THE LEVEL OF DARKNESS RISING ON THE CATHOLIC FORUMgreenspun.com : LUSENET : Ask Jesus : One Thread |
I usually don't do this, but feel like comenting...
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 22, 2005
http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00CnVQ
WHAT exaclty does any of this have to do with Olde english Bibels before Wycliffe?
So far I have been called Protestnat, and when I correct the psoter, he mockes me and continues to clal em this, dispite knwogn it is offensive, for the sole utpose of offending me.
Liekwise, he has NOT offered me any informaiton on Olde english Bibles, just other insults.
The same poster calls me an idiot on another thread, and mocks and denegrates me, wiht impunuty.
I called aul M on this, and he does nothing, for two days running.
Now Frank and "ed" have joined in the frey, so now I have to defend Mormon beleifs which Vrnak only barley knows form anti-Mormn sites ( and ues poor temrs such as " God the Father is form another Universe", which he is not, hes form out Universe, does Frank even knwo he efinition fo the term " Universe"?)
All te while beign forced to acet that Im protestant and the Cahtolcis are right.
Is insultugn and degradign pepel a way to win converts? Is not listeign to what they beleive and getitng things form their angle gougn to win converts?
Are these pepel rellay after correctign my erorrs? or after ego stroking?
Seems liek they just need a target to bully.
Byt what makes me iunfuriate is not their arogant and self-centred behaviour, btu Paul M's refusal to act!
Of coruse, he may simpley be away, but I do think he needs to act more swuftly, as the thole thread is now useless to its origional topic.
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 22, 2005.
Hi Zarove, I rarely post over there, except during the Blue Moon phases. I don't want to stir things up or get myself publicly embarrassed, this forum can take care of that. Anyway, "Protestant preacher boy" kind of tells it all. Ed won't answer to my posts when things get hot. So, I left them alone. If you wish to keep your sanity and dignity, walk softly and carry a big stick............
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 22, 2005.
If that is Ed who used to be a moderator, that is...........
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 22, 2005.
Give it a rest Zarove. Here's my response to you on the complaint thread you started on the Catholic forum:No one hates you Zarove. But when you post things that are untrue or foolish, they will be refuted. I think your real problem in posting is that you try so hard not to offend anyone's sensibilities or say anyting that you end up saying, well, nothing. Religion is the search for Truth, and saying nothing is the opposite of that. Therefore, you shouldn't be too surprised that people constantly disagree with you if you insist that black means the same thing as white if one were just to think about it long enough. The truth is that there's a REASON for calling black black and white white regardless of how similar they would appear if we were viewing them at the atomic level. What you need to do is try and understand that people say the things they do for a REASON, try looking through the eyes of your viewer, and seeing things on THEIR terms rather than trying to force them to see through yours.
Try being more understanding of people who really believe that the OBJECTIVE Truth is important, and not just something that is malleable to one's own interests.
Frank
No one hates you Zarove. But when you post things that are untrue or foolish, they will be refuted. I think your real problem in posting is that you try so hard not to offend anyone's sensibilities or say anyting that you end up saying, well, nothing. Religion is the search for Truth, and saying nothing is the opposite of that. Therefore, you shouldn't be too surprised that people constantly disagree with you if you insist that black means the same thing as white if one were just to think about it long enough. The truth is that there's a REASON for calling black black and white white regardless of how similar they would appear if we were viewing them at the atomic level. What you need to do is try and understand that people say the things they do for a REASON, try looking through the eyes of your viewer, and seeing things on THEIR terms rather than trying to force them to see through yours.
Try being more understanding of people who really believe that the OBJECTIVE Truth is important, and not just something that is malleable to one's own interests.
Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 22, 2005.
