Pope BenedictXV1 a LIBERAL

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sirach14
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
What is it that you mean by that? The Catholic Church has been given the fullness of the Truth and we don’t make concessions to anyone. Period! And as for the smackdowns that is no longer his job. It falls to the person who took over his old job.
 
Has any announcement been made about the next prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith?
 
The Catholic Church has been given the fullness of the Truth and we don’t make concessions to anyone.
Click to expand...
Really?

The Jews no longer need to be converted.
The Church of God subsists in the Catholic Church no longer just “is the Catholic Church”.
Orthodox Churches not longer need to return to Rome.
The Muslims worship the same God as us.
The Catholic Mass made to resemble a more Protestant liturgy.
The Spirit of Assisi.
The Augsberg agreement.
etc…

I don’t think our present Pope has any great Marian devotion, I await with interest his reaction to the ARCIC statement - and actually what it contains.

Our present Pope has always been in favour of demolishing our longstanding bastions (his words - based on the writings of Urs Von Balthazar).

The one world religion is coming.
 
John_19_59

“The Catholic Church has been given the fullness of the Truth and we don’t make concessions to anyone.”

Really?
Click to expand...
Yes, **really **John.

First off, you need to seriously start READING what the Pope is actually saying. For example, in his opening address as the new Holy Pontiff :
ROME – Pope Benedict XVI indicated Saturday he will stick to Pope John Paul II’s unwavering stands against abortion and euthanasia, saying pontiffs must resist attempts to “water down” Roman Catholic teaching.

… the ministry of the pope is the guarantor of the obedience toward Christ and his word.
Click to expand...
So with his remarks above, we now know that Benedict XVI will faithfully carry on the tachings of JPII, such as:
VATICAN CITY - Pope John Paul II exhorted Christians on Friday to display signs of their faith more forcefully, contending the practice neither infringes on separation of church and state nor breeds intolerance.
Click to expand...
Yeah John, I would say that the above statements are about as “un-concessionist” as you could possibly get. As to your erroneous observations of:
The Jews no longer need to be converted.
Click to expand...
Hmmm. Then why did JPII proclaim that “Christians should display signs of their faith more forcefully” ? Really John, you’re not making much sense here.
The Church of God subsists in the Catholic Church no longer just “is the Catholic Church”.
Click to expand...
If you clearly understood Catholic Teaching, the Church makes no distinguishment between where the Fullness of Truth is maintined and the fact that the Church of God stlll subsists in the Catholic Church. Quite unfortuneately though, and for some reason, you maintain here that it does. And you are wrong.

From your observations below, you allude to the fact (and actually state outright) that “the one world religion is coming” due in part to what YOU believe are the current Teachings of the Catholic Church.

If so, then how does the quote “Orthodox Churches no longer need to return to Rome” fit into that plan? Because for a one world religion to exist, wouldn’t Rome insist then that the Orthodox Churches must in fact have return to Rome?

So the very quotes that you bring up in support of your theory are actually in direct contradiction to your own conclusion. What gives John?
I don’t think our present Pope has any great Marian devotion,
Click to expand...
Wrong again Johnny boy. In Ben. XVI’s first greeting to the world, he stated:

**
"The Lord will help us and Mary his most holy mother
Click to expand...
will be alongside us." **
**
And this he said, in only his first public address as Holy Pontiff !
Our present Pope has always been in favour of demolishing our longstanding bastions (his words - based on the writings of Urs Von Balthazar).
Click to expand...
Seeing how you have already shown us here how you have attempted to manipulate Church Teachings, I can therefore give you no leeway as it concerns such “quotes” as the one which you have listed above. So I must now ask you for PROOF as to the context on which the above statement was made.

John, I am now compelled to ask you : “Are you Catholic”? I though you were, but as of now … I can no longer tell.
The one world religion is coming.
Click to expand...
And if it ever does appear, your rhetoric here caused me to seriously believe that you will probably be one of it’s very first adherents.

I hope this isn’t the case …
 
FiremanFrank,

The Church has watered down its teachings.

Mortalium Animos v Assisi for instance.

The one world religion is coming. The religion is I believe “unity in diversity”. Indifferentism. Call it what you will. Assisi was its first public showing. “Don’t rock the religious boat”. Lets all get along together.

Whatever - the importance of Christ is diminished and false religions are elevated. Even anti-Christ religions like Islam.

As for the Popes Marian devotion, I think his dishonest treatment of the Immaculate Heart of Mary in “The Message of Fatima” speaks volumes.

The Church of God IS the Catholic Church. There is no salvation outside the Church. That is Catholic teaching of two thousand years, not novel teaching from the swinging sixties.

That teaching has been watered down.
 
