I don't know if I believe in the Catholic Chruch anymore :Infallibility
#41
http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt149.html


http://www.rtforum.org/lt/index.html

To me at least these are still the best at tackling the very serious objections of the Saint Benedict Center to the question of EENS, and just how to try and square official Church pronouncements like Cantate Domino and Unam Sanctam with the apparent novelties of men like Pius IX and Pius XII in the question of salvation. 

I don't know if Father Harrison still feels the way he did about the question, but as of yet the RT forum still had these articles.

If you are really interested in the question of EENS,membership in the Church and issues like so called "implicit faith" you'll just read the articles.  They are worth it.
Reply
#42
(05-21-2016, 12:30 AM)Texas Wrote: Since others have answered your other questions, I'll tackle your comment about humanity getting revelation after 195,000 years and dinosaurs being millions of years old.

Simply Impossible. Scientific evidence contradicts your assertion. This sounds like a bold statement until you take an honest look at the evidence.

Search on this website for the old Creation or evolution threads started by others.Our God is not the God of Death. He didn't create then destroy dinosaurs/dragons before man was created. There are cave paintings/hirocglyphics/bas reliefs of dinosaurs created by man. How could men create these things all over the world if men never saw them? There are accounts all over the world of dragons being seen and killed. Alexander the Great being one of them. Please take a good look at these things, don't censor yourself as many do.

Please consult the Catholic Kolbe Center for the study of Creation. I now know the Bible is the inerrant inspired word of God. Archaeologists continue making discoveries confirming the accuracy of the Bible. Be aware of well funded characters/professors/archeologists/scientists perverting evidence to fit into their anti-christ ideologies. Consider that piltdown man was a proven fake and Nebraska man was not a man and his family but was simply a pig's tooth. I won't exhaust the examples in this post.

If you want to know how to read scripture and see the providence of God throughout history and how he has preserved the True Religion, go to a book called the Continuity of Religion 206pgs by  Bisshop Bossuet.

Oh, and why not hear how there is evidence the earth is after all in the Center of the Universe from Catholic Apologist Robert Sungenis and his film "The Principle". The Church was right, Galileo was wrong.

This nonsense ...  :eyeroll:

We are not fundamentalist Protestants.

We read the Bible like Catholics.

For a Catholic, while he is free to believe that the Earth is the center of the universe, the creation of the universe happened in six 24-hour days, and various other absolutely literal interpretations of Scripture, there is no necessity for doing so, and especially when it is clear from the scientific discoveries that there may be good reason for doubting the accuracy of such a literal reading.

A Catholic is just as free to accept an universe that is billions of years old, developed from a singularity (it was an orthodox Catholic priest honored by Pius XII, Msgr Lemaître, who proposed the "Big Bang theory" anyway), that Adam and Eve lived more than just 6,000 years ago, and that some form of guided development (not "random" evolution which is illogical and unscientific) over an apparently long period of time resulted in two first humans (who were given not simply a sensitive soul like other animals but were infused by God with rational, spiritual souls).

With regard to the origin of humans, for instance, it is clear that the genealogies in Scripture are not complete, and often leave significant gaps if compared with other parts of Scripture. It is clear that writer's intent was not to make a comprehensive list, but to establish a lineage linking the modern Abrahamic line to Noah, and Noah to Adam.

Contrary to Brogan, evidence is not so certain for 200,000 of homo sapiens. The Omo remains, often what is cited to suggest humans (Homo sapiens sapiens) have been around for 200k years, are not so conclusive. The traits seen from the fossils show significant differences with modern humans, such that the oldest of the Omo remains is called Homo sapiens idaltu. In fact the best present evidence shows that "Anatomically modern humans" arose about 10,000 years ago.

But the fundamental problem here is that "human" does not have anything to do with body morphology and genetics. A "human" is a rational animal. A composite of body and rational soul. While we can show evidence of rationality through certain behavior, especially language, no amount of scientific evidence will certainly establish any of the proposed predecessors of modern humans as truly human.

As for the other pet theories, good well-lettered folks have done a great job showing the errors, bad theology, bad science and unethical practices of the new geocentrists: http://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/.
Reply
#43
The past couple of days have shown me that I am too impetuous and lack the right amount of prudence to do theology. I'd like to basically retract almost every single thing I've said in this thread but I won't edit my comments out for my own humility.

I do not have the answers. I'm totally unsure where the church is. It could be in the Novus ordo, extraordinary form, sspx, the resistance, sede parishes or something else altogether.  I have no idea and never really did, I've been able to convince myself of all of those at one point or another. I can no longer say I give weight to any of them more than the other. There are pretty good arguments for all these forms of Catholicism and maybe it matters less to God than we think which one we attend.
Reply
#44
(05-22-2016, 05:09 AM)brogan Wrote: The past couple of days have shown me that I am too impetuous and lack the right amount of prudence to do theology. I'd like to basically retract almost every single thing I've said in this thread but I won't edit my comments out for my own humility.

