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

« March Of The Burn Victim Towel Animals--Parte Deux | Main | Another Theory On Who Jack The Ripper Was »

May 14, 2007

Comments

bill912

I refer to Democrats as the "Evil" party, and Republicans as either the "Stupid" party or the "Gutless" party.

Zach

My dad has long said that he considers a Democratic congress and a Republican president as idea. Lots of gridlock. I think that fits in with the Mommy/Daddy and Senator/Governor dichotomies. The Republicans are Executive and the Dems are Legislative. The former lead and do, the latter come to consensus and form committees and vote. The former value individualism, integrity and courage, the latter value communication, relationships and equality. We want the former traits in an executive and the latter in the Senate. It is perhaps no coincidence that the Republicans have dominated in the White House and the Dems in the Senate in the post-war period, despite Watergate. Even Clinton, the most successful Dem president since FDR, was not a leader but rather was known for his "feeling your pain", following the polls and in general bringing his supporters together and working with allies.
You could also probably say that Dems are Europeans and Republicans are Texans. This is especially apt since many say they will flee to Europe if a Republican wins, and I, for one, would seriously consider a move to Texas were Hilary to become president.

BobCatholic

Well, I'm from the People's Republic of Illinois. I can't see any difference between the two parties here. Both of them spawn corruption and get indicted by the feds.

M.Z. Forrest

I don't think it really holds out. A lot of it depends on who you believe to be a feasible candidate. As far as end results go, Bush Sr. is the only non-governor since Reagan. Going back to the 96 election, two of the Republicans biggers candidates, Dole and Kemp were Senators.

The present election is filled with senators from both parties. Everyone knows Obama and Hillary, but the Republicans have Brownback, F. Thompson, McCain, and I'm sure I'm missing a few.

Why not throw out a prediction? 2008: Huckabee (R) v. Richardson (D).

Brian Day

I tend to agree with George Wallace when he said, "There's not a dime's worth of difference between the Democrat and Republican Parties."

Jamie Beu

I think that Shakespeare said it best: "Either a criminal's office or a fool's."

Unfortunately, this doesn't help label the parties, as each side has their share of both criminals and fools (and not much else).

Ed Peters

Very interesting....

ps: bill912 is right once again, but hey, so what else is new?

Ed Peters

pps: it's so nice being able to say "I was Independent, when Independent wasn't cool."

Mary Kay

Ed, something in common after all. You and I see differently on some topics, but being able to say "I was Independent, when Independent wasn't cool" describes me also.

Ed Peters

Mary Kay, thx.

(PS: the only things we don't agree on are the very few things you don't think clearly on.)

Esau

(PS: the only things we don't agree on are the very few things you don't think clearly on.)

Dang!

That's devestating!

I need to remember that line whenever I get into a discussion of 'differences' between myself and other folks 'who don't think clearly' on certain matters. ;^)

horatio

I believe the Governor/Senator distinction has some correlation to party, but it is also clear that Americans as a whole prefer candidates with executive experience. Since the turn of the Century it has been a rarity for anyone to be elected who was not nominated while Governor or Vice President. Only exceptions are:

Howard Taft - fmr Sec. of War
Herbert Hoover - Sec. of Commerce
Dwight Eisenhower - General
John Kennedy - Senator from Massachusetts

And only one member of Congress in that time. Until Eisehower was elected, Democrats held the presidency for twenty years. After Eisenhower, the split was even until our current president was elected in 2000.

So, as a whole, our country prefers Governors and Vice Presidents, though it should be noted that in recent history it has been difficult for Vice Presidents to win the following election. Bush Sr. being the only one to do so without first having assumed the presidency due to the death of the President. (Truman and Johnson)

So, if you are in Congress, best chance to become president is to be someone's running mate first. Worked in various capacities for Ford, Johnson, and Truman.


Inocencio

Ed Peters thinks clearly until you discuss Johnny Depp.

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Bret Ramsey

Who cares about Dumb and Dumber... I want to know if that towel thing was a penguin :)

BobCatholic from Illinois,

Eddie Vrdolyak is certainly corrupt but a very intelligent and philosophically correct Catholic and very pro-life--albeit very flawed on a personal level.
Illinois is real messed up.

SDG

Ed Peters thinks clearly until you discuss Johnny Depp.

Haw! Can't wait for At World's End.

Ed Peters

Denzel and Depp are the two most versatile actors around today. In fact, they are the only two who qualify as versatile, now that Dustin is basically retired.

Esau

Denzel and Depp are the two most versatile actors around today. In fact, they are the only two who qualify as versatile, now that Dustin is basically retired.


Depends on your definition on the term 'versatile'.

Will Smith can arguably be considered versatile if you consider the 'Fresh Prince' of former days to the 'Pursuit of Happiness' guy you see today.

Plus, the guy can rap (using decent lyrics, btw) and solve a rubic's cube!

(j/k)

Esau

Haw! Can't wait for At World's End.

Yeah -- but will it outdo 'Spidey III' at the box office!?!?

-- btw, anybody notice the Catholic Moral Theology inherent in that S3???

Kinda nice, huh???

Bert

Admiring Hollywood actors. Might as well be fawning over Cheryl Crow.

Inocencio

Movies are like kryptonite to Ed Peters brain. You know I am just having fun with your poor taste in actors.

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Esau

Admiring Hollywood actors.

A great man I know by the name of Karol was an actor.

Ed Peters

One of these days, Inocencio, one of these days. ;)

Ernie

A great man I know by the name of Karol was an actor.

What a character he was.

Tom

If, however, they’re convinced that they’re in personal peril, threatened by out-of-control ... international forces that require aggressive governmental initiatives to counteract them, they will probably choose “The Senator Party.”

