"Catholics" and the right to choose?

[mulligan59]

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.

And I told you I was leaving. Next week I have to be in China, maybe that will help me to withdrawl. I imagine that the ChiComs block access to this site if even I am tempted.

I’m actually quite surprised I wasn’t kickd off, I was angry. I just don’t think you listen to me. You don’t have to agree with me, but don’t distort what I say.

A final attempt at argument with you: To say there “is no pope”, I mean like right now, is not the same thing as saying the “pope”, which out of any context I would take to mean the “Papacy”, is a fraud. Because the Papacy is a divine institution. I would go so far as to say that every creature on earth owes complete submission to a valid Pope. But not all Pope’s are valid. I know some guy put up a bunch of laughing heads after the exchange where I said there have been over 40 anti-popes in Church history. He maybe thought it was ridiculous, but I bet YOU, you seem pretty smart, know that this is simply historical fact. In fact one of them was John XXIII, not the one who called Vatican II, but the original, who preceded him by about 600 years I think (I’d have to look it up). So it can happen, because it ahs happened. It DOES NOT mean that the gates of hell have prevailed. It ain;t over until it’s over, and Christ returns. t

It is also true, that the Church used to teach that a pope cannot change a previous definition. If it can, then how do we know what is true or what was ever true. I know, you beleive in a “living magisterium”, like those who believe in the “living constitution”, which notion gave us abortion in the first place.

 

[elts1956]

elts1956;5204392:

Pride. Perhaps an over simplification, but it is the first cause of most sins I think. It was the sin of Adam.

This is interesting. This isn’t domatic, my opinion only, but I don’t think we appreciate what really happened to the Apostles at Pentecost. They had a special calling, and they were given unique gifts. They were not like us. They had supernatural aid and did supernatural things. I think the angels carried them through the whole world.

But there is an easier answer to your question. Read Acts. Saint Paul always went to the Synagogue first. He was generally rejected and often had to flee for his life. The point being that many heard the message and rejected it. The hierarchy in fact rejected it from Christ himself, and they had witnessed his miracles. Just read the Gospels, they are quite clear.

Yes. But so what? The fact is, if you take Christ at His word, and every statement of the Church prior to Vatican II, they are obligated to. Christ told us “many are called, few are chosen”. This is because most will reject it. He told us the world hates Him, and that the world would hate us (if we are true Christians). We should worry if we are popular.

Not to “enhance it”, bu to “fulfill it”. He accusses the Pharisees and even the Apostles (on the road after the Ressurection) for not understanding how the Jewish scriptures pointed to Him.

The challenge for us, with our human sense of what is right, is to simply trust Him and His justice. We just have to trust that God’s justice is perfect. We don’t have to understand it.

So what are we arguing about? Wasn’t it about the Jews being saved?

 

[mulligan59]

mulligan59;5207959:

So what are we arguing about? Wasn’t it about the Jews being saved?

Well maybe we’re not (arguing). What I was saying is they can’t be saved unless they become Catholic. I assumed you were making excuses for them Maybe you weren’t.

 

[mulligan59]

“…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

Thanks for your concern. But really I’m quite happy. People that know me have accussed me of being “pathologically sane”. But what I said (your quote) is just the truth. There have actually been studies and editorials in the Catholic press about the growing dominance of women in the Novus Ordo world. Men more and more don’t go. Women dominate in the newly expnaded roles for lay people, parish councils and such.
Of course it can also refer to the average clergy member as well. As a young altar boy I knew a few priests in the mold of the characters portrayed by Pat O’Brien and Spencer Tracey (who had a good right cross) and could throw a tight sprial, gee, even our nuns were tough as nails (and pretty too).

Perverted speaks for itself. How many parishes are closing and how much property being sold off for law suit settlements? It’s a disgrace. BTW, I admire the character portrayed by Meryll Streep in that new movie.

