the publicans?

Our Lord was converting the publicans. John Paul II didn’t mention once that he wanted to convert these pagans and infidels to the True Religion. That is not even the point. The point is that this prayer gathering has been condemned.

Declared that the life, passion, death and resurrection of Jesus was unnecessary?

This is exactly what he was guilty of. On that day the Dali Lama placed a Buddhist statue on the tabernacle in the Church of St. Francis. John Paul II actually allowed the Dali Lama to put a statue of Buddha on the tabernacle in the Church of St. Francis. On that day a member of each false religion came forward and offered blasphemous prayers for peace to their false gods. The Bible tells us that the gods of the heathens are Devils. So on that day they were praying to devils for peace. The Hindu prayer said: “Peace be on all gods.” The Animist leader prayed to the “Great Thumb.”

On January 24, 2002 another apostate prayer meeting took place. Again they began to pray to the Devil for peace right under John Paul II nose. Btw, the both abominable events were John Paul II idea. A Voodoo high priest came to the pulpit outside the Basilica of St. Francis and gave the Voodoo prescription for world peace. Voodoo is nothing other than Satanism. A Hindu woman said to the whole crowd that they were all gods and John Paul II said nothing. He then gave all the false religious leaders a room each to go and pray to the Devil.

Does one even need to say anything else?

The following post is the full portion of the encyclical letter Mortalium Animos written by Pope Pius XI in 1928 condemning the events that took place in Assisi on Oct. 27, 1986, Jan. 24, 2002 and what is about to take place on October 2011.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: OUR GOD OR THEIRES (SHORT STORY).

Post  Guest on Sun Feb 13, 2011 2:07 pm

MORTALIUM ANIMOS
ON RELIGIOUS UNITY
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XI JANUARY 6, 1928
To Our Venerable Brethren the Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, Bishops, and other Local Ordinaries in Peace and Communion with the Apostolic See.

Venerable Brethren, Health and Apostolic Benediction.

Never perhaps in the past have we seen, as we see in these our own times, the minds of men so occupied by the desire both of strengthening and of extending to the common welfare of human society that fraternal relationship which binds and unites us together, and which is a consequence of our common origin and nature. For since the nations do not yet fully enjoy the fruits of peace -- indeed rather do old and new disagreements in various places break forth into sedition and civic strife -- and since on the other hand many disputes which concern the tranquillity and prosperity of nations cannot be settled without the active concurrence and help of those who rule the States and promote their interests, it is easily understood, and the more so because none now dispute the unity of the human race, why many desire that the various nations, inspired by this universal kinship, should daily be more closely united one to another.

2. A similar object is aimed at by some, in those matters which concern the New Law promulgated by Christ our Lord. For since they hold it for certain that men destitute of all religious sense are very rarely to be found, they seem to have founded on that belief a hope that the nations, although they differ among themselves in certain religious matters, will without much difficulty come to agree as brethren in professing certain doctrines, which form as it were a common basis of the spiritual life. For which reason conventions, meetings and addresses are frequently arranged by these persons, at which a large number of listeners are present, and at which all without distinction are invited to join in the discussion, both infidels of every kind, and Christians, even those who have unhappily fallen away from Christ or who with obstinacy and pertinacity deny His divine nature and mission. Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule. Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little. turn aside to naturalism and atheism, as it is called; from which it clearly follows that one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion.

3. But some are more easily deceived by the outward appearance of good when there is question of fostering unity among all Christians.

4. Is it not right, it is often repeated, indeed, even consonant with duty, that all who invoke the name of Christ should abstain from mutual reproaches and at long last be united in mutual charity? Who would dare to say that he loved Christ, unless he worked with all his might to carry out the desires of Him, Who asked His Father that His disciples might be "one." And did not the same Christ will that His disciples should be marked out and distinguished from others by this characteristic, namely that they loved one another: "By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another"? All Christians, they add, should be as "one": for then they would be much more powerful in driving out the pest of irreligion, which like a serpent daily creeps further and becomes more widely spread, and prepares to rob the Gospel of its strength. These things and others that class of men who are known as pan-Christians continually repeat and amplify; and these men, so far from being quite few and scattered, have increased to the dimensions of an entire class, and have grouped themselves into widely spread societies, most of which are directed by non-Catholics, although they are imbued with varying doctrines concerning the things of faith. This undertaking is so actively promoted as in many places to win for itself the adhesion of a number of citizens, and it even takes possession of the minds of very many Catholics and allures them with the hope of bringing about such a union as would be agreeable to the desires of Holy Mother Church, who has indeed nothing more at heart than to recall her erring sons and to lead them back to her bosom. But in reality beneath these enticing words and blandishments lies hid a most grave error, by which the foundations of the Catholic faith are completely destroyed.

5. Admonished, therefore, by the consciousness of Our Apostolic office that We should not permit the flock of the Lord to be cheated by dangerous fallacies, We invoke, Venerable Brethren, your zeal in avoiding this evil; for We are confident that by the writings and words of each one of you the people will more easily get to know and understand those principles and arguments which We are about to set forth, and from which Catholics will learn how they are to think and act when there is question of those undertakings which have for their end the union in one body, whatsoever be the manner, of all who call themselves Christians.

6. We were created by God, the Creator of the universe, in order that we might know Him and serve Him; our Author therefore has a perfect right to our service. God might, indeed, have prescribed for man's government only the natural law, which, in His creation, He imprinted on his soul, and have regulated the progress of that same law by His ordinary providence; but He preferred rather to impose precepts, which we were to obey, and in the course of time, namely from the beginnings of the human race until the coming and preaching of Jesus Christ, He Himself taught man the duties which a rational creature owes to its Creator: "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners, spoke in times past to the fathers by the prophets, last of all, in these days, hath spoken to us by his Son." From which it follows that there can be no true religion other than that which is founded on the revealed word of God: which revelation, begun from the beginning and continued under the Old Law, Christ Jesus Himself under the New Law perfected. Now, if God has spoken (and it is historically certain that He has truly spoken), all must see that it is man's duty to believe absolutely God's revelation and to obey implicitly His commands; that we might rightly do both, for the glory of God and our own salvation, the Only-begotten Son of God founded His Church on earth. Further, We believe that those who call themselves Christians can do no other than believe that a Church, and that Church one, was established by Christ; but if it is further inquired of what nature according to the will of its Author it must be, then all do not agree. A good number of them, for example, deny that the Church of Christ must be visible and apparent, at least to such a degree that it appears as one body of faithful, agreeing in one and the same doctrine under one teaching authority and government; but, on the contrary, they understand a visible Church as nothing else than a Federation, composed of various communities of Christians, even though they adhere to different doctrines, which may even be incompatible one with another. Instead, Christ our Lord instituted His Church as a perfect society, external of its nature and perceptible to the senses, which should carry on in the future the work of the salvation of the human race, under the leadership of one head, with an authority teaching by word of mouth, and by the ministry of the sacraments, the founts of heavenly grace; for which reason He attested by comparison the similarity of the Church to a kingdom, to a house, to a sheepfold, and to a flock. This Church, after being so wonderfully instituted, could not, on the removal by death of its Founder and of the Apostles who were the pioneers in propagating it, be entirely extinguished and cease to be, for to it was given the commandment to lead all men, without distinction of time or place, to eternal salvation: "Going therefore, teach ye all nations." In the continual carrying out of this task, will any element of strength and efficiency be wanting to the Church, when Christ Himself is perpetually present to it, according to His solemn promise: "Behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world?" It follows then that the Church of Christ not only exists to-day and always, but is also exactly the same as it was in the time of the Apostles, unless we were to say, which God forbid, either that Christ our Lord could not effect His purpose, or that He erred when He asserted that the gates of hell should never prevail against it.

