The Holy Father is calling for prayer today. And he should be obeyed.
#41
(05-15-2020, 10:16 AM)josh987654321 Wrote:
(05-15-2020, 09:53 AM)Adventus Wrote: You can trace other points in history where this has occurred and it doesn't entirely match up. Things were more autonomous in the past and the power of the Pope has become clearer in Vatican I. Sort of flies in the face of it.

I still have to look up 'Honorius and John' that Jovan mentions, who were you thinking of and are you a Roman Catholic?

God Bless You

I believe that was another poster that mentioned Honorius and John. Only to point that, on record, we've had material heretics as Popes before.

Yes, I'm Catholic, why do you ask?
Reply
#42
(05-15-2020, 10:44 AM)Adventus Wrote: Yes, I'm Catholic, why do you ask?

Just curious where you might have been going with it, whether you were going for an Orthodox position on the Papacy or not, which I'm happy to read, but it helps when you know where someone is coming from and unfortunately info like Country and Religion isn't displayed with posters anymore.

God Bless You
Reply
#43
I don't know if this has been addressed yet, but I think the OP's description of God's "Permissive Will" is definitely in need of correction.
Yes, the external reality we see around us is exactly as God has permitted it to be.
Do you want to know the Mind of God? Look at the external reality.
Everything in existence exists either by His Positive or Permissive Will.
However, that's a lot different than saying God is pleased with things.
To see the multitude of religions as part of God's Permissive Will, and then act as if that means God is pleased with these numerous religions is a serious error.
Read Romans 1.
God is certainly not "pleased" with those whom He permits to fall into grave evil.
It would be blasphemous and absurd to suggest that because God permits such a thing (e.g. as punishment for sin), that He is pleased with things.

It's a tough pill to swallow sometimes, folks, but we're being punished. Period.
The question is how are you going to do God's Will while being punished?
Are you going to be sulky and whiny, or are you going to offer up your sufferings out of love for God and neighbor?
This time on Earth is the time for gaining merit.
Don't let the devil have you waste it.
[-] The following 2 users Like FultonFan's post:
  • jovan66102, Teresa Agrorum
Reply
#44
josh987654321 Wrote:'Human Fraternity' lol whatever the heck that is.

Traditional theologians understand the principle well, particularly when they attempt to impute the guilt of Adam onto all men.
Reply
#45
(05-15-2020, 05:14 AM)josh987654321 Wrote: Yup, my only issue however, is that St Peter erred, much like Pope Benedict XVI, or St Pope John Paul II's Assisi abominable event, it wasn't an agenda, in the case of Francis I believe it's a clear agenda. 

You honestly believe that John Paul the Small didn't have an agenda?! The Assisi abomination, repeated acts of pagan worship, kissing the Satanic Koran and asking St John the Baptist to bless the religion of the paedophile, going to a synagogue and being seated on the same level as the Chief Rabbi and never mentioning the Name of Christ?

If you actually believe that all these were just errors without an agenda, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you, as we like to say here in the States.
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 2 users Like jovan66102's post:
  • Augustinian, MagisterMusicae
Reply
#46
(05-15-2020, 03:36 PM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(05-15-2020, 05:14 AM)josh987654321 Wrote: Yup, my only issue however, is that St Peter erred, much like Pope Benedict XVI, or St Pope John Paul II's Assisi abominable event, it wasn't an agenda, in the case of Francis I believe it's a clear agenda. 

You honestly believe that John Paul the Small didn't have an agenda?! The Assisi abomination, repeated acts of pagan worship, kissing the Satanic Koran and asking St John the Baptist to bless the religion of the paedophile, going to a synagogue and being seated on the same level as the Chief Rabbi and never mentioning the Name of Christ?

If you actually believe that all these were just errors without an agenda, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you, as we like to say here in the States.

I actually kind of like JPII, and I will accept him as a saint, but to ignore that his papacy was anything but a travesty for the faith is pure blindness. We have a duty to charity as Catholics to correct our brothers in the faith when they're in error, either pauper or Pontiff.

