2007 RECongress Speaker Listing

[frommi]

---

I would surely hope----no one—is “worshipping” this Card.—in any way or form.

The only problem that I see—is your belief that a bishop or Card.—cannot do wrong because they are “princes”.

Arias-----took many bishops into heresy. For this to happen–these bishops did kick the Holy Spirit to the curb.

I don’t hold that belief…but when other cardinals are questioned in these forums (the ones that people ‘like’ for their supposed ‘orthodoxy’) people are summarily attacked for questioning.

The Holy Spirit can’t be ‘kicked to the curb’ or ‘fired’…it’s the living spirt of Jesus…who doesn’t retire and who’s love is stronger than death.

To even say that any bishop could just ‘cut the spirit’ out of their diocese is foolish.

 

[Walking_Home]

I don’t hold that belief…but when other cardinals are questioned in these forums (the ones that people ‘like’ for their supposed ‘orthodoxy’) people are summarily attacked for questioning.

The Holy Spirit can’t be ‘kicked to the curb’ or ‘fired’…it’s the living spirt of Jesus…who doesn’t retire and who’s love is stronger than death.

To even say that any bishop could just ‘cut the spirit’ out of their diocese is foolish./QUOTE]​

The bishops who fought and prevailed over the Arians—would not agree. Not only did bishops go heretic --but a great portion of the Church did too.

 

[bones_IV]

I’m not exactly sure where my sin is here that I require your mercy…not agreeing with bones on a message board isn’t something I recall learning in the ten commadments as a problem.

I do find it humorous that in the thread there are issues with a speaker who had an objection to a teaching of Cardinal Ratzinger…but when Mother Angelica objects to something taught by Cardinal Mahony…that’s a different story.

Both women…both objecting to cardinals points of view…one is a heretic…and one is not…one has theological background…and one does not.

Care to explain to me why the non-thelogian should be taken more seriously here?

Where the diocese of LA is going is Cardinal Mahony’s direction not the Church’s. The photo with Mahoney on the screen with the crowd giving him the stiff-arm salute is way too creepy. It reminds me of why I never do the “extend your right arm” blessing thing at Mass. I always think of Nazi Germany. Where does one get asked to extend one’s arms like that? I think that someone taking issue with Ratzinger isn’t one bit amusing Frommi, and again you’re not contributing very much to this discussion.

 

[frommi]

Where the diocese of LA is going is Cardinal Mahony’s direction not the Church’s. The photo with Mahoney on the screen with the crowd giving him the stiff-arm salute is way too creepy. It reminds me of why I never do the “extend your right arm” blessing thing at Mass. I always think of Nazi Germany. Where does one get asked to extend one’s arms like that? I think that someone taking issue with Ratzinger isn’t one bit amusing Frommi, and again you’re not contributing very much to this discussion.

You’re not discussing with me, that’s why.

I’m serious here…

What is the difference between questioning Cardinal Mahony or Cardinal Ratzinger?

Why is one right and the other wrong?

 

[bones_IV]

You’re not discussing with me, that’s why.

I’m serious here…

What is the difference between questioning Cardinal Mahony or Cardinal Ratzinger?

Why is one right and the other wrong?

Mahony was teaching something heretical that’s the difference.

 

[frommi]

Mahony was teaching something heretical that’s the difference.

Really?

What?

There are how many bishops in America…and a huge curia in Rome…and only Mother Angelica caught on to the heresy that was going on?

That makes no sense.

 

[bones_IV]

Really?

What?

There are how many bishops in America…and a huge curia in Rome…and only Mother Angelica caught on to the heresy that was going on?

That makes no sense.

The part where Mahony said that the Eucharist was bread and wine after and before mass. The Vatican even supported Mother and didn’t punish her. That’s the part that upsets me. I gave evidence from the book.

See **THE ODYSSEY OF MOTHER ANGELICA. It shows that even Donohue caught on. She wasn’t only the person. Do we have to spell out every last detail?

