"Catholics" and the right to choose?

  • Thread starter Thread starter twb1621
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Alisa said:
I agree with you, Savienu. Most men and women think (and feel too, of course). I certainly am a well educated person, and over the years, I’ve given all these things lots of thought and talked with many people about issues like this. I thought CAF would be a good place to respectfully share ideas with other Catholics and to listen to their views.

I received a reprimand from a forum moderator a week or so ago. So may I ask why Mulligan was allowed to accuse me of being emblematic of why the 19th Amendment should be done away with – not to mention calling me “kind of cute in a feathery way” – or whatever he said, which sounded slightly perverted to me.

I attended a Latin rite Catholic church once a few years ago – just once to see if it would be similar to what I remembered pre-Vatican II. Are a lot of you contributors to this thread involved with that?

I was also really surprised to hear that some contributors reject Vatican II and Pope John.

I attend a mainstream Catholic church here in Oregon, and I haven’t met any Catholics here who are quite as rigid in their thinking as the ones I’ve “met” at CAF. I was wondering if I feel so alone in this forum because of the part of the country in which I live?? Maybe western Catholics are more open and liberal in their thinking? I’m trying to figure this out!

I once again want to stress that I and my family are anti-abortion, as most Catholics are. Does anybody know of a Catholic forum which would be less conservative than CAF? Maybe it’s time to quietly withdraw from this one and let you guys share like-minded ideas without my 2 cents’ worth!

Alisa
Click to expand...
I do prefer the Traditional Latin Mass, but I don’t think the issue of voting for Obama which has been discussed has to necessarily do with that. I know many Catholics who attend only the Novus Ordo and would never dream of voting for a pro-abortion candidate.

It may well be the parish you attend though, if you haven’t really expanded beyond that. Unfortunately, after Vatican II a lot of things changed for the worse, and many were very poorly catechized and therefore believe that those of other religions can be saved BY BEING MEMBERS OF THOSE RELIGIONS, when they can’t. They can only be saved by the blood of the Christ through His Catholic Church. This is infallible teaching. Is a hard teaching? Yes. But Christ never said it would be easy.

I wonder why you want a more “liberal” Catholic forum to post on. Aren’t we all here to LEARN from one another? The things we are telling you here (other than Mulligan saying the Pope isn’t really the Pope) are the truth. Are you in search of truth, or are you in search of other people who share your worldview and don’t challenge you on anything? What is it you’re afraid of, exactly?
 
Alisa said:
I attended a Latin rite Catholic church once a few years ago – just once to see if it would be similar to what I remembered pre-Vatican II. Are a lot of you contributors to this thread involved with that?
Click to expand...
Perhaps you have some terms a bit mixed up? Almost all Catholics in the USA are Latin Rite, there are a few of the Easter Rite Catholics here.

Do you mean you attended a Mass that was in the Extrordinary Form (FKA Traditional Latin Mass or Tridentine Mass)?

I for one have never been to an Eastern or EF Mass, would like to have a chance to visit one someday!
 
I meant the Mass in Latin and performed in the pre-Vatican II manner. I know the difference between Latin rite and Eastern rite, I just used the wrong term!

I am not “afraid” of anything. I just don’t know if it’s fair of me to take up much more space at CAF, since I seem to be out of step with most posts, that’s all.

Alisa
 
Alisa said:
I attended a Latin rite Catholic church once a few years ago – just once to see if it would be similar to what I remembered pre-Vatican II. Are a lot of you contributors to this thread involved with that?

I was also really surprised to hear that some contributors reject Vatican II and Pope John.
Click to expand...
You have to be aware that there are a great many who will use Vatican II as an excuse to attack the Church and denounce the Papacy. Be on guard as the devil is stealthy. The most blantant and obvious clue that reveals these schismatic sects is that their members outright teach such falsehoods as “the Church is able to teach heresy”, “the Pope is able to teach heresy”, and as was illustrated by the above poster that “the Pope is a fraud”. These type of things were common with the SSPX.
As far as the TLM, the Church and PJPII have made special consideration for the sensibilites of those attached to the traditional liturgy and therefore it is possible to attend an (key word) approved TLM and remain in full communion with the Church. Beware of the fraudulent sects that attack the church which offer the TLM.
 