Yet that's the same bus George Bush rode in 2004. But then, he and the Republican party helped build it.

Mary Kay

What's the matter, Ed? Are differing opinions so difficult that you have to put the person down as "not thinking clearly"?

It's unfortunate that you chose that response when I held out a hand in friendship.

The last time we had differing views was February 2 and 3 where you objected to my saying that evil is more than an absence of good. I cited Romans 12:21 which speaks of overcoming evil and even looked up the in the original language. The word means "to subdue, to conquer, to overcome, to prevail, to get the victory" from a root word meaning conquest.

Not being able to argue with the dictionary definition, you said it was a "metaphor" which didn't hold any water.

Whatever you want to call that exchange, no way can it be described as "not thinking clearly."

John

Earnie posted:

"A great man I know by the name of Karol was an actor.

What a character he was."

More like a clown like the clown masses he was so fond of promulgating!!

Jared

The 1980's were good years for us actor-types. We had both a president and a pope who'd been actors.

President Stallone? Pope Caviezel?

Nearly impossible to imagine. Nearly.

Esau

The 1980's were good years for us actor-types. We had both a president and a pope who'd been actors. President Stallone? Pope Caviezel? Nearly impossible to imagine. Nearly.


Wasn't Scwharznegger (however you spell his name) portrayed as a President once in a Stallone movie?

Back then, when I heard that, I laughed.

Now that he's become governor, I don't know what to do! ;^)

nutcrazical

Mary Kay, I'm pretty sure Ed was only joking.

And Will Smith's ability to solve the Rubik's Cube amazes me. He never fails!

Ed Peters

thx nutcrazical. someone besides me had to say it. humor is dangerous on the net, since so much of it depends on things like voice tone, facial looks, etc, none of which come across in a combox.

marykay, nz was right. notice, my line could be said by anyone about anyone who has ever disgareed with him, therefore, it has no meaning.

oh well.

Esau

Is there a reason why this thread about the X-party and the Y-party morphed into a discussion about Johnny Depp and Denzel; then, about President Stallone and Pope Caveziel?

I'm surprised that, at the very least, since everybody started introducing actors into the mix and, plus, since we're talking about political parties, folks didn't bring up Rob Lowe and Barbara Streissand! =^)

Anon like no other

If it is not Catholic then it is evil or has a evil purpose whether we know what it is or not.

Neither party is Catholic, therefore, they are both agents to the Devil.

Mary Kay

Ed, yes humor is more challenging on the net.

Then again, where else would I learn that an actor can solve the Rubik cube? :)

Ed Peters

Careful, Anon-like-no-other, jokes don't come across well in comboxes, and surely your post was meant as a joke.

Speaking of funny, tonight would be good night for a Woody Allen film....I've got about 30 in my collection. (The foregoing presented as a public service announcement and is not intended to represent the views of managment of or to send the comments off on a tangent.)

Rubick

More like a clown like the clown masses he was so fond of promulgating!!

Speaking of clowns, they actually hired clowns to work the crowds on Family Day.

Anon like no other

I am joking as much as Our Lord when He kicked the vendors from the Temple.

If it does not have its orgins in or converted by the Church it is still serving its evil purposes.

Esau

Speaking of funny, tonight would be good night for a Woody Allen film....

Play it Again, Sam!

(Ditto Ed's disclaimer...)

Esau

If it does not have its orgins in or converted by the Church it is still serving its evil purposes.


Mk 12:17:
17 And Jesus answering, said to them: Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him. (DRV)

Anon like no other

But the government should go hand in hand with the Church.

St.Louis???

St.Fernando???

St.Conrad???

St.Elizabeth???

And if you want to talk Republics...


???

Nope not any saints there.
Garcia Moreno might be one day.

But that is all. See this unnatural rise of the Republics had an evil orgin. Now monarchies are more perfect. Republics are licit too. They are not as perfect, but licit. But the way they came about is not. So know that this country was made to be a headquarters of immoral and un-Catholic customs.

And from there you get the evils of the world.

Anon

Mark 9:

38 John said to him, "Teacher, we saw someonej casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he was not following us." 39But Jesus said, "Do not stop him; for no one who does a deed of power in my name will be able soon afterward to speak evil of me. 40Whoever is not against us is for us. 41For truly I tell you, whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because you bear the name of Christ will by no means lose the reward.
Esau

”...If, amidst some familiar Ratzingerian themes, there is a new chord struck with particular force, it is Benedict XVI’s insistence, repeated several times, that a Christian Church faithful to its Lord cannot be a Church of power. Benedict does not quite describe Christianity’s alliance with state power as a Babylonian captivity. Still, he comes very close when he writes that “the temptation to use power to secure the faith has arisen again and again in various forms throughout the centuries, and again and again faith has risked being suffocated in the embrace of power. The struggle for the freedom of the Church, the struggle to avoid identifying Jesus’ Kingdom with any political structure, is one that has to be fought century after century. For the fusion of faith and political power always comes at a price: faith becomes the servant of power and must bend to its criteria.”

-- Weigel talking about B16's New Book

John

Esau posted:

”...If, amidst some familiar Ratzingerian themes, there is a new chord struck with particular force, it is Benedict XVI’s insistence, repeated several times, that a Christian Church faithful to its Lord cannot be a Church of power"

Compare that to scripture:

“I am a king. For this was I born, and for this came I into the world, that I should give testimony to the truth" (John 18:37)

Pope Leo XIII taught in his Encyclical on Freemasonary:

Now, it is historically certain that the Declaration of the Rights of Man had been conceived and elaborated in the Masonic lodges before it was presented to the States-General of France...is in reality a declaration of war on membership of Christ and on the whole structure of society based on that supernatural dignity.... every member of Christ is called upon to play his or her part. There can be no neutrality. “He that is not with me is against me ”

Of course as the church teaches today that all religions hold truth and even non Catholics can be saved. So why would one expect Ratzinger to believe that the Catholic church should be a church of "power"?