By the way, when I described you as feathery, it wasn’t meant to be “perverted”. I meant light and airy. C’mon, you are. It isn’t necassarily a bad thing. But you do need to learn your Catechism.

 

[mapleoak]

I used to believe this too, as I was taught it in Catholic school. However I have since learned that it is NOT a dogma defined by the Church (blood or desire).

It doesn’t have to be. It has always been the constant teaching of the Church, and is therefore infallible.

Vatican II excluded, I mean it is so ambiguous (Vatican II) in saying all religions, even atheism, may in some way be a path to God, who knows what it said.

You don’t even no what it said and you are saying the Church is wrong.

But even Vatican II, did not speak to these two supposed forms of baptism. They are really just made up, like urban legends.

"When any die for the confession of Christ without having received the washing of regeneration, it avails as much for the remission of their sins as if they had been washed in the sacred font of baptism

So you say Saint Augustine was speaking of an urban legend. He should have consulted you first.

For certain, prior to the 1960s, (and you cite early Fathers), there is no magisterial definition of the Baptism of desire or Blood notions. In fact the opposite can easily be proven from Trent and Florence before it.

Support your statement. I assure you neither Trent nor Florence condemned the constant teaching of the Church about Baptism of desire or blood.

 

[mapleoak]

the only time I ever walked out of a novus ordo Mass (prior to my eyes being opened that it was not Catholic) was when the priest talked about how we could not “impose our morality” when voting.

You have been deceived.

 

[mapleoak]

To say there “is no pope”, I mean like right now, is not the same thing as saying the “pope”, which out of any context I would take to mean the “Papacy”, is a fraud. Because the Papacy is a divine institution. I would go so far as to say that every creature on earth owes complete submission to a valid Pope.

Which Popes post Vatican II were/are not popes? Did the Church consult with you yet? Maybe you can open our eyes. You have already said Pope John Paul II is a heretic. Therefore, you have abandoned the Church for your own personal church.

But not all Pope’s are valid. I know some guy put up a bunch of laughing heads after the exchange where I said there have been over 40 anti-popes in Church history.

The Church doesn’t have anti-popes. Such things are the creation of schismatic movements such as the SSPX. Don’t fall for the lies.

 

[JimG]

There have actually been studies and editorials in the Catholic press about the growing dominance of women in the Novus Ordo world. Men more and more don’t go. Women dominate in the newly expnaded roles for lay people, parish councils and such.
Of course it can also refer to the average clergy member as well. As a young altar boy I knew a few priests in the mold of the characters portrayed by Pat O’Brien and Spencer Tracey (who had a good right cross) and could throw a tight sprial, gee, even our nuns were tough as nails (and pretty too).

OK, I confess I haven’t read all 380 posts on this thead, and I’m a little uncertain how a thread titled “Catholics and the right to choose” came to be discussing Vatican II !

But I have to comment at least on this: In my diocese, the Novus Ordo Mass is celebrated reverently–the priests are of orthodox theology, the seminarians and newly ordained are faithful and eager to serve, and the high school and grade school youth are welll catechized, prayerful, and generous. If the future Church is to be left in their hands, I am confident that it will prosper and grow. We have many seminarians, and many good sisters in the various religous orders.

As for Vatican II, if you read the documents actually produced by Vatican II, they are in continuity with the Church throughout the ages.

Ecumenical councils only take place ever 100 years or so, and after each one, there tends to be an overreaction in one direction or another, but the pendulum always swings back to the center.

 

[NTOT]

You don’t have to agree with me, but don’t distort what I say.

You specifically said there “is no pope”.

A final attempt at argument with you: To say there “is no pope”, I mean like right now, is not the same thing as saying the “pope”, which out of any context I would take to mean the “Papacy”, is a fraud. Because the Papacy is a divine institution. I would go so far as to say that every creature on earth owes complete submission to a valid Pope.

