Was surprised to find a Bishop saying mass today.
#41
(11-12-2009, 01:48 PM)Gerard Wrote:
(11-11-2009, 05:58 PM)petrelton Wrote: One so-called modernist passage in the CCC does not make the whole CCC modernist. 


"But the fact that a fault is subtle does not excuse it in the least. Nay. It simply makes it all the more dangerous."--Petrelton on Archbishop LeFebvre.

There seems to be a double standard at work here.
Its only a double standard if I was admitting that the passage was subtly modernist. WHICH I AM NOT. I called it a "so-called" modernist passage for the express reason of disclaiming that I personally held it to be modernist.

So can all you clowns who are giving each other high fives apologise please?
Reply
#42
(11-12-2009, 10:49 PM)petrelton Wrote:
(11-12-2009, 01:48 PM)Gerard Wrote:
(11-11-2009, 05:58 PM)petrelton Wrote: One so-called modernist passage in the CCC does not make the whole CCC modernist. 


"But the fact that a fault is subtle does not excuse it in the least. Nay. It simply makes it all the more dangerous."--Petrelton on Archbishop LeFebvre.

There seems to be a double standard at work here.
Its only a double standard if I was admitting that the passage was subtly modernist. WHICH I AM NOT. I called it a "so-called" modernist passage for the express reason of disclaiming that I personally held it to be modernist.

So can all you clowns who are giving each other high fives apologise please?

No. That passage from the CCC is objectively modernist, whether you regard it to be or not.

There may be plenty more subtle modernism in the CCC, but I referred to para 840 as it is so blatantly, glaringly obvious.
Reply
#43
(11-13-2009, 06:35 AM)Clare Wrote:
(11-12-2009, 10:49 PM)petrelton Wrote:
(11-12-2009, 01:48 PM)Gerard Wrote:
(11-11-2009, 05:58 PM)petrelton Wrote: One so-called modernist passage in the CCC does not make the whole CCC modernist. 


"But the fact that a fault is subtle does not excuse it in the least. Nay. It simply makes it all the more dangerous."--Petrelton on Archbishop LeFebvre.

There seems to be a double standard at work here.
Its only a double standard if I was admitting that the passage was subtly modernist. WHICH I AM NOT. I called it a "so-called" modernist passage for the express reason of disclaiming that I personally held it to be modernist.

So can all you clowns who are giving each other high fives apologise please?

No. That passage from the CCC is objectively modernist, whether you regard it to be or not.

There may be plenty more subtle modernism in the CCC, but I referred to para 840 as it is so blatantly, glaringly obvious.
Its not glaringly or blatantly modernist, and certainly not objectively so. You are spouting out of your hat . This paragraph is simply an objective statement of fact. There is no ambiguity or shades of grey in it. There is nothing even which requires interpretation. Its a clear statement. Only a mind of extreme delusion could claim that this passage is saying that the Jews messiah is the same as the Christian messiah.

Here is the full statement.
840 And when one considers the future, God's People of the Old Covenant and the new People of God tend towards similar goals: expectation of the coming (or the return) of the Messiah. But one awaits the return of the Messiah who died and rose from the dead and is recognized as Lord and Son of God; the other awaits the coming of a Messiah, whose features remain hidden till the end of time; and the latter waiting is accompanied by the drama of not knowing or of misunderstanding Christ Jesus.

Are the Jews the people of the Old Covenant. YES. Statement of objective fact supported by no less authority than scripture. Romans 9:4 Who are Israelites, to whom belongeth the adoption as of children, and the glory, and the testament, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises:
Do the Jews await the Messiah as they perceive him prophecied in the Old Testament? YES. An objective fact.
Do Christians similarly await a Messiah as they perceive him prophecied in the Old and the New Testament. YES. An objective fact.
Now notice this passage and the clever use of the words "the" and "a". But one awaits the return of the Messiah who died and rose from the dead and is recognized as Lord and Son of God; the other awaits the coming of a Messiah.
In this passage it is clear that the council is making it plain that the Christian messiah is THE Messiah whereas the Jews anticipate A Messiah. The paragraph even goes to the point of pointing out that the distinction between the two Messiahs is the revelation of Jesus Christ which is not known by the Jews and which means that their understanding of the Messiah is completely obscured to them.
If anybody claims that this passage is modernist then they have been severely deceived this is no more modernist than my great Aunt. The fact is that a vast number of teachers who claim this passage is modernist are more than deceived, they are in most cases blatant liars.
In fact they are enemies of the church. I have seen their kind. They trowel through church documents with no desire whatsoever to learn the revelations God has given to the church. There sole goal is to find dirt against the church. And they are not shy to twist and manipulate to any extent necessary, even to the point of lieing, in order to make their case against the church. They ignore the context of the document, they are not interested in learning the purpose and background of the document. All they care about is taking a passage in isolation which in itself without the surrounding context appears ambiguous and then they take the worst possible interpretation they can. Their simple reason for this is to destroy the church. They even abstract away the church by calling it names like the NO church or the post-conciliar church or the modernist church. They delude themselves in their wickedness to imagine that they are the remanants of the one holy apostolic church while they sneer at the real church.
The wickedness of their deeds is proven on that day when paragraph 840 is explained to them and they go on ahead nonetheless claiming that the council is bent on modernist heresy. Why do they do this? This wilful rejection of truth is basically why I consider them liars and hypocrites. Just like the protestants they do this because they want to continualy justify their schism from the church. They justify it by loudly trumpeting the "modernism" of the church. In 400 years there children will be schismatics and will justify their schism and rejection of the catechism on the basis of paragraph 840 in the catechism. Sign the catechism SSPX and return home.
Reply
#44
(11-13-2009, 07:26 AM)petrelton Wrote: If anybody claims that this passage is modernist then they have been severely deceived...