St Thomas taught as well that the best form of government is a Monarchy, and one can easily go back and find saints among the Monarchs-Can one say the same for the republics? Pope John F Kennedy anyone????

Anon

Is John always this disingenuous? Or is intellectual honesty somehow incompatible with radically traditional Catholicism?

So, as a whole, our country prefers Governors and Vice Presidents, though it should be noted that in recent history it has been difficult for Vice Presidents to win the following election

The only sitting vice presidents elected since the twelfth amendment were Van Buren in 1836 and Bush 41 in 1988. Americans prefer vice presidents to penniless drunken hobos and precious little else.

bill912

John is obsessed. All of his posts can be reduced to any or all of the following: 1)Vatican II: Bad! 2)Everything since Vatican II: Bad! 3)Paul VI: Bad! 4) John Paul II: Very Bad!

Ed Peters

John posted: "St Thomas taught as well that the best form of government is a Monarchy..."

True enough, John, but tell your readers the rest: Thomas ALSO said that when monarchy goes bad, it is the WORST form of government. Democracy, oto, Thomas said, was the least of the good forms, but when IT went bad, it was also the least harmful.

Geeze.

Brian

Is John always this disingenuous? Or is intellectual honesty somehow incompatible with radically traditional Catholicism?

John isn't disingenuous. As far as I can tell, he thoroughly believes everything he says.

Some Day

Mr. Peters,

I don't remember the 2nd part, but assuming it is true, there is a major problem.

These revolutions against the monarchy were not Catholic at all. They were all influenced (if not orchestrated) by Masons and the sort.

The world has been in decline since these revolutions began.

But I also put the objection that St.Thomas spoke in reference to a democracy when it is natural and Catholic.

Democracies with revolutionary orgins are not Catholic or natural at all.Plus they are dominated by the forces of evil and not good.

Now I also agree that the late monarchies were decadent. They allowed what happend to them and it is a chastisement to the elites of the world.
It is true that it was too absolutist and soft.
The nobility only wanted to waltz and get fat, when their vocation was to lead the battle and be an example to the people, especially morally.
And it was not done so...

So the Revolution took its course...


Luther-France-Russia-Satanism?

Mary Kay

John isn't disingenuous. As far as I can tell, he thoroughly believes everything he says.

But sincere belief doesn't make the belief correct.

(for Anon and any lurkers. I know you know that Brian.)

A Simple Sinner

"St Thomas taught as well that the best form of government is a Monarchy, and one can easily go back and find saints among the Monarchs-Can one say the same for the republics? Pope John F Kennedy anyone????"

Huh? Pope JFK?

John, can we be so bold as to ask who your bishop is?

Some Day

John, can we be so bold as to ask who your bishop is?

I don't know, but for some reason I cracked up when I read that.
John respons only to Mon. Lefevre though.

Marc

There's these two words...."rat" and "hole". You put them together and you have "rathole"..

BobCatholic

>John is obsessed. All of his posts can be reduced to any or all of the following: 1)Vatican II: Bad! 2)Everything since Vatican II: Bad! 3)Paul VI: Bad! 4) John Paul II: Very Bad!

Actually, his posts can be reduced to this: "The gates of hell have prevailed!"

John

Simple Sinner Posted:

"Huh? Pope JFK?

John, can we be so bold as to ask who your bishop is? "

May I ask what that has to do with my post?

Pope JFK? Sure, for many of American Catholics, Mr Kennedy is their Catholic Pope, snubbing their nose right at the Vatican informing the world when he was running for president that he takes no orders from the Pope but from the American people

And now you have congress with a Novus Ordo "Catholic" speaker, Teddy Kennedy, John Kerry, and upwards 1/3 of congress as so called "Catholics" with most in the democratic camp pushing forth their abortion and liberal agenda and being sure to tell the world they are not Catholic which they really do not need to publicize as their actions clearly speak volumes, but they all line up for the photo op to receive their communion wafer from the Catholic church with not a priest, Bishop, or even Pope who backpeddled again after first saying that pro abortion politicians are excommunicated denying them the sacred species, our Lord and Savior

Who are the real pharisies? It is the clergy of Vatican II who refuse to deny our Lord to those in mortal sin and want to do him harm as the pharisies did 2000 years ago as they care less in protecting his name and body and blood from continued defamation and abuse.

BobCatholic

>BobCatholic from Illinois,
>
>Eddie Vrdolyak is certainly corrupt but a very >intelligent and philosophically correct Catholic >and very pro-life--albeit very flawed on a >personal level.
>Illinois is real messed up.

No disagreement there.

BobCatholic

>John, can we be so bold as to ask who your bishop is?

Why do I have this feeling he doesn't have one?

Inocencio

BobCatholic,

Actually, his posts can be reduced to this: "The gates of hell have prevailed!"

If only John could realize that is what he has accepted.

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Esau

...snubbing their nose right at the Vatican informing the world when he was running for president that he takes no orders from the Pope but from the American people


Okay, somebody kindly explain this to me:

John complains about JFK and others supposedly snubbing their nose right at the Vatican and the refusal to take orders from the Pope.

How is this any different from John?

However, John snubbs the Vatican and takes no orders from the Pope himself!

Geeze!

Talk about projection!

There's a psychological imbalance there that needs to be resolved in this guy's psyche.

