Sedevacante & The One True Catholic Church (contued) Part IV
This topic was continued by Sedevacante & The One True Catholic Church (contued) Part V.
Join LibraryThing to post.
Once again....we begin anew....if you desire the TRUTH....you will find IT here....https://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/
Currently, Nairobi. Later today, home, in rural Kenya. Next week, South Sudan. Next month, USA. Too much travelling.
johnthefireman Where ever your journeys take you....I pray God blesses you always!
Thanks, Joanskight. Much appreciated.
I shall be in New York and then DC. I'm accompanying a retired Sudanese bishop for a series of meetings which should include congress, the administration, aid agencies, the UN, maybe a cardinal or bishop or two, and various church bodies.
I love the United States, which has always been good to me personally. I did my MA here in the nineties and have been back from time to time since then. Of course I don't like many of the current government policies.
Pope Pius IX: “Also perverse is that shocking theory that it makes no difference to which religion one belongs, a theory greatly at variance even with reason. By means of this theory, those crafty men remove all distinction between virtue and vice, truth and error, honorable and vile action. They pretend that men can gain eternal salvation by the practice of any religion, as if there could ever be any sharing between justice and iniquity, any collaboration between light and darkness, or any agreement between Christ and Belial.” (Qui Pluribus # 15, Nov. 9, 1846)
>18 Joansknight: The Vatican II Sect (which is almost totally responsible for these scandals)
But I thought your Sedevacantist position began in 1958, while Vatican II only began in 1962 and ended in 1965. Thus there was no "Vatican II Sect" prior to October 1962 and there was no final result which could be said to mark the beginning of the post-Vatican II era until December 1965. Is the author of this piece claiming there was no sexual abuse and no cover-ups (and, for that matter, no " perversion, scandal and homosexuality") in the Church prior to 1965, 1962 or indeed 1958? Even post-1965, many of the priests who committed sexual abuse and the bishops who covered it up were products of the pre-1958 Church, not of the post-Vatican II Church, so the Vatican II Church can hardly be accused of being "almost totally responsible", although certainly the post-Vatican II Church committed the same crimes until this age old problem was finally uncovered and addressed in the last twenty years or so.
NO....there were evil men....with evil intentions long before 1958....Pope Leo XIII knew this....1958 is significant because Pius XII was the LAST TRUE POPE....I pray you are well....VII sect still applies....I prefer NOVUS ORDO APOSTASY!
“In the time of the Emperor Valens (4th century), Basil was virtually the only orthodox Bishop in all the East who succeeded in retaining charge of his see… If it has no other importance for modern man, a knowledge of the history of Arianism should demonstrate at least that the Catholic Church takes no account of popularity and numbers in shaping and maintaining doctrine: else, we should long since have had to abandon Basil and Hilary and Athanasius and Liberius and Ossius and call ourselves after Arius.” (W.A. Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 2, p. 3.)
“Every heresy is to be anathematized and in particular that of the Eunomians or Anomoeans, that of the Arians or Eudoxians, that of the Semi-Arians or Pneumatomachi, that of the Sabellians that of the Marcellians, that of the Photinians and that of the Apollinarians.” (Council of Constantinople, Can. 1, 381)
That's quite a list of ancient heresies. Any idea what any of them mean?
The word "precursors" suggests to me that there might be some direct connection. In what way were these particular heresies precursors of what you describe as "the NOVUS ORDO APOSTASY"?
Thanks. I'm still going strong, doing my bit to keep "the NOVUS ORDO APOSTASY" alive and well.
Why would you do that....does the TRUTH scare you....or do you simply wish to follow the evil ways of society!?!?
John....you and many others believe and accept the ways of society....the DOCTRINES OF MAN....a TRUE CATHOLIC would NOT do this....a TRUE CATHOLIC would NOT abuse innocent children and accept it as the norm....a TRUE CATHOLIC would embrace and believe in its DOCTRINES....a TRUE CATHOLIC would hold dearly to Christ's CHURCH!
