Enter your email address to receive updates by email:

subscribe in a reader like my facebook page follow me on twitter Image Map
Podcast Message Line: 512-222-3389
Logos Catholic Bible Software

« They Call Him . . . Cardinal YouTube (Part 1) | Main | Evangelization Vs. Abstinence »

March 02, 2007

Comments

Anthony

I've often thought that the nature and timing of the Second Coming are unpredictable. Attempts at prognostication are futile.

The Jews thought that the Messiah would be a great military leader and there was enough prophecy in Scripture to support that belief. But according to Christianity, the Jews were wrong in their expectation. Jesus was quite different.

Contemporary views of the Second Coming have the potential to be equally off the mark. I tend to be cautious about speculation on the Second Coming when not considering it a waste of time altogether. It is for this reason that I am highly skeptical of those evangelical Christians whose support for Israel is supposedly based on a belief that it is a necessary precursor to the Second Coming, as if it is the place of mortal men to help determine the timing.

So perhaps "He will come again" means that Jesus promised to return and we believe in His promise, even if we haven't the slightest clue as to how He will fulfill that promise.

Slowboy

Scott Hahn wrote a good book about the book of Revelation. It could be good tonic to preconceved notions.

John

http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=103757

Very interesting discussion today on zenit, as offered by Cardinal Biffi whom the Holy Father is attending in a retreat

The discussion of the antichrist and is ecumenical ways and in which small groups of Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants would refuse to follow him

No mention whether those that refuse to follow this Antichrist are so called Traditionalists or not, but the parallels between the popes of today who preach ecumania at each and every turn, and the small groups of catholics as well as Orthodox (who refuse to meet with the Pontiffs as in the case of Russia, etc) as well as many evangelicals

"Preacher Draws On Work of V.S. Solovyov

VATICAN CITY, FEB. 28, 2007 (Zenit.org).- The Antichrist is the reduction of Christianity to an ideology, instead of a personal encounter with the Savior, says the cardinal directing the retreat which Benedict XVI is attending.

Cardinal Giacomo Biffi, retired archbishop of Bologna, delivered that message during a meditation Tuesday, drawing on the work of Russian philosopher Vladimir Sergeyevich Solovyov.

The cardinal's meditation came during the weeklong Spiritual Exercises being attended by the Pope and members of the Roman Curia. The retreat ends this Saturday. The Holy Father suspended his usual meetings, including the general audience, in these days.

According to Vatican Radio's summary of his preaching, the cardinal explained that "the teaching that the great Russian philosopher left us is that Christianity cannot be reduced to a set of values. At the center of being a Christian is, in fact, the personal encounter with Jesus Christ."

Quoting the work "Three Dialogues on War, Progress and the End of History," Cardinal Biffi told his listeners that "the Antichrist presents himself as pacifist, ecologist and ecumenist."

"He will convoke an ecumenical council and will seek the consensus of all the Christian confessions, granting something to each one. The masses will follow him, with the exception of small groups of Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants," he said.

The cardinal added that Solovyov says in that work: "Days will come in Christianity in which they will try to reduce the salvific event to a mere series of values."

No cross

In his "Tale of the Antichrist" Solovyov foresees that a small group of Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants will resist and will say to the Antichrist: "You give us everything, except what interests us, Jesus Christ."

For Cardinal Biffi, this narrative is a warning: "Today, in fact, we run the risk of having a Christianity which puts aside Jesus with his cross and resurrection."

The 78-year-old cardinal said that if Christians "limited themselves to speaking of shared values they would be more accepted on television programs and in social groups. But in this way, they will have renounced Jesus, the overwhelming reality of the resurrection."

The cardinal said he believes that this is "the danger that Christians face in our days … the Son of God cannot be reduced to a series of good projects sanctioned by the prevailing worldly mentality."

However, "this does not mean a condemnation of values, but their careful discernment. There are absolute values, such as goodness, truth, beauty," Cardinal Biffi said. "Those who perceive and love them, also love Christ, even if they don't know it, because he is Truth, Beauty and Justice."

The preacher of the Spiritual Exercises added that "there are relative values, such as solidarity, love of peace and respect for nature. If these become absolute, uprooting or even opposing the proclamation of the event of salvation, then these values become an instigation to idolatry and obstacles on the way of salvation."

Cardinal Biffi affirmed that "if Christianity -- on opening itself to the world and dialoguing with all -- dilutes the salvific event, it closes itself to a personal relationship with Jesus and places itself on the side of the Antichrist."


Tim J.

John, B16 ATTENDED that retreat. In your fevered imagination, do you think that in any way Cardinal Biffi thought that B16 was part of the problem, being that he was JPII's closest advisor? Is B16 one of these "popes of today who preach ecumania at each and every turn"?

Do you imagine that Biffi is talking about schismatic Catholics when he refers to small groups of "Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants" who will resist this anti-Christ that he postulates?

What good is it to reject the anti-Christ if you reject the Vicar of Christ?

Barbara

An excellent book on the subject of the Rapture is by David Currie:

http://www.catholiccompany.com/product_detail.cfm?ID=3447

Incidentally, he refers to "Full Preterist" as "Hyper-preterist".

Esquire

John,

You're argument (as I read it) is:

A) Anything that waters down the faith is bad.
B) Ecuminism waters down the faith.
C) Vatican II, JP II and Benedict XVI all preach ecuminism.
D) Therefore, Vatican II, JP II and Benedict XVI bad.

If A, B, and C are all true, then D would be true.

The problem is you are working from a faulty definition of "ecuminism." No doubt, some people water down the faith and they call what they do "ecuminism." That type of "ecuminism" has been rightly criticized by the Church for 2 millenia, and it will be rightly criticized by the Church until the end of time.

Rightly understood, however, ecuminism is nothing more or nothing less than a desire for the type of unity Christ prayed for on His way to the Cross.

You would agree, I am certain, that the unity Christ prayed for is a good thing?

Of course the Great Commission requires that the Gospel be preached to all nations so that the unity Christ prayed for can be achieved. That is what Vatican II, Pope John Paul II, and Pope Benedict mean when they talk about ecuminism.

The fact that some other yahoos do crazy things in the name of "ecuminism" does not make true ecuminism a bad thing.

John

Tim J

No one has ever said the Vicar of Christ would be just that at the time of the antichrist

Revelations are such that there would be a great falling away with antipopes. There would then be a great pope to restore all things in Christ who would then do battle with the Antichrist and defeat him

Your logic makes no sense, we have had horrible horrible popes in our history. I am not saying B16 is the antichrist in any way-but the great falling away has happened and when our lord returns to find the small remaining of devout-it makes no mention as to whether they would be so called "within the church" following those Kumbaya masses that are so prevalent today or the tried and true traditional Latin Mass, customs and beliefs that have been the defense of the church for centuries

Esquire

oops.

Realist

Paul used his prediction of the Second Coming quite well. Actually, the prediction converted many Gentiles to Christianity and it opened their purse strings. Fortunately for us his prediction was wrong but the extended prediction still works in converting Gentile and opening purse strings. And where are all those glorified bodies going?

The Second Coming is coming but I predict it will be a flaming, riderless meteor impacting Earth.

For those interested, the Jesus Seminarians gave Matthew 24 and 25 mostly a "black eye". i.e. embellishments to fit parts of the OT. e.g. http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/jdb425.html

John

Dont know why I have Italics on

Esquire

John,

Dont know why I have Italics on

Because my comments snuck in before yours and I forgot to turn them off. I wasn't trying to make you look bad - honest!

Sorry.

John

Interesting

"He will convoke an ecumenical council and will seek the consensus of all the Christian confessions, granting something to each one. The masses will follow him, with the exception of small groups of Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants," he said. " and ""the Antichrist presents himself as pacifist, ecologist and ecumenist." He is obviously then talking about a Pope!!


This sounds very much like Vatican II , and the course of action the church is taking today with ecumenism and JPII was indeed loved by the masses. I have heard liberal Cardinals call for a "Vatican III" to open the church up even further. I would bet that would be a good time to really get back to your faith and start wondering if you were worshipping as pleasing to God and not Man and if you were indeed making reparations for your sins here on earth while on earth as Purgatory or even Hell is where most people wind up.


WRY

The Jesus Seminarians????

sorry .... can't type ... uncontrollable laughter...

Esau

"He will convoke an ecumenical council and will seek the consensus of all the Christian confessions, granting something to each one. The masses will follow him, with the exception of small groups of Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants," he said. " and ""the Antichrist presents himself as pacifist, ecologist and ecumenist." He is obviously then talking about a Pope!!