Brian

Pope JFK? Sure, for many of American Catholics, Mr Kennedy is their Catholic Pope, snubbing their nose right at the Vatican informing the world when he was running for president that he takes no orders from the Pope but from the American people

John, the reason so many people get upset with you is because you always attribute these qualities to the Church rather than the people who exhibit them. You know as well as any of us that the Catholic Church does not teach these things; it's the people who dissent from the Church who act in this way. If your posts made the distinction between what the Church actually teaches and the people who refuse to accept Her teachings, you would have a lot more friends around here.

Esau

If your posts made the distinction between what the Church actually teaches and the people who refuse to accept Her teachings, you would have a lot more friends around here.


Brian,
You hit the nail right on the head!

What's weird is that I believe the reason why John refuses to acknowledge this is because it too much reminds him of himself; thus, there is a psychological 'block' in his mind that prevents him from realizing this fact in his psyche.

Think about it --

The very reason why there have been so many liturgical abuses rampant in the world today is because of folks who refuse to adhere and acknowledge actual Church teachings but, instead, make up a facsimile of it that is to their own liking.

In John's case, he refuses to adhere and acknowledge the actual Church teachings himself but, instead, makes up a facsimile of it that is to his own disliking in order to provide him a reason (albeit fabricated) to rebel against it.

This, too, can be said of the Rad Trads (though not genuine Traditionalists who still faithfully look up to the Pope and acknowledge the Novus Ordo Missae).

Why?

Because it gives them a reason for being; for their existence.

You need to realize that for these Rad Trads, the Tridentine Mass was a part of them psychologically and emotionally; therefore, to have lost it due to the Novus Ordo Missae meant losing that aspect of themselves.

Therefore, they've manufactured all these things that Vatican II supposedly did in order to provide them with reasons for their existence and for their rebellion against the very thing that caused them to lose that aspect of themselves -- the Catholic Church.

All in all, it's a mental defect, you might say, that causes the Rad Trads to behave so irrationally.

This does NOT go the same for genuine Traditionalists who want to bring back the Tridentine Rite for legitimate reasons, who actually still acknowledge the Vicar of Christ as Head of Christ's True Church and the Authority of His Catholic Church.

Brian

This does NOT go the same for genuine Traditionalists who want to bring back the Tridentine Rite for legitimate reasons, who actually still acknowledge the Vicar of Christ as Head of Christ's True Church and the Authority of His Catholic Church.

Esau, I think that John does, at the very minimum, do these things (despite at the same time ranting against the Church). Maybe it's because I haven't been here very long, but I have a hard time outright condemning John. His disgust for the dissent that is so common in our age is absolutely appropriate and right. Unfortunately he's kind of like Darth Vader using the force for the dark side instead of for the rebels. I guess I still have hope that John's hatred of that which should be hated can be channeled in the right direction rather than abandoned completely.

Esau

Brian:
I think you're missing the point of my post above.

There is a distinct difference between Rad Trads and genuine Traditionalists.

I know genuine Traditionalists and affiliate with them, in fact. They continue to acknowledge the Seat of Peter and the Authority of the Catholic Church.

Rad Trads, however, are a sect all their own.

They have gone to the extent of declaring Pope John Paul II as well as Benedict XVI, Paul VI and John XXIII heretics as well as apostates.

So, if you were to survey John's posts, it's interesting to note that even though John shows such disgust for dissent; he himself is guilty of the same thing.

In his case, as I tried to explain in my above post, it's perhaps a mental defect in that his psyche prevents him from seeing clearly that the very thing he accuses the people in the Church of (i.e., massive dissent) is also a reflection of himself as well.

Unfortunately he's kind of like Darth Vader using the force for the dark side instead of for the rebels.

Perhaps this will help --

Remember in Revenge of the Sith, when Anakin was so blinded by the dark side (by his hate) that he couldn't clearly see that the very lives he sought to protect were the very lives he was endangering?

Remember how Anakin started manufacturing 'evil' things about the Jedi that, in his mind, he thought were genuinely true; however, they had no basis in reality?

It can be said, for one, that these fabrications about the "corrupt" Jedi provided Anakin justification to rebel against them and helped to relieve his conscience of any guilt in the matter to the point where he started committing such horrific actions without giving them a second thought (e.g., the killing of the Jedi children).

Not that John is going to start killing innocent children (hope not), but, in the same way as Anakin, John's mind (as well as that of a Rad Trad's) manufactures such awful things about Vatican II wherein he is unable to see things clearly (blinded, like Anakin, by hate; in this case, a hatred of Vatican II and what it supposedly did) that he and the Rad Trads have gone to the extent of declaring our Popes as heretics and, even worse, apostates (same way Anakin started demonizing the Jedi Council in his mind), not knowing that the very thing he and they are fighting against (in Anakin's case, it was the Jedi) is the very thing that is the source of our salvation.

A Simple Sinner

"John, can we be so bold as to ask who your bishop is? "

"May I ask what that has to do with my post?"

It has as much to do with "The X Party Vs. The Y Party" as Pope JFK.

And given your predilection to lurk and decry that we Catholics aren't Catholic anymore anyway - and do so in any and every thread you seem to post in - this place right here is as good a place as any to ask.

So please, out there in the wilderness with your true Catholics, can you tell us who your bishop is? If you can't tell, that would be rather telling.

John

http://www.lifenews.com/nat3122.html

Here is the product of "Freedom", "Religious Liberty" and Masonic influence in the US and the so called Democratic process. Lets see if the Pope takes a stance


Pro-Abortion Members of Congress Blast Pope Benedict on Excommunication

Email this article
Printer friendly page
by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
May 15, 2007


Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Eighteen pro-abortion members of Congress lashed out on Monday in a letter opposing remarks Pope Benedict XVI made about pro-abortion Catholic politicians. The Catholic Church leader told reporters last week that any Catholic elected official who supports abortion has automatically excommunicated themselves.
Led by pro-abortion Rep. Rosa DeLauro, a Connecticut Democrat, eighteen members of the House issued a statement responding to the pope's comments.

