I have come to a conclusion
#61
(04-29-2010, 10:52 AM)devotedknuckles Wrote: How can you claim the NO is catholic? can the church contradict itself? can the church yesterday say one thing then today say another? is truth changing with popular whim or is the truth eternal? the NO is not a catholic mass. its theology isn't catholic its protestant. so then tell me pray tell are protestants now catholic?
the great apostasy will come from the top. bxvi is not  a heretic but we have had a heretic pope before. so then what do you make of that?

That your assumptions are incorrect and therefore your conclusion is too.

The NO, although problematic in significant ways, is Catholic. The Church has not contradicted herself.  She continues to teach the truth.  The theology of the NO is still Catholic, although it lacks the clarity of the TLM and does show Protestant influences.  John Paul II was not a heretic.
Reply
#62
(04-29-2010, 11:59 AM)Jesse Wrote: I'd like to also say that Benedict is a true pope and therefore I believe that the NO is part of the Catholic church, albeit a part that needs to go.

I agree.  This is a succinct, coherent and defensible position.  Saying that the Novus Ordo is not Catholic is merely succinct.
Reply
#63
(04-29-2010, 12:15 PM)Petertherock Wrote:
(04-29-2010, 11:14 AM)devotedknuckles Wrote: he was ordained pre vpoo. he is the pope hes election is valid. . but he offers a non catholic mass the NO. but he also sees the NO as an on the spot banal fabrication in other words a bastard. i don't see what your plm is in this. so will you now answer my question?

Yeah, what DK said. JP the small prayed with heretics and kissed the Koran. Even though he was guilty of these heresies he was still the pope.

These are not heresies.  Heresy involves believing or teaching false doctrines.  You are describing actions, not beliefs or teachings.  You are inferring beliefs from the actions that are belied by his actual statements. 

If you were to complain about John Paul II using poor judgment or being imprudent, you would have a much stronger case.
Reply
#64
(04-28-2010, 01:54 PM)Petertherock Wrote: I have decided that the NO Church is not part of the Catholic Church.

171 [Our] first safety is to guard the rule of the right faith and to
deviate in no wise from the ordinances of the Fathers; because we
cannot pass over the statement of our Lord Jesus Christ who said: "Thou
art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church" . . . [Matt.
16:18]. These [words] which were spoken, are proved by the effects of
the deeds, because in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has
always been preserved without stain
Reply
#65
(04-29-2010, 01:33 PM)glgas Wrote:
(04-28-2010, 01:54 PM)Petertherock Wrote: I have decided that the NO Church is not part of the Catholic Church.

171 [Our] first safety is to guard the rule of the right faith and to
deviate in no wise from the ordinances of the Fathers; because we
cannot pass over the statement of our Lord Jesus Christ who said: "Thou
art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church" . . . [Matt.
16:18]. These [words] which were spoken, are proved by the effects of
the deeds, because in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has
always been preserved without stain

The Catholic Church is still around giggles, it's just not part of the NO Church.

Reply
#66
(04-29-2010, 01:44 PM)Petertherock Wrote: The Catholic Church is still around giggles, it's just not part of the NO Church.

Now *that* is a heresy.  It is false to say that the "real Catholic Church" is something different than her visible structure.  See this excerpt from the Catholic Encyclopedia http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm:
Quote:In asserting that the Church of Christ is visible, we signify, first, that as a society it will at all times be conspicuous and public, and second, that it will ever be recognizable among other bodies as the Church of Christ. These two aspects of visibility are termed respectively "material" and "formal" visibility by Catholic theologians. The material visibility of the Church involves no more than that it must ever be a public, not a private profession; a society manifest to the world, not a body whose members are bound by some secret tie. Formal visibility is more than this. It implies that in all ages the true Church of Christ will be easily recognizable for that which it is, viz. as the Divine society of the Son of God, the means of salvation offered by God to men; that it possesses certain attributes which so evidently postulate a Divine origin that all who see it must know it comes from God. This must, of course, be understood with some necessary qualifications. The power to recognize the Church for what it is presupposes certain moral dispositions. Where there is a rooted unwillingness to follow God's will, there may be spiritual blindness to the claims of the Church. Invincible prejudice or inherited assumptions may produce the same result. But in such cases the incapacity to see is due, not to the want of visibility in the Church, but to the blindness of the individual. The case bears an almost exact analogy to the evidence possessed by the proofs for the existence of God. The proofs in themselves are evident: but they may fail to penetrate a mind obscured by prejudice or ill will. From the time of the Reformation, Protestant writers either denied the visibility of the Church, or so explained it as to rob it of most of its meaning. After briefly indicating the grounds of the Catholic doctrine, some views prevalent on this subject among Protestant authorities will be noticed.

