R
Rascalking
Guest
You may be onto something.
On the other hand, some of us were just devastated by the actions of the church/priests, etc. It’s a pretty tough thing to accept.
- Status
On the other hand, some of us were just devastated by the actions of the church/priests, etc. It’s a pretty tough thing to accept.
T
Trader
Guest
When I was a seminarian in 1971 I had a pretty long discussion with the family of one of my friends who had all stopped attending Mass. They claimed it was because they did not like all the changes after Vatican II. After only a few minutes it was very clear that they had stopped all activities with the Church the year before John XXIII was elected Pope. “All the changes” was a common excuse they picked up as a cover story.
Most people who leave the church do it slowly, gradually slipping away into apathy.
To me, one of the clearest proofs of the Holy Spirit’s guidance is that the Catholic Church has survived so many scoundrels at all levels. Other churches have vanished completely when a senior pastor gets caught with his hand in the church funds or on the knee of the church secretary.
Ask yourself, “Do I leave because of Judas, or stay because of Jesus?”
A
adrift
Guest
Note 13 which I cannot copy and paste but I can the Vatican. The emphasis is mine
No excommunication. Read the entire document not just pieces. It isn’t about children only.
Your proof?
This is a good explanation of the document which has been used out of context as the above statement demonstrated
.
Crimen sollicitationis
from that source this statement to often ignored
B
BlueSapphire
Guest
BlueSapphire;8190378:
Amen!!
S
Swiss_Guy
Guest
:crying:
My mom’s birthplace is Frankfurt, and I have German ancestry, so this is very saddening. Germany needs to be reevangelized (somewhat). But at least the church there has money and they have big cathedrals (I like cathedrals
).
My mom’s birthplace is Frankfurt, and I have German ancestry, so this is very saddening. Germany needs to be reevangelized (somewhat). But at least the church there has money and they have big cathedrals (I like cathedrals
).
C
comrade1789
Guest
It is especially worrisome, because most of the immigrants to Germany are not Catholic, or even Christian, but Muslim. The West is going to have a serious problem on their hands in the years to come. The atheistic secularism will spiritually starve the society and when people have hungered enough, the only spirituality available to them will be Islam.
E
estesbob
Guest
When relies on the MM for their views on the Church such misunderstanding often arise. Here what the doucment really says;
catholicculture.org/news/features/index.cfm?recnum=24023
It had NOTHING to do with covering up sex crimes. It was all about the sancity of confession.
A
adrift
Guest
:crying:
E
Eliza10
Guest
Dale, I am confused. How did you know that his short statement came from that website? Do you Google everyone’s statements to see if they have written them previously elsewhere? Or do you have some kind of personal vendetta against that website, Valtorta, or believers in private revelation (which Catholics are permitted) or your fellow CAF member, Insight, himself?? Please explain your motivation.
If you have some kind of bone to pick with that website, you should start your own thread about that, if you do. This subject of this thread had nothing to do with Valtorta, or the website. It really does sound like you have a personal grudge(s).
I am an avid reader of Valtorta’s works, as are many other venerable priests, bishops, cardinals, eminent theologians, nuns and monks and a plethora of devout lay Catholics. That website you detracted here, out of the blue, addresses your concerns about blocked publication of those works very clearly. If you don’t like how AdvancedChristianity.com defends the works, why not post your specific complaints there about it?
Its easy to present your very debatable] strongly held opinion here, where it is completely off-topic, and people writing about the German Church scandal know nothing about Valtorta. Its a cowardly place to make detracting remarks about Valtorta, since those who know nothing about her will accept your authoritative pronouncements, because they know nothing - and, your Detractor’s opinion can stand unchallenged, as the mods won’t let us get in a side discussion to defend her.
So, your comment is entirely inappropriate, and you should just drop the subject of Valtorta from this thread and start your own thread to argue about it if its so much on your mind. Then you will have to face fair discussion of what you say, though. Maybe that’s a problem for you?