John:

From what you just stated above, do you STILL INSIST that you DO NOT sound like MARTIN LUTHER?


Give me a break!

In fact, if I were still Protestant in my thinking, I could do a helluva lot better job (and have, in fact) in making NOT only our current pope appear as the Anti-Christ, but also any of those in the Church's past!

Further, what you just stated above is NOT from TRUTH, but, in fact, from the FATHER OF LIES since its very context seeks to decieve even the innocent and is NOT even BASED ON TRUTH but rather on DECEPTION!

My Cat's Name Is Lily

How about we just ;-) put John & Realist in the same room??? [Imagine rolling eyes smiley).
-----------------------------------
Seriously: My grandmother, may she rest in peace, often remarked that if we were intended to fully understand the Second Coming, it would have been explained more clearly.
The older I get, the more I see that she was on to something....and would, without doubt, upon reading Jimmy's words, issue a loud "amen".

Esau

Seriously: My grandmother, may she rest in peace, often remarked that if we were intended to fully understand the Second Coming, it would have been explained more clearly.


My Cat's Name Is Lily:

A-M-E-N!


Matthew 24:36
36 But of that day and hour no one knoweth: no, not the angels of heaven, but the Father alone.

mr

The Jesus Seminarians???

I thought there was literally no serious thinker left on earth - and I mean even secular, nonbelieving scholars - who would give THAT gang the time of day. I mean, did they ever get ANYTHING right (again - even in a strictly SCHOLARLY way?). They can charitably be described as "crackpot ideologues" whose ideology is not just worn on their sleeves, but jumps out and punches you in the face!

Puh-leeeze!

bill912

mr, you were correct about serious thinkers.

Esau

Paul used his prediction of the Second Coming quite well. Actually, the prediction converted many Gentiles to Christianity and it opened their purse strings.

Realist:

Could you kindly explain to me (based on your current as well as past posts) if the purpose of all such teachings from Paul and the rest of the Apostles were but for the sake of opening purse strings then why did they uselessly sacrifice their very lives by stubbornly sticking to their teachings, to their story about Jesus Christ, and allowed themselves to be put to death?

I mean, when you engage a con-artist head-on who literally has been taking advantage of folks by such deception merely for the sake of material gain, it is more than likely that you'd get him to confess about the deceptive nature of his actions -- especially if you were to force upon him a swift confrontation with his own mortality!

Esquire

John,

This sounds very much like Vatican II , and the course of action the church is taking today with ecumenism and JPII was indeed loved by the masses.

You will admit, won't you, that Cardinal Biffi does not understand this passage to refer to Vatican II or JPII?

You might see some "interesting" parallels, but you're reading what he's saying differently than he intends.

I have heard liberal Cardinals call for a "Vatican III" to open the church up even further.

I have too. They're nuts. Of course, there will surely be another ecumenical council at some point in the future. And many will hope that the Church is "opened up" and made more progressive. Others will hope that the ladder is "pulled up" and the Church doors are closed. But the Bishops, we may pray, will seek to bring the Cross of Christ to all peoples.

I would bet that would be a good time to really get back to your faith and start wondering if you were worshipping as pleasing to God and not Man and if you were indeed making reparations for your sins here on earth while on earth as Purgatory or even Hell is where most people wind up.

Yes, that would be a good time to get back to one's faith. For that matter, now would be too.


John

Esau posted:

"He will convoke an ecumenical council and will seek the consensus of all the Christian confessions, granting something to each one. The masses will follow him, with the exception of small groups of Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants," he said. " and ""the Antichrist presents himself as pacifist, ecologist and ecumenist." He is obviously then talking about a Pope!!


John:

From what you just stated above, do you STILL INSIST that you DO NOT sound like MARTIN LUTHER?"

Esau-you once again amaze me. The post is right from Zenit (You do know what zenit is, the Vatican news agency, there are other sources for info other than Karl Keating and CA!!). Well respected Cardinal Biffi held a seminar for B16 and others which dealt with exactly this subject, and the parallels are so striking with the past 40 years!!

I think that maybe Rome is coming around to the sins of ecumania and has finally realized that unity at any cost, including selling out Christ and sacred Tradition is sinful!!
http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=103757

David B.

"I think that maybe Rome is coming around to the sins of ecumania and has finally realized that unity at any cost, including selling out Christ and sacred Tradition is sinful!!"

Uh....I must have missed the memo. When Did John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, or Benedict XVI promote "unity at any cost, including selling out Christ and sacred Tradition"?

Esau

John:

I know what Zenit is as I have used it to track the messages put forth in the general audiences.

Also, the following concerning Cardinal Ratzinger may help you out with your beef with VII:

"The subject of the book is Roman Catholicism, both before and after the Second Vatican Council; the subject is the nature of the Church as Ratzinger understands it. We have heard it said, observes Ratzinger, that “what really matters is orthopraxis not orthodoxy.” The point of the present forum, he said, is to show that the reverse is true. Action unless directed by a conceptual grasp of “what ought to be” is meaningless. In a skeptical age “the conviction of the Church that there is one truth, and that this one truth can be recognized, expressed and also clearly defined within certain bounds, is scandalous." Even many Catholics who have lost sight of the essence of the Church find this conviction offensive. “The Church is, however, not only a human organization; she also has a deposit to defend that does not belong to her, the proclamation and transmission of which is guaranteed through a teaching office that brings it close to men of all times in a fitting manner.”

"Though Vatican Council II is inescapably a turning point, Ratzinger could find no fault with the council itself. It is impossible to decide in favor of Trent and Vatican I, but against Vatican II, he said. Whoever denies Vatican II denies the authority that upholds all other councils, namely the Pope and the council of bishops. Recognizing that a Distinction is often made between Vatican II and the spirit of Vatican II, between the documents of the council and the use made of them, Ratzinger admitted that developments since the council seem to be in striking contrast to the expectations of all, beginning with the hopes of John XXIII and Paul VI.

What the Popes and the Catholic fathers were expecting was a new Catholic unity; instead one finds dissension. In the words of Paul VI, we seem “to have passed over from self-criticism to selfdestruction.” Instead of enthusiasm, we are confronted with discouragement. It has been said that in an effort to open itself to truth in all of its forms, the Church has squandered the resources that would have been better employed to cultivate the faith and its implications. But Vatican II itself cannot be held responsible for those developments that contradict both the letter and the spirit of its official documents.

...

"To many on the receiving end, the changes were merely that and not improvements, as the time-honored gave way to the trendy, the elegant to bad taste, reasonable discipline to untutored practice. The changes affected most of all the clergy and members of religious orders. In the space of a few years seminaries emptied, convents and presbyteries closed their doors, and great religious orders underwent losses in membership.

Recognizing this, Ratzinger employed the word “crisis” to describe the situation. The basic crisis, as he interpreted it, is a crisis of trust in dogma as proposed by the Magisterium, a crisis precipitated in part by theologians who have challenged the received.

As he put it: "Broad circles in theology seem to have forgotten that the subject who pursues theology is not the individual scholar but the Catholic community as a whole, the entire Church. From this forgetfulness of theological work as ecclesiastical service derives a theological pluralism that in reality is often a subjectivism and individualism that has little to do with the bases of common tradition. Every theologian now wants to be ‘creative.’ But his proper task is to deepen the common Deposit of the Faith as well as to help in understanding and proclaiming it. In recent years theology has energetically dedicated itself to make faith and the signs of the times accord with each other in order to find new ways for the transmission of Christianity."

...

"With the advent of a Vatican II-inspired “openness to the world,” the emphasis shifted from the hard work of mastering the tradition to reconciliation with the world. Dogma came to be viewed as an intolerable straitjacket. This has its effects on catechesis. Ratzinger recognized that since theology no longer transmits a common model for the faith, catechesis is also exposed to dismemberment and constantly changing experiments. The result has been disintegration of the sensus fidei, with consequences in the moral order."

J.R. Stoodley

Excelent post Esau.

About the anti-Christ, I don't see how he could possibly be a Pope. The anti-Christ and his (or her?) religion must be rejected, but if it were a true Pope this would mean rejecting the Vicar of Christ and the Church.

The anti-Christ could be an antipope but I don't see why this is necessary. Claiming to be Christ himself in some perverted seems more in keeping with revelation.