• "The Church will be punished because the majority of her members, high and low, will become so perverted. The Church will sink deeper and deeper until she will at last seem to be extinguished, and the succession of Peter and the other Apostles to have expired. But, after this, she will be victoriously exalted in the sight of all doubters."
--St. Nicholas of Flue, in Catholic Prophecy, edited by Yves Dupont, p. 30
I'm really not sure what the ways of society have to do with this, nor the DOCTRINES OF MAN.
a TRUE CATHOLIC would NOT abuse innocent children and accept it as the norm...
As I'm sure we have discussed before, the abuse of innocent children began long before the election of Pope John XXIII, and in the coming decades was perpetrated and covered up by priests and bishops who were a legacy of the pre-Vatican II church. It is the post-Vatican II church which has had to deal with it, declaring that indeed it is NOT acceptable as the norm for Catholics or indeed for anyone else. It is the post-Vatican II church which has overseen the prosecution of so many clerical criminals, whether abusers themselves or those who covered up the crimes. The training, formation and ordination of most of these priests and bishops pre-dates Vatican II.
a TRUE CATHOLIC would hold dearly to Christ's CHURCH!
Which is indeed what we Catholics are trying to do. It is Sedevacantism which represents a splinter group from the church, fortunately only a very small one which most people have never noticed.
Our Lady of La Salette, Sep. 19, 1846: “Rome will lose the Faith and will become the seat of the anti-Christ....the Church will be in eclipse.”
As I said....PRECURSORS....
A disease has to infest a body first....before it can be corrupted....it does NOT happen over night....
You do NOT believe in Catholic prophesy....you have NO faith in Christ's Church....your faith....sadly lies with the WAYS OF MAN....God save your soul!
I think that is my point. The diseases of clergy sexual abuse and covering it up did not happen overnight - their roots lay way back in the the pre-Vatican II church.
I really am very confused by this term "the WAYS OF MAN". I have no idea what it means in this context.
SEX....VIOLENCE....TECHNOLOGY....MATERIAL POSSESSIONS....MONEY....are ALL weapons in SATAN'S arsenal....DECEPTION is his MOST effective though....with these....SATAN is winning....that is what SOCIETY desires!
>37 Joansknight: You JUST do NOT get it....do you!?!?
Well, no. You are setting up false dichotomies.
I have read the documents of Vatican II and studied them and I disagree with you - in my view it does not believe more in MAN than Christ, whatever that means.
Well, yes. I think Pope Francis has spoken often about the danger of these.
>40 johnthefireman:...In His infinite wisdom....our Heavenly Father gave me Glaucoma & Cataracts at birth....BUT you....like the rest of SOCIETY....YOU....are the ONE who is TRULY blind....may God have mercy on your soul....
We have had bad popes, like the current one, and good ones for the most part. All are legitimate. All in God's plan. The Gates of Hell will not prevail.
While I may disagree with you on the current pope, thanks for stating the overall position so clearly.
Joansknight, the fact that you and your ilk do not like the actions of some popes (since 1958) does not constitute legitimate grounds for splitting from the Church.
Incidentally, sorry to hear about your eyesight issues (>41 Joansknight:).
The weak minded follow the PIED PIPER....the weak minded follow the ways of SOCIETY....the weak minded follow the NOVUS ORDO APOSTASY....
I always thought it was the weak-minded who split off every time something happened which they didn't like. We are not protestants, where there is no central authority and those who disagree can just start their own version of the church. Catholics have a teaching authority, the magisterium, and we stick with it, even when we don't particularly like what it is teaching.
