God or the Devil

[Fidei_Defensor]

toppro77:

Now Canon II of that infallible council says:

“**If anyone says **that , besides the priesthood, there are not in the Catholic Church other orders, both greater and minor, by which, as by certain steps, advance is made unto the priesthood; let him be anathema.”

According to the First Ecumenical Vatican council, which posesses infallible teaching authority, infallibility of a council or pope applies only to FAITH AND MORALS, not discipline and practice. Old laws can be overturned by later councils and popes, just as the Church Fathers hold primacy over the Biblical prophets. In a like manner, anathemas can be reversed by later popes and councils.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

romano:

Hi toppro77:

Who benefits? Obviously it is the devil who benefits. That is precisely why all these changes were introduced, to water down and ultimately destroy the Church.

So the popes who have allowed these changes have, in effect, lead the Church into error?

 

[Fidei_Defensor]

JKirkLVNV:

So the popes who have allowed these changes have, in effect, lead the Church into error?

No, since anathemas can be forgiven and reversed; by virtue of the Power of the Keys held by the Church (to loose and bind on heaven and earth, Matt 16:18), the Church holds the authority to forgive and dismiss fallible anathemas, such as the second canon of the Tridentine Council.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Fidei Defensor:

No, since anathemas can be forgiven and reversed; by virtue of the Power of the Keys held by the Church (to loose and bind on heaven and earth, Matt 16:18), the Church holds the authority to forgive and dismiss fallible anathemas, such as the second canon of the Tridentine Council.

Sorry, Fidei, what canon was that?

 

[toppro77]

Fidei Defensor:

According to the First Ecumenical Vatican council, which posesses infallible teaching authority, infallibility of a council or pope applies only to FAITH AND MORALS, not discipline and practice. Old laws can be overturned by later councils and popes, just as the Church Fathers hold primacy over the Biblical prophets. In a like manner, anathemas can be reversed by later popes and councils.

The question I was putting forth was who would benefit by these changes, Deos it benefit God’s Church to no longer have exorcists? Or does it benefit the devil to no longer have the fear of being expelled from his possessions? And I too would have to see the canon that says these anathemas are reversed.

To JKirkLVNV
Did God ever promise us that we would always have a good pope to lead the Church?

I think if you do some research you will find at least 38 anti popes who managed to get into the chair of Peter.

I think the Gospels and Epistles warn us quite extensively that wolves in sheeps clothing would infiltrate the Church and try to destroy Her from within.

 

[Fidei_Defensor]

The second canon of the Tridentine Council (aka Council of Trent) is: “**If anyone says **that , besides the priesthood, there are not in the Catholic Church other orders, both greater and minor, by which, as by certain steps, advance is made unto the priesthood; let him be anathema.”

Examples of when decrees of an ecumenical council was overturned by a later ecumenical council is as follows:
several decrees of the Council of Chalcedon ordered the restoration of bisops deposed by the Council of Ephesus. Neither decision by either council is infallible since it does not deal with faith and morals, just like the fallible Tridentine canon II.

There are still other orders one must advance through to enter the priesthood, so this canon has not been violated. One must become a candidate, seminarian, transitional deacon, and then a priest.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

toppro77:

The question I was putting forth was who would benefit by these changes, Deos it benefit God’s Church to no longer have exorcists? Or does it benefit the devil to no longer have the fear of being expelled from his possessions? And I too would have to see the canon that says these anathemas are reversed.

To JKirkLVNV
Did God ever promise us that we would always have a good pope to lead the Church?

I think if you do some research you will find at least 38 anti popes who managed to get into the chair of Peter.

I think the Gospels and Epistles warn us quite extensively that wolves in sheeps clothing would infiltrate the Church and try to destroy Her from within.

But they didn’t lead the Church into error! They behaved deplorably, but they didn’t lead the Church into error. That seems to be what you are accusing (I assume) John XXIII and the post-conciliar popes of doing. Once again, you’re just a “rad trad,” as opposed to a faithful traditionalist, trying to sow dissent among the faithful.

 

[Fidei_Defensor]

]I think the Gospels and Epistles warn us quite extensively that wolves in sheeps clothing would infiltrate the Church and try to destroy Her from within.There have been other heretical popes, worse than the so-called “heresies” of Vatican II, John XXIII, and his successors. Alexander VI was corrupt and promiscuous: he was known to have many mistresses; several others were notorious simonists. Yet these are acknowledged as legitimate. Their crimes were far greater than anything John XXIII or his successors ever did. But the Church survived and bounced back. And the Church will survive with the successors of John XXIII, including present Pontiff, IN ROME, Benedict XVI, and his successors.

