M
mozart-250
Guest
One more comment before I embark on my break.
This thread has been very enlightening.
:bigyikes:
This thread has been very enlightening.
:bigyikes:
- Status
S
saint_rafael
Guest
Gottle of Geer,
I have heard enogh about your sort of peace, love and other sementality from Catholics and the Church for too many years. The Fact is that people in this day of age have grown soft and wimpy.
Heretics and enemies of God need to be treated justly and harshly because we desire their conversion, repentence, and the heresies of heretics will lead others into damnation.
It is not cursing to speak the truth about the demonic.
Martin Luther was not literally a demon or fallen agel, but was human, however the word demom I use as a metaphor for his actions that served Satan. This man is in hell and by his sole ideas and actions have dragged millions upon millions to their damnation. He jions one of the many men who have chosen to do evil.
You have to call a spade a spade. Catholics have to get tough on what is evil and denounce it on order to save people from falling ioto error.
We do not ridicule and anyone, curse bad language, but use hard words that are objective.
I have heard enogh about your sort of peace, love and other sementality from Catholics and the Church for too many years. The Fact is that people in this day of age have grown soft and wimpy.
Heretics and enemies of God need to be treated justly and harshly because we desire their conversion, repentence, and the heresies of heretics will lead others into damnation.
It is not cursing to speak the truth about the demonic.
Martin Luther was not literally a demon or fallen agel, but was human, however the word demom I use as a metaphor for his actions that served Satan. This man is in hell and by his sole ideas and actions have dragged millions upon millions to their damnation. He jions one of the many men who have chosen to do evil.
You have to call a spade a spade. Catholics have to get tough on what is evil and denounce it on order to save people from falling ioto error.
We do not ridicule and anyone, curse bad language, but use hard words that are objective.
B
bobzills
Guest
I don’t know how you would know for sure that a particular individual is in hell.
S
saint_rafael
Guest
It is true that the Church has never declared whose in hell, but we do know from Jesus and scripture that many go down the wide path of damnation and that few entered through the narrow gate.
We can know that it is very highly probable that the worse and evil men of all time are in hell. Judas, Luther, Hitler, Stalin, Huss, Calvin were men who did evil, served Satin, and never repented before their death. History has recorded that these men have gone to their death in their depraved conditions.
We can know that it is very highly probable that the worse and evil men of all time are in hell. Judas, Luther, Hitler, Stalin, Huss, Calvin were men who did evil, served Satin, and never repented before their death. History has recorded that these men have gone to their death in their depraved conditions.
J
justasking4
Guest
What is the offical position of the catholic church on Luther, Calvin and Huss?
G
guanophore
Guest
The official position of the Church is that only God knows the heart, and that He is the judge, not we ourselves. Each of these men taught and apparently willfully believed heresy. However, only God can know the state of a person’s heart at the moment of death. The Church only declares sure knowledge of who is in heaven when it is revealed by God.
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
I hope not. BTW - there is no such thing as a “hyphenated” Catholic; one is in full communion with Rome, or one is not. If one is, then one is a Catholic. Not a “true”, or “devout” or “faithful” or “orthodox” or “conservative” or “liberal” or “traditionalist” or “neo-Catholic”, but a Catholic.
We’ve covered this already.
A Council can perfectly well be pastoral & promulgate authoritative teaching that is not formally infallible. If this is were not so, it would follow that Councils that promulgate authoritative teaching that is not formally infallible are not pastoral. It might then follow that they are meant not to be pastoral - as though it could be the purpose of Councils to pull the Church down & not rather to build it up. But who believes such a thing
?The pastoral office of the Church is exercised through the exercise of infallibility - & in other ways, which involve no such exercise. This pastoral office is exercised by the activity of Councils, Ecumenical or not. Councils do not need to exercise infallibility in order to teach authoritatively: & this is as true of Ecumenical Councils as of others. Infallible teaching is authoritative - but it is not alone in being authoritative. One might as well suggest that because the Pope exercises supreme authority in the Church under God, no other bishop has any authority whatever - which is laughable; but no more so than the notion that only the highest degree of teaching authority is authoritative
So there can be authoritative & binding teaching without infallibility - & that (for the most part) is how V2 taught.
They are teaching documents - how can a “Dogmatic Constitution” be advisory ?
