Disturbing yet unsurprising. Cardinal Burke being removed.
#21
Last night, I found a document called "Homoheresy" by Father Oko, a Polish priest , if I remember correctly.  It gives insight into the homosexual agenda in the Church which I found very interesting.  I am sorry that I cannot post the link.  Since I got Windows 8 on a new computer a few months ago, I have not been able to relearn how to do certain things, and when I do figure it out, it doesn't work.  My "share button" on my "charm bar" doesn't seem to be hooked up!  LOL  The article will be easy to find.  It's thirty some pages, and I am glad that I read it.  I have had trouble understanding the battle between the clergy, like Dolan with his antics, being supported and someone like Burke being punished along with the FFI.  A little understanding of the situation has gone a long way to helping me understand the dynamics.  Like why  Holy Innocents, thriving TLM is possibly  being closed in NYC, while American Jesuits boldly involve themselves with homosexual things?  I am starting to get the drift.  It is really hard for me to fathom such evil, but I am coming to accept it.  I hope you all look this article up and give it a read.  I have also recently recommended reading the encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis, explaining the working of Modernism after being suggested by Father Peter Carota, in his blog, Traditional Catholic Priest.  Things have been making a lot more sense to me.
Reply
#22
(09-18-2014, 05:42 PM)Sequentia Wrote:
(09-18-2014, 12:21 PM)demoslider Wrote: How can Orthodoxy be a logical option? They already allow divorce and remarriage.

I have always wondered why the Orthodox allow divorce, especially when Jesus speaks about it in Matthew 19. The Orthodox consider the "Roman Church" to be completely legalistic (that's generally all that internet Orthodox complain about to Catholics; definitely some of the rudest Christians online). Being pro-divorce and even encouraging it has made me realize that the Orthodox Church has zero credibility. Not to mention that heresy of phyletism that they tend to promote.

I hope Papa Francisco rethinks this decision with regards to Cardinal Burke and other clergy who are promoting the traditional EF Mass.


That's just simply not true. The Orthodox do not encourage divorce and phyletism is a condemned heresy. I get it this is a Catholic forum but that doesn't mean you should spread falsehoods.  :shame:

As to the question of divorce and remarriage the Catholic Church allowed divorce with a second and in extenuating circumstances a third marriage for at the very least 600 years. Even as late at the 15th century it was not considered an obstacle to reunion with the Orthodox. If the Catholic Church allowed it again it would simply be returning to a practice far more ancient than the current system of annulment. No matter what some Catholics seem to think history did not being in 1545.  8-)
Reply
#23
(09-18-2014, 10:37 PM)Silouan Wrote:
(09-18-2014, 05:42 PM)Sequentia Wrote:
(09-18-2014, 12:21 PM)demoslider Wrote: How can Orthodoxy be a logical option? They already allow divorce and remarriage.

I have always wondered why the Orthodox allow divorce, especially when Jesus speaks about it in Matthew 19. The Orthodox consider the "Roman Church" to be completely legalistic (that's generally all that internet Orthodox complain about to Catholics; definitely some of the rudest Christians online). Being pro-divorce and even encouraging it has made me realize that the Orthodox Church has zero credibility. Not to mention that heresy of phyletism that they tend to promote.

I hope Papa Francisco rethinks this decision with regards to Cardinal Burke and other clergy who are promoting the traditional EF Mass.


That's just simply not true. The Orthodox do not encourage divorce and phyletism is a condemned heresy. I get it this is a Catholic forum but that doesn't mean you should spread falsehoods.  :shame:

As to the question of divorce and remarriage the Catholic Church allowed divorce with a second and in extenuating circumstances a third marriage for at the very least 600 years. Even as late at the 15th century it was not considered an obstacle to reunion with the Orthodox. If the Catholic Church allowed it again it would simply be returning to a practice far more ancient than the current system of annulment. No matter what some Catholics seem to think history did not being in 1545.  8-)

Second Person of the Trinity Wrote:Have ye not read, that he who made man from the beginning, Made them male and female? And he said: For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh.
Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.

1545 indeed!
Reply
#24
(09-18-2014, 10:37 PM)Silouan Wrote:
(09-18-2014, 05:42 PM)Sequentia Wrote:
(09-18-2014, 12:21 PM)demoslider Wrote: How can Orthodoxy be a logical option? They already allow divorce and remarriage.

I have always wondered why the Orthodox allow divorce, especially when Jesus speaks about it in Matthew 19. The Orthodox consider the "Roman Church" to be completely legalistic (that's generally all that internet Orthodox complain about to Catholics; definitely some of the rudest Christians online). Being pro-divorce and even encouraging it has made me realize that the Orthodox Church has zero credibility. Not to mention that heresy of phyletism that they tend to promote.



I hope Papa Francisco rethinks this decision with regards to Cardinal Burke and other clergy who are promoting the traditional EF Mass.


