USCCB Will Remove St. Paul from the Canon?
#21
Who can still doubt that the new church is ruled by International Jewry?
Reply
#22
(05-26-2011, 11:48 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: Who can still doubt that the new church is ruled by International Jewry?

There is no such thing as "the new church".  There is One Holy Catholic Church and she is ruled by God, just as she has always been. 
Reply
#23
(05-26-2011, 11:40 AM)HolySouls Wrote: What an inflammatory subject line!

Here's the whole passage, from the USCCB website:

Father James Massa, executive director of the USCCB Secretariat for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs, spoke on the “sources of authority” in the Catholic theological tradition. He noted both similarities and differences between Catholic and Jewish ways to interpret sacred texts and pass on religious beliefs and practices.

“One of the obvious differences between our two faith communities is that while no one rabbi or religious body can speak for all Jews, the Church has a ‘Magisterium’ made of bishops in communion with the pope, whose interpretation and application of the word of God can be binding on all Catholic believers,” Father Massa said.

His presentation highlighted the levels of authoritative teaching in the Church, to which are owed corresponding degrees of assent. Father Massa noted that some teachings on Jews and Judaism found in Nostra aetate, the Second Vatican Council’s Declaration on Non-Christian Religions, reaches the level of dogma or defined doctrine. “One cannot hold to the charge that the Jewish people, either in the first century or at any other time, are responsible for the death of Jesus (the so-called charge of deicide) without falling out of communion with the Catholic Church. It contradicts both Vatican II (1962-1965) and the Council of Trent (1548-1563), not to mention a proper reading of the New Testament,” Father Massa stated.  (End quote)

No where does he say that St. Paul needs to be removed, that he was wrong, that he lied.  What he says is that a proper reading of Scripture, in accordance with the Church's authoritative interpretation, is what is needed.  As far as I know, that's always been the stance -- that the Church is the final authority on the correct interpretation of Scripture.

Nice try, but it's a part of a syllogism.  Have you read the other posts in the thread? 

The USCCB is claiming that people who think like St. Paul obviously did, or the Church Fathers, and most Catholics up until the Second World War, thought about the Jews and their false religion and persistent hostility to Christ, are out of union with the Church.

The USCCB loves to turn a blind eye to sodomy and the evils accomplished by their Marxist clergy, but when it comes to a NORMATIVE position that all Catholics have held everywhere throughout the Church for two thousand years, well, all bets are off...

If anyone doubts that the USCCB isn't an organ of this World, let him dash all doubts.  There's nothing that's even slightly controversial about this headline.

The USCCB is a Marxist pressure group when it was founded and it's still a Marxist pressure group.  If they were as worried about souls as they were worried about promoting dialectical materialism, the USA would be Catholic now and we wouldn't be having these stupid social discussions about fags in the military or the priesthood... the government would be Catholic...
Reply
#24
(05-26-2011, 11:40 AM)HolySouls Wrote: No where does he say that St. Paul needs to be removed, that he was wrong, that he lied.  What he says is that a proper reading of Scripture, in accordance with the Church's authoritative interpretation, is what is needed.   As far as I know, that's always been the stance -- that the Church is the final authority on the correct interpretation of Scripture.

Exactly.  If people want to discuss if what is currently being taught about the proper reading of Scripture is consistent with what has been taught in the past, that is reasonable.  The inflammatory and misleading nature of the OP has led to emotional unfounded reactions.
Reply
#25
(05-26-2011, 12:03 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(05-26-2011, 11:40 AM)HolySouls Wrote: No where does he say that St. Paul needs to be removed, that he was wrong, that he lied.  What he says is that a proper reading of Scripture, in accordance with the Church's authoritative interpretation, is what is needed.   As far as I know, that's always been the stance -- that the Church is the final authority on the correct interpretation of Scripture.