And it would require even more integrity to take your complaints to that website - a website which I personally find no complaint with!
.
D
Dale_M
Guest
No, I simply followed the link he provided and saw that its wording was extremely similar to the words he posted.
I have never heard of the website before, nor of Valtorta, Private revelations are fine, although unapproved ones are not open for discussion at CAF, per the rules. As for the member named Insight, I can’t say I know anything about him or her.
What I objected to was the very obvious misinterpretations that the website gave to that 1962 Vatican document.
As part of this discussion, someone quoted the website as authoritative. However, on looking at the document it criticizes, I realized that the charges being made were wildly inaccurate. So that logically led me to ask, what is the reason for such wild claims? And why were they casting stones at Cardinal Ottaviani? So I learned at bit about the cardinal and saw he had been opposed to, and actually blocked, the publication of the writings of Valtorta. Since I had earlier noticed that the website which Insight mentioned had numerous Valtorta links, it seemed to me that the website owner’s enthusiasm for Valtorta might have gotten the better of them, which would explain the attack on Cardinal Ottaviani and the misrepresentation of the Vatican document which he approved.
That is fine, but if you wishe to discuss her works you might want to start another thread since I don’t think they are related to this conversation.
No, not out of the blue. I had never heard of it before, and merely looked at it because it was cited in this discussion and a link was provided.
Because I am discussing a topic here. I have no interest in that website, other than to point out its inaccurate interpretation of the 1962 Vatican document and the website’s unjust attack on a cardinal.
I have no knowledge or interest in Valtorta. Why you think so, I don’t know. Certainly she is irrelevant to this discussion, except that some of her supporters have unfairly impugned the reputation of a deceased cardinal who was opposed to her writings.
A
adrift
Guest
I missed your posting but became aware of it because of Eliza10 posting, who like Insight, is a believer in Valtorta. That will explain her antagonistic post to you. In another thread, Insight made the same claims those remarks were removed I suspect because of the slander. I truly am disappointed that he brings this up again as it was pointed out to him before that it was a misinterpretation. But as you so readily saw it is an attempt to smear Cardinal Ottaviani reputation. It is one of the fruits of Valtorta and by the fruits you shall know.
Her works by the way are banned subject.
H
Holly3278
Guest
How very sad. I hope and pray that they will return to the Catholic Church. Just because a member of the Catholic Church, even a Catholic clergyman does something wrong, that does not mean that you should leave the Church. The Catholic Church is always going to be the one true Church and the sin, even a grave sin, of a clergyman does not make it any less true.
A
adrift
Guest
Peter’s question to Jesus comes to mind “Where shall we go?”
I
Insight
Guest
The billions of dollars the Church paid out in settlements because the courts attributed the pedophile scandal directly to the Ottaviani Directive should be proof enough.
cbsnews.com/stories/2003/08/06/eveningnews/main566978.shtml
advancedchristianity.com/Pages/CBS/Toye.htm
God Bless
I
Insight
Guest
The thread was not deleted, its still there:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=7956398#post7956398
God Bless
A
adrift
Guest
I didn’t say that the thread was deleted only your remarks were.
A
adrift
Guest
No where in your link does it claim what you say. This is the second link you provide to basically the same article. The first link is later and it states that:
It is not the thread I am referring to. You have posted this slander many times. In one thread it was removed and closed because it discussed an approved apparition. Cardinal Ottaviani is being attacked for his opposition to the fictional Poem of the Man-God. It is obvious as Dale pointed out. .
S
Swiss_Guy
Guest
I agree.
A
adrift
Guest
It should read unapproved because it certainly has not been approved.
I
Insight
Guest
This is an explaination by renouned Canon Lawyer Father Thomas Doyle on Crimen Sollicitationis:
youtube.com/watch?v=ikleJkicAOU&feature=player_embedded
God Bless
- Status