That's just simply not true. The Orthodox do not encourage divorce and phyletism is a condemned heresy. I get it this is a Catholic forum but that doesn't mean you should spread falsehoods.  :shame:

As to the question of divorce and remarriage the Catholic Church allowed divorce with a second and in extenuating circumstances a third marriage for at the very least 600 years. Even as late at the 15th century it was not considered an obstacle to reunion with the Orthodox. If the Catholic Church allowed it again it would simply be returning to a practice far more ancient than the current system of annulment. No matter what some Catholics seem to think history did not being in 1545.  8-)

Are you referring to the fact that Rome was in union with the Eastern Patriarchs for hundreds of years while the East permitted divorce and remarriage?
Reply
#25
Read Matthew 19:9, a verse often brushed aside. Jesus did apparently allow for divorce in case of adultery.
Reply
#26
(09-18-2014, 11:00 PM)demoslider Wrote:
(09-18-2014, 10:37 PM)Silouan Wrote:
(09-18-2014, 05:42 PM)Sequentia Wrote:
(09-18-2014, 12:21 PM)demoslider Wrote: How can Orthodoxy be a logical option? They already allow divorce and remarriage.

I have always wondered why the Orthodox allow divorce, especially when Jesus speaks about it in Matthew 19. The Orthodox consider the "Roman Church" to be completely legalistic (that's generally all that internet Orthodox complain about to Catholics; definitely some of the rudest Christians online). Being pro-divorce and even encouraging it has made me realize that the Orthodox Church has zero credibility. Not to mention that heresy of phyletism that they tend to promote.



I hope Papa Francisco rethinks this decision with regards to Cardinal Burke and other clergy who are promoting the traditional EF Mass.


That's just simply not true. The Orthodox do not encourage divorce and phyletism is a condemned heresy. I get it this is a Catholic forum but that doesn't mean you should spread falsehoods.  :shame:

As to the question of divorce and remarriage the Catholic Church allowed divorce with a second and in extenuating circumstances a third marriage for at the very least 600 years. Even as late at the 15th century it was not considered an obstacle to reunion with the Orthodox. If the Catholic Church allowed it again it would simply be returning to a practice far more ancient than the current system of annulment. No matter what some Catholics seem to think history did not being in 1545.  8-)

Are you referring to the fact that Rome was in union with the Eastern Patriarchs for hundreds of years while the East permitted divorce and remarriage?


Yes indeed. Although I might phrase it a little differently. Even according to Catholic teaching there was one Catholic Church, not east and west, all under the authority of the pope. So for 600 years there were churches under the authority of the pope that allowed divorce and remarriage.
Reply
#27
(09-18-2014, 11:00 PM)formerbuddhist Wrote: Read Matthew 19:9, a verse often brushed aside. Jesus did apparently allow for divorce in case of adultery.

Of course this is not ignored. It is simply read without forgetting the other parts of the Bible.
It would be a shame to derail the thread into a debate on divorce, and I think I myself (a rather obtuse lay person) have responded to this somewhere else on the forum. The key is, of course, that what is translated as divorce is simply "to let go" (as S. Joseph was going to do to Mary before they were married), and does not imply the dissolution of the sacrament.
So, no mystery here.
Reply
#28
Hey Geographer,
So, in answer to your question: "At what point would you consider separating  yourself from the church?" I can only answer: "Never". To separate myself from the Church is the only way I can sort of guarantee Hell.  The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ. To separate myself from the Church is to choose mortal sin forever. Can't do it, no matter how stink it smells in the Church. And yes, it REALLY stinks now. But let's go to your next question, which was:
"Putting it another way, at what point would the Catholic church descend into error and cease to be the Catholic church?" The Catholic Church has never, can never, and will never descend into error. The gates of Hell shall not prevail against her.

That being said, we can have evil popes, evil bishops, evil people. When the Church defines a new dogma to be believed universally by all as a revealed truth, and it is in contradiction with the traditional faith, we will have to ask ourselves where the heck the Church is. But we are very very very far from this. We are in no practical danger of this at all. The highest authorities in the Church today are allergic to dogma, are allergic to defining anything, are allergic to belief, are allergic to phrases live "revealed" and "truth". We are nowhere near this. What we have is a bunch of idiots (at best) running the Vatican. Very old men with very bad ideas and not a lot of time left in life.

The Pope can snap his fingers and make SP invalid. The only thing with more authority in such legal matters than a previous pope is a current pope. But this pope will not do this. To begin with, he would have to actually sit down and READ SP, and quite frankly I don't think he would. The Pope can most certainly legislate that one can only attend the NO. He can. Were he to do something so asinine it would make him an ass, but it would not mean that the Church had defected somehow. It would mean our Church leaders are asses. We would have to sit it out, wait till they die off, and bring it back again.

