Faith Focused Dating. Create your Free Profile and meet your Match! Sign Up for Free

info: Please Sign Up or Sign In to continue.

info: Please Sign Up or Sign In to continue.

info: Please Sign Up or Sign In to continue.

A place to learn, mingle, and share

This room is for the discussion of current events,cultural issues and politics especially in relation to Catholic values.

Saint Thomas More was martyred during the Protestant Reformation for standing firm in the Faith and not recognizing the King of England as the Supreme Head of the Church.
Learn More:Saint Thomas More

Jan 25th 2013 new

(Quote) John-711000 said: I have my doubts that the architectural change was simply happenstance. I think the peopl...
(Quote) John-711000 said:

I have my doubts that the architectural change was simply happenstance. I think the people who control the money make the decisions on architecture just as they did with the changes in the mass itself. From the birth of the church the Catholic Monarchies controlled the issuance of money, the relevant geographical cultures and military for defense of the church. All Roman Catholic Monarchies were abolished after WW2 by the Roosevelt administration. It is a well know fact that FDR was a central banker.

When critical thinking is applied to our history beginning with the end of the civil war, we see the birth of the American central bank take place. The central bank needs to knock out the Monarchies in order for their families to rule the world, hence, New World Order is opposed to the Old Roman Catholic Order.

The Novus Ordus mass is really New World Order run by the American central bank. They are also known historically as a den of vipers, and are Christ Killers, and, enemies of our church. The modern architecture and Novus Ordus mass are from the same root and Catholics need to know the true history of our church. The central bankers are the ones who control all religions using the cover of the federal government and through tax scheme exemptions.

--hide--

The Central Banks were definiitely the enablers of the reign of Liberty Christopher Ferrara writes against in his book "Liberty the God that Failed." It is also true that these banks, beginning with the Bank of England in aftermath of the Glorious Revolution of 1688 (founded in 1694, in fact: www.bbc.co.uk ) have gone hand in hand with the rise of Revolutionary Republics. It is certainly no coincidence that the Federal Reserve's institution occured just prior to our entry in to WWI and the War Socialism described by Jonah Goldberg is his book "Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning."

www.amazon.com

That said, it has to be noted that both arise from a similar ideology and metaphyical worldview that, in many ways, amounts to a religion. This is the aspect of Modern Philosophy's power that neither the investigate what has been called "the great conspiracy" in some circles, or their detractors, recognize. Ferrara's contribution to our understanding of the phenomena is that he, along with a few others and more than any author I've read so far, reaches not only into the history, but also the Philosophical threads that lead from Descarte, whose "Cogito" rendered men into ghosts unsure of external existance, through Hobbes and Locke to what we have today.

www.amazon.com

LOCKED
Jan 25th 2013 new

(Quote) John-711000 said: Isn't Vatican II the breakaway sect?
(Quote) John-711000 said:

Isn't Vatican II the breakaway sect?

--hide--

No, the Catholic Church is the True Faith, and the Second Vatican Council was a valid council. The documents of the council are little understood, and have not been implemented in a faithful way, certainly, but the council was valid.

To say otherwise is to say that Christ's promises have failed, especially if one adheres to the heretical proposition of Sedevacantism. Also, the traditionalist schismatic groups didn't break away from the Church until about a decade or so after the Council, and mostly as a response to the Novus Ordo Missae, particularly as it was performed in the United States and England due to the sloppy translations from ICEL and the anything goes attitude of priests toward it.

LOCKED
Jan 25th 2013 new

(Quote) John-336509 said: Okay, so name all of the Catholic monarchies abolished by Roosevelt. This...
(Quote) John-336509 said:

Okay, so name all of the Catholic monarchies abolished by Roosevelt.

This is all just conspiracy nut silliness.

--hide--

None other than that of Umberto II of Italy, but I can name one big one eliminated by his progressive precesessor, Woodrow Wilson.