Consideign that I go to great paisn to ee things fom ohers veiw, this is hypocacy.I posted no innacuracies. Chruch of Chrit sint Protestant, and sayng it is is seen as offensive. So, by insisting that the Churhc of Chirst is Protestnat and mokcgn thise who say otherwise, you are guilty of not seeing things from anothers perspective, not I. Same withte Mormins. Youcall them a Cult. do you relaise hat the Catholci Chruhc is called a cult or the same reasosn?
Shat I say hs substance, and I reject rleitavism and malliable truth, what I do nto, hwoeve,r accept is that its either Cahtolci or Protestant id yor Christain, nor do I disregard the facts to force my views on others.
Indeed, my veiws shodktn have become an issue since the hread wasnot even about my veiws, but Bubloe tranlaitons.
It became abotu my eiws when the assults on my chareter began.
You, and the others, refuse to see things form anothers perspective, and blast me for the same. This is standard for a Bully, and exaclty why no one will listen to you.
we shall wait for Paul M to end this issue.
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 22, 2005.
So, by insisting that the Churhc of Chirst is Protestnat and mokcgn thise who say otherwise, you are guilty of not seeing things from anothers perspective, not I. Same withte Mormins. Youcall them a CultSince I've been posting to that thread, I can tell you that I never said either of those things. Once again you are lying. That's another reason people get upset with you.
You, and the others, refuse to see things form anothers perspective, and blast me for the same. This is standard for a Bully
Why are you calling names again? I've met a few bullies, and never have I heard them whine about people not seeing things from their perspective. YOU are a bully in that you insist people accept your definitions on everything, by that logic.
Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 22, 2005.
Frank, be hioenst here. You went along with CP, and Ed, and the rest, engaging in eh tread for no reason.You even went out of you way on this baord ot use the same lien of lotic. The Hcurhc of CHirts is Protestant dispite its claims otherwise. remmeebr outr debatign it?
I am not lying, but what I am doign is pointign out that we ar eno logner discussing Bible Translations in he distant past, but discussing your personal disliek of the fact hat a Non-Catholic can post on the Cahtolci forum.
CP's only complaint agaisnt me thats vlaid is that I am nto Cahtolic, and why shoidl I be if this is what the Cahtolci Chruch has to offer?
Insult, narrow midnedness, offnesiveness.
Again, Frank, you profit nothign form this excersise, so why not give it a rest and stop blamign me for this, your jist a pack anumal now, followign the rest of the pakc on their target, which happens to be me.
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 22, 2005.
Frank, be hioenst here. You went along with CP, and Ed, and the rest, engaging in eh tread for no reasonNope, that's another lie. Look at the thread again, I posted after only you and CP, so everyone else must have gone along with me, you, and cp.
You even went out of you way on this baord ot use the same lien of lotic. The Hcurhc of CHirts is Protestant dispite its claims otherwise. remmeebr outr debatign it?
This is another lie in that I didn't call you a Protestant AT ALL on the other thread, as far as I can remember, that's two lies so far in one post, you're on a roll Zarove.
but discussing your personal disliek of the fact hat a Non-Catholic can post on the Cahtolci forum.
This is your third lie. I actually really enjoy some of the non- Catholic posters such as David. I have no dislike of non-Catholics posting there, if there's anyone I dislike posting there it's the ex- catholic Lefebrist schismatics. If you paid attention to my posts you'd know this. Actually Non-Catholics teach me a great deal about my faith, as I must figure out why what they say is wrong. It is YOUR posts that I object to, because of the posts themselves, not because they are "non-Catholic".
CP's only complaint agaisnt me thats vlaid is that I am nto Cahtolic, and why shoidl I be if this is what the Cahtolci Chruch has to offer?
This is for CP and not me, I'm not answerable for his or your conduct.
Insult, narrow midnedness, offnesiveness
You've lied three times in this post alone so far, I find that very insulting and offensive. Maybe if you'd quit lying, people would respect your opinion more.
Again, Frank, you profit nothign form this excersise, so why not give it a rest and stop blamign me for this, your jist a pack anumal now, followign the rest of the pakc on their target, which happens to be me.