7. And here it seems opportune to expound and to refute a certain false opinion, on which this whole question, as well as that complex movement by which non-Catholics seek to bring about the union of the Christian churches depends. For authors who favor this view are accustomed, times almost without number, to bring forward these words of Christ: "That they all may be one.... And there shall be one fold and one shepherd," with this signification however: that Christ Jesus merely expressed a desire and prayer, which still lacks its fulfillment. For they are of the opinion that the unity of faith and government, which is a note of the one true Church of Christ, has hardly up to the present time existed, and does not to-day exist. They consider that this unity may indeed be desired and that it may even be one day attained through the instrumentality of wills directed to a common end, but that meanwhile it can only be regarded as mere ideal. They add that the Church in itself, or of its nature, is divided into sections; that is to say, that it is made up of several churches or distinct communities, which still remain separate, and although having certain articles of doctrine in common, nevertheless disagree concerning the remainder; that these all enjoy the same rights; and that the Church was one and unique from, at the most, the apostolic age until the first Ecumenical Councils. Controversies therefore, they say, and longstanding differences of opinion which keep asunder till the present day the members of the Christian family, must be entirely put aside, and from the remaining doctrines a common form of faith drawn up and proposed for belief, and in the profession of which all may not only know but feel that they are brothers. The manifold churches or communities, if united in some kind of universal federation, would then be in a position to oppose strongly and with success the progress of irreligion. This, Venerable Brethren, is what is commonly said. There are some, indeed, who recognize and affirm that Protestantism, as they call it, has rejected, with a great lack of consideration, certain articles of faith and some external ceremonies, which are, in fact, pleasing and useful, and which the Roman Church still retains. They soon, however, go on to say that that Church also has erred, and corrupted the original religion by adding and proposing for belief certain doctrines which are not only alien to the Gospel, but even repugnant to it. Among the chief of these they number that which concerns the primacy of jurisdiction, which was granted to Peter and to his successors in the See of Rome. Among them there indeed are some, though few, who grant to the Roman Pontiff a primacy of honor or even a certain jurisdiction or power, but this, however, they consider not to arise from the divine law but from the consent of the faithful. Others again, even go so far as to wish the Pontiff Himself to preside over their motley, so to say, assemblies. But, all the same, although many non-Catholics may be found who loudly preach fraternal communion in Christ Jesus, yet you will find none at all to whom it ever occurs to submit to and obey the Vicar of Jesus Christ either in His capacity as a teacher or as a governor. Meanwhile they affirm that they would willingly treat with the Church of Rome, but on equal terms, that is as equals with an equal: but even if they could so act. it does not seem open to doubt that any pact into which they might enter would not compel them to turn from those opinions which are still the reason why they err and stray from the one fold of Christ.

8. This being so, it is clear that the Apostolic See cannot on any terms take part in their assemblies, nor is it anyway lawful for Catholics either to support or to work for such enterprises; for if they do so they will be giving countenance to a false Christianity, quite alien to the one Church of Christ. Shall We suffer, what would indeed be iniquitous, the truth, and a truth divinely revealed, to be made a subject for compromise? For here there is question of defending revealed truth. Jesus Christ sent His Apostles into the whole world in order that they might permeate all nations with the Gospel faith, and, lest they should err, He willed beforehand that they should be taught by the Holy Ghost: has then this doctrine of the Apostles completely vanished away, or sometimes been obscured, in the Church, whose ruler and defense is God Himself? If our Redeemer plainly said that His Gospel was to continue not only during the times of the Apostles, but also till future ages, is it possible that the object of faith should in the process of time become so obscure and uncertain, that it would be necessary to-day to tolerate opinions which are even incompatible one with another? If this were true, we should have to confess that the coming of the Holy Ghost on the Apostles, and the perpetual indwelling of the same Spirit in the Church, and the very preaching of Jesus Christ, have several centuries ago, lost all their efficacy and use, to affirm which would be blasphemy. But the Only-begotten Son of God, when He commanded His representatives to teach all nations, obliged all men to give credence to whatever was made known to them by "witnesses preordained by God,"[16] and also confirmed His command with this sanction: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be condemned." These two commands of Christ, which must be fulfilled, the one, namely, to teach, and the other to believe, cannot even be understood, unless the Church proposes a complete and easily understood teaching, and is immune when it thus teaches from all danger of erring. In this matter, those also turn aside from the right path, who think that the deposit of truth such laborious trouble, and with such lengthy study and discussion, that a man's life would hardly suffice to find and take possession of it; as if the most merciful God had spoken through the prophets and His Only-begotten Son merely in order that a few, and those stricken in years, should learn what He had revealed through them, and not that He might inculcate a doctrine of faith and morals, by which man should be guided through the whole course of his moral life.