That would be none other than the Austo-Hungarian Empire, which was the one power out of all the belligerants that actually attempted to sue for a negoitated peace prior to American entry, and this with the collaboration of Pope Benedict XV.

LOCKED
Jan 25th 2013 new

I think it is an insult to all who surffered at the hands of the Nazi's and the evil they did. To argue how many died is absurd and is just an attention getting ploy.

LOCKED
Jan 25th 2013 new

(Quote) John-711000 said: The Roman Catholic Monarchies were always under attack by the enemies of Christ. It's...
(Quote) John-711000 said:

The Roman Catholic Monarchies were always under attack by the enemies of Christ. It's a known fact that FDR was an central banker, and santanic cult member. The historical timeline 1940-46 strongly indicates if not proves the Roosevelt administration abolished the RC Monarchies of Europe.

en.wikipedia.org

The present people who are pretending to be royalty are fakes, this is proven by the amount of Muslims in Europe who threaten the church with the contruction of Mosques and their high birth rate. While the genocide of Europe and the destruction of the church continues the fake Monarchies are silent since they are nothing more than window dressing. The true Kings of Europe stand aloof witnessing the ongoing genocide of Roman Catholic's after they were castrated by the FDR administration.

There was definitely a conspiracy against the church and the RCM's as there was a conspiracy to murder Jesus.

--hide--

So, you make an accusation that FDR abolished "all" the Catholic monarchies in Europe then, when asked to list them, you list a single instance where a king lost his throne a year after FDR was dead, and by way of evidence you link to a wikipedia article that barely even mentions the existence of the U.S., let alone FDR, let alone offers any suggestion that FDR had anything to do with it?

Your coming to a lot of conclusions here that are completely unsubstantiated. The number of Muslims in Europe doesn't prove anything one way or another about any of the monarchies there. FDR's political and religious leanings do not prove anything about actual actions undertaken.

LOCKED
Jan 25th 2013 new

(Quote) Steven-706921 said: None other than that of Umberto II of Italy, but I can name one big one eliminated by h...
(Quote) Steven-706921 said:

None other than that of Umberto II of Italy, but I can name one big one eliminated by his progressive precesessor, Woodrow Wilson.

That would be none other than the Austo-Hungarian Empire, which was the one power out of all the belligerants that actually attempted to sue for a negoitated peace prior to American entry, and this with the collaboration of Pope Benedict XV.

--hide--

So we've gone from "all the Catholic monarchies in Europe" to just one?

Just out of curiosity, how did FDR have anything to do with the Italian monarchy seeing as how FDR was dead before Umberto assumed the throne, let alone lost it?

LOCKED
Jan 26th 2013 new

(Quote) John-711000 said: The point I was making was that the Latin mass was finally terminated for the first time,...
(Quote) John-711000 said:

The point I was making was that the Latin mass was finally terminated for the first time, which came after VII. The mass gradually deteriorated over the following decades as I remember it. There was other untraditional changes that followed, such as.. lay persons, altar girls, the removal of the railing on the altar, the option of taking communion in the hands etc..

I'l be reading more on VII. I only have had time to read one article from ED which will take me a few hours to research. It's Friday so I'll be gone for a few hours I'll comment as soon as I can.

Pope Benedict recalls Vatican II with praise and criticism
>> http://www.catholicnews.com

--hide--

Just one point of Mass History that demonstrates just how traditional Churches without altar rails are.

Remember that in the very early Church from the time of the Apostles until Constantine stopped the persecutions ans legalized the Church; there were no Churches, therefore there were no altar rails. Mass, if not held in one of the Catacombs of Rome, was held in Private homes As a Communal meal just as Christ and the Apostles at the last supper. Regular bread was used and everyone had their own cup. So everyone handled the bread and self Administered the wine. There were no altar servers. The Priest read whatever Gospel or Epistle he believed appropriate and gave his homily based on the selected reading. There was no set liturgy except for the General outline of an introductory phase which included prayers, which the priest chose or created as he went along,; a reading from one of the Gospels or epistles (even epistles that never made it into the Canon of Scripture) followed by a homily.

At that point those in attendance who were not yet baptised were dismissed and returned to their own homes because they were not allowed to participate in the actual meal. The Offertory, Consecration and Communion followed and the participants were then dismissed to go home.

Towards the end of the period of active persecution, set liturgies began to emerge.

An Early Christian might find a lot of what takes place in both the Traditional Latin Mass and the Novus Ordo different from their own experience. But they would have no problem recognizing the important and significant parts of the Mass. That would be true for any Catholic from any of the past ages of the Church.

The biggest difference was that the early Christians were more active in their participation in the Mass than has been true for the last 1000 years. The Novus Ordo, was supposed to bring back into the Mass a more active participation in the Mass by the congregation. In my opinion it is a failed attempt, which, unfortunately, gave rise to a lot of the abuses that were so prevalent in the 70's and early 80's and too much of which still occur today.

When I was an altar boy, long before you were born, there was one of our parish priests that only the best of the boys would ever be assigned to his Masses because only they could keep up with him. He would say an ordinary week day Mass in between 10 to 15 minutes. A Sunday High Mass with all the singing and for him a long sermon rarely took more than 30 minutes and never exceeded 45 minutes, even with a couple of hundred of Communicants which he often gave Communion to all by Himself often enough.

He was a very good and holy priest, but by any measure, I would assume even you would find his traditional Latin Mass as scandalous and you find the Novus Ordo.

LOCKED
Jan 26th 2013 new

(Quote) John-711000 said: (Quote) Joseph-2737 said: +JMJ+ It's a bold faced lie. What he d...
(Quote) John-711000 said:

Quote:
Joseph-2737 said:

+JMJ+

It's a bold faced lie. What he did was stupid but he never denied the Holocost. He disputes how many died and how. Historically he's not the only one who questions the "official story" but since he's a bishop it gets a lot of air time.


Joseph, can you please deifine the acronym? sorry, but I'm left guessing..The Bishop does not come off as someone who is stupid. What do you think his reason was for speaking against the grain?

I believe this is the video that got im excommunicated from Rome.

www.youtube.com

--hide--

That's not the full original video John. Note how some of it is cut out of it at about 5:14 into the video. When the original video came out about four years ago I spent some time researching the people that Bishop Williamson used as his sources to come to the conclusion that there were no gas chambers in the concentration camps. It wasn't his own conclusion. At around 1:45 into the video Bishop Williamson mentions Fred Leuchter as one of his sources, who is an American Federal Court qualified expert in execution technology. When I watched the video four years ago Bishop Williamson actually mentioned two or three more sources, which were obviously in the part of the video that was cut out. One for sure, but I think even two of those sources were Jews. That's right, Jews that denied there were gas chambers in the concentration camps. I spent quite a bit of time on the one Jew's web site back then because he had a lot of evidence to prove his point. I can't remember what the Jew's name was and obviously nobody wants to know now seeing that part is cut out of the video interview with Bishop Williamson. Bishop Williamson said what he did because he believed that he had lots of evidence to prove it. Before posting this I looked at all the youtube pages with a search for 'Bishop Williamson' but could not find the original full length video. Anyway like Joseph says, Bishop Williamson never denied the Holocaust, even though that is how it has been portrayed by the media ever since.

LOCKED
Jan 26th 2013 new

(Quote) Paul-866591 said: (Quote) John-711000 said: The point I was making was that the Lati...
(Quote) Paul-866591 said:

Quote:
John-711000 said:

The point I was making was that the Latin mass was finally terminated for the first time, which came after VII. The mass gradually deteriorated over the following decades as I remember it. There was other untraditional changes that followed, such as.. lay persons, altar girls, the removal of the railing on the altar, the option of taking communion in the hands etc..

I'l be reading more on VII. I only have had time to read one article from ED which will take me a few hours to research. It's Friday so I'll be gone for a few hours I'll comment as soon as I can.

Pope Benedict recalls Vatican II with praise and criticism
>> http://www.catholicnews.com


Just one point of Mass History that demonstrates just how traditional Churches without altar rails are.

Remember that in the very early Church from the time of the Apostles until Constantine stopped the persecutions ans legalized the Church; there were no Churches, therefore there were no altar rails. Mass, if not held in one of the Catacombs of Rome, was held in Private homes As a Communal meal just as Christ and the Apostles at the last supper. Regular bread was used and everyone had their own cup. So everyone handled the bread and self Administered the wine. There were no altar servers. The Priest read whatever Gospel or Epistle he believed appropriate and gave his homily based on the selected reading. There was no set liturgy except for the General outline of an introductory phase which included prayers, which the priest chose or created as he went along,; a reading from one of the Gospels or epistles (even epistles that never made it into the Canon of Scripture) followed by a homily.

At that point those in attendance who were not yet baptised were dismissed and returned to their own homes because they were not allowed to participate in the actual meal. The Offertory, Consecration and Communion followed and the participants were then dismissed to go home.

Towards the end of the period of active persecution, set liturgies began to emerge.

An Early Christian might find a lot of what takes place in both the Traditional Latin Mass and the Novus Ordo different from their own experience. But they would have no problem recognizing the important and significant parts of the Mass. That would be true for any Catholic from any of the past ages of the Church.

The biggest difference was that the early Christians were more active in their participation in the Mass than has been true for the last 1000 years. The Novus Ordo, was supposed to bring back into the Mass a more active participation in the Mass by the congregation. In my opinion it is a failed attempt, which, unfortunately, gave rise to a lot of the abuses that were so prevalent in the 70's and early 80's and too much of which still occur today.

When I was an altar boy, long before you were born, there was one of our parish priests that only the best of the boys would ever be assigned to his Masses because only they could keep up with him. He would say an ordinary week day Mass in between 10 to 15 minutes. A Sunday High Mass with all the singing and for him a long sermon rarely took more than 30 minutes and never exceeded 45 minutes, even with a couple of hundred of Communicants which he often gave Communion to all by Himself often enough.

He was a very good and holy priest, but by any measure, I would assume even you would find his traditional Latin Mass as scandalous and you find the Novus Ordo.

--hide--

We just have the Latin Mass in our area on the first and last Sundays of each month, plus every Wednesday morning at 7:00 am. So I go to the Novus Ordo Mass on the other Sundays. Aside from the Latin and the scala that helps us sing the Mass I found that there are four main differences.
1. The Latin Mass starts with Psalm 42 and the prayers at the foot of the Altar before the priest ascends the Altar.
2. The Latin Mass still uses the same readings year after year so some people still use the same Missal that they have been using for say 40 years.
3. The Last Gospel after Communion, John 1, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God ..." I have read that the Last Gospel was added during the Albigensian heresy of the 1200s because heretics were infiltrating the Catholic priesthood and preaching heresy.
4. The prayers after a Low Mass, 3 Hail Mary's, Hail Holy Queen, St. Michael the Archangel prayer and Most Sacred Heart of Jesus ... Have mercy on us, 3 times.

The sung Low Latin Mass is beautiful. I believe it's called a Missa Cantata.

LOCKED
Jan 26th 2013 new

(Quote) John-336509 said: So we've gone from "all the Catholic monarchies in Europe" to just...
(Quote) John-336509 said:

So we've gone from "all the Catholic monarchies in Europe" to just one?

Just out of curiosity, how did FDR have anything to do with the Italian monarchy seeing as how FDR was dead before Umberto assumed the throne, let alone lost it?

--hide--

The Austro-Hungarian Empire was a pretty significant one openly eliminated by Wilson.

LOCKED
Posts 41 - 50 of 200