David Oatney said:
St. Jeanne;
You are right, of course, there is generally a difference in the European and American meanings of the world “liberal.” In the classical sense, it could be argued that a whole lot of the people in these forums are liberals…

However, even the use of the European term is changing. For example, the “Liberal Democratic Party” in England has actually become a left-wing party (although the old Liberal Party of Lloyd George was not). The Liberal Party of Canada, originally fashioned after the old European model of liberalism, has now become a haven for the Left in that country.

All that said, it is clear that Father Sirico meant “liberal” in the classical sense. Classical liberalism in some form or other is something that very few people here at CA would fail to identify with. Identifying Benedict XVI as a classical liberal would put him in the same socio-political mold of the old Christian Social Union of Bavaria…not surprising at all, considering the things we all know to be true about Benedict.
Click to expand...

So what - if anything - is meant by “liberalism” in the USA ?​

And why is it the Worst Thing In The World (or something similar) on this board ?

I’ve heard Hitler and Stalin called liberals by Catholics - which is stretching the word so far as to make it meaningless. ##
 
Gottle of Geer:
I’ve heard Hitler and Stalin called liberals by Catholics - which is stretching the word so far as to make it meaningless. ##
Click to expand...
Not really.

After the German-Soviet Nonaggression Pact (August 23, 1939)
was signed, liberals in the C.I.O. and other unions struck at defense plants to prevent munitions shipments going to Great Britian as it fought the Nazis.

In the early 1930s, writers from The Nation, The New Reublic and the New York Times defended Stalin.

The Nazi euthanasia and eugenics problems were inspired by the work of Margaret Sanger–an icon to liberals today.

Alexander Solzhenitsyn and Arthur Koestler have both said there was no moral and little pratical difference between communism and fascism.

Nazi civil courts decided guilt and the degree of punishment based on race, class and gender. Employment too was determined by attributes unrelated to experience. The Soviets used class as a determining criteria in criminal law and employment.

Liberals endorsed Affirmative Action, quotas and other schemes which discriminate by race, gender, ethnic orgin etc.

Herman Otto Kahn, the American banker (a Democrat) financed Mussolini. His wife worked with Margaret Sanger and was a member of the Eugenics Society of America.
 
John_19_59
FiremanFrank,

The Church has watered down its teachings.
Click to expand...
No it has not John. It has just eloborated on them with more detail. The teaching is the same.
Mortalium Animos v Assisi for instance.
Click to expand...
Here, you mistakenly view an ecumenical action as being equal to a change in Church Teaching. It is not.
The one world religion is coming. The religion is I believe “unity in diversity”. Indifferentism. Call it what you will. Assisi was its first public showing. “Don’t rock the religious boat”. Lets all get along together.
Click to expand...
I believe that by God having allowed the election of Benedict XVI, that your prognostication might not come to fruition.
Whatever - the importance of Christ is diminished and false religions are elevated. Even anti-Christ religions like Islam.
Click to expand...
Are false religions really being “elevated” as you say John? Or are they merely being better understood and related to by Christians who are merely seeking to ultimately bring our Truth to them?
As for the Popes Marian devotion, I think his dishonest treatment of the Immaculate Heart of Mary in “The Message of Fatima” speaks volumes.
Click to expand...
And I think that ***your ***questioning/criticising of our Pope speaks even LARGER VOLUMES. And I don’t like what I’m hearing …
The Church of God IS the Catholic Church. There is no salvation outside the Church. That is Catholic teaching of two thousand years, not novel teaching from the swinging sixties.
Click to expand...
You take a wonderfully Protestant view here John. You remind me of an evangelical I once knew who said that everyone who was born before Christ went to Hell (because they were not able to physically ask for “Jesus to be their Lord and Savior”.

That means then, that all the prophets went to Hell. Moses too …

'Gimme a break …

Seriously John, if you knew the details of the Teachings of the Church, then you would know that She teaches that people in other religions ***might ***come to see Heaven, because all the graces that they might have received have come from the Catholic Church to begin with.

That’s the Teaching. So in effect John, it’s remains unchanged.

To put it another way:
No salvation outside the Catholic Church = Whatever graces that other churches may have received have come via the Catholic Church, and the Catholic Church only.

Do you understand now my friend?
That teaching has been watered down.
Click to expand...
No, no it hasn’t.

As I stated above John - it’s just been clarified somewhat. That’s all.
 
40.png
John_19_59:
FiremanFrank,

The Church has watered down its teachings.

Mortalium Animos v Assisi for instance.

The one world religion is coming. The religion is I believe “unity in diversity”. Indifferentism. Call it what you will. Assisi was its first public showing. “Don’t rock the religious boat”. Lets all get along together.

Whatever - the importance of Christ is diminished and false religions are elevated. Even anti-Christ religions like Islam.

As for the Popes Marian devotion, I think his dishonest treatment of the Immaculate Heart of Mary in “The Message of Fatima” speaks volumes.