I am no authority on the SSPX, but I find it odd that some are using the SSPX in a sort of "not the Catholic Church" sort of way. The SSPX is a Catholic organization in an canonically irregular, ambiguous or illicit situation. But they are in the Catholic Church. If the Catholic-Church-as-we-know-it is utterly wrong, the SSPX would be as wrong as the rest of us. The only real alternative is Sedevacantism, because there can only be one Church, with one hierarchy, and that hierarchy must be obeyed.

Renatus, you said, "The strong point of the SSPX is that they seem capable of stubbornly holding to the traditions. And while some diocesans or other groups can be very traditional, will they be able to support the pressure?" To this I say bravo for the individuals of the SSPX who live like this, but remember, it is INDIVIDUALS that are "stubbornly holding to the traditions," not organizations. The SSPX has recently suffered its own fracture from inner dissension. I don't know who is right or wrong; I point it out because it shows that inside of any organization there are individuals doing the right thing (whatever that may be in the SSPX case) and individuals in the same organization doing the wrong thing. So it is not the organization that matters: it is YOU. You and I have to live our Catholic lives to the fullest extent of which we are capable. You and I have to hold to the Faith of our Fathers, whether the Pope is a good one or a bad one. Either way, he is not here in my house, in my parish, in my country. My real problem is the priest that says mass for me. Is he a heretic? Will good diocesan and FSSP and ICK and all the many good trad groups out there suddenly, corporately, oblige their members to just accept heresy?? No way. Especially if we do our part.

I will add this weird part from myself. Don't you get an eerie feeling that if ever there was a time NOT to be in the Vatican and the Curia that this was that time? Don't you have the funny feeling that Burke's exit is actually a good thing for Burke? I confess I have that feeling. I find it very odd that at the same time that Europe is at its weakest, and radical Islam at its strongest, and ISIS begging for the opportunity to nuke St. Peter's, and the men ascending in the power-structure of the Vatican are older and older and more dumb and asinine, and corrupt, Burke, relatively young, may very well be getting his life saved, or his reputation saved, by being disassociated from those fellows. And as I said earlier, the truly beautiful part about this is that the kid gloves are FINALLY off. No more polite, diplomatic wars. From now on it will be the real deal kind of fight, the kind in which each side will seek the extinction of the other side. But we have youth on our side. Trads have youth, young priests, a love for the Church that will make them not abandon Her when she needs rescuing. The old, modernist, leftist guard has no future, having no spiritual children. You want to know what else I find eerie. I keep hearing Our Lady of Akita's words, "bishop against bishop, cardinal against cardinal". That's where we are.

So no, I don't think we will ever have to "jump ship". We will have to seek out trad parishes and good NO parishes (yes, they too exist), and get our sacraments there, and the rest is up to us to do. We are never allowed to jump off this ship. We stay and fight on deck.
Reply
#29
To say the divorce issue was not considered an obstacle to reunion in the 15th century, isn't really true.  The bull of union was signed at the Council of Florence with the knowledge that certain issues still needed to be worked out.  These were enumerated by the Pope and the emperor on July 14, 1439.  They included primarily the practice of divorce among the Greeks and the problem of overlapping jurisdictions (or where there were two bishops for one see), as well as more minor details like what to do with Mark of Ephesus and the filling a of a vacant patricarchal see.

The divorce issue was actually solved with the Armenians at the Council and the doctrine laid down:

"Although separation of bed is lawful on account of fornication, it is not lawful to contract another marriage, since the bond of a legitimately contracted marriage is perpetual."
Reply
#30
The thing if one cannot trust the Pope and the hierarchy than doesn't that already mean that one has lost the Catholic Faith? If things have gotten so bad that the Pope and the hierarchy have basically gutted and destroyed Catholicism over the last half century and our only hope is to attend groups who refuse to be under the jurisdictionn of lawful Catholic authority than don't we already have some serious problems? What kind of bare minimum is necessary for a Catholic to still believe that Rome is the True Church and their hasn't been a massive defection from the Faith by the Pope and the hierarchy? 

I would say that if the sheer insanity of the last half century of papally sanctioned wreckovation has not convinced you to leave the Church than nothing will. It cannot get worse than it already has. I just don't see how it's possible,short of Francis shutting down all the Latin Mass chapels in the world or ordaining female cardinals or perhaps allowing for con celebration with Protestants. There's no lower the Roman Catholic Church can possibly go. I'm convinced this last half century is the dark night of the soul for the  Church,the moment when Christ was on the Cross and it was not Peter,but only St. John and Our Lady that stayed by him.

There's definitely some good things happening in the Catholic world,but at this point we are still standing by the Cross,with Our Lord bleeding,emaciated  and disfigured beyond recognition gasping for shallow breaths while lifted high on the wood of the Cross. Resurrection is in the future but it's nowhere in sight right now; there is only sadness,mockery,abandonment and the circling of vultures hungerly eyeing their prey.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)