9. These pan-Christians who turn their minds to uniting the churches seem, indeed, to pursue the noblest of ideas in promoting charity among all Christians: nevertheless how does it happen that this charity tends to injure faith? Everyone knows that John himself, the Apostle of love, who seems to reveal in his Gospel the secrets of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and who never ceased to impress on the memories of his followers the new commandment "Love one another," altogether forbade any intercourse with those who professed a mutilated and corrupt version of Christ's teaching: "If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him: God speed you." For which reason, since charity is based on a complete and sincere faith, the disciples of Christ must be united principally by the bond of one faith. Who then can conceive a Christian Federation, the members of which retain each his own opinions and private judgment, even in matters which concern the object of faith, even though they be repugnant to the opinions of the rest? And in what manner, We ask, can men who follow contrary opinions, belong to one and the same Federation of the faithful? For example, those who affirm, and those who deny that sacred Tradition is a true fount of divine Revelation; those who hold that an ecclesiastical hierarchy, made up of bishops, priests and ministers, has been divinely constituted, and those who assert that it has been brought in little by little in accordance with the conditions of the time; those who adore Christ really present in the Most Holy Eucharist through that marvelous conversion of the bread and wine, which is called transubstantiation, and those who affirm that Christ is present only by faith or by the signification and virtue of the Sacrament; those who in the Eucharist recognize the nature both of a sacrament and of a sacrifice, and those who say that it is nothing more than the memorial or commemoration of the Lord's Supper; those who believe it to be good and useful to invoke by prayer the Saints reigning with Christ, especially Mary the Mother of God, and to venerate their images, and those who urge that such a veneration is not to be made use of, for it is contrary to the honor due to Jesus Christ, "the one mediator of God and men." How so great a variety of opinions can make the way clear to effect the unity of the Church We know not; that unity can only arise from one teaching authority, one law of belief and one faith of Christians. But We do know that from this it is an easy step to the neglect of religion or indifferentism and to modernism, as they call it. Those, who are unhappily infected with these errors, hold that dogmatic truth is not absolute but relative, that is, it agrees with the varying necessities of time and place and with the varying tendencies of the mind, since it is not contained in immutable revelation, but is capable of being accommodated to human life. Besides this, in connection with things which must be believed, it is nowise licit to use that distinction which some have seen fit to introduce between those articles of faith which are fundamental and those which are not fundamental, as they say, as if the former are to be accepted by all, while the latter may be left to the free assent of the faithful: for the supernatural virtue of faith has a formal cause, namely the authority of God revealing, and this is patient of no such distinction. For this reason it is that all who are truly Christ's believe, for example, the Conception of the Mother of God without stain of original sin with the same faith as they believe the mystery of the August Trinity, and the Incarnation of our Lord just as they do the infallible teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, according to the sense in which it was defined by the Ecumenical Council of the Vatican. Are these truths not equally certain, or not equally to be believed, because the Church has solemnly sanctioned and defined them, some in one age and some in another, even in those times immediately before our own? Has not God revealed them all? For the teaching authority of the Church, which in the divine wisdom was constituted on earth in order that revealed doctrines might remain intact for ever, and that they might be brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men, and which is daily exercised through the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops who are in communion with him, has also the office of defining, when it sees fit, any truth with solemn rites and decrees, whenever this is necessary either to oppose the errors or the attacks of heretics, or more clearly and in greater detail to stamp the minds of the faithful with the articles of sacred doctrine which have been explained. But in the use of this extraordinary teaching authority no newly invented matter is brought in, nor is anything new added to the number of those truths which are at least implicitly contained in the deposit of Revelation, divinely handed down to the Church: only those which are made clear which perhaps may still seem obscure to some, or that which some have previously called into question is declared to be of faith.

10. So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics: for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it. To the one true Church of Christ, we say, which is visible to all, and which is to remain, according to the will of its Author, exactly the same as He instituted it. During the lapse of centuries, the mystical Spouse of Christ has never been contaminated, nor can she ever in the future be contaminated, as Cyprian bears witness: "The Bride of Christ cannot be made false to her Spouse: she is incorrupt and modest. She knows but one dwelling, she guards the sanctity of the nuptial chamber chastely and modestly." The same holy Martyr with good reason marveled exceedingly that anyone could believe that "this unity in the Church which arises from a divine foundation, and which is knit together by heavenly sacraments, could be rent and torn asunder by the force of contrary wills." For since the mystical body of Christ, in the same manner as His physical body, is one, compacted and fitly joined together, it were foolish and out of place to say that the mystical body is made up of members which are disunited and scattered abroad: whosoever therefore is not united with the body is no member of it, neither is he in communion with Christ its head.

11. Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors. Did not the ancestors of those who are now entangled in the errors of Photius and the reformers, obey the Bishop of Rome, the chief shepherd of souls? Alas their children left the home of their fathers, but it did not fall to the ground and perish for ever, for it was supported by God. Let them therefore return to their common Father, who, forgetting the insults previously heaped on the Apostolic See, will receive them in the most loving fashion. For if, as they continually state, they long to be united with Us and ours, why do they not hasten to enter the Church, "the Mother and mistress of all Christ's faithful"? Let them hear Lactantius crying out: "The Catholic Church is alone in keeping the true worship. This is the fount of truth, this the house of Faith, this the temple of God: if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation. Let none delude himself with obstinate wrangling. For life and salvation are here concerned, which will be lost and entirely destroyed, unless their interests are carefully and assiduously kept in mind."

12. Let, therefore, the separated children draw nigh to the Apostolic See, set up in the City which Peter and Paul, the Princes of the Apostles, consecrated by their blood; to that See, We repeat, which is "the root and womb whence the Church of God springs," not with the intention and the hope that "the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth" will cast aside the integrity of the faith and tolerate their errors, but, on the contrary, that they themselves submit to its teaching and government. Would that it were Our happy lot to do that which so many of Our predecessors could not, to embrace with fatherly affection those children, whose unhappy separation from Us We now bewail. Would that God our Savior, "Who will have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth," would hear us when We humbly beg that He would deign to recall all who stray to the unity of the Church! In this most important undertaking We ask and wish that others should ask the prayers of Blessed Mary the Virgin, Mother of divine grace, victorious over all heresies and Help of Christians, that She may implore for Us the speedy coming of the much hoped-for day, when all men shall hear the voice of Her divine Son, and shall be "careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace."

13. You, Venerable Brethren, understand how much this question is in Our mind, and We desire that Our children should also know, not only those who belong to the Catholic community, but also those who are separated from Us: if these latter humbly beg light from heaven, there is no doubt but that they will recognize the one true Church of Jesus Christ and will, at last, enter it, being united with us in perfect charity. While awaiting this event, and as a pledge of Our paternal good will, We impart most lovingly to you, Venerable Brethren, and to your clergy and people, the apostolic benediction.

Given at Rome, at Saint Peter's, on the 6th day of January, on the Feast of the Epiphany of Jesus Christ, our Lord, in the year 1928, and the sixth year of Our Pontificate.
________________________________________

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: OUR GOD OR THEIRES (SHORT STORY).

Post  MRyan on Sun Feb 13, 2011 4:09 pm

The Original and True Rheims New Testament of 1582,, Galatians 2:11:

"But when Cephas was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was reprehensible."