>47 johnthefireman: My intent is not to offend you….but….I deeply believe you lack knowledge….of the history of the Church! There have been antipopes throughout its history….why is IT so unfathomable for you to believe it can NOT happen in our day and age!?!? You also lack knowledge of the doctrines of the Church….a MANIFEST HERETIC & APOSTATE can NOT be pope! Ever hear of St. Robert Bellarmine!?!? I am sure I have shown you several quotes from him before….so I will NOT bore you! The NOVUS ORDO APOSTASY is the separated part….PROTESTANT & HERETICAL! I almost forgot….as for those “bad popes”….they were legitimate pontiffs….BUT….they did NOT change….or attempt to change Church DOGMA….they were simply bad men and sinners….as we all are!
>48 Joansknight: they were legitimate pontiffs
And who decides which are the legitimate pontiffs? The vast majority of the cardinals and bishops, and for that matter, of the whole church (the sensus fideli)? Remember that the teaching magisterium of the church is not the papacy alone but the pope in council with the bishops. And who decides whether the pope is a MANIFEST HERETIC & APOSTATE? Again is it the church - laity and bishops?
Or is it you and a handful of other separatists who don't like what the church is teaching?
"don't like what the church is teaching"
John, that's actually a good question. Can we steer this conversation to what the Church is teaching, and what Joanknight disagrees with specifically?
Yes, we know you believe it is NOT the Church, but can we follow the direction of >50 2wonderY: and find out what is it about the church (or the NOT church, as you prefer to put it) which you believe is MANIFEST HERETIC & APOSTATE? I've tried to do this before by, for example, asking you what you mean by the church "following the ways of man" and other such phrases, but I have not yet had an answer. Maybe 2wonderY will succeed where I have failed?
>52 johnthefireman: VATICAN II'S doctrines are THE WAY OF MAN and NOT the Church or Christ....in 1983 I had a unpleasant experience with one of your "church's" seminarians....IT was NOT enjoyable....this IS why your "priests" were allowed to abuse children....innocent children....they are NOT priests of Christ's Church!
>50 2wonderY: Is intelligent....she will figure it out on her own....and in the END....she will know the TRUTH!
Actually, I find that what is contained in the Catechism of the Catholic Church challenges any hold that the material world might try to claim. It is a beautiful collection of truth. I aspire to believe it all.
Yes, we've all had bad experiences with seminarians. The modern generation are very "conservative", I find. But what has the behaviour of a few seminarians got to do with heresy (as opposed to bad behavious)?
What do you actually mean by THE WAY OF MAN?
>54 Joansknight: she will figure it out on her own
Couldn't you give us a clue? I would genuinely like to know what you find wrong with the church (or NOT church), as I am interested in all the different ways people experience God and religion, but all you give me is slogans. You once referred me to a website which claimed that Pope John XXIII was invalidly elected as were all his successors, and that there exists a secret pope, but when I pointed out that if there is a pope, albeit a secret one, then it is not sede vacante, you told me that you don't actually agree with the website to which you directed me. When I asked for further clarification, I got nowhere.
>55 2wonderY: Catechism Of The Council Of Trent IS what you NEED to read....anything anti-pope JPII approved of is ANATHEMA!
>56 johnthefireman: A FEW SEMINARIANS!?!? This seminarian of YOUR 'church" is a "priest" in San Antonio, Texas....a few years ago....he had the audacity to reach out to me....I IGNORED his attempts!
>56 johnthefireman: Be thankful I am NOT speaking my mind about YOUR "church's" "priests"....I have NO desire to be kicked off LT!
Profession of Catholic Faith
Promulgated solemnly by Pope Pius IV and the Council of Trent
● I, N., with firm faith believe and profess each and every article contained in the symbol of faith which the holy Roman Church uses; namely:
● I believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible; and in
● one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages; God from God, light from light, true God from true God; begotten not made, of one substance (consubstantial) with the Father, through whom all things were made;
● who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was made incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made man.
● He was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, died, and was buried; and
● He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven;
● He sits at the right hand of the Father, and He shall come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and of His kingdom there will be no end.
● And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord, and giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son; who equally with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified; who spoke through the prophets.
● And I believe that there is one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church.
● I confess one baptism for the remission of sins; and I hope for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.