My own theory, which likely enough is at least a little off, is that Buddhism, Hinduism, liberal Christianity of all forms, liberal Islam including Sufism (which may be all there is of Islam by the end, I think future Muslims will condemn this generation of Muslims and go to far the other way), Neopagans, Wicca, Native religions, etc. etc. will combine perhaps along with mainstream science, corporations, and government into a syncretist, more or less "New Age" theocratic (not calling itself that of course) diverse but unified religion/sociological philosphy and government.

There will then rise up a single leader, perhaps with titles like the UN's Secratary General, New Age's Cosmic Christ/Conciousness of Gaia, Islam's Isa and/or Hidden Immam, Hinduisms incarnations of their pantheistic deity of many names, etc. Or rather two leaders, a religous one (the False Prophet) and a political one (the Beast) that the religious one will encourage worship of.

Meanwhile non-Catholic Christians will either die out, turn liberal, or convert/reunite to Catholicism. Heretical Catholics will leave the Church, leaving orthodox ones. An invalid, mock Eccumenical Council not recognized by the Pope and likely including separated brethren may help bring this about, not to mention the syncretism of the religion of the Anti-Christ in general. Certainly Vatican II does not fit this model. The Jews, if you don't interpret the conversion of most Jews in the Roman Empire to Christianity as their conversion, will convert. Whether that means they will all convert or only a remnant and the rest will join the anti-Christ or die out I don't know. You will then have the religion of the Christ and the religion of the anti-Christ (or anti-Christs). The Church will be persecuted heavily but ultimately Christ will come again and be victorious.

The Church may be silent on important issues for a while and this may contribute to the great apostasy, and we may even be seeing that happening already, but the Church will never teach heresy, and leaving the Church will never be a valid option. John said that it is not clear whether the faithful Christians will be found in the Church or out of it. As I think he will agree that there is no salvation outside the Church I think he will on further reflection agree that they must be inside it, even if he disagrees (like Protestants) whether means a visible, practical unity of submission to the Roman Pontiff.

In the end though I would greatly suspect that the last Popes or at least the last Pope will be great saints who will strenthen the remnant Catholics.

Esquire

J.R.,

Have you noticed that most of the Popes in the first millenium were canonized, very few were in the next 900 years, and then in the last century of the second millenium, we are again rewarded with great saints and saints to be in the chair of Peter (including St. Pius X, Pius XII, Bl. John XXIII, the great John Paul II and -- one day? -- Benedict XVI)?

I think it is no coincidence that holy men who are unabashedly in love with Christ, who absolutely refuse to compromise or water down the faith, and who have a genuine love for all souls are surely and safely guiding the Barque of Peter in these turbulent times.

Realist

"Opening purse strings" or the ecomonics of religion - Did you ever consider that Peter and Paul were executed for a number of reasons, one being that money donated by Roman Christians was starting to drain the Roman temples' coffers when said Christians no longer went to said temples? Hmmm, I wonder if charitable contributions in those days were deductible on the Roman Schedule A which would be hit on Roman government taxes:))

An example of contemporay Catholic economics: the moral collapse of many priests and their bishops has cost us over a billion dollars in law suit settlements.

That kind of loss in corporate America would immediately trigger the exit of the company board and leadership followed by immediate downsizing. Maybe a second coming is long overdue for our clergy and leadership via downsizing to include diocese mergers, resignation by bishops and B16 taking early retirement (i.e. the buck stops at the Chair of Peter.)

Esau

Realist:

Did the total lack of logic in your statements here even hit you?

Look at what you wrote:
Did you ever consider that Peter and Paul were executed for a number of reasons, one being that money donated by Roman Christians was starting to drain the Roman temples' coffers...

and

An example of contemporay Catholic economics: the moral collapse of many priests and their bishops has cost us over a billion dollars in law suit settlements.


Pardon me, but correct me if I'm wrong --

Today there are ABOUT 1 BILLION CATHOLICS.

Counting our Seperated Brethren, we'd perhaps reach almost 1.5 to 2 Billion Christians.

Yet, JUST HOW MANY CHRISTIANS do you think actually existed in the Roman Empire at the time of Peter and Paul when Christianity was barely a religion in its very infancy?

The fact of the matter is even if one were to give an iota of credence to your incredibly ridiculous and riscible claims -- that these guys preached as they did in order to extract money from their followers; it wouldn't have even made a DENT to the collection of money taken up by the Roman Empire since:

1. There were only so FEW Roman Christians in those days SINCE CHRISTIANITY WAS IN ITS INFANCY. That is, if you were to compare the number of Christians actually present in the Roman Empire against the GENERAL POPULATION of the Roman Empire, they would only comprise less than 1% perhaps! You neglect the VASTNESS of the Empire and, further, OVERESTIMATE the number of Christians that were actually present during the days of Peter and Paul!

2. People of the Roman Empire were REQUIRED to pay taxes regardless of what religion they held (Need I remind you that people such as the Jews -- as well as many in the Empire whom the Romans conquered -- were given freedom to still practice their own beliefs even under Roman rule?); Whether you were Christian, Jew or what not, YOU HAD TO PAY TAXES! Thus, the Roman Empire could care less about whether or not you donated to Peter and Paul so long as you paid your taxes!

Even further, isn't that the point of what Jesus said in the Gospels?

To render unto Caesar what is Caesar's?

So, even there, it appears that the MADE-UP RELIGION of Peter and Paul accounted for such things and ensured they instituted policy to safeguard against such transgressions against the Roman Empire by their followers (or should I say 'dupes') in order to protect their so-called CON GAME!


My, my, Realist, you sure are failing even in your deception and lies about the Christian religion!

Too bad -- I expected more!

Realist

From: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/edmundson/church.iv.html

"In the first place then this Epistle bears upon its face the clearest testimony to the existence in 57 A.D. of a distinguished and well-established Christian Church in Rome, a Church already of some standing and in which the Gentile element predominated."

"The Epistle to the Romans is itself a proof that Christianity was firmly established in the metropolis some time before 57 A.D.;"

Peter and Paul were executed in 64 AD.

John

Realist

Your post is RIGHT ON!

Listening to Mr Arroyo a few months back on EWTN reporting from the climax of the USCCB meeting, in which there are going to be massive layoffs in the organization, the monies that goes from your hands, to the collection baskets and then to groups that sponsor abortion and or liberal activities are mind boggling, and pointed out by Mr Arroyo to one of the Cardinals who in their usual dismissive way all but side stepped the question. The same goes for all of the pedophilia lawsuits, legal fees,, settlements etc

Donate your money to a good charity, put nothing in those collection baskets as by doing so you are supporting the continued sin of these clergy and are in mortal sin yourself as anyone who is breathing today knows the scandal that is taking place, especially those on blogs such as this, well informed persons like Esau

John

David B stated:

"I think that maybe Rome is coming around to the sins of ecumania and has finally realized that unity at any cost, including selling out Christ and sacred Tradition is sinful!!"

Uh....I must have missed the memo. When Did John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, or Benedict XVI promote "unity at any cost, including selling out Christ and sacred Tradition"?"

Uhh Yes they have David, lets just take Pope JPII, you know him, "Santo Subito" fastracked for sainthood, where just a few of his greatest hits where one can only guess he forgot he was the Vicar of Christ, when he:


As Bishop Karol Wojtyla, of Crakow:
1.He was a student of the heretical existentialist Jacques Maritain.

2. He gutted the schema on Communism at Vatican II.

3.He allowed Protestant Evangelist Billy Graham speak at his cathedral.

As Pope John Paul II:

1.On May 4, 1980, he presided from a straw hut over an ordination ceremony and native Mass of people undulating to the rhythm of tomtoms, accompanied by accordians and guitars.

2.In February 1982, he presided over a "dance" Mass in Libreville.

3.On December 11, 1983, he preached in a Lutheran church at Rome.

4.On May 8, 1984, he presided over a Mass in Papua-New Guinea at which male and female dancers, nude from the waist up, danced; an aboriginal woman, also nude from the waist up, read the Epistle.

5.In September 1984, he presided over a Mass in Canada at which a pagan Indian chief invoked the Great Spirit and presented the pope at the Offertory with an eagle feather dipped in blood.

6.In 1985, he told 50,000 Moslems in Morocco: "We and you believe in the same God, the one God and the only God."

7.In August 1985, he presided over "dance" Masses in Cameroon and Garoua.

8.On August 8, 1985, he visited Togo and prayed in a "Sacred Forest" consecrated to the worship of pagan gods and participated in a pagan initiation ritual in a grove sacred to the pagan animists.

9.In 1986, he presided over a Mass in Fiji at which the thurifer was an aboriginal dressed only in a loin-cloth; he is said to have witnessed there a pagan animal sacrifice.