Annotation: 11. Reprehensible.] The Heretics hereof again infer, that Peter then did err in faith, and therefore the Popes may fail therein also. To which we answer, that howsoever other Popes may err in their private teachings or writings, whereof we have treated before in the Annotation upon these words. That thy faith fail not: it is certain that St. Peter did not here [or at Assisi] fail in faith, nor err in doctrine or knowledge. For it was conyersationis non praedicationis vitium, as Tertullian saith, de prcescript. nu. 7. It was a default in conversation, life, or regiment, which may be committed of any man, be he never so holy, and not in doctrine. St. Augustine and whosoever make most of it, think no otherwise of it. But St. Jerome and *many other holy Fathers deem it to have been no fault at all, nor any other thing than St. Paul himself did upon the like occasion: and that this whole combat was a set thing agreed upon between them. It is a school point much debated betwixt St. Jerome and St. Augustine ep. 9..11.19 apud August.

Side note: St. Peter's error was not in faith, but in conversation or behavior.

Extract from The War Against The Papacy, by James Larson: Chapter III, pp. 101-103:

'JOHN PAUL II AND ASSISI

It was the view of Archbishop Lefebvre, as we have previously quoted him, that "the high point of this rupture [of Pope John Paul II, Paul VI and the bishops who imitate them] with the previous Magisterium of the Church took place at Assisi...." The background to this event is quite simple. In 1986 Pope John Paul II invited representatives from the world's religions to come to Assisi to pray for peace. The common meeting took place in the Piazzale of the Lower Basilica of St. Francis.

We may certainly question the wisdom of holding such an event. Apparently many people did, since a similar event held recently in Assisi did not include a common gathering in a Catholic Church. Questioning its wisdom, however, is not the same as saying that such an event constituted "a rupture with the previous Magisterium", the breaking away of the Pope from the Catholic Church, and a justification for calling him an anti-Christ. In order to determine it Pope John Paul II has indeed done these things it might be well (and only fair) to examine his own intentions and doctrinal statements concerning this meeting. This is easily done, since his Wednesday General Audience on Oct 22, 1986 (five days prior to the event) was entirely devoted to this subject. The following are a series of quotes from that Audience (which was printed in its entirety in the November 13, 1986 issue of the Wanderer):

"At Assisi all the representatives of the Christian churches and communities and of the world religions will be engaged solely in invoking from God the great gift of peace."

"I would like this fact, so important for the process of reconciliation of men among themselves and with God, to be seen and interpreted by all members of the Church in the light of the Second Vatican Council and of its teachings."

"In the Council, in fact, the Church, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, reflected at length on her position in a world ever more marked by the encounter of cultures and religions."

"According to the Council, the Church is ever more aware of her mission and duty, indeed of her essential vocation to announce to the world the true salvation which is found only in Jesus Christ, God and man (cf. Ad Gentes, 11-13)."

"Yes, it is only in Christ that all mankind can be saved. There is no other name under Heaven given among men by which we must be saved (Acts 4:12). From the very beginning of history all who are truly faithful to God's call, as far as it is known to them, have been directed toward Christ (Cf. Lumen Gentium, 16)."

"Precisely because Christ is the center of the whole created world and of history, and because no one can come to the Father except through Him (cf. Jn 14:6), we approach the other religions in an attitude of sincere respect and of fervent witness to Christ in Whom we believe. In them there are, in fact, the 'seeds of the Word', the 'rays of the one truth', to quote the words of the early Fathers of the Church who lived and worked in the midst of paganism . . .."

. . . "What will take place at Assisi will certainly not be religious syncretism."

"Certainly we cannot 'pray together' namely, to make a common prayer, but we can be present while others pray. In this way we manifest our respect for the prayer of others and for the attitude of others before the Divinity; at the same time we offer them the humble and sincere witness of our faith in Christ, Lord of the Universe.”

The Pope's doctrinal clarifications highlight the extreme error in Archbishops Lefebvre's position. Such statements as "Yes, it is only in Christ that all mankind can he saved", and "What will take place at Assisi will certainly not be religious syncretism", and -Certainly, we cannot 'pray together' do not leave much room for the anti-Christ thesis – unless, of course, one believes the Pope to be some kind of conspiratorial mole who is mockingly uttering orthodox statements while secretly working from within to destroy the Church.

Nor does the idea that in pagans and paganism there are "seeds of the Word" constitute a break with the Church's teaching. Saints Clement of Alexandria and Justin Martyr (both of them early Church Fathers) spoke of a "Dispensation of Paganism." In her book Saints Who Made History, Maisie Ward has the following quote from St. Clement of Alexandria, with the words in parentheses having been inserted by Newman (who greatly admired this passage):

"His are all men, some actually knowing Him, others not as yet: some as friends (Christians), others as faithful servants (Jews), others as simply servants (heathen) . . . He it is who gives to the Greeks their philosophy by His ministering Angels . . . for He is the Saviour not of these or those but of all . . . His precepts, both the former and the latter, are drawn forth from one fount . . . now at length by His own personal coming, He has closed the course of unbelief, which is henceforth inexcusable; Greek and barbarian being led forward by a separate process to that perfection which is through faith."
The idea is both simple and scriptural enough. There exists what might he called an "Original Revelation", which may be considered from two aspects. The first is that which St. Paul calls -the law written in their hearts (Rom 2:15)", the internal legacy coming to every man created in the image of God. The second is that which comes down to man through history and culture and contains that true tradition, variously distorted and confused, which began in the Garden of Eden. Looked at in this way, even the most pagan religion therefore contains "seeds of the Word"; and the proper role of Christian evangelization is therefore not to suppress these impulses but to draw out, through witness, dialogue, etc., this good from all the evil and distortions with which it is surrounded.

St. Paul, in order to draw out this law written in the pagan heart, purify it from pagan errors, and bring it to fulfillment in Christ, "dialogued" with them about their "unknown God" (Who actually had an altar – certainly the previous offerings on this altar must have fallen quite short of being Christian), saying, "What therefore you worship, without knowing it, that I preach to you (Acts 1 7:23)." And St. John, in order to teach the Greek mind about the mystery of Christ, adopted the Greek term "Logos", which possessed a history rich in pantheistic connotations. This tension has always existed in the Church. One generation, saint, or Pope converts pagan temples into Christian churches; the next, with a greater fear of paganism, destroys such temples and builds new churches on their ruins. I think there is little doubt that Paul VI and John Paul II have gone further than any previous popes in this dialogue with paganism. We may question their prudence. To question their Catholicity, however, is simply one more desperate attempt by the Archbishop and his followers to justify their own rebellion.'

[End of extract]
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2257
Reputation : 2429
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: OUR GOD OR THEIRES (SHORT STORY).

Post  Guest on Sun Feb 13, 2011 4:26 pm

Ok, I see your point however you are missing mine. I am not condoning the Assisi meetings. I do believe that Pope John Paul II was one of the worst Popes the Church has had. I agree that the meeting was contradictory to "Mortalium Animos" and the discipline of the Catholic Church prior to Vatican II.