**catholicleague.org/catalyst/2005_catalyst/1005.htm#essay

Liturgical dancing is not heresy? :bigyikes:

 

[Shoshana]

The part where Mahony said that the Eucharist was bread and wine after and before mass. The Vatican even supported Mother and didn’t punish her. That’s the part that upsets me. I gave evidence from the book.

See THE ODYSSEY OF MOTHER ANGELICA. It shows that even Donohue caught on. She wasn’t only the person. Do we have to spell out every last detail?

catholicleague.org/catalyst/2005_catalyst/1005.htm#essay

Liturgical dancing is not heresy? :bigyikes:

If we had more priests/bishops like Mother Angelica, the Catholic world would be in better shape! We must pray for them…:yup:

 

[frommi]

The part where Mahony said that the Eucharist was bread and wine after and before mass. The Vatican even supported Mother and didn’t punish her. That’s the part that upsets me. I gave evidence from the book.

See **THE ODYSSEY OF MOTHER ANGELICA. It shows that even Donohue caught on. She wasn’t only the person. Do we have to spell out every last detail?

**catholicleague.org/catalyst/2005_catalyst/1005.htm#essay

Liturgical dancing is not heresy? :bigyikes:

Well let’s start with a quote from the Cardinal’s letter that Mother had such a problem with:

Communion time means. The key was unfolding the wonder and thanksgiving Catholics feel toward the Body of Christ – the consecrated bread and wine, and the Church. Both have the same name. What does it mean when the Body of Christ comes forward to receive the Body of Christ? The sense of a Church in procession has somehow replaced the feeling of individuals lining up. For example, the first to come forward are no longer those in the front pew; rather, the people in the back pews begin the procession so that the whole room seems to be surrounded by a procession of people. Here is a Church partaking of the sacred banquet."

OK…now that that is disposed of…

No, support for liturgical dance is not a heresy…it does not go against any dogma of the church that I’m aware of…it’s certainly not a core belief of the church.

Now…

You make the point that Mother was never disciplined, has the speaker who spoke out against Ratzinger ever been disciplined?

Could it be that “Rome” has better things to do?

You’re case for most of this stuff is intellectually dishonest.

Most of the speakers on that list would be welcome in each diocese that has a Cardinal as its ordinary.

 

[bones_IV]

Well let’s start with a quote from the Cardinal’s letter that Mother had such a problem with:

Communion time means. The key was unfolding the wonder and thanksgiving Catholics feel toward the Body of Christ – the consecrated bread and wine, and the Church. Both have the same name. What does it mean when the Body of Christ comes forward to receive the Body of Christ? The sense of a Church in procession has somehow replaced the feeling of individuals lining up. For example, the first to come forward are no longer those in the front pew; rather, the people in the back pews begin the procession so that the whole room seems to be surrounded by a procession of people. Here is a Church partaking of the sacred banquet."

Selective qouting.

In 2002 Cardinal Mahony held a press conference in which he stated that he would open up dialogue at the upcoming meeting with the pope for allowing women’s ordination and priests to marry. His official LA archdiocese website even has a gay page, selling rainbow fish pins and offering articles on being gay, as if condoning homosexuality.

Frommi you are seriously deluded.

The GIRM forbids liturgical dancing which is disrespectful fot the mass. DO YOU EVEN BELIEVE IN THE HOLY SACRIFICE OF THE MASS?

Easy to pretend to be a catholic isn’t it Frommi?

 

[frommi]

Selective qouting.

In 2002 Cardinal Mahony held a press conference in which he stated that he would open up dialogue at the upcoming meeting with the pope for allowing women’s ordination and priests to marry. His official LA archdiocese website even has a gay page, selling rainbow fish pins and offering articles on being gay, as if condoning homosexuality.

Frommi you are seriously deluded.

