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

info: Please Sign Up or Sign In to continue.

A place to learn, mingle, and share

This room is for discussion for anyone who adheres to the Extraordinary form of the mass and any issues related to the practices of Eastern Rite Catholicism.

Saint Athanasius is counted as one of the four Great Doctors of the Church.
Learn More:Saint Athanasius

02/12/2013 new

(Quote) Marian-83994 said: ... I fear who could follow him. ...
(Quote) Marian-83994 said:

... I fear who could follow him. ...

--hide--

If whoever follows him "follows him", we'll be okay.

Actually we'll be fine no matter what happens

because God is with us.

LOCKED
02/12/2013 new

(Quote) Paul-866591 said: Christ came with a specific mission which He fulfilled. But to directly answer your questio...
(Quote) Paul-866591 said:

Christ came with a specific mission which He fulfilled.

But to directly answer your question, yes He would. Attending a service in itself is not wrong by any rational definition. If your best friend's mother died and they were Protestants, and your friend asked that you offer a prayer at the service, would you refuse to go to the services in his church and refuse to offer the requested prayer?

Yes I would refuse. I refused to attend my cousins secular wedding as it is not in conformity with Church teaching, ie Truth. This is what was always taught by Holy Mother Church and that which has been corrupted and twisted by men who have been influenced by modernism and liberalism. I will give up my entire family for Gods Truth and that is not at all displeasing to God as you would so insinuate, as I would be putting Him above all.

If you answered yes you would refuse, you wouild lose your best firend and call down upon yourself the displeausre of the Almighty.

If you had not noticed that Christ attended Services in both synagogues as well as the temple being led by less than honorable men even heretical in terms of HIS Jewish faith. Did He sin by doing so? Of course not.

Kissing the Koran was not a sign of approval of it or its teachings. It was a sign of respect to the people who honestly believe in what it teaches. Do you reject from your life anyone who is not firmly traditional, as you understand that to mean, Catholics? If you do, you are not living the Gospels message. Kissing the Koran was not an attempt to reconcile it. It was an attempt to reconcile the people of the Koran to God.

Heretical teaching/theology ect do not deseve any respect as they are a disgrace and abomination of the Truth. Giving respect to a book the contains such lies is in a way giving approval. Why would you respect something untrue? If it is out of human respect than you are doing it to gain favor for the world and not the Almighty. This is a moot point in regards to the koran as it is questionable if it was or was not. Why would a bunch of theologians banned by one pope be welcomed back in and encouraged to contribute to the Church? Did those who thought error have a conversion?

I don't how or where you acquired your understanding of the Gospels message. I would just point out that, based on your stance, your beliefs border on the beliefs, of the SSPX schismatics.

By reading the Gospel, reading old encyclicals, and listening to Fr. Ripperger amoung others. The priest at my parish, FSSP, just last Sunday gave a wonderful homily on needing to correct error and live fully the teachings of the Church.

The Church is of God, but it exits in time here on earth and its members from the lowliest to the Pope are flawed human beings. The Church must operate in the world. As such it must find a way to operate effectively in that world so that it can carry out its mission of leading all to Christ. That cannot be done by antagonizing everyone outside of the Church. The Church cannot and has not compromised any of its teachings in its attempt to accommodate itself to live in the modern world in a manner that allows it to fulfill its mission.

It indeed must operate in the world but not OF the world. I would beg to differ that many areas of the Church have been compromised to accommodate "modern man". Look at how watered down sermons have become. How many priests vigourusly preach against all forms of contraception or any of a plethora of the great sins of man? One of the works of mercy, if I recall correctly, is to admonish the sinner, so yes the Church is called to be antagonistic in a sense. It should be done with charity, but the Truth is inherently antagonistic to the sinner, because you are telling them they are doing wrong!

--hide--


Answers in bold above.

LOCKED
02/12/2013 new

(Quote) John-324285 said: So the koran thing could or could not be, I'm fine giving the benefit of the doubt the...
(Quote) John-324285 said:



So the koran thing could or could not be, I'm fine giving the benefit of the doubt there. You don't address the other issues of ecumenical services ect that several popes have participated in. I am asking if Christ would ever have done such given He alone is to be given praise and worship?

Yes how dare I call into question the acts of a man, just as you and I. One with the stain of original sin. One who is supposed to provide the pinnacle example of the Truth entrusted to us by Jesus. There could never be popes who held or personally taught heresy in the Church, or other bishops ect cause the Holy Ghost would not allow that right?

padrepioandchiesaviva.com read the first part of chapter 6 or better yet the whole book. This is what we must fight, and it is entrenched in the minds of not only the secular, but within the very Bride of Christ.

--hide--

Name one Pope, even among the worst of them who were despicable men who professed or taught heresy!

