Bishop Gracida condemns Bergoglio for Vatican Garden Rituals
#41
(10-11-2019, 11:54 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: Is that what you are saying?

No, your essentially trying to say they are all as bad as one another, and while you find and share with me heretical errors of previous Popes (which is evidence I take into account) it appears you just throw your hands up in the air and say well it doesn't matter who the Pope is or what they say and do, so is there anything that Francis can't do? and if they can do anything and everything anyway what is all this business with the gates of hell not prevailing?

(10-11-2019, 11:54 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: I write that only because if you are going to claim it is logical, then it is illogical to stop with Francis


I agree.

(10-11-2019, 11:54 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: and you should take up full-blown Sedevacantism


Well if it really is this bad, it sure looks appealing, but I can't do so because obviously we have had several Popes after Pope Pius XII and the world has not ended yet. And if I were to go to Sedevacantism may as well consider the Orthodox too. To whom shall I go?

(10-11-2019, 11:54 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: but at least makes is more logical than that previous position, since Benedict also promoted these same ideas and was fine with attending and witnessing pagan or non-Christian ceremonies.

So where is the line that cannot be crossed? because if there is no such line then the whole idea of the Papacy and the keys is a joke.

(10-11-2019, 11:54 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: All I need to know is that you recognize that the position is illogical.


Not until after Pope Benedict XVI dies IMO. Then I will have no choice because otherwise I'll fall into Sedevacantism just replacing Pope Pius XII with Pope Benedict XVI.

(10-11-2019, 11:54 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: If you want to hold it afterward and without evidence, then it is silly, but then at least we know that there's no point in arguing about it, and also no reason for you to promote it.

Well like I said, there is still evidence, and only after Pope Benedict XVI dies will I no longer have any evidence. Who knows for sure, you could be right, then again I could be right, either way there is going to be a major catalyst and persecution which afterwards will then see the restoration of Christ's Church I believe. Our Lady of Akita says it will be worse then the deluge. I just hope and pray with things like the victory of Trump and his administration in the USA and Russia's conversion to Orthodoxy that things have been mitigated.

"For the sake of His sorrowful passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world."

God Bless You
Reply
#42
josh987654321 Wrote:lol when has it ever worked like that? The one making the claim provides the evidence.

Wow, you don't understand what that even means. A claim is precisely that--a proposition requiring substantiation, something debatable. Public facts, thoroughly documented in multiple media, are not such claims. If you happen to be ignorant of history, it is not everyone else's responsibility or burden to start typing up passages from history textbooks to educate you. You are capable of educating yourself. And once anyone has done such educating, they may THEN join in the intellectual conversation of what follows from those facts. But how can you even participate when you are ignorant of them and you demand people provide evidence for them as if they were dubious philosophical assumptions that everyone just collectively decided to make up?

Also, here's a thought experiment. Imagine some well-known "Catholic" politician attending any of these sorts of pagan events. Or even more, calling for an ecumenical meeting of multiple religions and leading the group in common prayer. The liberal non-believers would see this as an act of promoting religious and ideological unity. By any Catholic analysis, we would condemn the politician as having publicly gone against his Catholic faith. Perhaps some would even say that he should not be allowed to receive Communion. Why is it that if that person is suddenly John Paul II, he gets a pass?

Fighting against Communism, while admirable, has nothing to do with being a good or bad Pope. I would say the philosophical and theological works of John Paul II, such as in Acting Person, Love and Responsibility, and his corpus of the Theology of the Body, are easily far more damaging than anything Pope Francis has produced. People who haven't read the documents and followed the course of intellectual history in the recent Church don't realize how huge of an impact JPII has had, but this is common knowledge to anyone studying Catholic theology these days. JPII's intellectual output undermines the very foundations of realism. Even Veritatis Splendor is problematic because you can still have the New Natural Law Theorists take it up without any modification to their problematic philosophical framework. Combine that with his restructuring of seminary formation and how it is interpreted along the lines of his philosophical-theological work and you will have a wholly destructive impact on seminary education for generations to come (unless some drastic changes occur). Francis doesn't even come close to the deep and destructive groundwork that JPII laid down in his long pontificate. Anyone who has been aware of the Traditionalist movement since before Francis (or Benedict for that matter) will know this as common knowledge.