10.In February 2, 1986, he was marked with cow dung, the "Tilac," the sign of the adorers of the pagan goddess Shiva, by a Hindu priestess at Bombay.

11.On June 24, 1986, he sat with Grand Rabbi Elio Toaff in the sanctuary of the Jewish synagogue at Rome and prayed for the coming of the Messias.

12.On October 27, 1986, he participated in an ecumenical prayer meeting at Assisi, Italy, during which an image of Buddha was placed on top of the tabernacle. He again brought together Christian, Muslim, and Jewish leaders in Assisi on January 9-10, 1993, to pray for an end to the war with the Mohammedan Bosnians, and on January 24, 2002, for yet another "ecumenical prayer meeting" for "peace" with the Mohammedan terrorist leader Osama bin Laden. This time the leaders included not just the usual Eastern Orthodox, Protestants, and Jews, but also leaders of "Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism, Jianism, Confucianism, Sikhism, Zoroastrianism, and followers of Tenrikyo and African tribal religions." (Associated Press)

13.On February 4, 1993, he engaged in dialogues with the high priests and witch doctors of Voodoo.

14.In 1994, he smeared the pitch from a native tree on his face instead of incensing the altar during a beatification ceremony in Australia.


The count does go to over 100 but I dont think cut and past jobs are appropriate. Look them up for yourself, reference the AP, Zenit etc. Its all their in their archives

So the sellout was in full swing under JPII, and God bless B16 who has placed some sanity back into the Chair of Peter, and with some strength and possibly a younger pope some rollbacks will start to take place. If not, more church's will empty and or only populated by those whose knowledge of what is true goes back only as far as JPII and his pygmy dances


John

Not that I necessarily disagree with the other John(s) in his/their posts, but as I have stated in the past, please distinguish my posts (unlinked John), from the John or John(s) who in the "Posted by:" notation in the lower right of each post, has/have his/their name(s) linked to an email address. You'll notice my John is not linked.

Thank you.

Mary Kay

jtnova says Realist is RIGHT ON!

Don't ever say this blog is boring or totally predictable.

John

Mary Kay

Esau and I have also reached some agreements (even though I think he wishes I would go away forever!)

I feel soon we shall as well!!!!

Eileen R

Unlinked John, that's a bit much to ask people to remember. Whatever people's good intentions, they won't be able to. And there'll always be new people mixed up, anyway.

Maybe you should add an initial. John P or John H or something. Or you could post as 'Unlinked John'. That'd be a cool nick.

Anon

To add to the confusion, linked John has occasionally posted unlinked, so unlinked John's solution wouldn't help. If you're going to post with a common name (like anon or John), you just can't get bent out of shape if someone gets you mixed up with someone else. Simple as that.

Esau

JOHN:

You mock me, accusing me of NOT BEING INFORMED???

MY GOD, MAN, DO YOU EVEN REFLECT ON YOUR ACTIONS OR ARE YOU JUST SO FULL OF YOURSELF AND YOUR USUAL MANURE THAT YOUR PRIDE BLINDS YOU EVEN FROM RECOGNIZING YOUR OWN STUPIDITY!

You say the MOST DESPICABLE things about VATICAN II, ACCUSING it of so many horrible things; yet, HAVE YOU EVEN READ ALL ITS 16 DOCUMENTS????

To demonstrate, in another thread, YOU actually stated that HAND-HOLDING during the OUR FATHER as well as the ERADICATION OF KNEELERS from Catholic churches were all part of VATICAN II POLICY -- Yet, TELL ME WHERE IS THAT IN ALL OF THE DOCUMENTS OF VATICAN II EXACTLY???

YOU -- WELL INFORMED????

HA! Even my dog is more well-informed about Vatican II than you are!

Did it ever occur to you that perhaps the very reason why the church is in such a mess these days was because of PEOPLE LIKE YOU WHO DID NOT READ THE VATICAN II DOCUMENTS but, instead, MADE ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT WHAT VATICAN II SAID and merely JUMPED TO THEIR OWN INTERPRETATION of what Vatican II said and did what they wanted!

bill912

Esau, it's not so much that he made assumptions or jumped to his own conclusions; it's more that he has his own version of reality, that you, as you may have noticed, can't penetrate. It's best to ignore him, lest you fall into sin.

JMJ

John

Esau said:

"You say the MOST DESPICABLE things about VATICAN II, ACCUSING it of so many horrible things; yet, HAVE YOU EVEN READ ALL ITS 16 DOCUMENTS????

To demonstrate, in another thread, YOU actually stated that HAND-HOLDING during the OUR FATHER as well as the ERADICATION OF KNEELERS from Catholic churches were all part of VATICAN II POLICY -- Yet, TELL ME WHERE IS THAT IN ALL OF THE DOCUMENTS OF VATICAN II EXACTLY???"

Esau-Please go back and show me where I have said that-I never said that, it was I who said that these innovations ARE taking place today-And they are NOT to be found in the documents-So why are they permitted? I think I went onto say that the documents were left so vague as to perpetuate these innovations so that those that do so can insinuate that there was nothing to the contrary that did NOT permit such

That is the problem with these documents-compare them to the simply written documents of all of the past councils where you had:

An Action-And a reaction

For example-If you did______-Let him be anethema


In Vatican II it is like a big fairy tale with no cause and effect and really no ending like in Nostre Aetate-we dont like Buddhism, Hiduism, etc, etc-but we reject nothing that is right in those faiths. These people are "illuminated" etc etc. Hogwash Hogwash Hogwash

A.Williams

John and Esau,

Since much of your back and forth debating revolves around Vatican II issues, I thought you might like to read something on this topic, posted on Zenit, March 3rd 2007.

Bishop Fisher on Conscience and Authority
"Struggling to Recover a Catholic Sense"

2.3 Conscience versus the magisterium after Vatican II

Around the time of Vatican II, Karl Rahner wrote that conscience is the proximate source of moral obligation, and so must be followed even if mistaken; but that we must form our conscience rightly and avoid confusing it with subjective inclination or personal preference. A Catholic must be prepared to accept moral instruction from the Church and never appeal to conscience to make an exception for himself. If we realized that we may very well have to sacrifice everything or lose our soul, then we would not look for exceptions to be made for us from God's law and our confessors would not use evasions like "follow your conscience" when some hard if sensitive teaching were needed. If in our sinful world God's law seems unrealistic, the trouble is not with God's law but with the world!

The early Rahner wrote on the verge of a new age in which Christian ethics faced challenges from many quarters, not least from within the Church. Vatican II sought to restate and update Catholic moral teaching. Though aware of the growing individualism and relativism, the Council seemed optimistic to the point of naïveté about how their words would be received. Many people took up the Council's views on the dignity and liberty of conscience with greater enthusiasm than they did its teaching on the duty to inform conscience and exercise that liberty in accord with moral absolutes known to right reason and proclaimed by the magisterium.

The "crisis of '68" was a crisis at least in part over the meaning of conscience, its implications for decision-making and its relationship to the magisterium. In the 1970s a number of theologians proceeded to deny that the Scriptures, the Tradition and the hierarchy have any "strong" magisterium in moral matters. The "situationists" echoed the contemporary exaltation of human freedom and rejection of appeals to nature, reason, authority or any static, universal or objectivist standards; what mattered, in the end, was whether the person's "heart was in the right place." The "proportionalists" asserted that the role of conscience was to identify and balance upsides and downsides of options and that the Church could propose some "rules of thumb" for this balancing act, but no moral absolutes. Some argued that it was impossible for the Church to teach infallibly in morals; others said that while it could in principle, it never had done so; and both agreed that the ordinary teaching of the Church is "susceptible to error and therefore fallible."

We are all well aware of how thoroughly the 1970s-'80s style of moral thinking filtered down through many of our societies, even if it was rarely dressed up in the highfalutin language of "ontic evils" and "authenticity." In a slightly more sophisticated form it was taught to a generation of priests and lay theology students. It will take some time to recover a more Catholic sense of the role and content of conscience and the magisterium.

For more on this go to www.ZENIT.org/

John

"Vatican II sought to restate and update Catholic moral teaching"

This thread is not about V2-But what exactly needed "updating" and if the council was indeed inspired by the Holy Spirit-could its teachings be so misinterpreted and abused to promulgate such error and abuse, such as the liturgy and ecumenism -which though meant for Christian unity somehow by the Pope himself (JPII) was used to participate in vodoo, pygmy, Buddhist, Hindu, Moslem, Jewish and of course Protestant worship

One is not to follow someone to hell-the first commandment is very clear regarding the worship of false idols, and when the Vicar of Christ himself participates in such, one must scratch ones head

Esquire

John,

You're kind of missing the point. There is one person on this earth at any given time who sits in the Chair of Peter. One. We are assured that his teaching is reliable, and that if we follow him (not just on infallible matters, but on what he teaches about faith and morals) we are on sure footing. The Holy Spirit is kind of funny that way.