LOCKED
02/12/2013 new

(Quote) John-324285 said: Answers in bold above.
(Quote) John-324285 said:



Answers in bold above.

--hide--

Above where?

You keep repeating the same thing which are nothing more than your own interpretation of what has been written by others or your own interpretation of what one Popes, in you own words, since John XXIII, have done. You interpret them to be heretical in nature. Yet you have demonstrated no ability to distinguish between heresy from Dr. Seuss.

LOCKED
02/12/2013 new

(Quote) John-324285 said: So the koran thing could or could not be, I'm fine giving the benefit of the doubt the...
(Quote) John-324285 said:



So the koran thing could or could not be, I'm fine giving the benefit of the doubt there. You don't address the other issues of ecumenical services ect that several popes have participated in. I am asking if Christ would ever have done such given He alone is to be given praise and worship?

Yes how dare I call into question the acts of a man, just as you and I. One with the stain of original sin. One who is supposed to provide the pinnacle example of the Truth entrusted to us by Jesus. There could never be popes who held or personally taught heresy in the Church, or other bishops ect cause the Holy Ghost would not allow that right?

padrepioandchiesaviva.com read the first part of chapter 6 or better yet the whole book. This is what we must fight, and it is entrenched in the minds of not only the secular, but within the very Bride of Christ.

--hide--


if the popes are doing this, who are we to second guess them? i think much of the cumenical things that are being done have been misinterpreted and even deliberately twisted by the traditionalists on the fringes. no good can come of that. anything that keeps you away from the church is NOT the work of God. i'd look elsewhere to see whose work it is to keep people away from the church and mistrustful of its leaders. that is a very bad mindset to have.

LOCKED
02/12/2013 new

"Jesus said that you would know his people (not by how much they go to church, quote scriptures and pray)… but by how they “Love” one another… and that especially applies to how we treat, respond to and love those who are not Christians… How will they ever know of the Love of God if we can not even love one another??? Or express the Love of God to those who do not look, act or sound like us… When we begin to allow Jesus to use our mouth.. hands… and feet to extend his “Love” to a hurting and dying world… then and only then… will we will truly become the Church of Jesus Christ that God can use to bring his Kingdom here on earth…"


Jesus challenged the Jewish purity system by being close friends with the impure (“sinner”) and even going as far to say that an impure person (like a Samaritan) can be a closer imitation of God’s central quality (compassion) than even the Pharisees, the purest (and therefore most righteous) people in the land. Luke 10:29-37


"Do people see Jesus in us, or do they see religion, rules, and the things that stand between people and God? Jesus came to reconcile men to God. Do we? Jesus tore down the barriers between people and God? Do we? Or, do we, by our own separation from the world into “holy clubs” testify to a god that is aloof, distant, ethereal?"


Let us be channels of peace and God's love that we may be able to let God's graces flow into the hearts of non-Christians. Dove

LOCKED
02/12/2013 new

I'd like to see Cardinal Ranjith as the next pope.

LOCKED
02/12/2013 new
I'd love to see Mar Cleemis of the Syro-Malankara Catholic Church as the next Pope. It might be interesting to have a non-Latin as Pope.

www.google.com
LOCKED
02/12/2013 new
(Quote) Paul-866591 said: Name one Pope, even among the worst of them who were despicable men who professed or taught here...
(Quote) Paul-866591 said:



Name one Pope, even among the worst of them who were despicable men who professed or taught heresy!

--hide--


Pope Honorius I

Excursus on the Condemnation of Pope Honorius.

To this decree attaches not only the necessary importance and interest which belongs to any ecumenical decision upon a disputed doctrinal question with regard to the incarnation of the Son of God, but an altogether accidental interest, arising from the fact that by this decree a Pope of Rome is stricken with anathema in the person of Honorius. I need hardly remind the reader how many interesting and difficult questions in theology such an action on the part of an Ecumenical Council raises, and how all important, not to say vital, to such as accept the ruling of the recent Vatican Council, it is that some explanation of this fact should be arrived at which will be satisfactory. It would be highly improper for me in these pages to discuss the matter theologically. Volumes on each side have been written on this subject, and to these I must refer the reader, but in doing so I hope I may be pardoned if I add a word of counselto read both sides. If ones knowledge is derived only from modern Eastern, Anglican or Protestant writers, such as Janus and the Council, the Pre Gratrys Letters, or Littledales controversial books against Rome, one is apt to be as much one-sided as if he took his information from Cardinal Baronius, Cardinal Bellarmine, Rohrbachers History, or from the recent work on the subject by Pennacchi.335 Perhaps the average reader will hardly find a more satisfactory treatment than that by Bossuet in the Defensio. (Liber VII., cap. xxi., etc.)