Therefore if mulligan says the Pope is invalid, then the Church is wrong and we have don’t owe the Holy Father our obedience nor complete submission. And then, the pope is a heretic and the magisterium of the Church taught heresy at Vatican II. How much more can someone attack the Catholic Church. Do you really think you are going to convince any faithful Catholics with your silly arguments? You are wasting your time.

But not all Pope’s are valid. I know some guy put up a bunch of laughing heads after the exchange where I said there have been over 40 anti-popes in Church history.

Don’t be silly. I put up the laughing heads because you said there is no pope. Ha Ha. And “anti-popes” ha ha.

He maybe thought it was ridiculous, but I bet YOU, you seem pretty smart, know that this is simply historical fact.

Yes, I am well versed in Church history. And of course there is an unbroken line in the Papacy from Peter at Christ’s institution up until Benedict. Therefore, for you to claim different is indeed to attack the papacy.

 

[elts1956]

elts1956;5208065:

Well maybe we’re not (arguing). What I was saying is they can’t be saved unless they become Catholic. I assumed you were making excuses for them Maybe you weren’t.

Not making excuses. I just stated what Pope John Paul II stated in his encyclical on ecumenism Evangelium Vitae. But then if you believe the Catholic Church ended at Vatican II, I guess that doesn’t really matter to you?

Would you please name the anti-Popes? Thanks.

 

[savienu]

The Church doesn’t have anti-popes. Such things are the creation of schismatic movements such as the SSPX. Don’t fall for the lies.

To be fair, newadvent.org lists several “anti-popes” throughout the Church’s history. So, she has had anti-popes in the past: newadvent.org/cathen/01582a.htm

 

[mulligan59]

It doesn’t have to be. It has always been the constant teaching of the Church, and is therefore infallible.

I thnk I just did above, and there is more more more… This deserves its own thread. But I imagine you think it unnecassary to discuss, it is so settled in your mind.

But I think this error, EVEN if it is LITERALLY TRUE, That is to say someone with an actual strong desire to be baptized, someone who actually knew what it was, would be saved, the notion has still been perverted in our thinking to rationalize that even Jews or Muslims can be saved. For the modern is some kind of a hybrid between Invincible Ignorance, AND Baptism of Desire, that essentially saves everybody. This is why all or so lax. They rationalize, as I used to , if even the hindu is saved by his ignorance, then why do I have to go to confession. The protestants say I don’t have to and we just signed a joint declaration with them.

Surely YOU HAVE TO SEE HOW RIDICULOUS IT ALL IS. It makes me crazy to think about it.

 

[mulligan59]

You specifically said there “is no pope”.

Therefore if mulligan says the Pope is invalid, then the Church is wrong and we have don’t owe the Holy Father our obedience nor complete submission. And then, the pope is a heretic and the magisterium of the Church taught heresy at Vatican II. How much more can someone attack the Catholic Church. Do you really think you are going to convince any faithful Catholics with your silly arguments? You are wasting your time.

Don’t be silly. I put up the laughing heads because you said there is no pope. Ha Ha. And “anti-popes” ha ha.

Yes, I am well versed in Church history. And of course there is an unbroken line in the Papacy from Peter at Christ’s institution up until Benedict. Therefore, for you to claim different is indeed to attack the papacy.

I will never convince the overwhelming majority of Catholics today becasue frankly they are not “faithful” (statistics prove me here) and those that are faithful to Vatican II are only so because they don’t know their faith or the history you think you know. But our Lord predicted “an operation of error” so cunning that even the “elect would be decieved”. He said it would be as in the days of Noah. Only 8 were saved then.

 

[mapleoak]

Augustine is not the Magisterium.

But I suppose you are. No Saint Augustine is not the magisterium, however he reiterates what the Church has always said.

Saints, even Doctors can err on an issue (and are often misquoted too).

As you will do with Trent below. For example:

But I give you Pope Paul III, Trent , Session 7:
“If anyone shall say real and natural water is not necassary for baptism and on that account thouse words of our Lord (John 3:5) are distorted into some sort of a metaphor, let him be anathema”.