"We are concerned with the pope's recent statement warning Catholic elected officials that they risk excommunication and would not receive communion for their pro-choice views," the statement read.

They said that the penalty of excommunication "offend(s) the very nature of the American experiment and do(es) a great disservice to the centuries of good work the church has done."

DeLauro and the pro-abortion lawmakers suggested that even though the Catholic church is pro-life that it's a personal mission rather than a mission accomplished through public policy.

The pontiff was asked about the topics in reference to a threat from the Catholic bishops in Mexico to excommunicate members of the Mexico City legislative assembly who recently voted to legalize abortion in the nation's capital.

“Yes, this excommunication was not an arbitrary one but is allowed by Canon (church) law which says that the killing of an innocent child is incompatible with receiving communion, which is receiving the body of Christ,” he said.

"They (Mexican Church leaders) did nothing new, surprising or arbitrary. They simply announced publicly what is contained in the law of the Church... which expresses our appreciation for life and that human individuality, human personality is present from the first moment (of life)," he added.

The pope talked about church doctrine known as "automatic excommunication” where someone who does something which the church considers a grave sin inflicts on themselves.

A report in The Hill, a newspaper focusing on Congress, the statement "mirrors" a Catholic "statement of principles" released last year that 55 mostly pro-abortion Democrats, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi, signed.

The statement of principles says that the lawmakers agreed with the Catholic Church's "undesirability of abortion" and that each member "is committed to reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies and creating an environment with policies that encourage pregnancies to be carried to term."

When it comes to communion, Mary Ann Walsh, spokesperson for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, told The Hill the decision to withhold sacraments is made by individual bishops.

A Simple Sinner

When it comes to communion, Mary Ann Walsh, spokesperson for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, told The Hill the decision to withhold sacraments is made by individual bishops.

Speaking of which...

Who is your bishop?

Esau

Here is the product of "Freedom", "Religious Liberty" and Masonic influence in the US and the so called Democratic process. Lets see if the Pope takes a stance


John:

Why should anybody care what the Pope has to say?

Or even what the Catholic Church has to say?


I COMPLETELY agree with what you wrote here in the past:


"Obedience is to God not to Man. Obedience is to sound and true Catholic teachings, not man made."

Posted by: John | Apr 25, 2007 2:06:41 PM


And since, by your own admission on another thread, the Catholic Church has, YET AGAIN, changed her teachings, why should anybody give them heed when, really, such are but the arbitrary inventions of man which change ever so often by merely the drop of a hat?

Now, does anybody really want that?

Therefore, I suggest that the only authority by which to rely on can only be found in the unchanging pages of Scripture; since only it remains ever so constant and guarantees the Word of God remains pure and unadulterated.

Infallibility itself (by the very evidence you have provided in terms of how the current and previous pontiff had changed what were considered historical dogmatic teachings of the Church) is nothing but another man-made invention concocted by the Catholic Church meant to secure her corrupt heirarchy and power base.

Christ said that the Gates of Hell will not prevail against His Church.

Therefore, the Roman Catholic Church is NOT the 'True' Church of Christ; but that it is certainly the church which is comprised of bible-believing Christians who look to the TRUE Auhority that does NOT change -- the Bible!

Tim J.

Come on, y'all. No one is under any obligation, or should feel any pressure to answer personal questions.

I don't have a Bishop.

I am praying that soon a Godly priest is called to fill that role, though.

Brian

John, What do the heretical beliefs of American politicians have to do with the teachings of the Catholic Church? People have been abusing their freedom since Adam and Eve, yet that certainly doesn't prove that God has wavered in His Law. Neither do the actions of today's sinners prove that the Church has abandoned that Law.

Pope Benedict stood up for the Church's teachings with his statements last week. He explicitly stated the Church's position on abortion and made an example of the Mexican bishops for all the limp-wristed bishops who are too afraid to do their jobs. Yet you want to turn it around and use it against the Church. Tell me John, if this isn't an example of Pope Benedict doing his job as Holy Father, then what is?

A Simple Sinner

Come on, y'all. No one is under any obligation, or should feel any pressure to answer personal questions.

I simply don't see this as a personal question.

If he is to present himself as Catholic here, it is time for him to step up to the plate and present where "real Catholics" can be found. In the person of the "episcopi" of a local community, the fullness of faith can be found. In communion with the Roman See, that fullness is safeguarded.

My bishop is +JOHN (Kudrick) of Parma.

Please do share with us who your bishop persisting in the true faith is.

Tim J.

"In the person of the "episcopi" of a local community, the fullness of faith can be found."

Fair enough. I just don't find that it helps much when the discussion turns from ideas to personalities.

OTOH, the Church IS made up of people, bishops are people, and every Catholic ought to have one in union with the Pope.

Though our state has no bishop at present, we DO have an Archbishop in a neighboring state (as well as an administrator here).

Mary Kay

Simple Sinner, I have to agree with Tim that it's a personal question, at least it's an identifying question and it's up to each person to what extent they want to identify themselves (as to location etc).

A Simple Sinner

"Simple Sinner, I have to agree with Tim that it's a personal question, at least it's an identifying question and it's up to each person to what extent they want to identify themselves (as to location etc)."

If John feels this to be the case, let him speak for himself. He may decline for that reason.

Catholics are served by priests. The bishop has the fullness of the priesthood able to celebrate or provide over all sacraments. Deacons cannot say Mass, priests cannot ordain, but in a bishop you have the fullness of the priesthood. If we are in fact without a viable, valid or credible Pope, we will have to settle for knowing who the good bishops are that are still Catholic.