His teaching is what we test our own newfangled or oldfangled opinions against. If I think Trent said X and he says it meant Y, I go with him. If he says the Church teaches Z and I thought it always taught Q, I go with Z. And if he says the Cubs are going to win the world series, I know that it was really the Holy Spirit at work in Y and Z, because the man is obviously not bright enough on his own to rule the Church. (But then again, no one is.)

If I found my opinions about what the Church teaches to be so at odds with what the Pope says the Church teaches, and I was at all serious about my Catholic faith, I would be far more terrified about the state of my own soul than I would be about the souls of others.

Esau

JOHN:

You are the most DISHONEST person I've met on the blog.

At the very least, when you confront REALIST with what he wrote in his posts, he hardly denies it and, in fact, doesn't resort to the ludicrous transgiversation that you often fall back on in your replies.


LOOK AT WHAT YOU WROTE PREVIOUSLY:

The New Mass DELETED upwards of 30 prayers, shortened the mass, introduced novelties never seen before such as hand holding during the Our Father which I may add even the Most ardent supporter of the new mass HATES, did away with kneelers and the Eucharistic MINISTERS (Protestant word I must point out)and so on. And what prayers that were decided to be kept they changed those to, even the Apostles Creed as well as the Words of Consecration, which the ICEL still cant get correct over 40 years later!!

Posted by: John | Feb 28, 2007 2:18:08 PM"


As I've said in my previous post, all these abuses that have been occuring these days, couldn't it possibly be due to the fact that people such as yourselves didn't actually READ the Vatican II documents or even made any effort to FIND OUT WHAT VATICAN II ACTUALLY SAID/TAUGHT, but INSTEAD, FORMED THEIR OWN CONCLUSIONS and DID AS THEY WANTED!


Further, how can you still insist on DENYING the Authority of the Council and that of the Pope?

It still boggles the mind that you and your RAD TRAD groupees seem to still actually claim to be Traditionalists when you and your cohorts don't even adhere to this essential and fundamental part of Traditional Church Teaching!


As Cardinal Ratzinger said:
Whoever denies Vatican II denies the authority that upholds all other councils, namely the Pope and the council of bishops.


As for folks being surprised that you actually SUPPORTED REALIST --

To me, that's HARDLY A SURPRISE!

RAD TRADS and Others like you would actually SUPPORT THE DEVIL HIMSELF if it came right down to it JUST TO SPITE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH and WATCH HER FALL!

And to think that in other threads you were saying how disgusted you were that so many Catholic churches were closing down -- only to write a post on this thread which actually promotes the closing down of Catholic churches by YOUR telling folks not to financially support their Catholic parishes!


DO YOU EVEN KNOW HOW MANY CATHOLIC PARISHES ARE IN DESPARATE NEED OF OUR FINANCIAL SUPPORT IN ORDER TO STAY ALIVE???


YOU DAMN HYPOCRITE!

IN ALL ACTUALITY, YOU ONLY PRETENDED IN OTHER THREADS TO CARE ABOUT HOW SEVERAL CATHOLIC CHURCHES WERE CLOSING DOWN.

BUT, REALLY, YOU COULD CARE LESS!

Mary Kay

Esau, I agree with what you say, but am also going to make some chamomile tea for you and suggest that you consider fasting from caps and bold this Lent. Now where did I put the chamomile tea?

A.Williams

I'll defend the 'Bold' emphasis in Esau's case. Everyone has a particular style in expressing opinions...and everyone knows that debates aren't ALWAYS pure logic and reason. Emotion and emphasis has always been a part of rhetoric, and even the rhetoric we find in the scripture.

How often did Jesus use words such as : "Amen, Amen I say to unto you!" ..which is a very emphatic means of expressing his teachings. And again How many times did He use the word Hypocrite? ..For example:

"You hypocrites, you know how to discern the face of the heaven and of the earth: but how is it that you do not discern this time?"

"But Jesus knowing their wickedness, said: Why do you tempt me, ye hypocrites?"

"But woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you shut the kingdom of heaven against men, for you yourselves do not enter in; and those that are going in, you suffer not to enter."

"Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites: because you devour the houses of widows, praying long prayers. For this you shall receive the greater judgment."

" Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you go round about the sea and the land to make one proselyte; and when he is made, you make him the child of hell twofold more than yourselves."

And there are 11 other similar quotes of Jesus.

And how emphatic was St. John the Baptist in his preaching by the Jordan.. "And in those days cometh John the Baptist preaching in the desert of Judea. 'A voice of one crying in the desert, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight his paths.'" The word "crying" here, obviously signifies 'emphasis' and even 'BOLD'. (however, we must admit that not all evangelists of or apologists adopt this style of Jesus and John. ie we all have our own rhetorical approaches in accordance with what the Holy Spirit provides us.)

So, if it's good enough for Jesus and St.John to be highly emphatic, at times, it certainly has a place, when needed, in Catholic apologetics. But then again thats only IMHO.

Tim J.

Esquire, your last post was spot-on.

I think the salient point about the whole Primacy of Conscience crisis is that it started in the late Sixties.

It's not so much that Rahner overstepped or even that Church teaching was unclear, but that SO MANY Catholics were primed and frothing for any loophole they could exploit to advance the modernist agenda. That's what the Church missed. So many Catholics had already left the Church in their hearts, and were only looking for a way to justify their behavior and convince themselves (no matter what kind of doctrinal fantasyland they had to construct in their heads) they could somehow remain a "Catholic" while doing whatever they pleased.

John

And I say again

What exactly then needed updating, and why then was the liturgy changed?

And this misinterpretation line is plain old nonsense because if the church of Vatican II really cared and took the liturgy serious, it would issue a so called "clarification"(why was there also a need to change the wording-both FORM and MATTER?? of all of the sacraments as well????)


If you go back to the council of Trent, the council is very clear as to what the mass is supposed to represent, the sacrifice of the mass in its unbloody form with a spotless victim, our Lord

The instructions for the Novus Ordo missae issued in 1969 states and I am going from memory (sorry Esau I dont have cut and pastes all over like you!) that the mass is a "recreation of the Lords Supper" and makes no mention of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. The liturgy and its intention was made clear infallibly in the Council of Trent, and was totally disregarded by this council of V2

Paul VI made it clear he wanted the mass to resemble the Protestant service, and he did just that

John

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1969ottoviani.html

Right from the Ottavani intervention, which of course the Pope and the Protestant/liberal wing of the church ignord even though so many voted either against or yes with reservations

Cardinal Ottaviani was head of the Holy Office during the reign of Pope Pius XII. He, Cardinal Bacci, and a group of Roman theologians opposed many of the changes brought about by the Second Vatican Council, especially in the case of the later changes to Catholic liturgy. This opposition was not effective - Catholic liturgical practice changed throughout the world.

The Critical Study of the New Order of Mass:
5 June 1969
A Group of Roman Theologians


In October 1967, the Synod of Bishops which met in Rome was asked to pass judgment on an experimental celebration of what was then called a "standard" or "normative" Mass. This Mass, composed by the Committee for Implementing the Constitutions on the Sacred Liturgy (Consilium), aroused very serious misgivings among the bishops present. With 187 members voting, the results revealed considerable opposition (43 Negative), many substantial reservations (62 Affirmative with reservations) and four abstentions. The international press spoke of the Synod's "rejection" of the proposed Mass, while the progressive wing of the religious press passed over the event in silence. A well-known periodical, aimed at bishops and expressing their teaching, summed up the new rite in these terms:

"They wanted to make a clean slate of the whole theology of the Mass. It ended up in substance quite close to the Protestant theology which destroyed the sacrifice of the Mass."


Esquire

Tim J.,

Thanks.

I think the salient point about the whole Primacy of Conscience crisis is that it started in the late Sixties.

I think you're right for the latest iteration. Of course we have to follow our conscience, but the beauty of the Church is that by following its lead on matters of faith and morals, I can have a clean conscience. (In fact, I would argue that it's the only way that I can have a clean conscience.)

It is one of God's greatest gifts to us, and we reject His gifts at our peril.