Thanks, those of you who responded to me without attacking my intelligence or dignity!
Alisa
 
mapleoak said:
You have to be aware that there are a great many who will use Vatican II as an excuse to attack the Church and denounce the Papacy. Be on guard as the devil is stealthy. The most blantant and obvious clue that reveals these schismatic sects is that their members outright teach such falsehoods as “the Church is able to teach heresy”, “the Pope is able to teach heresy”, and as was illustrated by the above poster that “the Pope is a fraud”. These type of things were common with the SSPX.
As far as the TLM, the Church and PJPII have made special consideration for the sensibilites of those attached to the traditional liturgy and therefore it is possible to attend an (key word) approved TLM and remain in full communion with the Church. Beware of the fraudulent sects that attack the church which offer the TLM.
Click to expand...
I told you I was done, and I am, but I could not leave this last thing of yours go. You are simply a liar. I have NEVER said that the “pope could teach heresy”, in fact I said precisely the opposite, over and over and over again. Then I gave you citation after citation from the Church, from the Fathers, from Canon Law that PROVE that the possibility of a Heretic (who would not be pope, but who could usurp the throne) was anticipated (and therefore considered possible) by the Church. So you just lie through your fingers. It is disgusting and I guess we’re lucky to be separated by distance and anonymity, because it makes me sick. You arrogant, smug, lying and I won’t say the rest of what I’m thinking.

O, and Catholics don’t “prefer” the old rite beacause they are a bunch of silly stunted old people afraid of change as you suggest, they prefer it because it is real. Because at the most sacred moment, before the elevation of the host, it doesn’t tell a lie about what words Christ used. Because the Priest (I know you call them “presiders” now) doesn’t turn his back to the tabernacle as though Jesus wasn’t there (which actually he isn’t in the new mass). Stay in your phoney feminized pervert laden new church that has no respect for our Lord.
 
Alisa said:
I meant the Mass in Latin and performed in the pre-Vatican II manner. I know the difference between Latin rite and Eastern rite, I just used the wrong term!

I am not “afraid” of anything. I just don’t know if it’s fair of me to take up much more space at CAF, since I seem to be out of step with most posts, that’s all.

Alisa
Click to expand...
I’ve only seen a few of the posts, so I don’t know exactly where you are coming from. I must say that the word “liberal” bothers me because liberal Catholics, and by this I mean socially liberal Catholics, often are modernists. Modernism is not Catholicism. It is not even Christianity except in a nominal sense, because it repudiates the dogmas of the Church, especially the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection. It repudiates the very idea of
supernatural, and regards Our Lord either as a gnostic teacher or, at best, just a Jewish prophet. The Church is an invention of his followers who have deluded themselves into thinking that he was God. Now I am simply making the extreme case. Many liberal Catholics have never actually worked out the dimensions of their faith. Like most of us on most matters they simply know how they “feel.” rather than what they think they know.
Only when they run up against a teaching of the Church that “feels” wrong do they actually question her authority, or have doubts about it. The plain fact is that to be Catholic we must accept all that the Church says and teaches. There is much that the Church does not concern itself with because it is not competent to say about certain things with authority. But where it has pronounced on a subject, we are bound to obey and not to dissent. If we choose to disobey and to dissent, then we must count ourselves in the wrong or choose to leave. This is where conscience comes in.
bound not openly to dissent.
 
mapleoak said:
Quite true. In fact the Holy Spirit knows exactly what He is doing. Since the Church is a “living Magisterium” it is constantly evolving for the better.

Further, it is those who misinterpret the teachings of the Holy Vatican Councils (and all Church Councils) who are in grave error, not the Church or Holy Spirit that are in error.
Sadly many are easy prey for the teachings of the numberous schismatic sects since Vatican II which are the devil’s way of attacking the Church from within. he has been very successful in leading many astray by leading them to question and attack the authority of the Church. Our Lady of Fatima in fact has warned that the Holy Father would have much to suffer.
Click to expand...
Before you agree with me, let me make it clear I reject the self styled silliness that has been introduced in the name of VCII. The whole monkey see, monkey do, orans stuff, the forced hand holding and blocking of aisles during the Our Father, the applause for raffle ticket sales, the failure to properly cathechise children and adults in the tenets of faith (wanna see something amazing–ask a group of teenage confirmandi what the 7 gifts of the Holy Spirit are–they are clueless) and the wholesale reduction of the Blessed Sacrament to just another piece of toast, are just a few of the abuses we can lay squarely at the feet of American bishops gone wild.