If the rest of us are apostate and the gates of hell have prevailed and us "Novus Ordo" Catholics (I am a Greek Catholic so I guess I am guilty by association!) are in a world of hurt as a result, speak up man!

Name names! Let us know where the "real" Catholic bishops and priests may be found! Surely there are not so many that to name one's ordinary would be a dead giveaway as to your specific location or identity - of which you may reveal what you please. At least, if you could, name some bishops who presrve in true Catholocism in the absense of a true magisterium!

Perhaps if we know who and where they are, the rest of us could get on the "real Catholic" boat and not be so hopelessly lost, John. Why hide it under a bushel basket?

Mary Kay

If John feels this to be the case, let him speak for himself

Point taken :) Now that I've read the rest of your post, I see where you're going with that question.

Brian posted:

"Pope Benedict stood up for the Church's teachings with his statements last week. He explicitly stated the Church's position on abortion and made an example of the Mexican bishops for all the limp-wristed bishops who are too afraid to do their jobs. Yet you want to turn it around and use it against the Church. Tell me John, if this isn't an example of Pope Benedict doing his job as Holy Father, then what is?
"

Ok then-please answer in a Yes or No-after reading and listening to the Popes talk on the plan or at least what is reported, in a simple YES or NO-ARE PRO ABORTION POLITICIANS EXCOMMUNICATED OR NOT????

I WAIT ON YOUR AND ALL OF THE OTHER PEANUT GALLERY'S RESPONSE

bill912

Does that mean "Yes" or "No"?

Brian

Yes, excommunication latae sententiae.

Are these politicians likely to enforce it on themselves? No. But do you really expect the Pope to come to America and follow them around and make sure they don't receive communion. The U.S. Bishops need to start listening to the Holy Father, they haven't (with a few noble exceptions) for years.

Tim J.

It is an automatic excommunication, John.

Individual bishops will handle it however they will... what does that have to do with anything?

What is YOUR bishop doing about it?

John

With something as glaring as abortion and the clear concise responsibility of the church to protect life, is it that difficult for the Pope, any Pope since Roe V Wade and now in Catholic (former?) Latin America to call on the excommunication of these politicians? Pope Paul IV had no problems warning the Catholic faithful of those who professed to be Catholic but are really otherwise, as did Pius X in his clear excommunication of those who came after him who embraced the errors of Modernism

Apostolic Constitution of Pope Paul IV, 15th February 1559
(Roman Bullarium Vol. IV. Sec. I, pp. 354-357)

1. In assessing Our duty and the situation now prevailing, We have been weighed upon by the thought that a matter of this kind [i.e. error in respect of the Faith] is so grave and so dangerous that the Roman Pontiff, who is the representative upon earth of God and our God and Lord Jesus Christ, who holds the fulness of power over peoples and kingdoms, who may judge all and be judged by none in this world, may nonetheless be contradicted if he be found to have deviated from the Faith. Remembering also that, where danger is greater, it must more fully and more diligently be counteracted, We have been concerned lest false prophets or others, even if they have only secular jurisdiction, should wretchedly ensnare the souls of the simple, and drag with them into perdition, destruction and damnation countless peoples committed to their care and rule, either in spiritual or in temporal matters; and We have been concerned also lest it may befall Us to see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by the prophet Daniel, in the holy place. In view of this, Our desire has been to fulfill our Pastoral duty, insofar as, with the help of God, We are able, so as to arrest the foxes who are occupying themselves in the destruction of the vineyard of the Lord and to keep the wolves from the sheepfolds, lest We seem to be dumb watchdogs that cannot bark and lest We perish with the wicked husbandman and be compared with the hireling.

John

Tim posted:

"It is an automatic excommunication, John.

Individual bishops will handle it however they will... what does that have to do with anything?

What is YOUR bishop doing about it?"

Well Tim, if one went and looked the so called schismatic Traditional Catholic Bishops, when one attends mass and is a member of the congregation, one is required to:

Be in a state of grace before receiving communion (announcements are made)

Dress approprite (requirements posted on the entrance to the church by the BISHOP) and ushers escort anyone out. Message reads "in respect for the blessed sacrament...)

Annulments not allowed nor are divorced persons allowed to receive communion

Weekly writings and pamphlets given out talking about the latest of current events and mortal sins to avoid

Confessions given before mass so all can receive communion and between mass as required

Nuns singing and teaching the catechumens as well as the children as the number of those who want to attend the Traditional Latin Mass and receive sacrements untainted my modernism and protestanism bursting at the seams with newly ordained priests and fund drives to purchase some of the closed novus ordo church's, sold to pay for pedophila, to start up traditional church's (note that the dioceses in NYC and Boston have denied selling these closed church's to traditionalists even for more money and instead have decided to sell to Buddhists, Protestants and developers as these Bishops hate the Trads and even when sold in Boston to a trad group the Bishop made a public announcement to let all know that this group was NOT part of the so called "Catholic Church"

One could go on Tim, but maybe you and Esau should go to Mass and pray the new Eucharistic prayer (is this the 5th one now allowed by the Novus Ordo?) that the Pope promulgated I just read in Brazil!

Clay

note that the dioceses in NYC and Boston have denied selling these closed church's to traditionalists even for more money and instead have decided to sell to Buddhists, Protestants and developers

Is that what is meant by not letting the gates of hell prevail?

Brian

Annulments not allowed

John I'm as against the huge abuse of annulments in America as you are, but are you saying that your bishops treat invalid marriages as sacramental ones?