Caine

If we really do have a whole-life review and experience not only our own review and judgment but have awareness of the content of others' reviews and judgments then this strongly suggests we will occupy a mode of existence that is so vastly different from our current experience that it can scarcely be conceived at present,

I'd like to contest this comment of Jimmy's just a bit. We know based on Matthew 25 that all of us can expect to be surprise by where we did or did not follow Christ in our lives - not by some mystical revelation with magical smoke and lights, but by a simple viewing of our lives aligned to the perspective of Christ. This is, after-all, the goal of all Christians. In the moment of particular judgment Jesus will realize that goal for each individual (whether we're ready or not!)

On to my point about general judgment. I think we DO have an insight into this mystery - more so today that at any time in history. On the grand scale, think of people like Hitler and Stalin. Their atrocities are laid out in volume after volume of published works. Their stories are taught with a focus on the evil they have done. We don't read about the beginnings of who they were in the eyes of those who loved them as infants, or the totality of their lives from the perspective of God. No, they get (and deservedly so) the full treatment of the accuser in the court of public opinion.

But today, there is also the potential for everyone to be exposed to this treatment. Think of the American Idol contestant who recently had her "girls gone wild" moments obsessed over in all forms of media. Or those men caught by that NBC sex predator show. For that matter, what about all the priests that have been exposed by the abuse scandal?

These are individual people whose sins are shown to millions of strangers in an instant - and millions immediately judge them based on these mass-media expositions. To me, it is a foretaste of what's to come for all of us at the end but with a purpose and direction that is much more dangerous for us all. The final judgment will be conducted in the court of Truth, by He who is both Truth and Mercy, and who is the source of our SALVATION! In the E-world we live in, the court is conducted by the prince of this world, whose accusations rally the guilty to judge the guilty and then perpetually turn upon each other in public bonfires often fueled by dishonesty. His goal is not our salvation, but that we look in the mirror; see our disfigurement, despair and die.

This is why we should think twice before piling on people whose horrible sins are publicly exposed. The devil will be more than happy to put each of us through that kind of public scrutiny.

Esquire

Caine,

Well said. Well said. (Although I'm a bit puzzled at how what you said contests Jimmy's comment.)

A.Williams

Tim,
In a further analysis of the 'loosening of the conscience' that we now date pimarily to the 60's, we really need to take a broader look at all the event's of the '60's and 70's, to really understand how such a 'flood' of 'liberal inculturation' could possible take place. Was it really a result of Vatican II, or were there many other 'sparks' that set this 'fire of liberalism', and 'loose' moral living, off.

Really, living in the heart of 'the '60's'(in San Francisco), and having my best friends living 1 block from the famed streets HAIGHT and ASHBURY (those friends being the Sisters of Perpetual Adoration, who I have known since an infant), I can only say what most others of this generation already know...that the liberalism was in NO WAY confined to the Catholic Church, but swept over the Church like a wave, as it did ALL INSTITUTIONS, wherein the Church was in a postion of analysing the novel event, and was incapable of responding rapidly to so many extreme societal changes.

And I can remember well the days before the late sixties, and my family also, and we were all largely affected by the previous Amewrican wars, and especially WWII. People were really very obedient to authority, and the Church too, in those days, and I think it was a result of the obedience demanded by the military, which was necessary to win in the wars we were involved in. But as we all know, Vientnam changed everything! Before Vietnam, The haircuts were very often the popular 'crew cut'. But during and after the war, the protest movement's and 'hippi' movements made a very powerful statement AGAINST authority. First it was only political, but the spiritual and moral authority found in the Church became a 'by product'.

Furthermore 'crew cuts' didn't go well with wide flange 'Bell bottoms'! And the music of the Greatful Dead, Jimi Hendrix, The Doors and Led Zepplin also didn't help in supporting the short cropped, 'square' hair styles of the late 50's early 60's, so popular to the militaristically 'obedient' generation that'kicked Hilter's a--' so-to-say. So, people, like my father, could never get rid of this 'victoious' and 'winning', attitude, and considered EVERYTHING socially modern to be completely crazy. Likewize, my'Hippi' friends thought people like my parents to be completely 'square' and brain washed, and referred even to their parents, not as my mother and father..but in language such as "my ole lady" and "my old man". Such was the culturale divide that pitted ALL AUTHORITY, even mother and father, against the younger,'hip' generation.

So with the entire young generation wearing bell bottoms(countless with red,white and blue, 'peace','smiley', or marijuana leaf patches).. sporting shoulder length hair and large'afros'... and listening to an ever more psycodelic 'acid' rock music...anything that didn't fit in to this new culture of free lovin' and groovin', was OUT!

And nothing was more 'square' or 'un-Hip' as the CATHOLIC CHURCH, with their 'crew cut' cropped priests! And In 1966, ALL the women wore their jackelin Kennedy type bonnet hats to Mass..many with white gloves also. In 1972, NO ONE wore ANY hat to mass (except maybe for the senior citizens). And this, 'get rid of the hats' cultural fad, affected even the religious orders, and so the 'religious hats'(ie. nuns habits), for the most part, either came off or were adapted very greatly to a much looser, more modern, style.

And the strangest thing of all, is that the wild revolution of the 'hippies', really only lasted a few years! After the 'Summer of Love' the hippies began to grow tired of all the drugs, parties, non-stop rock and roll, lack of stable living quarters, lack of organization and jobs,...and really, for the most part, corrected themselves. Moreover, when the hippies started to make money, many cut off their ponytails and joined the Republican party! They did a turn around...they largely learned by their own bad experience!

The problem is that the Church followed behind society in all of these cultural changes. It didn't dive into them so deeply, as did the hippies, as to learn quickly how 'errant', dangerous and unhealthy, such 'loose living' really was. And so the Church, at least in San Francisco, maintained a smoldering liberalism almost up to this present day...however, decreasing in intensity, by degrees, every year. So the Church is really very slow to react, and now the Chruch is only starting to adequately address and correct the 'errors' of those days.

However, not EVERYTHING was wrong with the looser, anti militaristic (Peace) out-looks of modern culture, and also some of the modern infuences and adaptations that affected the Catholic Church. What was needed is to separate the good infuences from the bad.

And now Pope Benedict XVI is trying to 'pick out the weeds', and 'keep the wheat', so to say, of all these modern issues an cultural changes.

And really, the job is a rather 'monumental' one, after all these 40 years of habitual moral, ethical and liturgical abuses. But, fortunately this reform IS being done! It might take some time, but the world and Church, once it is completed, might even come out the stronger for it? Who knows?

May God give strength to Pope Benedict XVI to continue 'full steam ahead' the 'reform' and correction of all of these, both cultural and religious, excesses and errors!

Caine

Esquire,

It seemed that in what I quoted, Jimmy was suggesting the experience of general judgement is tangibly inconceivable. I was pointing out that we do have access to a type of that experience in the internet age, but that this type is devoid of Christ's mercy.

Esau

A. Williams:

Thanks for understanding where I was coming from!

It's just all those poor parishes that have been closing down these days and, not to mention, the dilemma of their faithful parishoners who had been attending those parishes for many, many years -- these good and devoted Catholic folks certainly don't deserve any of this!

I know of old folks who may never be able to attend Mass perhaps ever again since their local parish had closed down and the next church to them is just too far away from where they live. Being that they have no other family but themselves (in some cases, their kids are either living too far away from them -- even in another state), they're, thus, unable to get there as they cannot drive themselves since, for one, they have no such means of personal transportation and also being that they're confined to their walkers and wheelchairs, they wouldn't even be able to drive anyway due to their bodily afflictions.

John neglects the fact that the monies that go into the collection basket actually have a certain portion distributed to such ailing parishes in order to help them stay alive.