It is unnecessary to say more in regard to the material visibility of the Church than has been said in sections III and IV of this article. It has been shown there that Christ established His Church as an organized society under accredited leaders, and that He commanded its rulers and those who should succeed them to summon all men to secure their eternal salvation by entry into it. It is manifest that there is no question here of a secret union of believers: the Church is a worldwide corporation, whose existence is to be forced upon the notice of all, willing or unwilling. Formal visibility is secured by those attributes which are usually termed the "notes" of theChurch — her Unity, Sanctity, Catholicity, and Apostolicity (see below). The proof may be illustrated in the case of the first of these. The unity of the Church stands out as a fact altogether unparalleled in human history. Her members all over the world are united by the profession of a common faith, by participation in a common worship, and by obedience to a common authority. Differences of class, of nationality, and of race, which seem as though they must be fatal to any form of union, cannot sever this bond. It links in one the civilized and the uncivilized, the philosopher and the peasant, the rich and the poor. One and all hold the same belief, join in the same religious ceremonies, and acknowledge in the successor of Peter the same supreme ruler. Nothing but a supernatural power can explain this. It is a proof manifest to all minds, even to the simple and the unlettered, that the Church is a Divine society. Without this formal visibility, the purpose for which the Church was founded would be frustrated. Christ established it to be the means of salvation for all mankind. For this end it is essential that its claims should be authenticated in a manner evident to all; in other words, it must be visible, not merely as other public societies are visible, but as being the society of the Son of God.
Reply
#67
(04-28-2010, 01:54 PM)Petertherock Wrote: I have decided that the NO Church is not part of the Catholic Church.(1) When you have a phony Cardinal like Cardinal Baloney Mahoney saying people who want to have law and order in a country are "Nazi's" he cannot possibly be part of the Catholic Church which means he was invalidly made a "Cardinal." I may have been able to accept that one like him slipped through the cracks but in the NO Church there are more "Cardinal Baloney's" and I would say they seem to be in the majority.

The Pope has the authority and the power to do something about these non Catholics and he does nothing. I just can't take much more of this crap. As good as this Pope is, he still has a streak of modernism in him as he has made pro UN statements and wants the UN to be in charge of the world! I am not a sede right now as I believe Benedict is the Pope but right now I would rather deal with Bishop Williamson's belief that Bush blew up the World Trade Center and the Holocaust didn't happen then someone like Cardinal Baloney calling people Nazi's for wanting laws enforced.

1) What authority do you have to make such a pronouncement? You aren't a bishop.
2) What exactly is the "NO Church?"
3) Bishops are human. They err. The mistakes of one bishop aren't an indictment of the "NO Church," particularly because it isn't relating to the faith.
Reply
#68
janek was st athanasius a heretic?
Reply
#69
(04-29-2010, 02:44 PM)devotedknuckles Wrote: janek was st athanasius a heretic?

Did he take the position that the true Church is invisible and does not exist in the visible structure of the Church?  I don't think so.

He said that an idea being widely taught in the Church was wrong.  And it was good for him to do this.  Just like it is good for us to point out what is wrong with the NO Mass.  But you are crossing a line when you say that the true Church does not exist in the visible structure of the Catholic Church.
Reply
#70
was the church the church when it was int he catacombs or under persecution under the reds or in under the republican zone during the last crusade ie Spanish civil war in spain or during thre great terror? or the terror during the prod revolt in england? in those cases the church didnt have buildings or was very visible which seem sot be your hang up?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)