The problem really comes in, when we judge persons.

I think Pope John Paul II was laboring under the (false) understanding that was common pre-Vatican II (just look at the 4th edition of the Baltimore Catechism, the one for Catechists) that if someone REALLY believes their religion to be the true one, they can be saved. Therefore, the argument would go, since these people are praying to what they BELIEVE to be God or the "ultimate reality" and therefore following their conscience, they are doing an act of good by obeying their conscience. Of course we know this is false, but many, who received poor theological training in seminary, bought into it.

Pope John Paul II was also heavily influenced by Personalism and modern philosophy: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/452990/personalism
Which would explain his emphasis in these speeches on the "personal" the "human," the "inner experience" etc etc. I once heard a priest say that the problem with John Paul II was that he tried to Christianize modern philosophy and that, doing so is almost impossible because you would have to put so many footnotes and clarifications and corrections that it would be cumbersome.

The most succint explanation I heard of personalism is that "Reality consists of persons, and the only adequate action towards a person is love." Therefore, JPII's inclusion of these pagans in the prayer meeting was probably done under this understanding, that their being included was "loving them" and that allowing them to pray to their false gods was really respecting their conscience and experience of their person. My point here is just to illustrate that when one is formed under these false philosophies one's thinking really gets skewed.

I also think that Pope John Paul II was mistakenly acting like a diplomat, which in my opinion is not the correct role for the Pope, and trying to do something political to stop violence in the name of religion. The twentieth century was one of the bloodiest and it saw persecutions of Catholics in Ukraine, Russia, Mexico, Spain, Thailand, China, and several other countries under the name of atheism. Catholics are also persecuted in Islamic countries. Since the Catholic Church is not really "in charge" any more in the world like it used to be in most governments in Europe, this kind of a diplomatic move would make sense. The problem is that as we all know and as the Encyclical of Quas Primas of Pius XI points out, there will be no peace until all government leaders accept Christ as King. I think JPII's (wrong) assumption was "Ok, we know a great number of these people are not going to accept Christ, therefore at least if we could meet with the leaders of these religions, we could at least make things easier for ourselves."

Again to all of these things I can only say "I think" because Pope John Paul II was never put on trial for any of these actions, which would give him a chance to clarify.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: OUR GOD OR THEIRES (SHORT STORY).

Post  MRyan on Sun Feb 13, 2011 7:05 pm

RashaLampa wrote: I do believe that Pope John Paul II was one of the worst Popes the Church has had. I agree that the meeting was contradictory to "Mortalium Animos" and the discipline of the Catholic Church prior to Vatican II.

It’s nice of you to preface your argument with that disclaimer, lest anyone accuse you of defending the pope.

The citations I provided from JPII that he made just prior to the Assisi event prove that his intentions for Assisi did not “contradict” Mortalium Animos; unless, like the rad trads and sede’s, one would like to argue that Pope JPII was a malicious two-faced Janus who said one thing and did another.

No, it was not “contradictory to ‘Mortalium Animos’”, as if there was some violation of the divine law governing communicatio in sacris, though it did represent a significant departure to a discipline governed by positive law; a discipline that changes with the ages (and with pontificates) and had already gone through significant development by way of the changes introduced in the 1917 Code of Canon Law, and were modified further under Pope Pius XII with the issuance in 1949 of the Supreme Congregation of the Holy Office’s Instruction on the question of Christian unity, “Instructio. Ad Locorum Ordinarios: ‘De motione oecumenica’”. (The date on this issue of the Acta Apostolicae Sedis is 31st January, 1950).

You can bet that Fatima of our times and other pope-bashers have no idea that the understanding of canonists and theologians of communicatio in sacris (i.e. participation with non-Catholics in an act of religious worship, is forbidden; with this prohibition being a prohibition of the divine law, is absolute) has had to evolve with these papal directives (well before VCII) to where due consideration had to be given to whether communicatio in sacris of any kind is to be considered wrong in itself (as was commonly held), or merely prohibited by positive law.

With respect to the latter, “a positive ecclesiastical law is subject to a customary interpretation, to dispensations, to epikeia, to non-observance when there is a grave incommodum and so on and so forth”. (Canon E.J. Mahoney, Priests’ Problems, 1957., XXV. JOINT WORSHIP OR ACTION WITH NON-CATHOLICS)

In other words, just as Pope Pius XII provided guidelines to local Ordinaries for participation in joint religious conventions and the like, which included permission for the joint recitation of the Our Father at the opening or closing of such conventions, the “so on and so forth” is the exclusive prerogative and domain of the Pope who must weigh the dangers inherent in such joint assemblies against the positive good he believes can be derived from them.

We can question the wisdom and prudence of such events, but we cannot question the faith or intentions of the Vicar of Christ. Read again his frequent and manifest intentions in my previous post, and anyone with an open Catholic mind and loyalty to Christ’s Vicar will see that there was absolutely no intention on the part of JPII to orchestrate official and heretical acts of communicatio in sacris , and there were no acts of “apostasy”, notwithstanding the shrill screams of Fatima and the smoke of Satan located in upstate NY.

avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2257
Reputation : 2429
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: OUR GOD OR THEIRES (SHORT STORY).

Post  simple Faith on Sun Feb 13, 2011 7:24 pm

Thanks MRyan for a clear insight into john Paul II intentions regarding Assisi, nice to get a balance against the usual devil worshiping conspiracy.
avatar
simple Faith

Posts : 164
Reputation : 179
Join date : 2011-01-19

Back to top Go down

Re: OUR GOD OR THEIRES (SHORT STORY).

Post  MRyan on Sun Feb 13, 2011 8:43 pm

RashaLampa wrote:
Again to all of these things I can only say "I think" because Pope John Paul II was never put on trial for any of these actions, which would give him a chance to clarify.
And who is going to put JPII “on trial” when he has no judge but God alone?

Actually, he is put on trial, and found wanting, or condemned, just about everyday. Oh wait, here comes the “Assisi potted plant” photo; or how about the always popular “Kissing the Koran” picture of “apostasy”; that's always good for some mileage in the “amazing heresies of JPII” thread, coming to a "trad" forum near you.

And it sure beats "navel-gazing", know what I mean?

Every word and every whisper will be revealed.

PS - I love the title of this thread (spelling); but, given the subject matter, it seems, somehow -- appropriate.
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2257
Reputation : 2429
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: OUR GOD OR THEIRES (SHORT STORY).