● I resolutely accept and embrace the apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions and the other practices and regulations of that same Church.
● In like manner I accept Sacred Scripture according to the meaning which has been held by holy Mother Church and which she now holds. It is Her prerogative to pass judgment on the true meaning and interpretation of Sacred Scripture. And I will never accept or interpret it in a manner different from the unanimous agreement of the Fathers.
● I also acknowledge that there are truly and properly seven sacraments of the New Law, instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord, and that they are necessary for the salvation of the human race, although it is not necessary for each individual to receive them all.
● I acknowledge that the seven sacraments are: Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Holy Orders, and Matrimony; and that they confer grace; and that of the seven, Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Orders cannot be repeated without committing a sacrilege.
● I also accept and acknowledge the customary and approved rites of the Catholic Church in the solemn administration of these sacraments.
● I embrace and accept each and every article on Original Sin and Justification declared and defined in the most holy Council of Trent.
● I likewise profess that in Mass a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice is offered to God on behalf of the living and the dead, and that the Body and Blood together with the Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ is truly, really, and substantially present in the most holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, and that there is a change of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood; and this change the Catholic Church calls transubstantiation.
● I also profess that the whole and entire Christ and a true Sacrament is received under each separate species.
● I firmly hold that there is a purgatory, and that the souls detained there are helped by the prayers of the faithful.
● I likewise hold that the saints reigning together with Christ should be honored and invoked, that they offer prayers to God on our behalf, and that their relics should be venerated.
● I firmly assert that images of Christ, of the Mother of God ever Virgin, and of the other saints should be owned and kept, and that due honor and veneration should be given to them.
● I affirm that the power of indulgences was left in the keeping of the Church by Christ, and that the use of indulgences is very beneficial to Christians.
● I acknowledge the holy, Catholic, and apostolic Roman Church as the mother and teacher of all churches; and…
● I unhesitatingly accept and profess all the doctrines (especially those concerning the primacy of the Roman Pontiff and his infallible teaching authority) handed down, defined, and explained by the sacred canons and ecumenical councils and especially those of this most holy Council of Trent (and by the ecumenical Vatican Council I). And at the same time:
● I condemn, reject, and anathematize everything that is contrary to those propositions, and all heresies without exception that have been condemned, rejected, and anathematized by the Church.
● I, N., promise, vow, and swear that, with God’s help, I shall most constantly hold and profess this true Catholic faith, outside which no one can be saved and which I now freely profess and truly hold. With the help of God, I shall profess it whole and unblemished to my dying breath; and, to the best of my ability, I shall see to it that my subjects or those entrusted to me by virtue of my office hold it, teach it, and preach it. So help me God and His holy Gospel.
>61 Joansknight: Why would you take such an offensive tone?
There is nothing in the Council of Trent catechism that today's Roman Catholic Church denies. It in fact embraces all of that.
Your criticism is with current documents, so it would be great if we could talk about the specifics of those.
Name something SPECIFIC which you disagree with.
Well, you first mentioned a seminarian, not a priest. But whether it is a seminarian or a priest, the bad behaviour of an individual does not constitute heresy nor apsotasy on behalf of the entire church. You yourself made a similar point in >48 Joansknight: as for those “bad popes”….they were legitimate pontiffs….BUT….they did NOT change….or attempt to change Church DOGMA….they were simply bad men and sinners….as we all are!
>66 johnthefireman: FINE....there are MANY homosexual "priests"in your church....specific enough!?!? HOMOSEXUALITY is a SIN against the DOGMA of Christ's Church! Thank you for getting me kicked off LT!
>66 johnthefireman: I even have a cousin who is a VII "priest"....he believes women SHOULD be ORDAINED....NOT Church doctrine!
There were many homosexual priests in the church prior to Vatican II and prior to the election of John XXIII in 1958. So what? As you said in >48 Joansknight:, doctrine, heresy and apostasy are not about the behaviour of individuals.
What individuals believe does not define the church, and neither does it threaten the church.