The passage says, "God's People of the Old Covenant and the new People of God tend towards similar goals..."

The goals are not similar at all.

Furthermore, the next paragraph, 841, says:
"The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."

Can you really not see how wrong that statement is? Christians and Muslims (and Jews) do not adore the same God. And Muslims can profess to hold the faith of Abraham until they're blue in the face. They do not. And neither do Jews.
Reply
#45
(11-15-2009, 01:37 PM)Clare Wrote:
(11-13-2009, 07:26 AM)petrelton Wrote: If anybody claims that this passage is modernist then they have been severely deceived...

The passage says, "God's People of the Old Covenant and the new People of God tend towards similar goals..."

The goals are not similar at all.
How are they not similar? Are you able to articulate and explain how they are not similar?

(11-15-2009, 01:37 PM)Clare Wrote: Furthermore, the next paragraph, 841, says:
"The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."

Can you really not see how wrong that statement is? Christians and Muslims (and Jews) do not adore the same God. And Muslims can profess to hold the faith of Abraham until they're blue in the face. They do not. And neither do Jews.
The passage does not say that the muslims hold the faith of Abraham. It says that they profess to hold the faith of Abraham. Nor does it go so far as to say that they worship the same God as us. In fact in a previous post which you ignored I alerted you to the translation problem of saying "adore the one, merciful God". The original document written in Latin does not have this as there is no definitive article in Latin. The passage should read "they adore one, merciful God". Even if you include the "the" it is still far from heretical. What the council document is explaining that God has revealed himself progressively throughout history to various groups of men.
The Jews, Muslims, Protestants all represent schismatic groups who have rejected the new revelation of God but still hold to the old revelation as it was previously understood by them. The various religions of the world all exhibit various revelations of truth, some more than others. Vatican 2 seeks to emphasise these truths which are contained in those religions and use them as a framework and foundation for introducing the new revelations of God which have been received by the church. How can that be wrong? Surely you can see how this approach is ordered to build understanding between people with the hope of introducing the gospel to them. Can't you see that? Or are you belligerently rejecting the teachings of the church in order to maintain a rebellious argument and division against the church. Your reasoning and approach to this issue is quite simplistic and yet you deem yourself fit to judge a council of the church and the magisterium of the church who overwhelmingly endorsed the passages of the council which you now decry.
You need to remember your place dear.
Reply
#46
(11-12-2009, 01:48 PM)Gerard Wrote:
(11-11-2009, 05:58 PM)petrelton Wrote: One so-called modernist passage in the CCC does not make the whole CCC modernist. 


"But the fact that a fault is subtle does not excuse it in the least. Nay. It simply makes it all the more dangerous."--Petrelton on Archbishop LeFebvre.

There seems to be a double standard at work here.

It should (or really, must) also be pointed out that the current Catechism had errors when it was promulgated in 1992, then it had to be re-issued with corrections in 1994.
Reply
#47
(11-13-2009, 07:26 AM)petrelton Wrote:
(11-13-2009, 06:35 AM)Clare Wrote:
(11-12-2009, 10:49 PM)petrelton Wrote:
(11-12-2009, 01:48 PM)Gerard Wrote:
(11-11-2009, 05:58 PM)petrelton Wrote: One so-called modernist passage in the CCC does not make the whole CCC modernist. 


"But the fact that a fault is subtle does not excuse it in the least. Nay. It simply makes it all the more dangerous."--Petrelton on Archbishop LeFebvre.

There seems to be a double standard at work here.
Its only a double standard if I was admitting that the passage was subtly modernist. WHICH I AM NOT. I called it a "so-called" modernist passage for the express reason of disclaiming that I personally held it to be modernist.

So can all you clowns who are giving each other high fives apologise please?

No. That passage from the CCC is objectively modernist, whether you regard it to be or not.

There may be plenty more subtle modernism in the CCC, but I referred to para 840 as it is so blatantly, glaringly obvious.
Its not glaringly or blatantly modernist, and certainly not objectively so. You are spouting out of your hat . This paragraph is simply an objective statement of fact. There is no ambiguity or shades of grey in it. There is nothing even which requires interpretation. Its a clear statement. Only a mind of extreme delusion could claim that this passage is saying that the Jews messiah is the same as the Christian messiah.