I do profit from it though, at least on the other thread, so this makes your fourth lie. I've already shown that I wasn't following the rest of the pack, unless you consider one person other than yourself to be a "pack", so this makes your fifth lie.
Quit LYING, Zarove, that is VERY un-Christian.
Frank
-- (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 22, 2005.
"I have no dislike of non-Catholics posting there, if there's anyone I dislike posting there it's the ex- catholic Lefebrist schismatics. "--Frank.That is a very important sentiment, Frank. Why should there be a distinction between non-Catholics and "ex-catholic Lefebrist schismatics"? Are you perhaps implying that one group has more Grace over the other? Non-Catholics having the upper-hand, perhaps?
I don't really understand the segregation going on there.
............
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 22, 2005.
Posted with spacing this time!ZAROVE -- I believe that these links (mainly the first 2) will provide you with the requested information.
http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/index.html
http://www.greatsite.com/ancient-rare-bibles-books/index.html
http://www.biblecollectors.org/bible_collections.htm
http://www.davidclachman.com/biblist/webbib2.htm
-- Michael G. (NoEmail@Nowhere.no), February 22, 2005.
Thanks Michael.As for frnak, again, you make prsonal disparagencies agsin me, but say nohtig of substance. Exaclty why is this more "Sekign truth" tan clarifyng terms?
why do you do everyoen a favour, and stop postign ot me, sicne all you seem willign to do is attack.
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 22, 2005.
Rod,It's actually a very easy distinction to make. With people who are non-Catholics, there is always a question of them being in a state of invincible ignorance, and perhaps through the grace of God they will be saved regardless of their beliefs. We don't know.
OTOH, with Catholics who have left the church, there isn't much question that they knew the Truth, and turned there back on it. Their chances for salvation are more problematic, IMO, and in the opinion of that eminent pre Vatican II Pope, Eugene, who states among other things that schismatics are going to Hell.
Zarove,
Yeah, yeah, once again you won't even admit you were lying, but keep trying to act like a victim. No one cares. Grow up.
Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 22, 2005.
I am not exacly acitn liek a victim, I merley pit out that you and the others ar beign jerks.And I cant acknoledge Iw as lying, sicne I wasnt lying. what wodl be the poin of lign whn I post links tot he thread I am suppsoldy lyng about?
Obviosuly, you arr merley usign he same tired tactic of ad himinim o discredit me, rathethan answer any cncenrs, so your viws wll be seen as omenent.
Such will nto stand here, lad, and soo you will see he full measur of force you generat will be met, as Newton prdicted, by an equek and oposite raciton, crushin your own hueris and fals accusatiosn under the wihgt of God's righeosuness.
why ought I admit that I lie, when I lie not, and the lie is merley you distorting what I said?
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 22, 2005.
Because by your definition of the word "lying" at least you ARE lying. And there is no need to threaten me with banning. You are acting like a bully, first trying to lie to get your way, now threatening me with expulsion. You are acting like a bad person now. Stop.Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 22, 2005.
1: YOu refer to the oen tiem I said yo wher perpetuating a lie. this is NOT my deifniion fo a lei you refer to, only your distortion.Again provign you don tak the tiem to get the facts, regardless of yor claim to udnertsndign me, you clealry do not.
2: Even if my deifnion of lie was anythign that wa sno ture, wich its not, the above has not been disprven, and your claim that it is false dosnt mak it so.
Now, again, Frank, sicne you distort and manipulate my apst words to fit your current ends, hwo does this relate well to you?
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 22, 2005.
I said yo wher perpetuating a lieNO you did not! You said I was LYING, not perpetuating a lie. You said that later. Then you said that in your vernacular you called making an error "lying". I don't know why I'm bothering, I'm sure you'll try changing your tune again, but there's one thing you are NOT doing, and that's telling the truth.
Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 22, 2005.
I have a reputaiton for Honesty. do you?