>69 johnthefireman: ONCE AGAIN....it takes time for the DISEASE to INFEST the BODY....Christ does NOT have HOMOSEXUAL priests in HIS CHURCH who target the MOST innocent!
>69 johnthefireman: I love this song....enjoy....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjkA6WUJ3xY
So explain it rather than spouting slogans and vague references.
>78 johnthefireman: I can NOT nor would I dare to attempt to explain the DOCTRINES of the CATHOLIC CHURCH....I ONLY have to believe....The saints are far better suited to the task you require....Christ's GOSPELS would be the best start though!
What is tolerance? Tolerance is an attitude of reasoned patience toward evil, and a forbearance that restrains us from showing anger or inflicting punishment. But what is more important than the difinition is the field of its application. The important point here is this: Tolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons. Tolerance applies to the erring; intolerance to the error.
- Bishop Fulton J. Sheen
>79 Joansknight: I can NOT nor would I dare to attempt to explain the DOCTRINES of the CATHOLIC CHURCH....I ONLY have to believe
A saying attributed to St Francis of Assisi: "Preach the gospel always; use words if necessary". In other words, it's not about explaining doctrine but neither is it that "I ONLY have to believe". In fact I have to strive to live the gospel. I'm sure you already do so, but I just wanted to make the point that it's not just about orthodoxy but also orthopraxy.
>82 johnthefireman: Excuse my stupidity....I had to look orthopraxy up....
John, I should have thrown in the caveat that if it emerges conclusively that Papa Francisco, willingly was involved or was even a third party to lobbying for a faction that intended to bring about a result favourable to their sentiment, then I would openly declare Francis excommunicated and the chair of St. Peter empty.
https://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/news/pope-selects-youth-from-pro-gay-vatican-consultants-media-org-to-attend-synod/?utm_source=NFS&utm_medium=flash&utm_campaign=Slide >82 johnthefireman: Will be waiting for your responses to all of these....I am certain they will be inline with the VII APOSTASY!
As far as I can recall, apostasy involves leaving one's faith community. Call me old-fashioned, but it seemed to me that Popes John XXIII to Francis, the college of bishops, and the vast majority of Catholics (including, I humbly suggest) myself, have not left the Catholic Church, whereas you and your small group of Sedevacantists have done so. To suggest otherwise is scarcely credible.
>92 johnthefireman: You ARE very wrong....it IS the changing of the doctrines of your faith that IS apostasy!
The devil has always attempted, by means of the heretics, to deprive the world of the Mass, making them precursors of Antichrist, who, before anything else, will try to abolish and will actually abolish the Holy Sacrament of the altar, as a punishment for the sins of men, according to the prediction of Daniel "And strength was given him against the continual sacrifice" (Daniel 8:12).
- Saint Alphonsus Liguori, Doctor of the Church (1696-1787)
Well said. People are currently deprived of the Mass in many parts of the world, which is one of the reasons why the Church needs to re-examine its rules on ordained priesthood.
>95 Joansknight: Vatican II sect sex abuse scandal
I believe I have mentioned to you before that it is really rather disingenuous to continue implying that the church sexual abuse scandal is a Vatican II thing.
Neither church sex abuse nor the cover up of such abuse began with Vatican II. Even after Vatican II, for many years it was mainly pre-Vatican II ordained priests and bishops who were involved. It takes a while to change the mindset and systems of the institutional church and its clerical members.
>97 johnthefireman: Your church has NO mass...you have a Protestant service....
>98 johnthefireman: You are NOT an apostate....the NOVUS ORDO SECT is all you have ever known....you can be happy to know that you are JUST a HERETIC!
>94 Joansknight: apostasy
Well, I haven't found any online definitions which refer to "changing" of doctrines.
Most seem to refer to "abandoning", "departure from" or "total desertion of" one's religion, principles, party, cause, etc.