He did a lot of good even so. As for his destination after death, that is God’s business.
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
I AM WITH YOU BROTHER. :knight2: :knight1:
IT IS TIME TO STOP THE NONSENSE. THE TRUTH MUST BE TOLD LIKE IT IS. JESUS DID IT. SO DID THE APOSTLES.
C
charlesh
Guest
Yes. We are so often told “You can’t know who’s in Hell.” That’s used nowadays as a hippie slogan. Mortal sin sends you to hell, folks! If you intentionally miss going to Mass on Sunday, and on Monday you die unrepentant, you’re going to hell because that’s a mortal sin. Don’t be so quick to point out that there’s always that little tiny chance that the worst slime-balls like Stalin are in Heaven. Technically, that’s true, but give me a break! Use common sense, and don’t be so eager to excuse and make a false peace with the enemies of Christ.
S
saint_rafael
Guest
Gottle of Geer,
There have been twenty one ecumenical councils. The first twenty were dogmatic and all included decrees of infallibility and clarified or defined dogma. They were called because there were problems that needed to be solved by infallible definitions.
Vatican II was not called for like the first twenty. It was called by Pope John XXIII just because he wanted a council of his own.
Catholics may rather affirm with Cardinal Manning that “to convoke a General Council, except when absolutely demanded by necessity, is to tempt God”
Vatican II was the first council of it’s kind. The first pasoral general council. Since It is not like the other councils, what is there to bind the faithful? Nothing. Catholics can just ignore the documents and follow past magisterial councils and dogmas.
Vatican II is authoratative because it exists as a general council, but it it was not giong to be like the other 20 councils, why have it in the first place? The Pope could have written a series of encyclicals or have a minor synod and it would have been the same thing.
It is because of it’s weird nature and fruit, that I woundn’t be suprized that a future Pope later in this century would wipe it off the official record or make an ex-cathedra statement repealing it.
www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/vatican2/vatican.htm
www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/vatican2/index.htm
There have been twenty one ecumenical councils. The first twenty were dogmatic and all included decrees of infallibility and clarified or defined dogma. They were called because there were problems that needed to be solved by infallible definitions.
Vatican II was not called for like the first twenty. It was called by Pope John XXIII just because he wanted a council of his own.
Catholics may rather affirm with Cardinal Manning that “to convoke a General Council, except when absolutely demanded by necessity, is to tempt God”
Vatican II was the first council of it’s kind. The first pasoral general council. Since It is not like the other councils, what is there to bind the faithful? Nothing. Catholics can just ignore the documents and follow past magisterial councils and dogmas.
Vatican II is authoratative because it exists as a general council, but it it was not giong to be like the other 20 councils, why have it in the first place? The Pope could have written a series of encyclicals or have a minor synod and it would have been the same thing.
It is because of it’s weird nature and fruit, that I woundn’t be suprized that a future Pope later in this century would wipe it off the official record or make an ex-cathedra statement repealing it.
www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/vatican2/vatican.htm
www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/vatican2/index.htm
C
charlesh
Guest
My brother, check out keepthefaith.org. There’s an excellent talk by Dr. William Marra about this subject that is illuminating. It is called What Is The Real “Mystery of Faith”? Follow the link and download it–it costs a dollar.
As for the first part of your reply, I urge you to attend a Tridentine Mass. You’ll feel that everything is right, everything makes sense, every detail is simply natural–and Catholic. If you go, though, go no less than five times before you make up your mind about it.
S
saint_rafael
Guest
Gottle of Geer,
It is unbelievable that any Catholic would say that Martin Luther did some good. That is blatant heresy. Martin Luther started the Protestant Reformation that helped to tear Christ’s Church to pieces, where you now have 30,000 false denominations.
The Catholic Church excommunicated him as one of the biggest heretics of all time and he died that way so he’s damned. How can anyone defend an enemy of God?
It is unbelievable that any Catholic would say that Martin Luther did some good. That is blatant heresy. Martin Luther started the Protestant Reformation that helped to tear Christ’s Church to pieces, where you now have 30,000 false denominations.
The Catholic Church excommunicated him as one of the biggest heretics of all time and he died that way so he’s damned. How can anyone defend an enemy of God?