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 22, 2005.
Zarove;You are an intelligent and sensitive guy. I am also, although it may not appear so.
The neo-cons over there (including Mr. Ha Ha), have had nothing of substance to say, because there is nothing of substance that they can defend.
they are trying to swim in quicksand and going down with their new understandings of everything.
If schooks and churches close by the hundreds Well that was the way before V2.
If their clergy is dwindling? That wss before V2.
Everything out of the mouth of the popes is binding, but everything before V2 was discipline.
You can't argue with that. If you want to contribute over there, do it without expecting a rational answer. Then maybe you can survive.
-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), February 22, 2005.
The Teaching of the Catholic Church on Heresy
To understand why John Paul II cannot be the Pope, one must understand heresy and apostasy. Heresy is the obstinate denial or doubt by a baptized person of an article of divine and Catholic Faith. In other words, a baptized person who deliberately denies an authoritative teaching of the Catholic Church is a heretic. Pope Leo XIII proclaims this teaching in his encyclical Satis Cognitum.
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896:
“The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium.”(1)
Apostasy, on the other hand, is not merely the denial or doubt of one or more teachings of the Catholic Church, but a complete rejection of the Christian Faith altogether. In this video we will show that John Paul II is both a heretic and an apostate.
As the teaching of Pope Leo XIII shows, a heretic is outside Catholic communion and alien to the Church. The same therefore goes for apostates, since all apostates are also heretics. The fact that a heretic is outside the Catholic Church is a defined dogma affirmed by many Popes. A heretic cannot be inside the Catholic Church, because by denying the faith he is automatically expelled from Her.
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics …”(2)
We see here that Pope Eugene IV defined infallibly that all heretics are outside the Catholic Church.
Pope Innocent III, Eius exemplo, Dec. 18, 1208:
“By the heart we believe and by the mouth we confess the one Church, not of heretics, but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church outside of which we believe that no one is saved.”(3)
We see in this solemn profession of faith of Pope Innocent III that the one true Church of Christ cannot include heretics.
In fact, so foreign are heretics to the Catholic Church that the Catholic Church has actually defined that heretics are the gates of hell.
Pope Vigilius, Second Council of Constantinople, 553:
“… we bear in mind what was promised about the holy Church and Him who said the gates of hell will not prevail against it (by these we understand the death-dealing tongues of heretics)…”(4)
Pope St. Leo IX, Sept. 2, 1053:
“The holy Church built upon a rock, that is Christ, and upon Peter… because by the gates of Hell, that is, by the disputations of heretics which lead the vain to destruction, it would never be overcome.”(5)
Thus, it is infallible Catholic truth that a heretic cannot be a member of the Catholic Church. Many other authorities could be brought forward to further prove this point, but we will simply quote Pope Leo XIII again, who summarizes this dogmatic teaching of the Church quite well.
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9):
“No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to a single one of these he is not a Catholic.”(6)
And because a heretic cannot be a Catholic or a member of the Catholic Church, it is a fact that a heretic cannot be a Pope, because a Pope is the head of the Catholic Church.
Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Sess. IV, Chap. 3: “… the Pontiff of Rome himself is the successor of the blessed Peter, the chief of the apostles, and is the true vicar of Christ and head of the whole Church…”(7)
The Pope is the head of the whole Catholic Church. And we already saw that heretics cannot be members of the Catholic Church. Therefore, it is infallible that a heretic cannot be a Pope, because a heretic cannot be the head of that which he is not a member. This is why the Saints and Doctors of the Church consistently teach that if a Pope were to become a manifest heretic he would immediately lose the office of Pope.
-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), February 24, 2005.
"It's actually a very easy distinction to make. With people who are non-Catholics, there is always a question of them being in a state of invincible ignorance, and perhaps through the grace of God they will be saved regardless of their beliefs. We don't know."We do know.