Post  Guest on Sun Feb 13, 2011 9:09 pm

Good point. Actually that only strengthens my point against sedevacantism. My point (albeit articulated poorly) was how can you accuse someone of heresy and apostasy in the midst of ambiguity without giving them an opportunity to defend themselves? In the case of the Pope himself the situation is complicated more due to the fact that the "first see is judged by no one" . This really makes it impossible for a sedevacantist thesis to hold up.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: OUR GOD OR THEIRES (SHORT STORY).

Post  Guest on Sun Feb 13, 2011 9:12 pm

I hope everyone has read the rules of this sub-forum. Something tells me certain people have not. Rolling Eyes

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: OUR GOD OR THEIRES (SHORT STORY).

Post  MRyan on Sun Feb 13, 2011 9:52 pm

You see, Rasha, I don't have to put up with these lies and calumny by playing by your ecumenical rules regarding sedevacantists who are allowed to post such swill as this “apostasy”:

John Paul II actually allowed the Dali Lama to put a statue of Buddha on the tabernacle in the Church of St. Francis.
That's a diabolical lie. Let him prove such an assertion, or ban him for making such abominable accusations again the Holy Father.

Seriously, its a bold-faced lie. This is what you get when you allow your forum to be a sub-forum for radical sedevacantist websites and others like it.

And we have to sit here and take these insults by saying:

“Now, I don't think that's exactly true, but now that you made the accusation, I am obligated to prove that you are spreading lies and calumny against the Vicar of Christ; no, scratch that. I mean, perhaps you are mistaken and perhaps Pope JPII did not allow such and act of apostasy after all. But, if you can't prove it, that's OK too … you are allowed to present your false accusations against the Pope even if your “facts” are, shall we say, wrong.”

It's true; I don't have to visit this sub-forum, but as long as I am on this forum I cannot ignore this garbage and let it spread. But neither am I going to stay here if it continues; which will probably get some applause from certain quarters ... and that's fine too.
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2257
Reputation : 2429
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: OUR GOD OR THEIRES (SHORT STORY).

Post  Guest on Sun Feb 13, 2011 9:58 pm

If it is a lie then quote it like you just did and say "this is a lie." and move on.

I already addressed how pictures are inadequate proof anyway.

If we were debating Protestants they would be posting "proof" from Revelations about the Whore of Babylon. That's par for the course when you are debating. If you want a place where everyone agrees with you then start a blog.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: OUR GOD OR THEIRES (SHORT STORY).

Post  MRyan on Sun Feb 13, 2011 10:32 pm

Yes, its a diabolical lie ... and there are others.

You know I relish a good debate - we can all profit and learn when well-reasoned arguments are presented from both sides of an argument.

But; no, I won't be associated with a Catholic forum where calumny against the Pope is allowed to be presented by a certain breed of "Catholics" of the type we are all too familiar.

In the old days the more militant Saints would have preferred to run a sword through them, rather than "debate" this nonsense, calumny and heresy.

I prefer a less violent approach, but my keyboard will no doubt become a sharp instrument if I remain. There are certain schools of sedes I can debate if we respect the ground rules, but not this lot.

It's your forum - good luck with it.

No hard feelings -- it was fun while it lasted. Well; it was interesting.

avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2257
Reputation : 2429
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: OUR GOD OR THEIRES (SHORT STORY).

Post  Guest on Sun Feb 13, 2011 10:48 pm

MRyan wrote:
In the old days the more militant Saints would have preferred to run a sword through them, rather than "debate" this nonsense, calumny and heresy.

Well times have changed, just as you have pointed out that Divine Law was not contradicted in Assisi, but a discipline governed by positive law, so the approach of how to deal with error has changed as well.

These same saints probably would think that praying the Rosary outside of an abortion clinic while freely allowing women to pass through the doors into the clinic was wimpy as well, although those saints that lived during the Roman Empire might see why we do that more clearly.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: OUR GOD OR THEIRES (SHORT STORY).

Post  columba on Sun Feb 13, 2011 11:03 pm

MRyan wrote:
how about the always popular “Kissing the Koran” picture

Would you kiss the Koran M?

I don't have the care of a billion Catholic souls weighing on my shoulders but I do have the care of 5 out of those billion and for that reason alone I wouldn't kiss the Koran.





avatar
columba

Posts : 979
Reputation : 1068
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Re: OUR GOD OR THEIRES (SHORT STORY).

Post  Catholic_Truth on Mon Feb 14, 2011 3:21 am

MRyan wrote:
You know I relish a good debate - we can all profit and learn when well-reasoned arguments are presented from both sides of an argument.


First of all, I would like once again to make it known to everyone reading these threads in the "Debating Sedevacantism" section of this Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus Forum that I am not a sedevacantist. I have made no judgement on anyone.
That being said, apparently you, MRyan, only "relish a good debate" against Sedevacantists as long as you can prohibit them from using examples which backs up their position . After all, anyone can win a debate if they "silence" the opposing side. Perhaps its easier for you to debate baptism of desire rather than take on the topic of sedevacantism. Also, its not calumny if what is stated is a fact, which adds weight to the case one is attempting to make. Now I'm not saying that all of Fatima's claims are factual, but maybe some of them are. This is why debate Forums exists, so as for each side to present their arguements and rebuttals. Maybe you should stop treating Benedict XVI as though he is some demi-god, and instead realize that if he is the true Pope, then all Catholics everywhere have a duty to point out whatever wrongful actions he partakes in and hopefully he'll get the message and stop it, just as St. Paul did to St. Peter; and if he is not the true Pope, then that would mean Catholics have an even greater duty to make that known to as many persons they can reach.

Also, you accuse others of calumny quite a bit, which perhaps you yourself may be guilty of by the things you have said against the Dimond brothers. If you claim what you said against them is not calumny because what you have said is true, then why not take them up on their offer to a debate? Surely if you have the truth, then such truth would manifest in such a debate for all to hear. Shouldn't they have the opportunity to respond to your calumnous attacks? Why do you run and hide from them?

You can contact the Dimond brothers at mhfm1@aol.com
They are always willing to have an oral debate against persons such as yourself.
avatar
Catholic_Truth

Posts : 115
Reputation : 148
Join date : 2010-12-19
Location : Louisiana

http://www.PaltalkExpress.com

Back to top Go down

Re: OUR GOD OR THEIRES (SHORT STORY).

Post  tornpage on Mon Feb 14, 2011 6:51 pm

For me this issue (the vacant seat, papal heresy, the apostate "Newchurch") always comes back to the Mass, and the worldwide use of "all" in the consecration of the Blood of Our Lord in the vernaculars - well, that's making an assumption that it is the blood of Our Lord after a consecration with "all."