The reason the Mass was allowed in the vernacular, as I recall, was to allow all to understand in their native tongue. Been to a multi-language Mass lately? Most parishes have done away with the missalets, so when folks break into Spanish, Tagalog, Korean and Vietnamese, the whole concept of being able to follow liturgy is lost. I’m thinking we should go back to the universal language of the Mass, ie, Latin, if multi language communities are served.

Back to the topic. There is a right to choose. People can choose to be Roman Catholics, loyal to Rome, and all her teachings, or they can leave. To remain and cause scandal, is dishonorable, IMHO.
 
mulligan59 said:
Without the Jewish religion, we Christians would be Christians. Our religion comes from Christ, not from the Jews. Now the Old Testament points to Christ, provides overwhelming evidence of who Jesus really was. But those who remained Jews, rejected this evidence and in doing so rejected (and still reject) God. This is what Christ said about it. On the other hand, many who were never Jews became Christians. “He came unto his own and his own received him not. But as many as received him to them he gave the power to be made the sons of God.” (Saint John)
Click to expand...
So tell me why the whole world isn’t Catholic. Unless one is completely isolated from all contact with the outside world, I am sure they have at least “heard” of Christ. Do you really think all the Jewish people at the time of Christ were aware of Him? Yes, the apostles/disciples did a wonderful job of spreading the news, but I think because they were human, they missed a few.

Just as you would find it impossible to convert to a different religion, I believe those of the Jewish faith find it VERY difficult to convert to Christianity.

Remember too, Christ was a Jew with all the learning of the Torah that entailed. He himself said He had not come to destroy the covenant but to enhance? it.
 
maggiemay2u said:
Before you agree with me, let me make it clear I reject the self styled silliness that has been introduced in the name of VCII. The whole monkey see, monkey do, orans stuff, the forced hand holding and blocking of aisles during the Our Father, the applause for raffle ticket sales, the failure to properly cathechise children and adults in the tenets of faith (wanna see something amazing–ask a group of teenage confirmandi what the 7 gifts of the Holy Spirit are–they are clueless) and the wholesale reduction of the Blessed Sacrament to just another piece of toast, are just a few of the abuses we can lay squarely at the feet of American bishops gone wild.
Click to expand...
Not sure what you mean by “before you agree with me”. What you are talking about here (show me where VCII calls for applause for raffle ticket sales, improper cathechesis, and worst of all your claim that VCII reduced the Blessed Sacrament to “another piece of toast”) has nothing to do with what I posted. This is what I said:
40.png
Mapleoak:
it is those who misinterpret the teachings of the Holy Vatican Councils (and all Church Councils) who are in grave error, not the Church or Holy Spirit that are in error.
Sadly many are easy prey for the teachings of the numerous schismatic sects since Vatican II which are the devil’s way of attacking the Church from within. he has been very successful in leading many astray by leading them to question and attack the authority of the Church.
Click to expand...
I should add to that the abuses done in “the NAME of Vatican II” are just that, abuses.
Back to the topic. There is a right to choose. People can choose to be Roman Catholics, loyal to Rome, and all her teachings, or they can leave. To remain and cause scandal, is dishonorable, IMHO.
Click to expand...
Exactly correct.
 
Some have expressed that the Novus Ordo is folksy, and irreverent. This basically indicates an ignorance of the Novus Ordo as was specified by Vatican Two. It was abused and distorted renditions of the liturgy done by confused priests and bishops who took liberties upon themselves with the Mass that they are familiar with and use as their comparison. Many of these folks have never seen the Novus Ordo the way it is supposed to be according to the GIRM.
Some folks are turned on by pop music, clapping, speaking in tongues, etc., which have no place in a NO mass. Be careful not to confuse the Novus Ordo and Vatican II (btw an official Church Council which to attack is to attack the Church herself) with modernism and other heretical movements not supported by the Church nor produced by the Vatican.
 
mulligan59 said:
I told you I was done, and I am, but I could not leave this last thing of yours go. You are simply a liar. I have NEVER said that the “pope could teach heresy”, in fact I said precisely the opposite, over and over and over again.
Click to expand...
I seem to recall above finding it humorous that you claim there IS no pope. Therefore one of the following three, either you have lied, the pope is a fraud, or the Church has gravely lead the faithful in error even Herself being deceived. I know which of three I pick.
NTOT

P.S. Your entire last post is a reportable violation of forum rules.
 
mulligan59 said:
Catholics (at least for 1933 years prior to V II) are in fact obligated to walk out of the Mass of a notorious heretic. To remain in your seat after a scandalous or heretical homily is to participate in a sacriledge. It falls under the same proscription as does praying with non-Catholics. (I know these teaching were abandoned by VII, but the V II position is nothing less than a complete denial of Christ, His wrd, and the irreformable 2,000 year tradition of the Church, and unless people understand this, it all just vain noise.)