Exactly.  If people want to discuss if what is currently being taught about the proper reading of Scripture is consistent with what has been taught in the past, that is reasonable.  The inflammatory and misleading nature of the OP has led to emotional unfounded reactions.

If people aren't angry, they need to be made to be angry.  Some people respond differently when they find they've been lied to by people they've trusted.  If you think being Catholic is an exiting adventure, it is, but it's also got some road blocks.  Many Catholic priests are traitorous Judas's.

If you want to address the meat of the point that's been made that's fine, but don't try and portray it as wrong just because it justifiably makes people angry.
Reply
#26
(05-26-2011, 12:01 PM)Augstine Baker Wrote:
(05-26-2011, 11:40 AM)HolySouls Wrote: What an inflammatory subject line!

Here's the whole passage, from the USCCB website:

Father James Massa, executive director of the USCCB Secretariat for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs, spoke on the “sources of authority” in the Catholic theological tradition. He noted both similarities and differences between Catholic and Jewish ways to interpret sacred texts and pass on religious beliefs and practices.

“One of the obvious differences between our two faith communities is that while no one rabbi or religious body can speak for all Jews, the Church has a ‘Magisterium’ made of bishops in communion with the pope, whose interpretation and application of the word of God can be binding on all Catholic believers,” Father Massa said.

His presentation highlighted the levels of authoritative teaching in the Church, to which are owed corresponding degrees of assent. Father Massa noted that some teachings on Jews and Judaism found in Nostra aetate, the Second Vatican Council’s Declaration on Non-Christian Religions, reaches the level of dogma or defined doctrine. “One cannot hold to the charge that the Jewish people, either in the first century or at any other time, are responsible for the death of Jesus (the so-called charge of deicide) without falling out of communion with the Catholic Church. It contradicts both Vatican II (1962-1965) and the Council of Trent (1548-1563), not to mention a proper reading of the New Testament,” Father Massa stated.  (End quote)

No where does he say that St. Paul needs to be removed, that he was wrong, that he lied.  What he says is that a proper reading of Scripture, in accordance with the Church's authoritative interpretation, is what is needed.   As far as I know, that's always been the stance -- that the Church is the final authority on the correct interpretation of Scripture.

Nice try, but it's a part of a syllogism.  Have you read the other posts in the thread? 

The USCCB is claiming that people who think like St. Paul obviously did, or the Church Fathers, and most Catholics up until the Second World War, thought about the Jews and their false religion and persistent hostility to Christ, are out of union with the Church.

The USCCB is claiming that the current interpretation is what has always been taught in Scripture and at Trent.   If you want to disagree with that claim, do so.  Instead you are misrepresenting the claim.
Reply
#27
(05-26-2011, 12:08 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(05-26-2011, 12:01 PM)Augstine Baker Wrote:
(05-26-2011, 11:40 AM)HolySouls Wrote: What an inflammatory subject line!

Here's the whole passage, from the USCCB website:

Father James Massa, executive director of the USCCB Secretariat for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs, spoke on the “sources of authority” in the Catholic theological tradition. He noted both similarities and differences between Catholic and Jewish ways to interpret sacred texts and pass on religious beliefs and practices.

“One of the obvious differences between our two faith communities is that while no one rabbi or religious body can speak for all Jews, the Church has a ‘Magisterium’ made of bishops in communion with the pope, whose interpretation and application of the word of God can be binding on all Catholic believers,” Father Massa said.

His presentation highlighted the levels of authoritative teaching in the Church, to which are owed corresponding degrees of assent. Father Massa noted that some teachings on Jews and Judaism found in Nostra aetate, the Second Vatican Council’s Declaration on Non-Christian Religions, reaches the level of dogma or defined doctrine. “One cannot hold to the charge that the Jewish people, either in the first century or at any other time, are responsible for the death of Jesus (the so-called charge of deicide) without falling out of communion with the Catholic Church. It contradicts both Vatican II (1962-1965) and the Council of Trent (1548-1563), not to mention a proper reading of the New Testament,” Father Massa stated.  (End quote)

No where does he say that St. Paul needs to be removed, that he was wrong, that he lied.  What he says is that a proper reading of Scripture, in accordance with the Church's authoritative interpretation, is what is needed.   As far as I know, that's always been the stance -- that the Church is the final authority on the correct interpretation of Scripture.