But to get back to the point, without any grounding in history, without any systematic training in philosophy or theology, any of us can theorize until the cows come home. It's easy. But that's not reality.
[-] The following 3 users Like piscis's post:
  • Fionnchu, jovan66102, MagisterMusicae
Reply
#43
(10-12-2019, 02:37 AM)josh987654321 Wrote:
(10-11-2019, 04:12 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: And no, I will not do your research for you. If you want pictures, cites, etc., look them up.

The one making the claim provides the evidence.

I totally agree. YOU are making the claim that history is false and that John Paul was a good Pope that simply 'neglected a lot' and that he deserved canonisation and to be held up as a role model. I and others, on the other hand, are presenting irrefutable, historical FACTS that he was a disaster as a Pope, undermined the Faith, scandalised the Faithful, elevated perverted abusers and their enablers to the Episcopate, actively participated in false and pagan worship, and before the Council, had he not been Pope would have been disciplined, if not excommunicated for heresy and possible apostasy. You are claiming that I and others presenting historical facts, are wrong. Prove it!
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
“Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'
FishEaters Group on MeWe
[-] The following 1 user Likes jovan66102's post:
  • Augustinian
Reply
#44
(10-12-2019, 06:39 PM)piscis Wrote: Wow, you don't understand what that even means. A claim is precisely that--a proposition requiring substantiation, something debatable. Public facts, thoroughly documented in multiple media, are not such claims.


Since it's documented in multiple media then it should not be hard for you to supply the evidence, something I had never heard of and wouldn't even know where to look is ridiculous to then claim I need to find the evidence against my own beliefs. That's like telling a protestant who comes to these forums and asks a question, no, I wont do your research for you.

(10-12-2019, 06:39 PM)piscis Wrote: If you happen to be ignorant of history, it is not everyone else's responsibility or burden to start typing up passages from history textbooks to educate you.


Ouch, well leave everyone in ignorance then. Sounds like a good philosophy.

(10-12-2019, 06:39 PM)piscis Wrote: You are capable of educating yourself.


And if everyone had that attitude would there even be any resources on the internet? why even create a fisheaters website with resources and information when they ought to be educating themselves.

(10-12-2019, 06:39 PM)piscis Wrote: And once anyone has done such educating, they may THEN join in the intellectual conversation of what follows from those facts.


Oh wise one, I am too intellectually inferior to have a conversation with you, I will leave you to it then.

(10-12-2019, 06:39 PM)piscis Wrote: But how can you even participate when you are ignorant of them and you demand people provide evidence for them as if they were dubious philosophical assumptions that everyone just collectively decided to make up?

Well If you take as Gospel everything you read on the internet from anonymous posters in order to appear intellectual I feel sorry for you.

(10-12-2019, 06:39 PM)piscis Wrote: Perhaps some would even say that he should not be allowed to receive Communion. Why is it that if that person is suddenly John Paul II, he gets a pass?

Because he is Pope and had done a lot for Christ's Church, President Trump gets a pass on certain things too, nobody is perfect. I am not even aware if John Paul II was corrected for these errors or whether he repented of them.

(10-12-2019, 06:39 PM)piscis Wrote: But to get back to the point, without any grounding in history, without any systematic training in philosophy or theology, any of us can theorize until the cows come home. It's easy. But that's not reality.

Please... then it's 'which' philosophy and theology and the same endless arguments, the Protestants spend their lives studying philosophy and theology too, same with the hierarchy of the Church today, yet still get it so wrong. Matthew 11:25

God Bless
Reply
#45
(10-12-2019, 08:19 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: I and others, on the other hand, are presenting irrefutable, historical FACTS that he was a disaster as a Pope,


What and I am supposed to be doing that? lol

So anyone who comes to these forums ought to be providing the evidence against their own arguments? that makes sense, don't know why anyone even bothers posting then.

God Bless
Reply
#46
(10-12-2019, 08:48 PM)josh987654321 Wrote: So anyone who comes to these forums ought to be providing the evidence against their own arguments? that makes sense, don't know why anyone even bothers posting then.

God Bless

That makes absolutely no sense.
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
“Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'
FishEaters Group on MeWe
Reply
#47
(10-12-2019, 09:00 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: That makes absolutely no sense.

It makes complete sense, I made the argument, you say I'm supposed to provide the evidence for it, fair enough, then you claimed it was wrong, and are saying again I'm supposed to supply the evidence as to why it was wrong. I may as well just have a conversation with myself if that's the standard, which is why I asked when has it ever worked like that.

God Bless You
Reply
#48
josh987654321 Wrote:And if everyone had that attitude would there even be any resources on the internet? why even create a fisheaters website with resources and information when they ought to be educating themselves.