As for the rest of your comments... I'm happy you have a church that makes you feel good. I'll tough out the abuses in the Church that Christ founded. You know, you can be just as opposed to all the sins performed by Catholics in the Church as you are now without being opposed to the Catholic Church

Inocencio

John,

"Annulments not allowed"

Wrong again! Richard Williamson of the SSPX in a letter dated March 3, 1998 admits that the SSPX had been secretly granting annulments.

He even states that the annulments that the SSPX granted "might have been better left in private".

Hmmm setting up secret marriage tribunals without jurisdiction and only admitting it after it became public knowledge. Doesn't that sound at least a little troublesome to even you?

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

LLB

From that letter dated March 3, 1998, "Do not think - second accusation .. that the Society is opening wide the flood-gates to "Traditional annulments". Here in the U.S.A., since the Society undertook this ungrateful task, it has taken only some one hundred cases seriously enough to examine them, and of those one hundred it has declared in less than a dozen cases, I am told, that the contract of marriage was invalid from the beginning. That is, like before Vatican II, a trickle rather than a flood."

Inocencio

LLB,

Undertook the ungrateful task without jurisdiction. Like everything else the SSPX does if it says it is right then how dare anyone question them, even the pope.

At least I know I am fallible and that is why I trust the authority Our Blessed Lord established and promised would lead us to all truth.

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

LLB

As expected, the letter also addresses the subject of jurisdiction.
http://www.sspx-schism.com/Williamson0398.htm

John

Let me clarify my response to Tim as he was once again going down some road that I never see him or anyone here go with their separated "Protestant bretheren" as they do with those who only want NO change in the church as before vatican II

I was of course indicating what I have observed in the times I have attended masses at other "Traditional church's", that are not the normal Indult where we attend. The piety their Bishops demand for the blessed sacrament on down is right there for all to see, and not a time that I was there was this not verbally relayed as well.

If the saints and martyrs had come down from heaven (assuming they are there) and first went to a SSPX mass and church and then to a Vatican II church, what would they recognize? What would they have more in common with?

In a church which morals and teachings NEVER change, as in the SSPX and Trad church's as we all know that the deposit of faith which the Vicar of Christ per Vatican I is only allowed to safeguard and not Change (note that B16 recently said that the "ever changing" deposit in one of his speeches on Traditionalist last month, that even the Pope does not know what is allowed and what is not)or the church of Vatican II?

Inocencio

LLB,

"As expected, the letter also addresses the subject of jurisdiction."

As expected anyone who supports the SSPX will look the other way no matter what authority the SSPX take for themselves and accept any explanation that is given.

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Inocencio

John,

You were wrong about the SSPX and annulments and should be man enough to admit it.

What would they have more in common with?

The Church established by Christ upon the rock of the papacy.

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Brian

NO change in the church as before vatican II

John, this is a false statement and you know it. The Church has always changed, if it hadn't we wouldn't have the Traditional Mass. Yes, there have been incredible abuses since Vatican II, and we all want to correct them. But to keep the Church frozen in time would deny the Holy Spirit. The Church is dynamic, it's alive, it's the Body of Christ - it can't remain stagnant, it would die. The Church will make it through this period and will be reformed just as it has been in the past.

The piety their Bishops demand for the blessed sacrament on down is right there for all to see, and not a time that I was there was this not verbally relayed as well.

I'm a huge fan of piety, it builds faith and is desperate lacking in our times. But piety in and of itself doesn't mean right belief. Piety must first be built on Truth.

If the saints and martyrs had come down from heaven (assuming they are there) and first went to a SSPX mass and church and then to a Vatican II church, what would they recognize? What would they have more in common with?

They'd recognize their Lord with whom they live in perfect communion as the Church Triumphant. At one Mass they'd recognize a whole bunch of people who receive the Lord while being opposed to his Church (by rejecting Her Authority since Vatican II). And at the other they'd also see a whole bunch of people who receive the Lord while being opposed to his Church (by rejecting Her Authority in general). The tares will always be in mixed in with the wheat.

In a church which morals and teachings NEVER change, as in the SSPX and Trad church's as we all know that the deposit of faith which the Vicar of Christ per Vatican I is only allowed to safeguard and not Change (note that B16 recently said that the "ever changing" deposit in one of his speeches on Traditionalist last month, that even the Pope does not know what is allowed and what is not)or the church of Vatican II?

You're mixing two definitions of change. The morals and teachings of the Catholic Church never change as they become more developed but they never contradicted themselves. You've posted several documents to try to prove that the post-Vatican II Catholic Church has contradicted itself, but your interpretation of the documents has been illogical to everyone but you. The deposit of faith, despite your arguments, has always been developing as we understand it better. Again, this is the work of the Holy Spirit - without it we would have a dead faith. One modern example is John Paul II's Theology of the Body. The Church's teaching on marriage and sexuality has always been consistent, but JPII unraveled the mystery of the sacrament of marriage to reach a new level of understanding. If you're selling me a dead Church where this can't happen, I don't want any part of it.

Brian

The morals and teachings of the Catholic Church never change as they become more developed but they never contradicted themselves.

oops.

Esquire

LLB,

The letter addresses jurisdiction by admitting that they don't have it:

...it makes sense that the Society, amongst others, will step into that gap where it reasonably can, even if it has no territorial jurisdiction, and where it so steps in it may reasonably assume, in accordance with Canon Law, that the Church will, case by case, for the salvation of souls which is the supreme law, supply any missing authority or jurisdiction.

***

Catholics may assume that if the Society sets about seriously examining marriage contracts in accordance with unchanging Catholic principles, then they may trust its declarations in the concrete case to be receiving from the Church any jurisdiction lacking, and they may act before God in good conscience upon any such declarations.

To paraphrase: We don't have any jurisdiction, we know we don't have any jurisdiction, let's just act like we do and the missing jurisdiction will be magically supplied by the Church so that our consciences need not be troubled.