The "great philanthropist" - pacifist, ecologist and ecumenist - personal Anti-Christ, for this present age, is seen as one who will build on the fear of those who have adopted the idea that only some world order group of persons of means and power and "knowledge" will be able to help the masses of the world when chaos hits rather suddenly (ideologies like those of ecological excuses of global warming taking the place of universal sin) - war combined with economic upheaval (now tied globally as we have seen this week) and natural disasters of greater and greater proportion, causing famine, etc. with riots for food/water/money. Thus the masses will have been prepared through lessening of belief in the traditional God of history and revelation (God out of the market place and Christ reduced to lover of MM, etc. replaced by "saving" technologies of cloning, embryonic research) to not resist the kind of control by an ideal personal great humanist figure, aping Goodness and Love for all mankind. This will mean that people will have to give over their individual freedoms (now already boiling frogs) and responsibilities to one or a few - give in to their control - in order to eat and have order. This tribulation was alluded to by JPII when he spoke of these times as ones of the greatest confrontation between good and evil (I believe while he was still Cardinal); why he even made a feast day of St. Faustina's Jesus of Mercy messages - Sunday after Easter - when even greater than a plenary indulgence is granted - to prepare us. In the end, then, those few who "do resist" will enter that Era of Peace - the time when scripture speaks to the chaining for the "thousand years" of Satan. And after that period evil will again gain a hold with the final crisis of Anti-Christ coming before the end of the world, final judgment. This "interim coming" of Christ in this Eucharistic age of Peace - Triumph of Mary's Immaculate Heart - will be preceeded by its own personal judgment or correction of conscience or "Warning", spoken of by Faustina as well as others. And this interim "Coming" is spoken of as well by the early Church Fathers.

The only theologian granted official permission by the Vatican to write of this Era, third millennium of living in the Divine Will, according to the writings of Luisa Piccaretta,... while her cause is being studied, is Fr. Joseph Iannuzi. In an interview with Mother Angelica:

Fr. Iannuzi: What is coming, what our Lord refers to in that passage from St. Faustina appears to be, based on the writings of the early fathers, and the doctors and even sacred scripture what is called an intermediary coming or is sometimes called a middle coming. Which we find in writings of St. Bernard of Claireaux, an 11th century doctor who was given the title of mellifluous doctor because of his formed, orderly, and methodic presentation of mystical theology. He states that there are three comings of our Lord.
Now, this sounds like a contradiction to what the magesterium, the body of the church teaches us when it says the second coming of Christ in the flesh is the final judgement of those that have risen from the dead and those that are alive, and the new heavens and the new earth. The magesterium qualifies it carefully. It says, "the Second Coming in the flesh." St. Bernard, says the Second Coming, between the two, is invisible. He says, there are three comings of the Lord. The second is between the other two, it is invisible, while the other two are visible. In other words, the third coming in St. Bernard's language is the Second Coming of the magesterium, in the flesh. So the middle coming is not in the flesh. It sounds confusing but when you study it for a while it becomes easily understandable and it is buttressed by a previous father of the 4th century, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, who fought the Arian heresy with Athenaseus and Jerome after him. And it was St. Cyril who said there is a hidden coming of the Lord, like rain on fleece, that follows his incarnation and proceeds his final coming. So, this is in the church's tradition. This middle intermediary, hidden, invisible coming of Christ. And I think that Faustina refers to that when Christ tells her that she must prepare the world for his second coming. He doesn't say "in the flesh". He is referring to St. Cyril, St. Bernard and several other church fathers who speak of an era of peace. St. Augustine refers to it as a state of rest. St. Methodius of Olympus refers to it as a state of rest. St. Justin, Iraneus, Papyus, Latentius refer to it as a symbolic thousand years of rest based on the creation of the world and Rev. 20. I don't want to get too complicated here.

It is so amazing to me just how few bishops, priests, faithful seem to be aware of this most important time of preparation - in this time of Mercy, before Justice must act (also a form of Mercy).

And to the commenter above who spoke as if the Anti-Christ must be a pope; remember that there is to be the Anti-Christ and his Prophet. It is thought that the Anti-Christ is the secular holder of power, great philanthopist, while his Prophet is one Anti-Pope of the great Schism (perhaps already in preparation) when the Pope has been forced into hiding and the Church appears to be almost invisible due to persecution!!

chris K

Sorry, that last Fr. Iannuzzi/Faustina comment was mine!

Dee Dee Warren

Jimmy, I am a non-Catholic "partial preterist" (using common vernacular though I personally reject that label), and I am curious as to what grounds you would claim hyperpreterism to be heretical as a Catholic? I agree with you, and I know how I would answer that question if I were you, but I am dialoging with a Catholic on this issue who argues that hyperpreterism is not heretical in Catholicism, and I must not be communicating myself clearly because he has not gotten the point, and is an intelligent thinker. I am hoping perhaps you can communicate your thoughts that might be helpful for me to point out in dialog. Although honestly it seems quite exasperatingly self-evident on several levels.

Rich

Concerning the Anti-Christ:

1John 2:18   Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared; from this we know that it is the last hour.

1John 2:22 Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son.

1John 4:3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world.

2John 7   For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist.

It is clear it was the "last hour" in the 1st century (see also Heb 1:2, Acts 2:16-17) and it is equally as clear that the "antichrists" were in the 1st century (1st century non-believing Jews - 1 John 2:19).

The end referred to throughout the entire NT is the end of the Old Covenant world of Israel. It has nothing to do with the physical material world.

Is it not clear from passages such as Isaiah 51:16:

“I have put My words in your mouth and have covered you with the shadow of My hand, to establish the heavens, to found the earth, and to say to Zion, ‘You are My people.’”

that when God called Israel out of Egypt he was creating Israel's "Heaven and Earth" (their "world" - Old Covenant world)? This is the "world" that was coming (Heb 8:13, 1 Cor 7:31) to an end in the 1st century. This was a world ruled by "the sin" and "the death" due to the Law . Christ was born into this "world", "according to the flesh" (Romans 1:3, Gal 4:4), and it was this "world" that Christ died to. He was resurrected "according to the Spirit" (Romans 1:4) to usher in a "new heaven and earth" (the New Covenant), one where righteousness dwelled (2 Peter 3:13). That is why Paul could say "even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him in this way no longer. (2 Cor 5:16). To look and long for Christ to return in his physical fleshly body, is to seek Christ "according to the flesh", which would be a return to a world of the sin and the death. Personally, I prefer Christ "according the spirit", which is life and righteousness.

John

"...whom the Lord Jesus shall kill...with the brightness of his coming." (2 Thess. II,8) DR Bible

From the above, when Our Lord returns, he shall slay the Antichrist. In the DR bible footnote 3 confirms that the Antichrist will be a particular man and it is of Faith that when Christ returns it shall be at the end of time. Therefore, if the Antichrist is to be slain and is a man, he must be in power for Christ to slay him. For that to take place and prophesy fulfilled, the only things that can take place after the antichrist is slain is the end of the world, judgement, Heaven and Hell.


St Paul in Thessalonians makes it very clear in 2Thessalonains where he says "and then that wicked one shall be revealed..whose coming is according to the working of satan, in all power and signs of lying wonders, and in all seductions....because they receive not the love of truth, that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying....Therefore bretheren, stand fast and hold the TRADITIONS which you have learned, whether by WORD or by EPISTLE".

It is very very clear what St Paul has warned us to do to be saved, but the great apostasy and falling away seems to be underway and one can only wait for the great chastisment.

Christ himself warned us that no one knows the day and hour, not even the angels of heaven but the Father only (Matthew 23:33).

Realist

John,

Matthew 23:32-33

/ /32/ Fill up, then, the measure of your ancestors. /33/ You snakes, you brood of vipers! How can you escape being sentenced to hell? /

I assume you meant Matthew 24:42- see http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/jdb188.html for an "op-ed".

Esau

THE END OF THE WORLD IS HERE -- REALIST AND JOHN JTNOVA HAS JOINED FORCES!!!!

BOTH THE RAD TRAD & THE CROSSAN DISCIPLE!!!

AHHHHH!!!!

REPENT YE SINNERS -- THE END DRAWS NEAR!!!

J.R. Stoodley

I was looking over what has been written above and just want to point out this one thing. I need to go to bed so I don't have time to respond to more but I could.

[linked]John wrote "In February 2, 1986, he was marked with cow dung, the "Tilac," the sign of the adorers of the pagan goddess Shiva, by a Hindu priestess at Bombay."

It was pointed out to John months ago that Shiva is a male god not a goddess, that the tilac while Hindu in origin lacks distinct religious meaning anymore and is done by people of any religion, and that the woman who marked the Pope with it was an Indian Catholic. The fact that he has repeated this refuted calumny against a deceased Pope suggests carelessness if not worse things about John.

John

JR Posted:

"linked]John wrote "In February 2, 1986, he was marked with cow dung, the "Tilac," the sign of the adorers of the pagan goddess Shiva, by a Hindu priestess at Bombay."

It was pointed out to John months ago that Shiva is a male god not a goddess, that the tilac while Hindu in origin lacks distinct religious meaning anymore and is done by people of any religion, and that the woman who marked the Pope with it was an Indian Catholic. "

THE QUESTION IS-WHAT DIFFERENCE IF IT IS A MALE OR FEMALE GOD? Why get anything on your forehead?Would any Pope participate in such scandal before V2?