 

[toppro77]

Fidei Defensor:

There have been other heretical popes, worse than the so-called “heresies” of Vatican II, John XXIII, and his successors. Alexander VI was corrupt and promiscuous: he was known to have many mistresses; several others were notorious simonists. Yet these are acknowledged as legitimate. Their crimes were far greater than anything John XXIII or his successors ever did. But the Church survived and bounced back. And the Church will survive with the successors of John XXIII, including present Pontiff, IN ROME, Benedict XVI, and his successors.

Tell me, what can be worse than a pope worshiping :bowdown: a snake god?

or

Placing a little fat man named Buddah on top of a tabernacle, giving precedence over Our Lord?

I think the worst of all the abominations to come out of Vatican II was throwing Our Lord out of His own house. We now have man to worship instead of God. How wonderful :dancing: After all, in the words of our beloved pope John Paul II “God became man so that man could become god.”

 

[dennisknapp]

toppro77:

Tell me, what can be worse than a pope worshiping :bowdown: a snake god?

or

Placing a little fat man named Buddah on top of a tabernacle, giving precedence over Our Lord?

I think the worst of all the abominations to come out of Vatican II was throwing Our Lord out of His own house. We now have man to worship instead of God. How wonderful :dancing: After all, in the words of our beloved pope John Paul II “God became man so that man could become god.”

So, you are saying that the gates of hell have prevailed against the Church and Christ’s promises are void?

“God became man so that man could become god.”

Actually it wasn’t JP II who said this, it was St. Athanasius in the 4th century.

Peace

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Fidei Defensor:

The second canon of the Tridentine Council (aka Council of Trent) is: “**If anyone says **that , besides the priesthood, there are not in the Catholic Church other orders, both greater and minor, by which, as by certain steps, advance is made unto the priesthood; let him be anathema.”

Examples of when decrees of an ecumenical council was overturned by a later ecumenical council is as follows:
several decrees of the Council of Chalcedon ordered the restoration of bisops deposed by the Council of Ephesus. Neither decision by either council is infallible since it does not deal with faith and morals, just like the fallible Tridentine canon II.

There are still other orders one must advance through to enter the priesthood, so this canon has not been violated. One must become a candidate, seminarian, transitional deacon, and then a priest.

Thanks!

 

[Fidei_Defensor]

Tell me, what can be worse than a pope worshiping :bowdown: a snake god?

or

Placing a little fat man named Buddah on top of a tabernacle, giving precedence over Our Lord?

The Buddha was removed, wasn’t it? JPII never did abandon Christ, did he?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

He got suspended, Fidei. I’m starting to wonder if this wasn’t some type of “rad trad” initiation rite, you know, “go on Catholic answers, stir up some dust, get suspended, and you’re in!” I’m weary of the rad trad distortions, but I’m ticked off proper over the stuff about the old Holy Father.

 

[edocere]

dennisknapp:

So, you are saying that the gates of hell have prevailed against the Church and Christ’s promises are void?

I think you fail to understand what is meant by the “gates of hell will not prevail”

The protection Christ promised His Church does not lie in a guarantee of always providing it with holy men to guide the Church. Our Lord said that “hell would not prevail” which means, hell will not win the fight. It does not say that hell will not do damage in the process.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

edocere:

dennisknapp:

So, you are saying that the gates of hell have prevailed against the Church and Christ’s promises are void?

I think you fail to understand what is meant by the “gates of hell will not prevail”

The protection Christ promised His Church does not lie in a guarantee of always providing it with holy men to guide the Church. Our Lord said that “hell would not prevail” which means, hell will not win the fight. It does not say that hell will not do damage in the process.

If error enters into the Church in such a way that the Sacraments are rendered null, as some here have contended, then the gates will indeed have prevailed.

 

[DavidFilmer]

I have opened a thread to promote focused discussion on the supression of so-called “minor orders.”

 

[toppro]

Fidei Defensor:

The second canon of the Tridentine Council (aka Council of Trent) is: “**If anyone says **that , besides the priesthood, there are not in the Catholic Church other orders, both greater and minor, by which, as by certain steps, advance is made unto the priesthood; let him be anathema.”

There are still other orders one must advance through to enter the priesthood, so this canon has not been violated. One must become a candidate, seminarian, transitional deacon, and then a priest.

So what happened to the order of Exorcist?
That was what the quote refered too.
Where did these new orders come from?

 

[dennisknapp]

toppro:

So what happened to the order of Exorcist?
That was what the quote refered too.
Where did these new orders come from?

You have no point.

In the diocese of Dubuque Iowa there are priests that are known a Exorists. The priests in question is not publically known, but they are priests of considerable holyness. So, the Exorcist is not gone.

Peace

 

[Fidei_Defensor]

toppro77 is obviously a sedevacanist.

 

[edocere]

toppro77 is obviously a sedevacanist.

Why do you think toppro is a sedevaticanist? I see nothing wrong with asking what happened to the order of exorcist.

I have read several of his posts and he seems to adhere to the papcy quite well. I will admit he has brought up some disturbing facts, but if these are true facts, and he has documented them, then what are we to think?