I am haunted by the fact that virtually no approved Mass before the Novus Ordo used "all" in the consecration of the Blood without, in the rare instances where it was used, qualifying it with "all of the faithful" or a formulation giving it that sense. Of course, the Catechism of Trent said this:

The additional words for you and for many, are taken, some from Matthew, some from Luke, but were joined together by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Spirit of God. They serve to declare the fruit and advantage of His Passion. For if we look to its value, we must confess that the Redeemer shed His blood for the salvation of all; but if we look to the fruit which mankind have received from it, we shall easily find that it pertains not unto all, but to many of the human race. When therefore ('our Lord) said: For you, He meant either those who were present, or those chosen from among the Jewish people, such as were, with the exception of Judas, the disciples with whom He was speaking. When He added, And for many, He wished to be understood to mean the remainder of the elect from among the Jews or Gentiles.

With reason, therefore, were the words for all not used, as in this place the fruits of the Passion are alone spoken of, and to the elect only did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation. And this is the purport of the Apostle when he says: Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many; and also of the words of our Lord in John: I pray for them; I pray not for the world, but for them whom thou hast given me, because they are thine.

It is the rejection of that good "reason" and the actual use of "all, " coupled with the alteration of Our Lord's words from the Gospels (where He says "for many"), that I see as the lure of the sedevacantist position.



avatar
tornpage

Posts : 856
Reputation : 919
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: OUR GOD OR THEIRES (SHORT STORY).

Post  Guest on Mon Feb 14, 2011 9:37 pm

Have you read Adam Miller's book on the Novus Ordo? He points all the different Eastern rites that have different anaphoras. While it is true that none of them say "all". Some of them don't use "pro multis" they use other phrases like "for the life of the world and expiation of transgressions."

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: OUR GOD OR THEIRES (SHORT STORY).

Post  Guest on Mon Feb 14, 2011 9:41 pm

Supposedly the new translation is going to change it back to "for many"

I wonder what they will do about the Spanish Mass which remains "por todos los hombres" ("for all men")

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: OUR GOD OR THEIRES (SHORT STORY).

Post  tornpage on Tue Feb 15, 2011 11:27 am

Rasha,

I have not read Miller . . . and I am not a sede. I know you did not accuse me of such, but I just wanted to clear the air.

I am not one of those who consider the NO invalid. I believe MRyan once pointed out (quoting Miller, who quoted the SCDF) and noted that Rome has indicated that the "all" and the vernacular translations must be interpreted as follows:

In 1974, the SCDF sent out a letter to all the Episcopal conferences, Insauratio Liturgica (25 January, 1974), known as the “Declaration on the Meaning of Translations of Sacramental Formulae,” (published in the Notitiae, January, 1974, No. 80). In this declaration the Sacred Congregation recognizes that translations into modern languages have:


given rise to certain difficulties, which have come to light now that these translations have been sent by episcopal conferences to the Holy See for approval. In these circumstances, the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith again calls attention to the necessity that the essential formulae of the sacramental rites render faithfully the original sense of the Latin “typical text.” With that in mind it declares:

When a vernacular translation of a sacramental formula is submitted to the Holy See for approval, it examines it carefully. When it is satisfied that it expresses the meaning intended by the Church, it approves and confirms it, stipulating, however, that it must be understood in accordance with the mind of the Church as expressed in the original Latin text. (italics added)

It is whatever motivations feed the decision to use "all" and not at least clarify its limitation to "the faithful" that bother me. But I live with it - those decisions are not mine to make. And I may be wrong as to the motivations. Yet I see this issue as encapsulating the problem I have with the post-Vatican II Church.

But the Church is still the Church. I am a mere peon who knows where the authority is, and that the Church will be the visible light on earth pointing to the eternal Kingdom until the earth is no more.

tornpage
avatar
tornpage

Posts : 856
Reputation : 919
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: OUR GOD OR THEIRES (SHORT STORY).

Post  Guest on Tue Feb 15, 2011 1:09 pm

If I may change the subject here for a second,

I don’t understand why MRyan joined a forum that debates on the subject of sedevacantism if he can’t handle what the other guy has to say. If I Cant states my case then I don’t have a debate. He curses me every chance he gets for commenting on the actions of John Paul II and Benedict XVI; as if I were the cause of the problem. This is how he diverts the attention away from the topic so that the other members of the forum will focus on me as if I am some wacko who blasphemes against the Church. The liberals, the modernists and the rebels in the Church are the cause of the problem. He condemns the Dimond brothers because they have pointed a finger at what these men have done. The Dimond brothers come out and state what the revolutionaries and rebels don’t want anyone else to here. When the people here the truth about what is really happening in the Church it will enlighten them, and they might say: I knew it, I was thinking it all along but I didn’t know if I was aloud to say it. It will strengthen their faith.

In my opinion it is our duty as Catholics to let other Catholics know that John Paul II was not the Saint that we all thought he was. I know that Catholics who are new to this information will be horrified as I was, but the truth needs to come out. I know it is an unpopular task to come out and speak about the crises in the Church and the damage that has been done this past 50 years, but it’s not a popularity contest. It is about saving souls at the end of the day and trying to do your best for Christ and his Church. We need to educate our families, friends and fellow Catholics and non-Catholics on legitimate doctrine and explain to them what is being taught is not what the Church actually teaches. This forum could be a good place for that. If the pope says something that is contrary to infallible Catholic teaching then it has to be pointed out and recognized by all. Like Our Lord said: You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free.

Most people do not want to know the truth. Most people are comfortable by the way things are going for them now and they do not want to be disrupted. Most Catholics do not want to here from other Catholics that they are being brainwashed and that they are being brainwashed since the rise of the Second Vatican Council. Most Catholics in the world today think that the Second Vatican Council was the best thing that has ever happened to the Church because Catholic dogma was never explained to them. Most Catholics just listen to what is being said to them at the New Mass on Sunday and go about their daily duties believing to themselves all is well in the Church; any problems that we do have the Pope and bishops will get it fixed. They do not know that they are the actual cause of the problem. They do not want to hear about invalid priests, invalid sacraments or that the Church has been infiltrated and that there is a global conspiracy. It interferes with their worldly routine. When they do hear about these things from a person they conclude by calling him a nut job or a screaming weirdo with serious problems. But this explains a lot about a person who would result in such name calling.

MRyan drags the Dimond brothers name in the mud, hurling insults at them every other day without the Dimond brothers being able to defend themselves. He jumps them from behind and takes cheap shots at them metaphorically speaking. Since you are so concerned about the Dimond brothers spreading their “poison” and you “relish a good debate” why not arrange a debate with them and try to save the souls of the people that has been taken in by their “garbage.” You obviously have good debating skills, why not put them to use and do your duty as a defender of the faith. They are willing to debate anyone who comes along.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: OUR GOD OR THEIRES (SHORT STORY).