No thanks. We can agree that the handling of annulments by the Church is problematic, even that it is a crisis, but you will not find the solution apart from the Vicar of Christ in a group with schismatic origins that claims to be "more Catholic than the Pope."


Esau

If the saints and martyrs had come down from heaven (assuming they are there) and first went to a SSPX mass and church and then to a Vatican II church, what would they recognize? What would they have more in common with?


John:

Oh, puhleeze!

The Saints in Heaven DIED for TRADITIONAL Catholic beliefs.

Amongst these (like St. Thomas More) was first and foremost the authority given to St. Peter by Our Lord and Saviour Himself!

This is something you REFUSE to recognize and acknowledge. This is something deeply engrained in TRADITIONAL Church Teachings since the days Our Lord was present here on earth and, thus, made evident in the pages of Scripture!

Although you and Tim J. may tire of my mentioning this repeatedly and would like nothing more than to see my back, what I say here is, in fact, Truth; that is, Petrine Authority, is an integral part of Traditional Church Teaching and is NOT something you or any pretender to the throne can arbitrarily rescind or modify, since it was Our Lord and Saviour Himself who willed it so, as spoken by Him in Scripture!

Which reminds me, you still haven't answered my previous questions -- where is your Pope and where is the 'TRUE' Church, since you don't believe the one that exists now is actually the real one?

Not like you'd ever answer any of our questions here anyway.

Tim J.

Huh? What makes you think I would like to see your back, Easu?

Tim J.

Sorry, that's "Esau".

And why would I get tired of hearing about Petrine authority?...

Esau

Tim J.

It's just that I tire of the "Guilt by Association" scheme that John keeps operating on.

It seems to me that he often targets you and David B. just because of your association with me.

Also, it does become rather tiresome that because John keeps harping on the same things over and over again and especially because he refuses to engage in actual dialogue with folks here on this blog but, instead, just regurgitates the same vomit as before; it seems rather futile and pointless where you typically have various points already covered by folks in past threads needing to once again deliver these all over again.

And for what purpose?

John doesn't even seem to read them, acknowledge them or even answer the questions put to him by such folks.

Smoky had masterfully described the situation concerning John where John will complain about A, B, C, D and E about the Church. While folks will attempt to speak on any one of A, B, C, D or E; John will just ignore these and repeat the same complaints about A, B, C, D and E.

There is no progress here.

Thus, this all becomes monotonous and awfully boring, with no real purpose whatsoever.

I'm pretty certain that you and other folks on this blog deserve much more intelligent conversation than this rather pointless routine.

God bless.

John

I asked a simple question regarding the Pope B16 and his "statement" on politicians being excommunicated, those who are so called Catholic and promote the death of the unborn with the Masonic "Freedom, Fraternity and Equality" ideals, as they so eloquently stated in their rebuttal of the Pope

One word answer-Yes or NO

Excommunicated or NOT?

I wait on Esau, Tim J, Inocencio, and all to answer in line with a Yes or No

If you dont, then I know that you like Vatican II and the popes of Vatican II are selling nothing but confusion to the laity and vagueness to "appear" to be in line with traditional teachings but really are promoting each and everybody to make their own decisions on something as easy to spell out as death of the unborn

I am waiting

Mary Kay

Esau, that's why most people have stopped reading John's posts.

John, I remember seeing someone respond to your post.

Tim J.

Well, that's why if it were my blog I would ban John, but that's just me.

There may be SOME benefit in having to articulate the arguments for the umpteenth time , but that point was passed (IMO) a while ago.

It's like sharpening a sword... having to defend and explain authentic Catholic doctrine when it is questioned and attacked helps us to clarify these things in our own mind, and makes us better able to articulate the truth when the need arises. Like sharpening a sword, it's a good thing to do, but after a point the job is done and you're just wasting time and energy.

Besides, as you noted, John is not listening, does not respond to substantive arguments and will not acknowledge when he is caught in foolishness or falsehood.

I will slightly modify what Smoky wrote; John says "What about A,B,C,D and E!?". Someone will offer a reasoned argument about "A" and John will then say, "Well, what about F,G,H,I and J?! HUH??!!"

Hobby Horse, Laundry List, whatever you call it. The sheer number of logical fallacies in any one of John's posts is so overwhelming that it is virtually impossible to deal with all of them. It's not argument or debate, more like a rhetorical sawed-off 12-gauge... it doesn't have to be accurate. If he says it often enough, I'm sure he figures someone will believe it.

I think the effect, though, is the opposite of what he intends. I've never been so turned off by any member of a religious sect. I have argued in a more civil manner with Jehovah's Witnesses and atheists, and been able to go out bowling or for a beer afterward (bowling with the JWs, beer with the atheists... just for the record).

And, for the record, I have no problem with your posts except for occasionally the CAPS and italic issues which I mentioned before and which (seems to me, anyway) you have moderated somewhat lately. I find the substance of your comments to be right 99.44% of the time... which - by sheer coincidence - happens to be the precise extent to which I agree with them.

Brian

I know I defend John more than I should, but I've actually learned a lot from John's posts. Especially when he quotes from Vatican II documents to prove that they're heretical. When he does that I learn what they actually say as opposed to what Rad Trads say that they say. Vatican II may be a startling shift in perspective, but it doesn't contradict any of the truths of the Church.

That being said, I'm all for true traditionalism (greater support for the TLM, revival of Catholic culture and piety, etc.), but to try stop Tradition at Vatican II is Protestantism not traditionalism. If Tradition has been frozen in time just before Vatican II, then the Rad Trads have no ability to rule authoritatively when new disputes arise. In fact, without living Tradition they don't even have the ability to issue a doctrine condemning Vatican II.

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