C
charlesh
Guest
We should not curse anybody. To speak harshly to someone is not the same thing as cursing. Cursing is wishing evil on somebody. That is a horrible mortal sin. To speak harshly is uncomfortable and unpleasant, but is sometimes the appropriate thing to do.
The saints are held up by the Church precisely as models for us to imitate. Yes, they are always to be imitated. Jesus Christ, too, is to be imitated.
That is a question of prudence. I don’t say that we must all speak in a hard way in every circumstance to everybody. I certainly don’t, but that is only because it is not my natural temperament. What I am affirming is that it is *quintessentially *Christian to imitate Christ and the Saints, even in their harshness. And the Holy Ghost and Mary can speak wisdom to us, letting us know the appropriate time for the exercise of each virtue.
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
It was only a matter of time before someone said that 
.
Even so, Jesus Christ commands His disciples to love one another. That is not “wimpy”, & it is not clear (or certainly not to me) that there is anything “wimpy” about His Love, which is infinitely self-sacrificing. To curse & hate is not hard - it’s all too easy. What is not easy, is to love as He did; in fact, it is impossible to our fallen human nature: not difficult, not very difficult, but totally & in every way impossible. That is why we cannot love without His Spirit, Who is poured into our hearts that we may be enabled to do this impossible thing. And this Holy Spirit is particularly associated with the Love of God. St. John tells us twice that “…God is Love…”; St. Paul sets love above faith & hope: were they wimps ?If that is the true character of Catholicism, it is not easy to see how it can be Christian 
. We are all “enemies of God” - but God is gracious, & practices the Love that He commands of us, before He commands it. If He were to treat us justly, we would all be damned.
So what happens when others treat us in the same way ? Do we know the hearts of others so well that we can be really objective ? If we were not sinners, & were not blinded by sin in many different forms, perhaps we could be objective. But we are not - & nor is anyone else.
FWIW, I don’t think the Prodigal Son was treated harshly. If we have only harshness to expect from God, how can we hope in Him ? But if He is not harsh to us, how can we be harsh to others ? The Unmerciful Servant of Matthew 18.22-35 was harsh - but he is not a model for us; he is a warning. God is merciful to us, therefore, we are to be merciful also.
K
kenmd
Guest
saint rapheal and others
you sound like idiots so go in the corner and continue to drink the kool-aid, at least open a history book while you’re there
you sound like idiots so go in the corner and continue to drink the kool-aid, at least open a history book while you’re there
S
saint_rafael
Guest
Gottle of Geer,
We are supposed to love our neighbors, it’s true, but that does not mean we tolerate sin or error. Admonishing the sinner is a spiritual work of mercy. I don’t know how many Catholics even know them nowadays.
It’s obvious you have no sense of Church history, or read anything the saints have said in the past. A heretic is not a normal sinner like a Catholic who sins He has rejected God, the truth, The Church, in a public way and will suffer damnation. If Catholics seriously believe in hell, they would try to save souls.
If other non-Catholics treat us harsly, I am not offended. I know they are dead wrong, but i least they believe in truth I will try to get them to see the truth.
We are not blinded by sin if we stay in a state of sanctyfying grace. With the sacraments we can truly be holy and walk in a state of grace after we fall through conversionm and confession.
God is mercy, but God is Justice. His justice can not be separated from his mercy. Those who reject his mercy will suffer his justice.
We are supposed to love our neighbors, it’s true, but that does not mean we tolerate sin or error. Admonishing the sinner is a spiritual work of mercy. I don’t know how many Catholics even know them nowadays.
It’s obvious you have no sense of Church history, or read anything the saints have said in the past. A heretic is not a normal sinner like a Catholic who sins He has rejected God, the truth, The Church, in a public way and will suffer damnation. If Catholics seriously believe in hell, they would try to save souls.
If other non-Catholics treat us harsly, I am not offended. I know they are dead wrong, but i least they believe in truth I will try to get them to see the truth.
We are not blinded by sin if we stay in a state of sanctyfying grace. With the sacraments we can truly be holy and walk in a state of grace after we fall through conversionm and confession.
God is mercy, but God is Justice. His justice can not be separated from his mercy. Those who reject his mercy will suffer his justice.
S
saint_rafael
Guest
Gottle of Geer,
Vatican II is authoritative in the sense that it’s on the books for now. I believe in the future it might be repealed. The argument is that it contained error and bad friut. The council led to a severe crisis of faith and apostasy in the last forty years.