Post  Guest on Tue Feb 15, 2011 2:31 pm

"For all" vs. "For many"

I hope there will be a better attention paid by priests to their congregations on the catechesis of the new translation of the missal and the change in "for all"/"for many". The short answer is, of course, that "for many" translates the Latin "pro multis" which is a direct quotation from the Sacred Scriptures. However, "for all" is/was not heresy unless improperly understood. A great encapsulation of this can be found in the Catechism of the Council of Trent which explains it thus:

The additional words 'for you' and 'for many', are taken, some from Matthew, some from Luke, but were joined together by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Spirit of God. They serve to declare the fruit and advantage of His Passion. For if we look to its value, we must confess that the Redeemer shed His blood for the salvation of all; but if we look to the fruit which mankind have received from it, we shall easily find that it pertains not unto all, but to many of the human race. When therefore ('our Lord) said: 'For you', He meant either those who were present, or those chosen from among the Jewish people, such as were, with the exception of Judas, the disciples with whom He was speaking. When He added, 'And for many', He wished to be understood to mean the remainder of the elect from among the Jews or Gentiles.

With reason, therefore, were the words for all not used, as in this place the fruits of the Passion are alone spoken of, and to the elect only did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation. And this is the purport of the Apostle when he says: Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many; and also of the words of our Lord in John: I pray for them; I pray not for the world, but for them whom thou hast given me, because they are thine.

Beneath the words of this consecration lie hid many other mysteries, which by frequent meditation and study of sacred things, pastors will find it easy, with the divine assistance, to discover for themselves.
(p. 213 in my edition, (Part 2, Chapter IV, Question XXIV))
So, there you have it.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: OUR GOD OR THEIRES (SHORT STORY).

Post  columba on Wed Feb 16, 2011 8:32 am

MarianLibrarian wrote:
However, "for all" is/was not heresy unless improperly understood

I've heard this explanation before, but what if it is understood improperly by the priest who uses it? Does that make his intention contrary to the Churches intention (does he intend to do what the Church intends) and do the congregation interpret the words "For all" to give the same meaning as "For many?" If not, or if improbable, then it is not conducive to a proper understanding of the faith which a sacrament is meant to encapsulate in the form that is used.

The fact that it is now being corrected to "For many" more or less shows that "For all" was a deficient rendering of the form and therefore has given plausible cause for doubt of the validity of all Masses which have used the "For many" form.

A greater concern (in my view) apart from the use of a deficient form, is the reason why a dificient form was permitted in the first place when even a non-theologically competent mind would know that "For all" and "For many" do not denote the same thing. Those who translated "pro multis" to the English "for all" had to be aware of the mistranslation and even if they weren't then Pope Paul VI and his successors had to be aware.

When this pertains to the Sacrament of sacraments then IMO it is inexcusable that this was allowed to persist for forty years and does indeed raise questions as to the motives of those who first translated the NO and of those who accepted, promulgated and permitted this deficient translation for everyday use.
avatar
columba

Posts : 979
Reputation : 1068
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Re: OUR GOD OR THEIRES (SHORT STORY).

Post  Catholic_Truth on Wed Feb 16, 2011 3:11 pm

MarianLibrarian wrote: However, "for all" is/was not heresy unless improperly understood.

Then why did the Catechism of Trent say this...?

When He(Jesus) added, 'And for many', He wished to be understood to mean the remainder of the elect from among the Jews or Gentiles.

With reason, therefore, were the words "for all" not used , as in this place the fruits of the Passion are alone spoken of, and to the elect only did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation.

So it begs the question; Did those during and after Vatican II know of this statement in the Catechism of Trent; and if so, then why would they have changed it from "Many" to "ALL" anyway. Isn't the Holy Spirit suppose to protect the Church from error and ambiguity? Does it not seem as though the opposite has occured since Vatican II ?
avatar
Catholic_Truth

Posts : 115
Reputation : 148
Join date : 2010-12-19
Location : Louisiana

http://www.PaltalkExpress.com

Back to top Go down

Re: OUR GOD OR THEIRES (SHORT STORY).

Post  Guest on Wed Feb 16, 2011 5:00 pm

C_T,

Apparently you overlooked this part (which I bolded above):
"For if we look to its value, we must confess that the Redeemer shed His blood for the salvation of all; but if we look to the fruit which mankind have received from it, we shall easily find that it pertains not unto all, but to many of the human race."

It is not a heresy to say that Jesus Christ shed His Precious Blood for the salvation of all. He did. Whether it is (subjectively) efficacious for all is another story...

I do not speculate as to what the Council Fathers knew or intended. They will be held accountable to Our Lord just as everyone else. All that matters, in this case, is that the phrase "for all" is not in and of itself a heresy.

Columba,
I've heard this explanation before, but what if it is understood improperly by the priest who uses it?
Some theologians would probably make a remark about "Ecclesia Supplet" here... All I will say is that God will take care of things in His time. Personally, I attend the TLM as often as possible and I don't have to worry about the words. But I don't have any guarantees about the intentions and understanding of any priest. I trust that God provides.

As to the mistranslation... as I said to Catholic_Truth, I won't speculate about anyone's intentions; they will be held accountable when they stand before Our Lord. All that really matters is that there is an orthodox way to understand the mistranslation of the Latin text.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: OUR GOD OR THEIRES (SHORT STORY).

Post  Guest on Wed Feb 16, 2011 6:17 pm

Marian Librarian wrote
Personally, I attend the TLM as often as possible and I don't have to worry about the words.

Do you know if at the consecration of the Host, during the TLM, the priest consecrates the laity Host in the old rite also? I have been told by a nun that the priest only consecrates his own bread into the Body of Christ and the laity receive the Host that has been consecrated in the new rite. I was just curious if you new anything about that.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: OUR GOD OR THEIRES (SHORT STORY).

Post  Guest on Wed Feb 16, 2011 9:47 pm

Fatima for our times wrote:
Marian Librarian wrote
Personally, I attend the TLM as often as possible and I don't have to worry about the words.

Do you know if at the consecration of the Host, during the TLM, the priest consecrates the laity Host in the old rite also? I have been told by a nun that the priest only consecrates his own bread into the Body of Christ and the laity receive the Host that has been consecrated in the new rite. I was just curious if you new anything about that.
I suppose there's a potential for that scenario to happen in parishes where both the TLM and Novus Ordo are celebrated, though, I doubt one would have to worry as much about the priest's intention if he also celebrates the TLM.

But as far as certain religious orders go, like the FSSP who only celebrate the TLM, that wouldn't happen.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: OUR GOD OR THEIRES (SHORT STORY).

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum