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

Feb 3rd 2013 new

(Quote) Paul-866591 said: The vary claim that the Seat of Peter has been vacant for the last for the last 55 years ...
(Quote) Paul-866591 said:

The vary claim that the Seat of Peter has been vacant for the last for the last 55 years defeats itself.

Christ said that He would be with the Church until the end of the world and that the gates of hell would not prevail against it.

If the claim that the seat of Peter has been vacant all this time were true, and Pope Benedict has spouted all these alleged heresies, then the gates of hell have prevailed against the Church.

And if that is true, Christ lied.

If Christ lied, He could not be God.

If Jesus Christ is not God, then anyone who has followed His teachings or spent even a moment of time thinking about them has wasted their time. Christianity in any of its manifestations, is nothing more than the greatest and longest hoax ever perpetrated on man. And all accomp-lished by a Carpenter, 10 uneducated fishermen and one despised tax collector.

Dom you really want to follow the idea you are here espousing down that path?

--hide--

Again Paul I agree. To claim the Throne of Peter has been vacant for 55 years is heresy plain and simple. It goes against the Faith that the Holy Father is chosen by the Holy Spirit, and implies that the College of Cardinals is corrupt and anti Christ. And that is a serious sin- a mortal sin - as it goes to Heart of the Churches Creed. The originator of the statement may wish to reflect on whether they really meant that statement, as it is a dangerous corruption of the core beliefs of the Church.

LOCKED
Feb 3rd 2013 new

(Quote) Mike-41230 said: John the problem is the ecumenicism of the Second Vatican Council. I agree, it is complete...
(Quote) Mike-41230 said:

John the problem is the ecumenicism of the Second Vatican Council. I agree, it is completely nuts. I didn't realize that Pope John Paul II said the Jews didn't need Jesus for salvation. But I wouldn't doubt it because I have read a document by Cardinal Walter Kasper the President Emeritus of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity that said the Jews may not need Jesus for justification. And since 2010 the new President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, Cardinal Kurt Koch is saying the same. The Commission of the Holy See for Religious Relations with the Jews is the responsibility of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity. The Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity origins are associated with the Second Vatican Council. Pope John XXIII wanted the Catholic Church to engage in the contemporary ecumenical movement. He established a "Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity" on 5 June 1960 as one of the preparatory commissions for the Council, and appointed Augustin Cardinal Bea as its first president.

I have also read a document by Cardinal Walter Kasper that said the Protestants are part of the Catholic Church whether they realize it or not. Well I know for a fact that many Protestant denominations still do not want to be part of the Catholic Church and are still spewing the same anti-Catholic venom they have been for the last 500 years. This all flies in the face of all those martyrs of the Protestant Reformation. All those good priests that were hung, drawn and quartered just for saying the Holy Mass.

Ecumenicism is just crazy. When Bernard posted The Oath Against Modernism by His Holiness Pope St. Pius X this sentence from his Papal Encyclical jumped out at me to clearly describe ecumenicism, "Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical' misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously." Everyone should read this Papal Encyclical. It's not hard to understand.
www.papalencyclicals.net

Vatican officials have said that the Second Vatican Council was not a dogmatic council and that it did not change any dogma of the Church. But if you read the above it is like a play on words. That one sentence from The Oath Against Moderdism comes to mind.

Pope Benedict lifted the excommunication of the four SSPX bishops that Archbishop Lefebvre ordained. The talks between the Vatican and the SSPX are ongoing about the Society being regulated. The last I heard is that the Vatican is forcing the SSPX to accept the teachings of the Second Vatican Council before the Society is regulated. But how can the SSPX accept the teachings of the Second Vatican Council when it flies in the face of Catholic Tradition. They are stuck between a rock and a hard place. Personally I think the Vatican is putting the Jews before a Society of Catholics that are loyal to Traditional Catholic teachings.

That all said John we can not give up hope. We still have to believe that the Holy Ghost is still guiding the Catholic Church. I know it's difficult, but that's what we have to do. And pray a lot.

--hide--

I suggest the best source for everone is:

http://www.vatican.va

as the only source for Catholic beliefs

LOCKED
Feb 3rd 2013 new

(Quote) Jerry-74383 said: Surely you realize that two (or more) parties cannot debate whether an object is a member...
(Quote) Jerry-74383 said:

Surely you realize that two (or more) parties cannot debate whether an object is a member of a class without using a consistent understanding of the membership of the class, no? We can look up a definition, that doesn't tell us precisely what definition you are basing your argument on.

Without establishing the common ground we are left with a head-butting match, not a debate. Your participation in a reasoned discourse is welcome; however, please leave the self-righteous indignation behind: it does not become you.

--hide--

I do indeed especially in these fora. Which is why I quoted 3 dictionaries and 2 languages and then gave my quote, I would have thought that made my definition clear. Not being Dr Johnston I cant make up the definition of the word myself

LOCKED
Feb 3rd 2013 new

(Quote) Mike-41230 said: How did 1957 mark the beginning of the usurpation of the Vatican John? Pope Pius XII was s...
(Quote) Mike-41230 said:

How did 1957 mark the beginning of the usurpation of the Vatican John? Pope Pius XII was still the Pope in 1957, he was until 1958. Like I've said, you've gotten out of hand John. And in case you are not aware sedevacantism puts you outside the Church. This type of trash talk would not even be allowed in the Fish Eaters Traditional Catholic forum, which many SSPX members attend. Like many Catholics SSPX members are very troubled with some of the happenings since the Second Vatican Council but they do not believe that the Chair of Peter is vacant. Anyone that does has made themselves anathema. As Jesus said "And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

--hide--

Wasnt Pope John XXIII (being considered for Cannonisation) elected in 1958? Followed by Paul VI, then John Paul I, John Paul II (now Blessed), and currently by POPE Benedict XVI? I cant see when the Palace Coupe took place?

LOCKED
Feb 3rd 2013 new

(Quote) Mike-41230 said: Oh don't listen to the Dimond Brothers John. They are sedevacantists through and throu...
(Quote) Mike-41230 said:

Oh don't listen to the Dimond Brothers John. They are sedevacantists through and through.

--hide--

Oh I thought they were Americans???? mischievous

LOCKED
Feb 4th 2013 new

(Quote) Paul-866591 said: For someone who claims to be so intelligwent, you truly misread what I said. I did...
(Quote) Paul-866591 said:

For someone who claims to be so intelligwent, you truly misread what I said.

I did say that the Muslim's consider the Koran to be a holy book. But if you accept the teachings of the Old and New Testaments, it is not holy. A truly holy book would not teach heresy. Muslim also believe he is one of God's prophets.

Mohammad is no more one of God's prophets than you are.

The fact that the Vatican library has one or a thousand copies of the Koran does not endow it with any "holiness." The Vatican Library also has many copies of pornographic works as well as many other condemned writings. Does that mean they are all "holy? Get real!

Your last paragraph is, unintelligible and a clear example of a non sequitur that has nothing to do with the subject under discussion or anything else..

--hide--

And you know this how? Dont know about you but I wouldnt recognise a Prophet if he hit me his 1968 VW Combi van. Christ did say that we should treat all people well and respectfully as you never know when He will call on your support.

The Vatican hasnt any pornography. It may have books that were at a specific time thought to be pornograghic, but it does not keep pornography, as it destroys the soul and character of Man. It doesnt make then Holy but it makes them unique in the History of Man. Yes some monks in early books did place in books dipictions of satire and some may claim pornographic images within the illustrations of the books.

And I never said that being held in the Secret Archives equals holiness. See my defition. YOU may not think the Koran is Holy but others do, and Mohammed was a prophet as he spoke the words and thoughts of God, doesnt make him a Christian Prophet true but it still makes him a Prophet

LOCKED
Feb 4th 2013 new

(Quote) Mike-41230 said: John the problem is the ecumenicism of the Second Vatican Council. I agree, it is completely nuts. I didn&...
(Quote) Mike-41230 said: John the problem is the ecumenicism of the Second Vatican Council. I agree, it is completely nuts. I didn't realize that Pope John Paul II said the Jews didn't need Jesus for salvation. But I wouldn't doubt it because I have read a document by Cardinal Walter Kasper the President Emeritus of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity that said the Jews may not need Jesus for justification. And since 2010 the new President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, Cardinal Kurt Koch is saying the same. The Commission of the Holy See for Religious Relations with the Jews is the responsibility of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity. The Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity origins are associated with the Second Vatican Council. Pope John XXIII wanted the Catholic Church to engage in the contemporary ecumenical movement. He established a "Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity" on 5 June 1960 as one of the preparatory commissions for the Council, and appointed Augustin Cardinal Bea as its first president.

I have also read a document by Cardinal Walter Kasper that said the Protestants are part of the Catholic Church whether they realize it or not. Well I know for a fact that many Protestant denominations still do not want to be part of the Catholic Church and are still spewing the same anti-Catholic venom they have been for the last 500 years. This all flies in the face of all those martyrs of the Protestant Reformation. All those good priests that were hung, drawn and quartered just for saying the Holy Mass.

Ecumenicism is just crazy. When Bernard posted The Oath Against Modernism by His Holiness Pope St. Pius X this sentence from his Papal Encyclical jumped out at me to clearly describe ecumenicism, "Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical' misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously." Everyone should read this Papal Encyclical. It's not hard to understand.
www.papalencyclicals.net

Vatican officials have said that the Second Vatican Council was not a dogmatic council and that it did not change any dogma of the Church. But if you read the above it is like a play on words. That one sentence from The Oath Against Moderdism comes to mind.

Pope Benedict lifted the excommunication of the four SSPX bishops that Archbishop Lefebvre ordained. The talks between the Vatican and the SSPX are ongoing about the Society being regulated. The last I heard is that the Vatican is forcing the SSPX to accept the teachings of the Second Vatican Council before the Society is regulated. But how can the SSPX accept the teachings of the Second Vatican Council when it flies in the face of Catholic Tradition. They are stuck between a rock and a hard place. Personally I think the Vatican is putting the Jews before a Society of Catholics that are loyal to Traditional Catholic teachings.

That all said John we can not give up hope. We still have to believe that the Holy Ghost is still guiding the Catholic Church. I know it's difficult, but that's what we have to do. And pray a lot.
--hide--

Is taking the position of a Sedevacantist really such a bad thing, even after Pope John Paul II claimed that the Jews didn't need Jesus for salvation? Isn't our faith centered around him? Pope Benedict went a step further into the heretical sphere by stating that our religion is an inheritance from the Jews rolling eyes

www.catholicnews.com

LOCKED
Feb 4th 2013 new

(Quote) Chelsea-743484 said: "Whoever does not embrace the Catholic Christian religion will be damned, as was your fals...
(Quote) Chelsea-743484 said:

"Whoever does not embrace the Catholic Christian religion will be damned, as was your false prophet Mohammed." -- St. Peter Mavimenus

These are the reported dying words of the saint. That sounds rather unlike what a saint would profess before his death, and be raised to the honor of the altar in the Catholic Church if said Church holds Mohammed as a true prophet.

St. Alphonsus de Liguori (in his Victories of the Martyrs, ch. LIII) recounts the confession to the muslims of St. George of San Saba: "But the holy monk (St. George of San Saba) having declared that Mahomet was a disciple of the devil, and that his followers were in a state of perdition, he also was condemned (to martyrdom) with his companions."

That hardly sounds like a true prophet of God...