The GIRM forbids liturgical dancing which is disrespectful fot the mass. DO YOU EVEN BELIEVE IN THE HOLY SACRIFICE OF THE MASS?

Easy to pretend to be a catholic isn’t it Frommi?

I’m not pretending to be Catholic…I believe wholeheartedly in the sacrifice of the mass.

You called dancing heresy…which it is not.

It seems to me that you misuse terminology, utilize selective quoting, and continue to change topics rapidfire so you don’t have to actually answer any of the questions I’ve asked you.

 

[Shoshana]

answer any of the questions I’ve asked you.

YOU HAVEN’T ANSWERED MY QUESTION…ARE YOU A PRIEST?

 

[bones_IV]

I’m not pretending to be Catholic…I believe wholeheartedly in the sacrifice of the mass.

You called dancing heresy…which it is not.

It seems to me that you misuse terminology, utilize selective quoting, and continue to change topics rapidfire so you don’t have to actually answer any of the questions I’ve asked you.

If the GIRM forbids it then it is. Liturgical dancing is not heretical? Tell that to Pius X!!! You’ve pretty much avoided the documentation I gave you from Mother Angelica by Raymond Arroyo’s book. If you don’t liturgical dancing is heretical then you don’t believe in the sacrifice of the holy mass. It’s that simple. Don’t condemn yourself.

 

[frommi]

If the GIRM forbids it then it is. Liturgical dancing is not heretical? Tell that to Pius X!!! You’ve pretty much avoided the documentation I gave you from Mother Angelica by Raymond Arroyo’s book. If you don’t liturgical dancing is heretical then you don’t believe in the sacrifice of the holy mass. It’s that simple. Don’t condemn yourself.

If its heretical…why do the bishops of Hawaii allow it at funerals?

Again…there’s a difference between heresy (denying the divinity of Jesus) and allowing for liturgical ‘dance’.

As far as Ray Arroyo’s book…I offer a couple thoughts…

The first is consider the source…because I would hardly call him an unbiased point of view about his meal ticket.

The second is, I have no issue with Mother Angelica saying whatever she wants.

My point is simply that you can’t say that she is allowed to speak out against a Bishop/Cardinal, and no one at the RE Congress is.

 

[bones_IV]

If its heretical…why do the bishops of Hawaii allow it at funerals?

Again…there’s a difference between heresy (denying the divinity of Jesus) and allowing for liturgical ‘dance’.

As far as Ray Arroyo’s book…I offer a couple thoughts…

The first is consider the source…because I would hardly call him an unbiased point of view about his meal ticket.

The second is, I have no issue with Mother Angelica saying whatever she wants.

My point is simply that you can’t say that she is allowed to speak out against a Bishop/Cardinal, and no one at the RE Congress is.

Just because a bishop allows it doesn’t make it right. And another thing if the Government allowed pro-life activists to be sent to concentration camps would you support that?!

Frommi, if everyone believes error and the bishops allowed it does that make it right? You’re not Catholic.

 

[frommi]

Frommi, if everyone believes error and the bishops allowed it does that make it right? You’re not Catholic.

You’re practicing relativism here…you believe that these speakers are incorrect…therefore a bishop that allows them must be incorrect.

Couldn’t it be the other way around?

You’ve already clearly shown a misunderstanding of what a heresy is in the Catholic church, maybe you don’t understand these items either.

To throw out a straw man like “what if they put all the pro life activists in concentration camps” degrades this conversation. Of course it would be wrong to put ANYONE in a concentration camp. But there you go again with visions of Nazi practice as a way to get your point across.

Do you have any tangible evidence beyond what Mother Angelica provided you in 1997 that can show that these speakers have been shunned by the church in a way that would see Cardinal Mahony break unity with the universal church by allowing them to speak in his archdiocese?

If the answer is no, then he is in perfect communion with both the pope and his brother bishops. End of story.

 

[bones_IV]

You’re practicing relativism here…you believe that these speakers are incorrect…therefore a bishop that allows them must be incorrect.