From the Council of Trent, a portion of the Decree Concerning Original Sin:
"That our Catholic faith, without which it is impossible to please God, may, after the destruction of errors, remain integral and spotless in its purity, and that the Christian people may not be carried about with every wind of doctrine, since that old serpent, the everlasting enemy of the human race, has, among the many evils with which the Church of God is in our times disturbed, stirred up also not only new but also old dissensions concerning original sin and its remedy, the holy, ecumenical and general Council of Trent, lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the same three legates of the Apostolic See presiding, wishing now to reclaim the erring and to strengthen the wavering, and following the testimonies of the Holy Scriptures, of the holy Fathers, of the most approved councils, as well as the judgment and unanimity of the Church herself, ordains, confesses and declares these things concerning original sin:"
Without the Catholic Faith, it is impossible to please God.
There you have it from Holy Mother Church. For extra bonus points, it's packaged within the context of the addressing the reality of Original Sin and the remedies thereof.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 27, 2005.
According to the Church of Emerald, but thankfully, no one else's. By your definition then the Jews of the Old Testament are all in Hell because the Catholic church wasn't around yet, right? Let's hear the "well..."Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 28, 2005.
"By your definition then the Jews of the Old Testament are all in Hell because the Catholic church wasn't around yet, right?"No, of course not. But you knew that; the Scriptures point to and the Church have always taught of The Limbo of the Fathers, also known as Abraham's Bosom.
I'm a Catholic. Which Church do you belong to? I thought it was the Catholic Church.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 28, 2005.
Emerald; You write so beautifully, but it is like throwing pearls before swine. The Novus Ordo folks are passionate in their beliefs, but they swallow heresy hook line and sinker.It is like banging your head against the wall to get through to them. Banging your head may have it's benefits. It feels so good when you stop.
-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), February 28, 2005.
Emerald,That answer is insufficient. Your happily quoted statement was:
Without the Catholic Faith, it is impossible to please God
There is NO exception I see in your passage regarding anyone else, not even the Jews of the OT. Therefore, according to your passage, they must be in Hell. If OTOH, you are now ADMITTING that this passage is not the *complete* Truth of the church (in that it does NOT apply to every situation), then you must ALSO admit that it leaves plenty of room for invincible ignorance. Just stick with the church's interpretation Emerald, it's easier and more correct than trying to make your own.
Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 28, 2005.
Whom do we trust, Pope Pius XII who carefully guarded the traditional sacramental form handed down from ages past, or Paul VI? Consider that it was Paul VI, who, on the flimsiest of pretexts, changed the essential form of a Sacrament, thus rendering it invalid. The result is that we are left with a whole generation of pseudo-bishops attempting to govern the Church without the grace of office. A miter and a bishop's ring do not a bishop make. And the Kingdom is brought to desolation (Luke 11:17).But even among traditionalists many refuse to consider the possibility of invalid sacramental rites. It's more convenient to think that if the pope says so it's got to be OK. But Paul VI told us the Novus Ordo Mass was OK, and look where that has brought us. The day must come when all awaken to the fact that the Church has been brought low by an apostasy more monstrous than we have been willing to admit. Only then will the true bishops emerge, a true pope will restore the hierarchy, and the Church will rise more glorious than ever. "And all mankind shall see the salvation of God" (Luke 3:6).
-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), February 28, 2005.
Here is an article that probably would not see the light at Catholic.Liturgical Dancer" Swoons at New Phase Mess Performed at Los Angeles Religious Conference Picketed by Novus Ordinarians Who Want to Dump "World's Most Scandalous Cardinal" TRADITIO reported previously that the Novus Ordinarians in the Los Angeles archdiocese were finally fed up with the unCatholic antics of "Mad" Mahony. The Concerned Roman Catholics of America have urged "all Catholics to stop giving money to the world's most scandalous cardinal" and launched a "collection basket strike" aimed at pressuring Mahony out of office. The group took their campaign to the streets by picketing Mahony's huge Religious Education Congress, which they call "the world's largest dissent-fest," featuring speakers who openly advocate abortion, sodomy, homosexual 'marriage,' fornication, ordaining priestesses and homosexuals, occult 'New Age' practices, 'dismantling' the Church, etc.