--hide--

Since they both preached supporting the Crusades and the evils of both Moslems and Jews and that they needed to be wipped from the earth sounds more like National Socialism than Catholic Catechism. I would recommend you read the Doctors of the Church

LOCKED
Feb 4th 2013 new

(Quote) Patrick-624504 said: Thomas the killing of anybody is wrong, except by the state as sanctioned by law, ie e...
(Quote) Patrick-624504 said:

Thomas the killing of anybody is wrong, except by the state as sanctioned by law, ie execution by lawful judgement. There is NOWHERE in the Koran that orders the killing of Infidels, try reading it first, I suggest you get a copy from Project Guttenburg where you can a translation from the 18th or 19th century which is more accurate and less properganda of the God Botherers. Just as there is NOWHERE in the New Testament proclaimining the murder of Jews and Moslems, but it never stopped the Crusades, the Russian Pograms, or the persecution of non Christians by the Church these were the product of Man not God. So give me a break and know your stuff first. Keep an open mind as thats the way information enters and ideas are formed.I never said anything in my previous post about internicean murder and you know it.Thou shalt not kill may be a Commandment you have heard of.

And by definition the Koran and the Telmet are Holy Books and Mohammed was a Prophet. I never said anywhere that you had to treat it like the Bible, but you do have to treat Mohammed with the same respect as we show the Prophets of the Old Testament.

Respect and tollerance are common Human Virtues that bring peace and stability, and stave off the Evil One

--hide--
First off you just like saying things that are not true and back them up with more of the same. Jesus said there would be no prophets until I come again.... Also I have read and also watch some great shows on the koran on EWTN and what you say is wrong. I know it is holy to muslims but not Catholics or we would be calling Jesus a lire who is God. That is if you believe in the Catholic faith as the real faith from God become man and lived among us.

Now if you don't believe this then you might think the koran is a holy book. Last I know is that the bible is the one and only Holy word of God as a Catholic. As for the crusades they were to protect the Holy land and a lot of that land was in the middle east and the Turks and the Ottoman empire kept and finally did take almost all of it away.
The Jews got a little back only to this day. Why do you think there is a little batch of Catholics in almost all the countries in the middle east,They were there from the beginning when the Apostles were sent out by Christ. As a Catholic this is what I know and believe, because this is what my faith has taught me in all it's beauty.

LOCKED
Feb 4th 2013 new

(Quote) Paul-866591 said: What proof exists that any recent Pope (within the last 100 years) has collaborated with ...
(Quote) Paul-866591 said:

What proof exists that any recent Pope (within the last 100 years) has collaborated with the enemies of our Church? Name the Pope(s) and show proof to back up your statement. Your mere statement is meaningless.

Despite the term "pedophile" being used by the media and money grubbing lawyers to overly incite people about the scandal, no crime was ever shown to have been committed against small children to which the term should be properly applied. Virtually all whom have been proven to have been abused were in the teens. A study, referred to by Jerry the Moderator in another thread, showed that the basic problem was one of homosexuality, although there were some teen age females who were also abused. That makes the crime no less serious.

--hide--

Homosexuality had nothing to do with it Peadophilles are wired wrong and can be hetro, Bi or Homo-sexual. They can be male or female. The term peadophile does mean a sexual attraction to prepubesent children, a better term may be for the PC Peaderest meaning those who have sexual desire for minors. The definition of a minor varies from country to country, according to law LEGAL AGE OF CONSENT (ageofconsent.com) Age du ...www.ageofconsent.com/ageofconsent.htm.

In my country the age of consent is 16, in France I believe its 15, in most States of the US its 16 (in southern state is was 13, as in Spain, now changed) and in the majority of countries 18 is the age of consent for commercialised sexual relation. In the Middle East there is no age of consent for Homosexual relationships, in fact in most African and Middle Eastern countries it still carries a death sentence.

The Child abuse scandle was more the result of poor screening, incompetent administration and scared old men out of touch with the modern world and the grassroots opinion of the Church and society

For a more accurate definition of Peadophillia I refer you DSM 4, the Diagnotical and Statisical Manual 4th Edition, but the definition has been broadend in the new 5th Edition. DSM is the Mental Health bible

LOCKED
Posts 181 - 190 of 200