Nice try, but it's a part of a syllogism.  Have you read the other posts in the thread? 

The USCCB is claiming that people who think like St. Paul obviously did, or the Church Fathers, and most Catholics up until the Second World War, thought about the Jews and their false religion and persistent hostility to Christ, are out of union with the Church.

The USCCB is claiming that the current interpretation is what has always been taught in Scripture and at Trent.   If you want to disagree with that claim, do so.  Instead you are misrepresenting the claim.

For the fourth time.... they're condemning the NORMATIVE position in favor of one YOU believe has been taught since Trent.  It hasn't.  It's a novel teaching that the Jews are not responsible for Christ's death on the Cross.

This is exactly what the treacherous Cardinal Bernardin was teaching, and this is the agenda that's being promoted.  You are increasingly appearing to be a supporter of this novelty.
Reply
#28
(05-26-2011, 12:07 PM)Augstine Baker Wrote:
(05-26-2011, 12:03 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(05-26-2011, 11:40 AM)HolySouls Wrote: No where does he say that St. Paul needs to be removed, that he was wrong, that he lied.  What he says is that a proper reading of Scripture, in accordance with the Church's authoritative interpretation, is what is needed.   As far as I know, that's always been the stance -- that the Church is the final authority on the correct interpretation of Scripture.

Exactly.  If people want to discuss if what is currently being taught about the proper reading of Scripture is consistent with what has been taught in the past, that is reasonable.  The inflammatory and misleading nature of the OP has led to emotional unfounded reactions.

If people aren't angry, they need to be made to be angry.  Some people respond differently when they find they've been lied to by people they've trusted.  If you think being Catholic is an exiting adventure, it is, but it's also got some road blocks.  Many Catholic priests are traitorous Judas's.

If you want to address the meat of the point that's been made that's fine, but don't try and portray it as wrong just because it justifiably makes people angry.

This appears to be an admission that your intent was to make people angry.  If an accurate presentation of the facts does not make people angry, it is not your job to help the facts along by misrepresenting them.
Reply
#29
Has St. John Chrysostom "fallen out of communion with the Catholic Church"?
Reply
#30
(05-26-2011, 12:11 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(05-26-2011, 12:07 PM)Augstine Baker Wrote:
(05-26-2011, 12:03 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(05-26-2011, 11:40 AM)HolySouls Wrote: No where does he say that St. Paul needs to be removed, that he was wrong, that he lied.  What he says is that a proper reading of Scripture, in accordance with the Church's authoritative interpretation, is what is needed.   As far as I know, that's always been the stance -- that the Church is the final authority on the correct interpretation of Scripture.

Exactly.  If people want to discuss if what is currently being taught about the proper reading of Scripture is consistent with what has been taught in the past, that is reasonable.  The inflammatory and misleading nature of the OP has led to emotional unfounded reactions.

If people aren't angry, they need to be made to be angry.  Some people respond differently when they find they've been lied to by people they've trusted.  If you think being Catholic is an exiting adventure, it is, but it's also got some road blocks.  Many Catholic priests are traitorous Judas's.

If you want to address the meat of the point that's been made that's fine, but don't try and portray it as wrong just because it justifiably makes people angry.

This appears to be an admission that your intent was to make people angry.  If an accurate presentation of the facts does not make people angry, it is not your job to help the facts along by misrepresenting them.

Ok, I've tried several times to address your point.   You're not interested in fair argumentation aimed at the truth, you're interested in demonizing NORMATIVE teaching and defending the USCCB.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)