The Church of God IS the Catholic Church. There is no salvation outside the Church. That is Catholic teaching of two thousand years, not novel teaching from the swinging sixties.

That teaching has been watered down.
Click to expand...
You have issues, my friend please study the faith.
 
Fireman Frank,
No it has not John. It has just eloborated on them with more detail. The teaching is the same.
Click to expand...
If the teaching is the same then lets take one example…

Where before 1965 do I find the teaching that Muslims worship the same God as us.

Or another example… Where would I find before 1965 the teaching that the Jews don’t need to convert to Christ?

Thanks in advance.

From the First Vatican Council…

*“For the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed … has been entrusted as a divine deposit to the spouse of Christ, to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted. Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be a recession from that meaning under **the specious name of a deeper understanding.” - *Dei Filius

We’ve had nothing BUT deeper understanding for 40 years now.
The Church has been struggling to deeply understand how we don’t need to convert anyone to the Catholic faith.

After 2,000 years we need deeper understanding?

Do me a favour.
 
You have issues, my friend please study the faith.
Click to expand...
I certainly have issues.

And I do study the faith… all of it, not just 1965 onwards.

Perhaps you ought to study the Arian crisis.
 
Gottle of Geer said:
## So what - if anything - is meant by “liberalism” in the USA ?

And why is it the Worst Thing In The World (or something similar) on this board ?

I’ve heard Hitler and Stalin called liberals by Catholics - which is stretching the word so far as to make it meaningless. ##
Click to expand...

I agree that the word liberal has a confused meaning here in the US. I prefer to use the word leftist to refer to people like John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, etc. It also covers people such as Stalin and Hitler.
 
40.png
StJeanneDArc:
I agree that the word liberal has a confused meaning here in the US. I prefer to use the word leftist to refer to people like John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, etc. It also covers people such as Stalin and Hitler.
Click to expand...
Whatever else he was,Hitler was no leftist. He was a Fascist and extreme Right wing in his views,as were Mussolini and Franco.

When you become a dictator, terms like leftist and righr-wing hardly apply. Stalin began his career as a leftist, but ended up as a dictator.
 
40.png
John_19_59:
I certainly have issues.

And I do study the faith… all of it, not just 1965 onwards.

Perhaps you ought to study the Arian crisis.
Click to expand...
Like to study that crisis sometime though. There is a list though of the theologians and others that Ratzinger silenced while Prefect. I accept Vatican II as well as Vatican I and the other councils. You can’t pick and choose what council’s you don’t want to believe.
 
40.png
maklavan:
Whatever else he was,Hitler was no leftist. He was a Fascist and extreme Right wing in his views,as were Mussolini and Franco.

When you become a dictator, terms like leftist and righr-wing hardly apply. Stalin began his career as a leftist, but ended up as a dictator.
Click to expand...
One could make the argument that Hitler was, in fact, a Leftist…if I were you, I would study the late John F. McManus’s “horseshoe” argument for the arrangement of the political spectrum.
 
40.png
maklavan:
Whatever else he was,Hitler was no leftist. He was a Fascist and extreme Right wing in his views,as were Mussolini and Franco.

When you become a dictator, terms like leftist and righr-wing hardly apply. Stalin began his career as a leftist, but ended up as a dictator.
Click to expand...
I define governmental structure on a spectrum, with the left end being the most governmental control and the right end being the least. The left end is a tyranny, the right end is anarchy.

Under my definition Hitler and Stalin are the ultimate leftists, as is Fidel Castro. The Saudi royal family are leftists, as is the Taliban and Saddam Hussein. Hugo Chavez is moving in that direction.

How do you define leftist?
 
You can’t pick and choose what council’s you don’t want to believe.
Click to expand...
Now that all depends if a particular council defined dogma.

Councils are only infallible in matters of faith and morals.

I am told that Vatican II defined no new dogma.

For example, the idea that Muslims worship the same God as us can be found in the Council documents.

But this is NOT a dogmatic statement, its not a teaching handed down from the Apostles, its a pastoral judgement - which is open to being fallible.

I don’t believe I am bound to accept that ridiculous notion. It is not an article of faith that Muslims worship the same God as us. In fact it is impossible that they do - just ask them.

As Catholics we are NOT bound to accept that every utterance of a Pope or Council are infallible. There are plenty of instances in history where this clearly has not been the case.
 
40.png
StJeanneDArc:
I define governmental structure on a spectrum, with the left end being the most governmental control and the right end being the least. The left end is a tyranny, the right end is anarchy.

Under my definition Hitler and Stalin are the ultimate leftists, as is Fidel Castro. The Saudi royal family are leftists, as is the Taliban and Saddam Hussein. Hugo Chavez is moving in that direction.

How do you define leftist?
Click to expand...
my definition would be the exact opposite of yours! The greater the control and centralisation, the more righ-t wing the organisation.Leftist would be inclining towards socialism, Marxism and anarchy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top