The horror is the rumor that the third secret of Fatima actually talks about Vatican II as an evil council and warns about an apostasy.
www.fatimacrusader.com/cr80/cr80pg32.asp
Vatican II is authoritative in the sense that it’s on the books for now. I believe in the future it might be repealed. The argument is that it contained error and bad friut. The council led to a severe crisis of faith and apostasy in the last forty years.
The horror is the rumor that the third secret of Fatima actually talks about Vatican II as an evil council and warns about an apostasy.
www.fatimacrusader.com/cr80/cr80pg32.asp
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
That he did nothing but evil is not part of the Deposit of Faith, let alone a dogma - so it is not a heresy.
This is a great over-simplification.
Christ does so - indeed, He died for His enemies: & that goes far beyond defending them; or rather, us.
It is perfectly possible to respect Luther as a theologian while regarding him as mistaken in certain respects - as can be said of any theologian. God’s grace is not confined to the CC - if it were, no-one could ever become Catholic. And as His grace is not confined to the CC, it cannot be ruled out that He may have given Protestants - ex-Catholic or not - grace & insight & wisdom from which we could learn.But if He has - isn’t that something for which to be grateful ? Every grace God gives to our Protestant brethren, of every kind, blesses & strengthens & sanctifies not only them, but all other Christians - including us. Every wound & scandal & sin that weakens & corrupts & obscures their life & witness, does the same to ours; just as every injury to us, is an injury to them. Therefore, all the faith & hope & love that God pours into their hearts strengthens all Christians on earth.
S
Singinbeauty
Guest
HA! I love it…
Geez, this thread (as another poster said) is eye opening to say the least. I knew that there were anti-protestants out there but man oh my could you be any more blatant??? At least some catholics try to mask their distaste for us with love but you just out and out put it right there for everyone to see, don’t ya? You know who you are.
I think that you and God will be having a VERY hard and long talk on the first day in Heaven. But just to let you know, you have a BIG hug from me a-comin’.
As for the ‘knowing’ who is and isn’t in Hell I don’t think you need to presume this. Something tells me that there is a reason it is discouraged for mere broken humans to decide who gets the reward of Heaven because of our pettiness that tends to rule such powerful and final decisions. I am going to love to see some of these catholic’s faces when / if they see Luther in Heaven… Boy are their faces going to be red!!! No one knows who has and hasn’t made it to Heaven and to presume that you know the mind of God is prideful, arrogant, and plain stupid in my opinion.
You can repremand someone you KNOW regarding their walk with God if it is not in line with our (that’s right, I said OUR - and you are going to do what about it??? ) Faith but to curse someone to Hell because you don’t know or understand someone’s thought process who lived and died before you were a glint in your great-grandfather’s eye is unnecessary. 
And you won’t know any of this until you get up there or down there if that is in your future… But of course, being Faithful to our God I don’t presume your fate either way…
Geez, this thread (as another poster said) is eye opening to say the least. I knew that there were anti-protestants out there but man oh my could you be any more blatant??? At least some catholics try to mask their distaste for us with love but you just out and out put it right there for everyone to see, don’t ya? You know who you are.
I think that you and God will be having a VERY hard and long talk on the first day in Heaven. But just to let you know, you have a BIG hug from me a-comin’.
As for the ‘knowing’ who is and isn’t in Hell I don’t think you need to presume this. Something tells me that there is a reason it is discouraged for mere broken humans to decide who gets the reward of Heaven because of our pettiness that tends to rule such powerful and final decisions. I am going to love to see some of these catholic’s faces when / if they see Luther in Heaven… Boy are their faces going to be red!!! No one knows who has and hasn’t made it to Heaven and to presume that you know the mind of God is prideful, arrogant, and plain stupid in my opinion.
You can repremand someone you KNOW regarding their walk with God if it is not in line with our (that’s right, I said OUR - and you are going to do what about it???
) Faith but to curse someone to Hell because you don’t know or understand someone’s thought process who lived and died before you were a glint in your great-grandfather’s eye is unnecessary. And you won’t know any of this until you get up there or down there if that is in your future… But of course, being Faithful to our God I don’t presume your fate either way…
- Status