Esau-You once again fail as an Apologist. I placed scripture in front of you from St Paul warning us to hold fast to Tradition as one can not trust man, and you act like a child again. You are basically just a cut and paste job

Esquire

John,

It is very very clear what St Paul has warned us to do to be saved, but the great apostasy and falling away seems to be underway and one can only wait for the great chastisment.

Of course, St. Paul also recommends that while one is waiting for the great chastisement, he should stay faithful to the Church and remain united to the Apostles and the Vicar of Christ.

You, John, seem to be more infatuated with the traditions of men than the Tradition of the Church. In fact, your utter contempt for the heirarchy of the last 40 years is the very root of Modernism condemned by St. Pope Pius X.

Ironic, isn't it?

Esquire

To elaborate briefly, what makes a tradition a divine one instead of a human one is its connection to the Church. The very same action performed in the Church is essentially different than the same action performed outside the Church.

I, for example, could stand at an altar in a nominally Catholic Church, with bread, wine and all the liturgical accompaniments, and recite precisely the pre-Vatican II words of consecration, all to no effect. 0r at least no good effect, because I am not acting with the Church or in. My actions would be very "traditional," but separated from the Church, and thus from Tradition, they would only be traditional in the human sense, not the divine sense.

SSPX and other traditional-ist organizations are "traditional" in much the same sense, but separated from the Church their "traditions" have lost their divine characteristic. This is why some have chosen to refer to them as something other than simply "traditional" -- such as "radical traditionals" or "traditionalists."

John

Esquire

You make no sense, with all due respect

The Council of Trent clearly defined what constitutes the sacrament of transubstantion (even care to read such) and if anything, the New Mass and new words of consecration (invalid form), not to mention probably 50% (my guess here) of the priests themselves who dont believe in transubstantion (making the intention invalid) and who knows how many times grape juice or whatever has been substituted making the matter invalid. And we know that a mass is not a mass without a true sacrifice and that makes the New Mass questionable at best

It was never the Council fathers in their reform of the liturgy to keep the sacrifice of the Mass intact, it is clear in the original Novus Ordo instructions of 1969, the new mass was supposed to "re-enact" the last supper and be a "memorial" only. The Ottavani intervention is clear on this fact.

The New Mass is as close to a protestant service as one can get without being Protestant

Esquire

John,

I'll try to keep it simple for you, since you seem to have completely missed the point of my post (no doubt due to a lack of clarity on my part).

Traditions performed apart from the Church are "human traditions," no matter how much they look like "divine traditions."

You seem to be more infatuated with the traditions of men than the Tradition of the Church. In fact, your utter contempt for the heirarchy of the last 40 years is the very root of Modernism condemned by St. Pope Pius X.

Ironic, isn't it?

Esau

not to mention probably 50% (my guess here) of the priests themselves who dont believe in transubstantion (making the intention invalid)

Even though I don't believe John's statement here to actually be true, there is such a thing called: Ex Opere Operato

That is, the grace of a sacrament is always conferred by the sacrament itself.

Hence, ex opere operato literally means “from the work performed.”

Esquire

The Council of Trent clearly defined what constitutes the sacrament of transubstantion (even care to read such)...

Yes, many times.

...and if anything, the New Mass and new words of consecration (invalid form)...

Care to elaborate?

...not to mention probably 50% (my guess here) of the priests themselves who dont believe in transubstantion...

Care to substantiate?

...(making the intention invalid) and who knows how many times grape juice or whatever has been substituted making the matter invalid.

You are correct that grape juice is invalid matter. And while I have no doubt this has been attempted by some, I have yet to run into it.

And we know that a mass is not a mass without a true sacrifice and that makes the New Mass questionable at best

OK, you missed a step there.

And in any event, questionable by whom? Devotees of human tradition? So-called "traditionalists" who place more stock in the look and feel of things than in obedience to the Church and the Magisterium?

It was never the Council fathers in their reform of the liturgy to keep the sacrifice of the Mass intact,...

This clause is grammatically challenged. Did you mean to say that the Council fathers never meant to keep the sacrifice of the Mass intact? If so, can you provide a citation, or better yet a link, to your source for that one?

... it is clear in the original Novus Ordo instructions of 1969, the new mass was supposed to "re-enact" the last supper and be a "memorial" only.

Let's take this in baby steps. Tell me why you think your understanding is "clear." Citations and links, again, would be helpful.

The Ottavani intervention is clear on this fact.

Again, explaining why you think your interpretation is "clear" would greatly aid the analysis.

The New Mass is as close to a protestant service as one can get without being Protestant

Actually, I can get one step closer. Traditional-looking worship services performed by excommunicated Catholics who have substituted their judgment on what is "Catholic" for that of the Holy Father and the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

Esau

Esquire -- damn you're good!

Keep up the excellent work!

I LOVE that point-by-point refutation style of yours!

David B.

"And we know that a mass is not a mass without a true sacrifice and that makes the New Mass questionable at best"

John,

wWhen you speak calumny against my GOD'S sacrifice, I MUST PROTEST!!!
As your brother in Christ, I must warn you that denying the reality Our LORD'S sacrifice in the Novus Ordo is heresy!

John

Esquire

You should audition for Jay Leno as you seem to be a comic

It is very simple-Pope Paul VI did not call the new mass the "Novus Ordo" or "New Order" for nothing! It is right out of the Masonic battle cry of Novus Ordo Seclorum or as JPII was so good at saying "New World Order"

Maybe if you take a look at the Vatican archives and if you dont know Italian, have someone translate for you!!!


http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/speeches/1969/april/documents/hf_p-vi_spe_19690428_due-congregazioni_lt.html

David B.

"It is very simple-Pope Paul VI did not call the new mass the "Novus Ordo" or "New Order" for nothing! It is right out of the Masonic battle cry of Novus Ordo Seclorum or as JPII was so good at saying "New World Order""

Ay-ai-ai-ai-ai!

John

I stand corrected-he wrote this one in Latin

Unfortunatly the church no longer teaches the seminarians Latin and they are ignorant to be able to even read anything before Vatican II

Evey question why? Maybe they dont want them to know they have been living a lie and spoon fed all of this garbage

Esquire

John,

You should audition for Jay Leno as you seem to be a comic

Thanks for the tip! I didn't know he had auditions.

It is very simple-Pope Paul VI did not call the new mass the "Novus Ordo" or "New Order" for nothing!

You mean he called the new order a new order for some reason other than it is a new order? Fascinating!

It is right out of the Masonic battle cry of Novus Ordo Seclorum or as JPII was so good at saying "New World Order"

Oh, I love a good conspiracy theory, and with masonic overtones to boot. You must be salivating over the impending publication of Dan Brown's new book, which I understand will lay bare all of the masonic secrets!

Maybe if you take a look at the Vatican archives and if you dont know Italian, have someone translate for you!!!

OK. Are there some secret codes I need to be on the lookout for?

Mary Kay

:)

John,

You don't even know the half of the battles of the Church and the secret forces.
You just want something to be able to say that you know more than anyone else.

Dead wrong.

You don't even know the man who fought and still fights from Heaven.

Falsa derechista!

Some Day

Hey John,

You are allowed to question the tendencial errors of the liturgy as they are de facto.
But NEVER the validity of the Mass.
Remember Our Lord gave the sacramental words in Aramaic, so they have come a long way, and Latin was not the original. And the other Rites are not in Latin either.
So stop making enemies for free.

Mary Kay

So stop making enemies for free.

You mean we can charge John per calumny?

Can we do that with some of the other folks and trolls who periodically surface?

Some Day

He just is making enemies with now rational purpose.
Why argue things HE does not even know about?!

Some Day

Check this link out.

Now tell me, does this not look splendorous, without being tradox and following the new Mass?

http://www.arautos.org.br/defaultb.asp?area=8

Some Day

Hmm. Subject got old.

Esau

So, now to the question(s). What does it mean to confess with the Catholic Church that Christ will return? Must it mean that I picture Him coming bodily on a cloud and doing certain things (I think a lot of Protestants have Him throwing fireballs at people)?


This CRACKS me up!

It reminds me so much of the STREETFIGHTER II video game that was popular back in the days!

I can just imagine it:

Sagat vs. Jesus!

Scott

I am a former Full Preterist and have recently published an article to my blog on why I can no longer accept that position. This may be something you may want to check out.

http://www.shadowsofthecross.com/

The comments to this entry are closed.

January 2012

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31