I doubt whether one can describe the 1.2 billion or so Catholics who continue to form the Catholic Church as apostates, compared to the few thousand who have abandoned the Church, describing it as Sede Vacante.
>100 Joansknight: They were the precursor...
In other words, the pre-Vatican II church had sexual abuse and those who covered it up. It was the post-Vatican II church which had to begin the clean-up, albeit too slowly and hesitantly.
>101 Joansknight: If ONLY one person follows Christ's Church....they ARE the Church....I have stated this quote many times....you deny Catholic prophesy....you deny the words of the SAINTS!
>101 Joansknight: the NOVUS ORDO SECT is all you have ever know
Where did you manufacture that information? In fact I was baptised and made my first communion in the pre-Vatican II church. I used to serve the Latin Tridentine mass. All my priests, teachers and mentors for many years had a pre-Vatican II formation.
>106 johnthefireman: I thought you were much younger then me....I apologize....you ARE an APOSTATE....
>104 Joansknight: If ONLY one person follows Christ's Church....they ARE the Church...
Actually Jesus says two or three, not one. But the question is who defines which is the two or three (or one) sho is fllowing Christ's Church? Is it Christ's Church as both an institution and a community, along with Christ's Vicar the Holy Father, who decide, or is it a small breakaway group peddling a discredited conspiracy theory about French cardinals and communists subverting a conclave? (Forgive me if I have got any of the details of the conspiracy theory wrong).
>105 Joansknight: You will NEVER get it!
No, I probably won't, unless Sedevacantists can explain it to me a little more clearly and credibly.
Why thank you for your generous apology. But I would repeat that I am not the one who has abandoned my faith and declared that my church is a heretical sect and that its earthly leaders are illicitly elected and that it has no valid leadership (sede vacante) as a result of an allegedly subverted conclave.
>108 johnthefireman: Why can it NOT be just ONE if the saints so!?!? NO pope can change the doctrines of the Church....Vatican II did just that....why do you NOT try comparing VII to Trent....there is NO comparison....
Why compare it to Trent? Why not compare it to the whole dynamic evolving 2,000 year old tradition of our church, not just a single council which led to four centuries of uncharacteristic stagnation in the church?
>109 johnthefireman: Allegedly?!?!? I thought I showed you the Italian newspaper at the time....I forgot....the media only spreads fake news!
A single newspaper article is hardly enough to justify a conspiracy theory. Look at the articles you can find about conspiracy theories concerning 9/11, the assassination of Kennedy, the moon landings, etc.
>110 Joansknight: Stagnant ONLY to APOSTATES, HERETICS and PEDOPHILES....I wonder....were ANY of the Apostles PEDOPHILES!?!?
>113 johnthefireman: Man was NEVER on the moon & Bush knew about 9/11....there is proof of both!
No, stagnant if one looks objectively at the history of the Church over the entire 2,000 years of its existence. And note I used the word "uncharacteristic" - objectively, the post-Trent period is uncharacteristic of the dynamics of the evolution of the Church.
Well, if you believe that then there is no point in continuing this particular conversation, and it does nothing to give credibility to your claims about the church.
>117 johnthefireman: Protestantism brought about TRENT....why was there NEED for evolution UNLESS it was the DESIRE of SATAN & THE WAYS of SOCIETY & MAN!?!? You OPPOSE Trent....you OPPOSE Christ's Church!
>118 johnthefireman: You spell Church with a small "c"....I wonder why!?!?
Where did I say I oppose Trent?
Yes, protentatism was influential in bringing about Trent, a good example of the Church responding to the signs of the times, just as Vatican II did, and initiating the necessary changes and developments at the time.
If you notice, I use both small and capital "C"s. No real method or consistency. Is it relevant?
>121 johnthefireman: TRENT changed NOTHING nor did it try to....ONLY evil brought about change....you are unable to give LUCIFER more credit then he deserves....EVIL is in the world....SATAN controls YOUR church....read REVELATIONS....make sure IT is a Catholic bible though....JPII & King James do NOT do Sacred Scripture justice!