Here is the full statement.
840 And when one considers the future, God's People of the Old Covenant and the new People of God tend towards similar goals: expectation of the coming (or the return) of the Messiah. But one awaits the return of the Messiah who died and rose from the dead and is recognized as Lord and Son of God; the other awaits the coming of a Messiah, whose features remain hidden till the end of time; and the latter waiting is accompanied by the drama of not knowing or of misunderstanding Christ Jesus.

Are the Jews the people of the Old Covenant. YES. Statement of objective fact supported by no less authority than scripture. Romans 9:4 Who are Israelites, to whom belongeth the adoption as of children, and the glory, and the testament, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises:
Do the Jews await the Messiah as they perceive him prophecied in the Old Testament? YES. An objective fact.
Do Christians similarly await a Messiah as they perceive him prophecied in the Old and the New Testament. YES. An objective fact.
Now notice this passage and the clever use of the words "the" and "a". But one awaits the return of the Messiah who died and rose from the dead and is recognized as Lord and Son of God; the other awaits the coming of a Messiah.
In this passage it is clear that the council is making it plain that the Christian messiah is THE Messiah whereas the Jews anticipate A Messiah. The paragraph even goes to the point of pointing out that the distinction between the two Messiahs is the revelation of Jesus Christ which is not known by the Jews and which means that their understanding of the Messiah is completely obscured to them.
If anybody claims that this passage is modernist then they have been severely deceived this is no more modernist than my great Aunt. The fact is that a vast number of teachers who claim this passage is modernist are more than deceived, they are in most cases blatant liars.
In fact they are enemies of the church. I have seen their kind. They trowel through church documents with no desire whatsoever to learn the revelations God has given to the church. There sole goal is to find dirt against the church. And they are not shy to twist and manipulate to any extent necessary, even to the point of lieing, in order to make their case against the church. They ignore the context of the document, they are not interested in learning the purpose and background of the document. All they care about is taking a passage in isolation which in itself without the surrounding context appears ambiguous and then they take the worst possible interpretation they can. Their simple reason for this is to destroy the church. They even abstract away the church by calling it names like the NO church or the post-conciliar church or the modernist church. They delude themselves in their wickedness to imagine that they are the remanants of the one holy apostolic church while they sneer at the real church.
The wickedness of their deeds is proven on that day when paragraph 840 is explained to them and they go on ahead nonetheless claiming that the council is bent on modernist heresy. Why do they do this? This wilful rejection of truth is basically why I consider them liars and hypocrites. Just like the protestants they do this because they want to continualy justify their schism from the church. They justify it by loudly trumpeting the "modernism" of the church. In 400 years there children will be schismatics and will justify their schism and rejection of the catechism on the basis of paragraph 840 in the catechism. Sign the catechism SSPX and return home.

Man, you need to switch to decaf. Seriously.

Until now, I thought that I was the most annoying know-it-all new convert. But no, you take the prize for that, bud.
Reply
#48
...
Reply
#49
(11-15-2009, 07:18 PM)CrusaderKing Wrote:
(11-12-2009, 01:48 PM)Gerard Wrote:
(11-11-2009, 05:58 PM)petrelton Wrote: One so-called modernist passage in the CCC does not make the whole CCC modernist. 


"But the fact that a fault is subtle does not excuse it in the least. Nay. It simply makes it all the more dangerous."--Petrelton on Archbishop LeFebvre.

There seems to be a double standard at work here.

It should (or really, must) also be pointed out that the current Catechism had errors when it was promulgated in 1992, then it had to be re-issued with corrections in 1994.
really. You've made this comment before. How is this relevant? What exactly were the errors of the 29 catechism. Were they spelling errors or what?
Reply
#50
(11-15-2009, 07:24 PM)petrelton Wrote:
(11-15-2009, 07:18 PM)CrusaderKing Wrote:
(11-12-2009, 01:48 PM)Gerard Wrote:
(11-11-2009, 05:58 PM)petrelton Wrote: One so-called modernist passage in the CCC does not make the whole CCC modernist. 


"But the fact that a fault is subtle does not excuse it in the least. Nay. It simply makes it all the more dangerous."--Petrelton on Archbishop LeFebvre.

There seems to be a double standard at work here.

It should (or really, must) also be pointed out that the current Catechism had errors when it was promulgated in 1992, then it had to be re-issued with corrections in 1994.
really. You've made this comment before. How is this relevant? What exactly were the errors of the 29 catechism. Were they spelling errors or what?

You wish they were spelling errors.

It's relevant because if there were errors found in the 1992 Catechism, who's to say there aren't errors in the current one?

I can tell you that the passage regarding capital punishment in the new Catechism is at odds with what the Church has taught about the subject for over 1900 years.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)