Couldn’t it be the other way around?

You’ve already clearly shown a misunderstanding of what a heresy is in the Catholic church, maybe you don’t understand these items either.

To throw out a straw man like “what if they put all the pro life activists in concentration camps” degrades this conversation. Of course it would be wrong to put ANYONE in a concentration camp. But there you go again with visions of Nazi practice as a way to get your point across.

Do you have any tangible evidence beyond what Mother Angelica provided you in 1997 that can show that these speakers have been shunned by the church in a way that would see Cardinal Mahony break unity with the universal church by allowing them to speak in his archdiocese?

If the answer is no, then he is in perfect communion with both the pope and his brother bishops. End of story.

Heretic is someone who questions or rejects a teaching contained in sacred scripture or in the church’s magisterium and doctrine. Cardinal Mahony said that the Eucharist is bread and wine before and after the mass. READ THE COUNCIL OF TRENT MY FRIEND! You’re ignorance is showing. Pius X would disagree with Mahony for he was the pope of the blessed sacrament. You don’t even know what heresy is. You’re no expert in Catholic teaching so don’t pretend to be. You can even ask Catholic League, Gerry Augustinas, Jimmy Akin about that Mahony said, and they’ll say the same thing I did. You’re loosing your credibility.

 

[bones_IV]

I believe that the GIRM specifically forbids the consecration of the precious blood in a) glass vessels and b) in decanters to be poured later. If a “prince” of the Church refuses to obey, how can we expect the priest in the parish to have any respect for the liturgical directives. Mother Angelica had in right, I would question what degree of obedience to afford one of these characters.

bp1.blogger.com/_AiM_qVeVUEY/RccDW8ltjMI/AAAAAAAAARE/Z1d6h6b_728/s1600-h/095_MahonyConsecration.1.0.jpg

 

[Walking_Home]

I believe that the GIRM specifically forbids the consecration of the precious blood in a) glass vessels and b) in decanters to be poured later. If a “prince” of the Church refuses to obey, how can we expect the priest in the parish to have any respect for the liturgical directives. Mother Angelica had in right, I would question what degree of obedience to afford one of these characters.

bp1.blogger.com/_AiM_qVeVUEY/RccDW8ltjMI/AAAAAAAAARE/Z1d6h6b_728/s1600-h/095_MahonyConsecration.1.0.jpg

---

Just to add to what you have stated. Since 1970 the “princes” have been directed to stop all experimentation with the Mass. This says much about those bishops who continue to disregard the authority and directives from Rome.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html#Chapter%20III

[27.] As early as the year 1970, the Apostolic See announced the cessation of all experimentation as regards the celebration of Holy Mass[62] and reiterated the same in 1988.[63] Accordingly, individual Bishops and their Conferences do not have the faculty to permit experimentation with liturgical texts or the other matters that are prescribed in the liturgical books. In order to carry out experimentation of this kind in the future, the permission of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments is required. It must be in writing, and it is to be requested by the Conference of Bishops. In fact, it will not be granted without serious reason. As regards projects of inculturation in liturgical matters, the particular norms that have been established are strictly and comprehensively to be observed.[64]

 

[frommi]

I believe that the GIRM specifically forbids the consecration of the precious blood in a) glass vessels and b) in decanters to be poured later. If a “prince” of the Church refuses to obey, how can we expect the priest in the parish to have any respect for the liturgical directives. Mother Angelica had in right, I would question what degree of obedience to afford one of these characters.

bp1.blogger.com/_AiM_qVeVUEY/RccDW8ltjMI/AAAAAAAAARE/Z1d6h6b_728/s1600-h/095_MahonyConsecration.1.0.jpg

The Bishop is the chief shepherd and the chief liturgist of his diocese. In the case of decanters and glasses, etc…Cardinal Mahony granted and exception…something he could do canonically…and which has not been over ruled.

And I fear it is impossible to “loose” credibility.