>119 Joansknight: why was there NEED for evolution UNLESS it was the DESIRE of SATAN & THE WAYS of SOCIETY & MAN!?
Why was there need for evolution when Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire, or after the Great Schism between east and west? Why was there need for evolution after the insights of the Desert Fathers and Mothers, the reforming monastic orders, Cluny, the Synod of Whitby, the 14th century mystics? Changing cirumstances, aka the signs of the times. Were they all "the DESIRE of SATAN & THE WAYS of SOCIETY & MAN"? I don't think so, but even if they were, the Church's response to society and human developmen, and indeed even to Satan, is evolution - that is how our Church has been shaped and developed.
>122 johnthefireman: ONLY if you belong to Christ's Church....the ONLY church!
>124 johnthefireman: Interesting how you say and repeat "HUMAN DEVELOPMENT"!
>123 Joansknight: JPII & King James do NOT do Sacred Scripture justice!
Not sure why you are referring to JPII in this context, but I agree with you on the King James bible. While it is a beautiful olde English text which deserves reading for aesthetic reasons, there are far better and more accurate modern translations of the bible available nowadays for those who wish to understand scripture.
>124 johnthefireman: VII changed & redefined Church Dogma....APOSTASY & HERESY!
Vatican II read the signs of the times just as all previous councils had done, includng Trent. Vatican II probably named that part of tradition (scrutinising the signs of the times) more explicitly than previous councils.
>127 johnthefireman: JPII has his own translation also....I need to go....sorry!
>129 johnthefireman: Are you saying VII was smarter!?!? Interesting....
>129 johnthefireman: You speak of "human development" please....correct me if I am wrong....is God NOT more concerned with our SOULS then the shells He has encased them in!?!? If our bodies are that important to Him....He should NOT have given me defective eyes...."human Development"....our souls are truly lost!
Many of the things which caused the Church to reflect on the signs of the times and react to them are a result of human developments. I listed some of them - Christianity becoming the state religion of Rome, the Great Schism, the protestant Reformation, mass media, changes in society.
>131 Joansknight: Are you saying VII was smarter!?!?
I don't believe I said that.
>133 johnthefireman: Once again....you speak of "man's developments"....what of "man's soul" John? NO doctrines of the Church changed until VII...."signs of the times"....a valid excuse for HERESY! YES....the Church made reforms and emphasized it's doctrines to society....and the world....in the end IT changed NO doctrine! Christ's Church must not ONLY be the religion of Rome....BUT of the entire Earth....if YOU or anyone else has a problem with that then they ARE a HERETIC and opposed to the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH!
>133 johnthefireman: You base your faith on HERESY, SIGNS OF THE TIMES & THE DOCTRINE OF MAN....I FAITH is based in CHRIST OUR LORD & HIS CHURCH!
Actually I don't speak of "man's developments" - I speak of "human development". You could call it the march of history, evolution, societal change, whatever. The world is not the same now as it was fifty years ago or 2,000 years ago. The Church has constantly developed in order to answer the new questions being asked by a changing world. The faith has not changed, and I don't disagree with your statement that "FAITH is based in CHRIST OUR LORD & HIS CHURCH" (although I would omit the capital letters), but the way the faith is expressed has evolved in order to be understood by the people of different eras, societies and cultures - all for the good of people's (not only men's) souls. Church councils have not "changed" doctrine, but have clarified doctrine in the light of new situations and new questions.
Edited to add: Let me put it another way. Church councils interpret doctrine. Any written text needs to be interpreted, particularly when it is read by a different audience than the one it was originally written for, in a different language, in a different culture or society, in a very different time period. A hermeneutical approach is called for if we are to try to remain faithful to the intent of the orginal teaching text. For example, Trent interpreted doctrine in the light of the protestant Reformation, whereas Vatican I and II interpreted doctrine in the light of more modern societal changes. Look at the number of councils and the length of time during which the filioque issue was discussed.