I do not have the answers. I'm totally unsure where the church is. It could be in the Novus ordo, extraordinary form, sspx, the resistance, sede parishes or something else altogether.  I have no idea and never really did, I've been able to convince myself of all of those at one point or another. I can no longer say I give weight to any of them more than the other. There are pretty good arguments for all these forms of Catholicism and maybe it matters less to God than we think which one we attend.

I think (as in "that's just my not-so-humble opinion") you may well be right about what I've highlighted.  Unfortunately there are far too many people to whom it appears to matter very, very much.

Your honesty about your doubts is refreshing.  To me, at least, it shows that you are searching for the Truth.  You may find it in a totally unexpected place or places.  :)  Keep your heart open and your mind alert.
Reply
#45
I tend to be of the opinion that as long as you're trying to be Catholic and live up to what the Church has taught all through its history, then it doesn't matter if you go to NO or TLM or if you go to SSPX or FSSP or whatever. Some people can have a healthy and rich spiritual life in the NO. Some people have a miserable spiritual life going to TLM. I personally find the NO to highly deficient, so I avoid it if I can. I think all of these groups spend too much time attacking each other or getting too political to where they'll defend completely wrong positions just to save face in their little niche of Catholicism. All of this rather than banding together and facing the evil that attacks the Church and world together. I hope years from now well meaning Catholics will realize that all of this mess is just a distraction from the true battle.
Reply
#46

I LOVE your Hilary poster in your sig, GG! :grin:
Reply
#47
(05-22-2016, 05:09 AM)brogan Wrote: I'm totally unsure where the church is. It could be in the Novus ordo, extraordinary form, sspx, the resistance, sede parishes or something else altogether.  I have no idea and never really did, I've been able to convince myself of all of those at one point or another. I can no longer say I give weight to any of them more than the other. There are pretty good arguments for all these forms of Catholicism and maybe it matters less to God than we think which one we attend.

I think this also may be an extension of wanting that metaphysical certainty of things religious. You seem to suggest here that the "Church" is some one groups, as if the Church was confined only to those who have the right approach to the current crisis in the Church.

That's quite incorrect. The SSPX is not the Church, nor is the FSSP, nor are any one group of the various shades of sedevacantism, nor is the Novus Ordo.

The Church is, simply put, a society of Baptized individuals bound together in order to socially profess the true Faith and socially worship with the true Cult bound together under the authority of the Vicar of Christ. There are three element to being a member of the Church, orthodoxy (profession of the Catholic Faith), orthopraxis in worship (worship of God according to the mode He has established), and submission to the Pope.

Those who are not orthodox separate themselves by heresy. Those who do not submit to the authority of the Pope separate themselves by schism. Those who do not worship with orthopraxis separate themselves by falling into heresy or schism eventually.

Good people in the Novus Ordo, are at the very least trying to profess the Catholic Faith, submit to the Pope and worship in what they think to be the manner the Church wants. To the extent they do not understand the dangers inherent in the bad theological formation of their priests, and the Protestantized Mass they attend, they are certainly not sinning and are good members of the Church.

The FSSP is in the exact same situation, though, in many cases their priests receive a much better formation, and generally refuse the Novus Ordo, but for inadequate reasons (in my opinion). They do have good Catholics attending their Masses who are members of the Church.

The SSPX does not reject the Pope's authority per se (which would be schism), but disobeys in what they think is harmful to them. Right or wrong in this, they are trying to remain good Catholics (as can been seen by their willingness to maintain relations with Rome, despite all that has happened). As Bishop Fellay reported that Pope Francis told him, they are Catholics, and the Pope has no intention of condemning them.

Even sedevacantists (and I wholeheartedly reject their position as erroneous, and in certain cases bordering on indirect heresy), for the most part do not per se reject the Pope's authority. They accept it in principle, but deny that the modern Pope has such authority.

So looking at that briefly, we can see that it's not an either/or question at all. As you say, you see good arguments for each to be correct, but let's be clear : I know of none of these groups (except the most extreme sedevacantists) who would ever try to argue that they were the Church.

So, what do you do in your doubt? You have to decide for yourself, but calmly, and after reflection and prayer. In the meantime, no one (again except the most extreme sedevacantists) would suggest that you sin by going to the FSSP or SSPX. The Pope has given the SSPX jurisdiction for their confessions, and the Holy See has said that you can go to their Masses. God to one of these priests, present your difficulties and start working on recovering your peace of soul.
Reply
#48
(05-22-2016, 08:06 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: I think this also may be an extension of wanting that metaphysical certainty of things religious. You seem to suggest here that the "Church" is some one groups, as if the Church was confined only to those who have the right approach to the current crisis in the Church.

That's quite incorrect. The SSPX is not the Church, nor is the FSSP, nor are any one group of the various shades of sedevacantism, nor is the Novus Ordo.

Yes I think you're right. The way I worded it before was wrong. I don't think the church is in any of these forms and expressions of Catholicism.  I just mean there are various arguments for why you should attend one type of mass over the other and they all have pretty good arguments. the modern Catholic magisterium, as you've said, allows one to attend the SSPX and other similar independent churches.
So I guess going to anything on that side would be correct if you except the current hierarchy.