Yes, using a fabulous website like FishEaters IS a great way to educate yourself. You're reacting to a distortion worse than a straw man. 

Sorry, but you sound butt hurt. I apologize if my tone is harsh, but you should step back and read what you said because it makes no sense whatsoever. Almost everything you said was a complete caricature or distortion of what I said or had nothing to do with it. Giving President Trump a pass? Um, when did I ever even mention him, let alone give him a "pass"?

Adults need to learn to educate themselves; that's one of the classic goals of a good education. I have presumed that you are not stupid. What I was saying to you is based on that presumption, and that presumption is also the basis of my frustration that you are arguing with theories ("beliefs") clearly based on ignorance. So you really should not take what I'm saying as trying to start a pissing contest. If you think I've been condescending to you, then I'm sorry.

Never have I said people should remain in ignorance. I was saying precisely the opposite. Educate yourself. Get out of your ignorance. That you would claim such a thing shows you're letting your emotions cloud your reason. I was saying that it is silly to engage in sophisticated theological discussions (which need it be said that positing the possibility of a resigned, living pope being the real pope despite every indication to the contrary and also this being something of a novel situation in history clearly IS a sophisticated discussion?) if you haven't actually done the hard work of learning theology or history. This is like a person who has learned arithmetic trying to engage in a technical discussion about an engineering problem. It's patently ridiculous. To point that out is neither contentious nor condescending. It is certainly not a claim to be intellectually superior than anyone. Never did I say that I am fit to engage such a conversation. That's why I don't--I adhere to the prima facie standard view, namely, the man who claims to be pope and everyone, whether Catholic or not, believes to be pope, Francis, IS the pope. I do not need to know advanced theology to believe this, nor is the burden of proof on me to assert it.

If you are presented with evidence or the existence of evidence contrary to your beliefs, the standard rational attitude is to then at least suspend your judgment about those beliefs. I repeat it is not the job of everyone here to document every scandalous act of JPII so that you may become educated about public facts, but I agree with you that we should be happy to help point you in the right direction. And so far, everyone HAS done that. But you should also have the graciousness to acknowledge this effort and to see that it is wearing for you to continue to insist on "seeing evidence" when it has been typed out for you multiple times. 

And by the way, since you keep bringing it up, to list these scandalous acts of JPII is NOT to deny that he did good things. You're missing the point by repeating that. Everyone does good things. But his canonization and cult-like following is based precisely on the political propaganda that elevated him on a pedestal and refuses to see the full reality of his pontificate, which was marred by some of the worst scandals in history on every level of analysis. If you enter a diocesan seminary, you are expected to have nothing but the highest praise for JPII. Being part of the club means insisting on calling him "Saint John Paul II... the Great." Abp. Sample of Oregon himself fosters this very culture wherever he goes.
[-] The following 4 users Like piscis's post:
  • antiquarian, Augustinian, jovan66102, MagisterMusicae
Reply
#49
(10-12-2019, 10:07 PM)piscis Wrote: I have presumed that you are not stupid...

If you think I've been condescending to you, then I'm sorry.

You just did it again lol may as well have said "I presumed you weren't stupid and obviously I made a big mistake" lol

I'll try and get to the rest when I have time.

God Bless
Reply
#50
(10-12-2019, 09:09 PM)josh987654321 Wrote:
(10-12-2019, 09:00 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: That makes absolutely no sense.

It makes complete sense, I made the argument, you say I'm supposed to provide the evidence for it, fair enough, then you claimed it was wrong, and are saying again I'm supposed to supply the evidence as to why it was wrong. I may as well just have a conversation with myself if that's the standard, which is why I asked when has it ever worked like that.

God Bless You

You haven't made an argument, and neither have I. You made a specious claim based on the ignorant speculations of a cattle broker with a degree in animal husbandry, and I've simply presented historical facts and the conclusion I draw from them.

And I'm not saying you're ignorant. I'm saying that Ann Barnhardt is ignorant of philosophy, theology and canon law. I doubt that she can even read the Latin necessary to study the subjects, and the documents necessary, since the cow college she attended only offers three Latin courses, the first two being devoted to the structure of the language.

It is a great school if you want a degree in poultry science, tho'! I have a bit of knowledge of it, since most of my childhood friends, and all my relations that have gone to university so far, have gone there, because it's only about 60 miles from my hometown.
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
“Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'
FishEaters Group on MeWe
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)