It will be sufficient for the purposes of this volume to state that Roman Catholic Curialist writers are not at one as to how the matter is to be treated. Pennacchi, in his work referred to above, is of opinion that Honoriuss letters were strictly speaking Papal decrees, set forth auctoritate apostolica, and therefore irreformable, but he declares, contrary to the opinion of almost all theologians and to the decree of this Council, that they are orthodox, and that the Council erred in condemning them; as he expresses it, the decree rests upon an error in facto dogmatico. To save an Ecumenical Synod from error, he thinks the synod ceased to be ecumenical before it took this action, and was at that time only a synod of a number of Orientals! Cardinal Baronius has another way out of the difficulty. He says that the name of Honorius was forged and put in the decree by an erasure in the place of the name of Theodore, the quondam Patriarch, who soon after the Council got himself restored to the Patriarchal position. Baronius moreover holds that Honoriuss letters have been corrupted, that the Acts of the Council have been corrupted, and, in short, that everything which declares or proves that Honorius was a heretic or was condemned by an Ecumenical Council as such, is untrustworthy and false. The groundlessness, not to say absurdity, of Baroniuss view has been often exposed by those of his own communion, a brief but sufficient summary of the refutation will be found in Hefele, who while taking a very halting and unsatisfactory position himself, yet is perfectly clear that Baroniuss contention is utterly indefensible.336

Most Roman controversialists of recent years have admitted both the fact of Pope Honoriuss condemnation (which Baronius denies), and the monothelite (and therefore heretical) character of his epistles, but they are of opinion that these letters were not his ex cathedr utterances as Doctor Universalis, but mere expressions of the private opinion of the Pontiff as a theologian. With this matter we have no concern in this connexion.

I shall therefore say nothing further on this point but shall simply supply the leading proofs that Honorius was as a matter of fact condemned by the Sixth Ecumenical Council.

1. His condemnation is found in the Acts in the xiiith Session, near the beginning.

2. His two letters were ordered to be burned at the same session.

352

3. In the xvith Session the bishops exclaimed Anathema to the heretic Sergius, to the heretic Cyrus, to the heretic Honorius, etc.

4. In the decree of faith published at the xviijth Session it is stated that the originator of all evilfound a fit tool for his will inHonorius, Pope of Old Rome, etc.

5. The report of the Council to the Emperor says that Honorius, formerly bishop of Rome they had punished with exclusion and anathema because he followed the monothelites.

6. In its letter to Pope Agatho the Council says it has slain with anathema Honorius.

7. The imperial decree speaks of the unholy priests who infected the Church and falsely governed and mentions among them Honorius, the Pope of Old Rome, the confirmer of heresy who contradicted himself. The Emperor goes on to anathematize Honorius who was Pope of Old Rome, who in everything agreed with them, went with them, and strengthened the heresy.

8. Pope Leo II. confirmed the decrees of the Council and expressly says that he too anathematized Honorius.337

9. That Honorius was anathematized by the Sixth Council is mentioned in the Trullan Canons (No. j.).

10. So too the Seventh Council declares its adhesion to the anathema in its decree of faith, and in several places in the acts the same is said.

11. Honoriuss name was found in the Roman copy of the Acts. This is evident from Anastasiuss life of Leo II. (Vita Leonis II.)

12. The Papal Oath as found in the Liber Diurnus338 taken by each new Pope from the fifth to the eleventh century, in the form probably prescribed by Gregory II., smites with eternal anathema the originators of the new heresy, Sergius, etc., together with Honorius, because he assisted the base assertion of the heretics.

13. In the lesson for the feast of St. Leo II. in the Roman Breviary the name of Pope Honorius occurs among those excommunicated by the Sixth Synod. Upon this we may well hear Bossuet: They suppress as far as they can, the Liber Diurnus: they have erased this from the Roman Breviary. Have they therefore hidden it? Truth breaks out from all sides, and these things become so much the more evident, as they are the more studiously put out of sight.339

With such an array of proof no conservative historian, it would seem, can question the fact that Honorius, the Pope of Rome, was condemned and anathematized as a heretic by the Sixth Ecumenical Council.
LOCKED
02/12/2013 new

(Quote) Paul-866591 said: Name one Pope, even among the worst of them who were despicable men who professed or taug...
(Quote) Paul-866591 said:

Name one Pope, even among the worst of them who were despicable men who professed or taught heresy!

--hide--


Heronius I

"Furthermore, the Acts of the Thirteenth Session of the Council state, "And with these we define that there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to [Patriarch] Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines." The Sixteenth Session adds: "To Theodore of Pharan, the heretic, anathema! To Sergius, the heretic, anathema! To Cyrus, the heretic, anathema! To Honorius, the heretic, anathema! To Pyrrhus, the heretic, anathema!"

While he never spoke or taught the heresy "ex cathedra", as that would be the gates of hell prevailing, he was a believer in it and his writings and actions permited it to continue.

LOCKED
Posts 61 - 70 of 200