[Image: Assisi1986.jpg]
[Image: JPII-Demonic-Influence.jpg]
[Image: jpii_buddhist.jpg]
[Image: JPII-Koran.jpg]

[Image: 53893778ca7aee2b0bb97bfe264ca4c6.jpg]
[Image: shiva-priestess-jp2+giving+the+sign+on+h...+godss.jpg]
"The Heart of Jesus is closer to you when you suffer, than when you are full of joy." - St. Margaret Mary Alacoque

Put not your trust in princes: In the children of men, in whom there is no salvation. - Ps. 145:2-3

"For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables." - 2 Timothy 4:3-4
[-] The following 1 user Likes Augustinian's post:
  • jovan66102
Reply
#47
I have no problem with the idea that he repented of his manifold violations of the First Commandment and is a Saint. But, I consider his canonisation one of the greatest prudential errors in the history of the Church. He (and Paul VI) were canonised in an effort to 'canonise' the Council and for no other reason. With the exception of John Paul's great suffering, patiently borne, neither of them is a fitting role model for any Catholic, pauper or Pontiff.
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
#48
(05-15-2020, 05:14 AM)josh987654321 Wrote:
(05-14-2020, 11:48 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: In fact the best way to deal with Pope when he's going off is to do exactly what St Paul did, resist him.

Yup, my only issue however, is that St Peter erred, much like Pope Benedict XVI, or St Pope John Paul II's Assisi abominable event, it wasn't an agenda, in the case of Francis I believe it's a clear agenda.

Wishful thinking.

John Paul II clearly had an agenda. Assisi was worse than what Francis is calling for, because it was an in-person event, and the Pope himself not just calling for communicatio in sacris, but demonstrating how it's done.

Even if you were right, though, encouraging communicatio in sacris is gravely illicit and something no good Catholic would ever do.

You can't both call out Francis for this, and then absolve Benedict and John Paul for their communicatio in sacris.

You can try, but it only serves to demonstrate you're using a purely subjective standard to come to the result you want.
[-] The following 4 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • Augustinian, jovan66102, MiserereMeiDeus, Teresa Agrorum
Reply
#49
(05-15-2020, 09:20 AM)josh987654321 Wrote: If a person, through no fault of their own, does not know, understand, or believe that human sacrifice, idolatry etc is wrong, prays for the well being of fellow man with genuine love, then we do not join in with them, we share the Gospel message with them, if we join in with their errors, then we are far worse then the ignorant pagan, for in doing so we actually trample the Gospel under foot and proclaim Christ equal with lies and demons.

One would say that someone engaging in human sacrifice is not capable of expressing genuine love; and obviously if they were sacrificing humans, they would not have a grasp of caring for their well being.  The Pope's call for prayer yesterday was specifically "in fraternity" with those of the Jewish and Muslim faiths.  Neither one of them practices human sacrifice.
Reply
#50
(05-15-2020, 11:01 AM)FultonFan Wrote: I don't know if this has been addressed yet, but I think the OP's description of God's "Permissive Will" is definitely in need of correction.
Yes, the external reality we see around us is exactly as God has permitted it to be.
Do you want to know the Mind of God? Look at the external reality.
Everything in existence exists either by His Positive or Permissive Will.
However, that's a lot different than saying God is pleased with things.
To see the multitude of religions as part of God's Permissive Will, and then act as if that means God is pleased with these numerous religions is a serious error.
Read Romans 1.
God is certainly not "pleased" with those whom He permits to fall into grave evil.
It would be blasphemous and absurd to suggest that because God permits such a thing (e.g. as punishment for sin), that He is pleased with things.

It's a tough pill to swallow sometimes, folks, but we're being punished. Period.
The question is how are you going to do God's Will while being punished?
Are you going to be sulky and whiny, or are you going to offer up your sufferings out of love for God and neighbor?
This time on Earth is the time for gaining merit.
Don't let the devil have you waste it.
I never gave much of a description of "permissive will" aside from a paraphrase of the Holy Father's words a few months ago.  I did not imply that God was "pleased" with it.  
However, there is a reality to this situation.  A Catholic should be willing to accept a reasonably large umbrella of those saved under the form of "baptism of desire."  At the time of Jesus, in the 1st century AD, there were already an estimated 60 million people living in China.  Christianity didn't even reach China for seven centuries after the time of Christ.  700 years.  So, just in one country alone, millions of souls lived and died, practicing different religions the whole time (and still do to this day). 

Was God pleased with this situation?  Seven centuries of millions of people never exposed to Christianity?  Surely, no.  But it seems like an awfully long time to permit it, as well, if not for a reason, or for allowing salvation without the Church in some form known only to the Father.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)