You cannot legally pray for the babies women abort as their disposition is determined for all eternity. They die without Baptism.

You could not be more wrong on either point.
Click to expand...
Neither could you.

Our Blessed Lord requires us to be as one and to pray unceasingly. To put yourself against the Church established by Our Lord goes against his wishes; however, more importantly we are instructed not to kill, nor to prevent little ones going to Jesus. It seems to me that abortion is a direct contravention of the requirement to love, as we exclude the unborn child from the love we offer to others. If a priest in his homily preaches in the tradition going back through the centures, and before the Didache (which also states abortion to be a sin) that priest is upholding the teaching of Jesus Christ. It is therefore uncharitable and wrong to walk out of Mass because you believe the priest should be Pro-Abortion. Furthermore, as these priests are in the line of authority to whom it has been given power to change the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, the insult is to Christ, Our Lord. Vatican II may not be a Council of which you approve - in fact, there are some interpretations of VII which are not consistent with Catholic tradition - but it is a valid Council of the entire Catholic Church.

The question of insulting Christ by walking out of Mass because you disagree with the pro life homily of the priest should not be obfuscated by references to heresy and the validity of Council proclamations. What matters is Christ and his commandments to us.

Think of Him and of Him only,. I urge you. Forget petty politics, unless you support life.
 
mulligan59 said:
Catholics (at least for 1933 years prior to V II) are in fact obligated to walk out of the Mass of a notorious heretic. To remain in your seat after a scandalous or heretical homily is to participate in a sacriledge. It falls under the same proscription as does praying with non-Catholics. (I know these teaching were abandoned by VII, but the V II position is nothing less than a complete denial of Christ, His wrd, and the irreformable 2,000 year tradition of the Church, and unless people understand this, it all just vain noise.)

You cannot legally pray for the babies women abort as their disposition is determined for all eternity. They die without Baptism.

You could not be more wrong on either point.
Click to expand...
The babies die without baptism as they cannot physically receive the Sacrament; however it is possible to be baptised by desire or by blood. Ref the early martyrs and fathers of the Church. As these babies can have no desire for baptism, it is presumably their blood which is important. We traditionally believe the unbaptised go to Limbo, a place which suppose logically to exist. However, the love of God is beyond doubt and he has a special love for little children. I can respond to no more letters till early June
 
Correct me if I am wrong. I spoke with my priest about Limbo. I am also sure that, perhaps as long as a year ago, in our ‘Catholic Light’, there was an article stating that Limbo was no longer accepted as a ‘place’ for the souls of the unbaptized to go. Both sources said that the Church has eliminated Limbo. By the grace of God, unbaptized babies are innocents and thought to go to heaven. The Church also has taken a kinder stand on those who commit suicide. They leave that to God’s judgment. He has far more incite than we do. Is my understanding correct? If we cannot know for sure - only God knows - I will continue to pray for all those who have died, including the babies. I especially feel that prayers for all those mothers and family members of babies who have died, through abortion or from other causes, are required from all of us. I will not and cannot accept abortion - not just because I am Catholic. I have only been Catholic for 2 years. I have always been pro-life. We need to have compassion and charity, and share God’s capacity for forgiveness to heal the many wounded living casualties of abortion. I pray constantly for it to end.
 
LindaSK said:
Correct me if I am wrong. I spoke with my priest about Limbo. I am also sure that, perhaps as long as a year ago, in our ‘Catholic Light’, there was an article stating that Limbo was no longer accepted as a ‘place’ for the souls of the unbaptized to go. Both sources said that the Church has eliminated Limbo. By the grace of God, unbaptized babies are innocents and thought to go to heaven. .
Click to expand...
This will give you the official links to documents. Limbo was never an official teaching, it is one idea. The Church says that unbaptized babies are trusted to the mercy of God, she does not guarantee they go to heaven because we simply do not know.

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0702216.htm

The official document:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html
 
“…feminized, perverted…”. Mulligan, such hateful thoughts. Why don’t you spend a few quiet moments listening to what God may have to say to you. I know it’s difficult to fine peaceful moments in these busy times, but you don’t sound like a happy person to me.

Alisa
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top