Perhaps the only real question is whether or not one should be assisting at masses that are "una cum" the current bishop and pope. I know a lot of sedevacantists don't see a problem with going to "una cum" masses. John Lane, the owner of sedevacantist.com, attends an SSPX church. He is a very brilliant, careful and humble man and he personally see's no problem with attendance at masses "una cum" Pope Francis, even though he personally believe Pope Francis to be a non-Catholic.

One thing I've always wondered about is if a lot of the people that have these really strong arguments about why you should attend one groups mass over another has to do with where they and what's available near them. For example, an FSSP parishioner may have many arguments on why it is superior to attend an FSSP chapel than an SSPX chapel because there is an FSSP chapel near them. Maybe that same person, if he lived close to an SSPX chapel and there were no "extraordinary form" churches nearby, would instead attend the SSPX chapel and he would then proclaim arguments on why it was better to do that then attend the FSSP.

I wonder if John Lane would say the same things about there being no problem in attending an "una cum" masses if there was a sedevacantist chapel nearby him. Maybe there is a Sede chapel near him though and his beliefs are in no way related to what's available near him. Probably a man like that, who has devoted so much of his life to writing and researching and praying about this topic, has beliefs about which mass to attend that aren't influenced by which type of church is nearby.

And I'm not saying everyone is doing this. Many people change jobs and move to new locations just to be close to a particular type of mass. When I was a convinced sedevacantist, I did this. I moved to a new city far away just so I could go to a sedevacantist church. But this is a very hard thing to do, especially for people with families. Take the example of a person who has a good job near the FSSP and their family is happy where they live and the kids have all of their friends nearby and they have no job opportunities near an SSPX chapel. It would be very hard for a person in that situation to accept an argument on why it is better to attend an SSPX chapel than an FSSP chapel. They have a ton of tangible and practical incentives to try to believe arguments saying the FSSP is superior.
Reply
#49
Anyways, and most importantly, I have no doubt that one can be a good Catholic attending the Novus Ordo or attending a sedevacantist chapel. I know people who attend the Novus Ordo who are good Catholics and I've also met very devout holy Catholics who attend a non "una cum" mass. I know good Catholics who attend the Eastern rite Catholic church and the FSSP and the SSPX. One can be a good Catholic in all of these. I guess the main difference is I've found that almost everyone who attends the Traditional mass, offered by any of the various type of traditional priests, is very devout and holy. While on the other hand of all those who attend the Novus Ordo being very devout and holy is the exception to the rule. So many people who go to the Novus Ordo say no other prayers throughout the week and they don't even stay until the end of mass. It's a mass exodus of people leaving directly after communion at a lot of Novus Ordo churches. Half the parish is already in their cars driving away before the final blessing and closing hymn. The Novus Ordo seems to have a lot of people who don't care very much about religion at all and are just going to Sunday mass out of habit or to punch their time card really quick. Sunday mass is just one of many obligations in their life, like showing up to work on time.
There are some extremely devout people in the Novus Ordo but I'd say they are the minority.

There is a group of priests called the Franciscans of the Primitive Observance (F.P.O) who practice an absolutely extreme regimen of poverty. They sleep on the hardwood floor, wake up in the middle of the night for an hour of prayer, beg door to door for all their food, will not accept money as a donation (unless they absolutely have to like if they needed to buy a bus ticket because they cannot hitchhike. Normally they hitchhike but can't do this when they travel internationally. It is a very minor exception and 99.9% of the time they will not accept a money donation and totally rely on providence, live without electricity if possible, and own nothing (not even a car so they hitchhike everywhere). If you want to contact them you have to send snail mail because of course they don't have a computer or a phone. I won't say more about their extreme practices because they don't want it all on the internet. They want their penances to be secret. One of these priests prayed over me one time and was given the mystical gift of knowledge. He was able to read my soul like Padre Pio. This extreme manner of life is bringing them so close to God they are turning into mystics! They are extremely devout and holy and truly trying to become saints.  This experience of the F.P.O priest reading my soul has helped me so much throughout the years. I doubt I would even still be a Christian had I not witnessed this miracle.

But the F.P.O's are in the Novus Ordo. If God wanted us in the Traditional mass only why wouldn't he bring the F.P.O's out of the Novus Ordo? They are like saints; they know how to listen to God. If the Novus Ordo mass was itself evil God would have stopped them from practicing it.

I will say though that an F.P.O Novus Ordo mass is quite a bit more austere than what you'll find anywhere else. Their mass is so done in such a prayerful and solemn way. The priests very slowly elevates the host at the consecration and hold the Eucharist up high for quite a long time in silent adoration. God has led them out of the Novus Ordo mass but he has led them to make the Novus Ordo mass solemn and holy.

You can read about the F.P.O's here
and here
Reply
#50
That soul reading experience sounds fascinating!  :O
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)