Now that the 37th Annual Los Angeles Religious Conference is history, you can inform your Novus Ordo acquaintances where the next phase of the New Mess is going. Nor should you think that this phase is going to be restricted to loony Los Angeles, since the announcement came from the mouth of the Chairman of the U.S. [Newchurch] Bishops Committee on the [Novus Ordo] Liturgy, Donald Trautman. The overall principle he proclaimed is: liturgy is "the primary form for catechizing God's people." In other words, more and more bizarre forms of the Novus Ordo service with be "approved" to indoctrinate Novus Ordinarians into the New Religion.
First of all, these Novus Ordo liturgical fabricators, who are the direct descendants of Freemason Hannibal Bugnini, who virtually destroyed the Roman liturgy, is turning its backs on the middle-aged and senior. It realizes that the New Religion is never going to take hold completely with them. So, these liturgiacs are going to focus on "young people." You have already read here about the shocking things that go on at "Life Teen" Messes and "World Youth" Messes.
Trautman's message was this. "He cautioned that many young people today find liturgy inaccessible, because of celebrations that are boring, lackadaisical, and barely relevant to their lives. Good liturgy -- 'living liturgy' -- strengthens faith." You don't have to understand Modernist-speak too fluently to read what this means: rock music, dancing on the altar, and rave. Note also that Trautman makes it clear that more and more of these "liturgies" are going to be invented: "living liturgy." One thinks of the ex-presbyter Matthew Fox's "Rave" Messes in the basement of the cathedral, in which dope was a "living" component.
More and more, we see the wisdom of Holy Mother Church, as enshrined in the dogmatic Council of Trent. The Fathers of the Council understood full well the danger to the True Faith presented by the Protestants, who were championing a new "liturgy" in the vulgar tongues and with non-Apostolic forms. Therefore, that council anathemized anyone who should say that the Roman Catholic Mass should be celebrated in vernacular tongues.
Tolle Missam, tolle Ecclesiam. The Novus Ordo destroyed the True Mass, and they have destroyed their Church. Thank God, there are those who never gave up the True Mass, who fought for it like tigers from the beginning, even though they received the barbs and arrows of the Modernists.
1970, when the "New Mess" was introduced, was a dark year. The number of True Masses being celebrated at that time could be counted on the fingers of one hand. But gradually more and more priests courageously went independent of the Newchurch dioceses to offer the Traditional Latin Mass. Abp. Lefebvre founded the Society of St. Pius X in the 1970s. The Society of St. Pius V and the Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen were organized in the 1980s. In 1988, Newvatican was even coerced into half-heartedly accepting a limited "Indult" Mass. In the 1990s the Official Catholic Directory of Traditional Latin Masses began to be published and has now reached its tenth edition.
Indeed, as the New Order edifice falls down around the Novus Ordinarians as they dance in the aisles, with their attendance substantially curtailed, their religious orders disappearing, and their bishops and presbyters sinking into embezzlement, scandal, and crime, the Traditional Catholic Movement continues stronger every year. What it takes on our part is some patience and courage. Trust that Almighty God will take care of the rest. His work is becoming more obvious among us year by year.
-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), February 28, 2005.
"Just stick with the church's interpretation Emerald, it's easier and more correct than trying to make your own."The Church's interpretation:
"Without the Catholic Faith, it is impossible to please God."
I take it you disagree, Frank.
Readers, Unfortunately this forum closed due to maintence problems with the server.
If you are interested in continuing a discussion, you can go to this board:
http://p221.ezboard.com/bthechristianforum
This was our back up board, but now we all relocated here.
Hope to see you there!
-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@prodigy.net), July 14, 2005.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 01, 2005.