Trent specifically condemned the heresy that the sacrament of Baptism is valid if water were not to be used. Did you know that neither baptism of Desire nor baptism of Blood are sacraments? Did you know that they have the same efficacious nature as the Sacrament of Baptism in removing Original Sin?

I thnk I just did above, and there is more more more… This deserves its own thread. But I imagine you think it unnecassary to discuss, it is so settled in your mind.

You claimed Trent and Florence condemned the notions of Baptism of Desire and Blood. I challenged you to support your statement. You came up short.

 

[mapleoak]

To be fair, newadvent.org lists several “anti-popes” throughout the Church’s history. So, she has had anti-popes in the past: newadvent.org/cathen/01582a.htm

Thanks. From the link:

A false claimant of the Holy See (meaning imposter or fraud) in opposition to a pontiff canonoically elected. At various times in the history of the Church illegal pretenders to the Papal Chair have arisen, and frequently exercised pontifical functions in defiance of the true occupant. - emphasis and paranthesis mine).

So during the times of false claimants to the papacy it is verifiable they were not elected by the Church, and in fact there existed or was soon to exist cannonically elected popes by the Church. These were are bound in obedience to, just as with all the popes post Vatican II.

 

[savienu]

Thanks. From the link:

So during the times of false claimants to the papacy it is verifiable they were not elected by the Church, and in fact there existed or was soon to exist cannonically elected popes by the Church. These were are bound in obedience to, just as with all the popes post Vatican II.

Oh, agreed. 100%. I am not at all a sedevecantist. I just wanted to correct your somewhat vague sentence of there are no anti-popes.

 

[mapleoak]

Oh, agreed. 100%. I am not at all a sedevecantist. I just wanted to correct your somewhat vague sentence of there are no anti-popes.

Thank you. Yes I wasn’t clear.

 

[mulligan59]

But I suppose you are. No Saint Augustine is not the magisterium, however he reiterates what the Church has always said.
As you will do with Trent below. For example:Trent specifically condemned the heresy that the sacrament of Baptism is valid if water were not to be used. Did you know that neither baptism of Desire nor baptism of Blood are sacraments? Did you know that they have the same efficacious nature as the Sacrament of Baptism in removing Original Sin?

You claimed Trent and Florence condemned the notions of Baptism of Desire and Blood. I challenged you to support your statement. You came up short.

Yes, I know that Blood and Water are not “Sacraments”, which makes my point, not yours, for when we the Church says “Baptism, the Sacrament, is absolutely necassary”, we know that they are NOT talking about blood or desire, in fact it implicitly eliminates these posibilities.

I gave you a Papal Citation. You admit he is condeming the heresy that water is Not necassary, but then say, illogically, that therefore is not evidence and I came up short. We only get a few thousand words for these posts. So far I gave you a Pope, you gave me a Saint. In a poker game, I’d still be ahead.

But you don’t want argue in good faith, you destort and select out of context snippets of what I say. So I really am done.

 

[mulligan59]

Which Popes post Vatican II were/are not popes? Did the Church consult with you yet? Maybe you can open our eyes. You have already said Pope John Paul II is a heretic. Therefore, you have abandoned the Church for your own personal church.

 

[mulligan59]

mulligan59;5208084:

Not making excuses. I just stated what Pope John Paul II stated in his encyclical on ecumenism Evangelium Vitae. But then if you believe the Catholic Church ended at Vatican II, I guess that doesn’t really matter to you?

The Church does “not end” just because there is a usurper on the throne. All it takes is one real Catholic and one real Priest and there would be the Church.

Would you please name the anti-Popes? Thanks

.

The first was Saint Hippolytus 217 to 235, who was reconciled and later martyred. The last is Amadeus VIII, 1439 -49. There were 40 others inbetween. It can easily be looked up. Now all of these were NOT bad men, or even bad clerics. They were “anti” because there was something (name removed by moderator)roper about their election.

My only point is that it is possible to be confused about who the Pope is.