Likewise bible exegesis - if we want to take everything literally, then we are no different from protestant evangelical bible literalists. (Incidentally, as you're probably aware, expressions of biblical exegesis were to be found in the Church as early as St Augustine's commentary on Genesis.)
Pope St. Gregory the Great (c. 600): “Whosoever therefore lifts up his heart in pride, whosoever burns with the fever of avarice, whosoever soils himself with the defilement of lust, closes the gate of his heart against the entrance of Truth, and, lest the Lord gain entrance, he fastens the gates with the locks of evil habits.”
“The Christian religion was declared the religion of the Roman Empire by Theodosius in 392 A.D., and pagan worship was condemned as high treason.”
Pope Leo XIII (1884): “…the Catholic religion... is the only one that is true...” (Encyclical, Humanum Genus)
Since you are constantly complaining about so-called changes to doctrine, I'm not sure why you are concerned about a debate on married priests. The rule of celibacy for the priesthood is not doctrine. For nearly half of the history of the western Church, priests were married, until the rule was changed. After all, Peter, the first pope, had a mother-in-law who was healed by Jesus, so it has a long and proud tradition. When the rule was changed for western Catholics as a reaction to the signs of the times, nevertheless eastern Catholic rites continued to ordain married men and still do. So a debate on married priests contains no threat to doctrine.
>143 johnthefireman: Our LORD and SAVIOR was celibate....St. Peter and the other Apostles left their families to follow Christ...."Our Lord first served" ~St. Jeanne d'Arc! You'd be a much better Protestant then you would a Catholic....oh wait....you are NOT Catholic....what could I have been thinking!?!?!? When one puts himself....or others....before Christ....they are NOT following or serving Christ! By the way....St. Peter was married before the Church began!
All married Catholic priests are married before ordination - like St Peter. But you haven't answered the question: since celibacy is not a doctrine, and since for nearly half the lifetime of the Church there was no compulsory celibacy, and since Eastern Rite Catholics still do not have compulsory celibacy, why are you worried about a debate on clerical celibacy?
>146 johnthefireman: Eastern Orthodox are HERETICS....must I quote St. Paul!?!? VII's ordination IS invalid!
I'm not speaking of Eastern Orthodox. I'm speaking of Eastern Rite Catholics, who are in full communion with Rome.
I left my family more than 40 years ago to follow and serve Christ amongst the poorest of the poor, and am still doing so although age, health and trauma have trimmed my wings a little. I'm not quite sure though how that makes me a Protestant in the view from your armchair.
Have you noticed how I try, perhaps imperfectly, to answer many of your points and create a conversation or discussion, while you usually respond with insults and/or slogans?
>153 johnthefireman: You speak NOTHING of what our LORD wants....ONLY your "human interpretations"!
>153 johnthefireman: Please tell me something....how do you and your "church" interpret this....OUR LADY OF LA SALETTE, SEPTEMBER 19, 1846: "Rome will lose the Faith and become the seat of the Anti-Christ....the Church will be in eclipse." Is she a whack job also!?!?
Most prophetic language, going back at least as far as the book of Revelation in the New Testament, is highly symbolic and its true meaning is often different from the literal text. I do not have enough information even to make an educated guess.
As a matter of fact, all Christian doctrine is a human interpretation of God's great mystery. It's an interpretation inspired by the Spirit, but it is not a dictated text.
Good grief. How on earth do you get that from my words?
>159 johnthefireman: You call our Holy Mother a LIAR!?!? I am willing to wager you pray to Francis before you sleep....NOT our LORD Jesus Christ!
>162 johnthefireman: The NOVUS ORDO APOSTASY doe NOT want you to know the TRUTH!
Again, good grief. And back to personal insults. You ask a question about the interpretation of prophetic words and insult me when I answer you question.
This topic was continued by Sedevacante & The One True Catholic Church (contued) Part V.
Join to post
You must be a member of this group to post.
This topic is not marked as primarily about any work, author or other topic.