POPE Equates Atheism and Naziism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Burns
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
what actually is the story with pork. i was a catholic for many years and never actually asked or questioned it. why could it not be eaten?
I don’t entirely understand the question. If you mean, why couldn’t the OT Jewish people eat pork, it was because God told them not to. Why God told them not to is a harder question, but it might have had to do with trichinosis for all I know.

If you mean why can’t Catholics eat pork, we can. Christianity is the only major world religion in which even the strictest adherents are allowed to eat a bacon cheeseburger. 😃

If you want a better answer, you could start a new thread, maybe in the Non-Catholic Religions forum.

–Jen
 
what actually is the story with pork. i was a catholic for many years and never actually asked or questioned it. why could it not be eaten?
God created a community of people which had the mission of preserving teachings about God Himself. This community was bound together by laws and disciplines. That way they would be bound together and have an identity as the Chosen People.

No eating of pork was one of those disciplines – to teach them obedience to God’s law and to give them a special identity.

This was one phase in the work of God on earth among His people. It was to prepare for the coming of the Messiah. When Jesus came, He explained that God’s teaching was far beyond just following those rules (which were necessary for a more primitive people).

Jesus’ teaching was about purity and sincerity of heart. It’s how we love God and how we love others that is the highest law.
 
If you mean why can’t Catholics eat pork, we can. Christianity is the only major world religion in which even the strictest adherents are allowed to eat a bacon cheeseburger. 😃
That depends… certain of the 23 Churches Sui Iuris restrict diet considerably more than the roman “No meat on Fridays”… For Russian Catholics, it’s no meat, milk, eggs, fish, oil, or wine throughout lent and St. Phillip’s fast (advent), and two others besides. Some Ukrainain and Ruthenian Catholics also follow this; for others, they only do 3 days a week of this during fasts, and 1 day a week of no meat at all outside it.

Romans do reduced portions.
 
I don’t entirely understand the question. If you mean, why couldn’t the OT Jewish people eat pork, it was because God told them not to. Why God told them not to is a harder question, but it might have had to do with trichinosis for all I know.

If you mean why can’t Catholics eat pork, we can. Christianity is the only major world religion in which even the strictest adherents are allowed to eat a bacon cheeseburger. 😃

If you want a better answer, you could start a new thread, maybe in the Non-Catholic Religions forum.

–Jen
yeah you basically answered the question. i meant why are Jews not allowed to eat pork. or why does the old testament tell people not to. you answered it as best you could with the knowledge you have anyway. cheers
 
Traditionalists question the pope, his own bishops question him, and mainstream Catholics question him.

Did we see this before VII ? No.

Why now ? Very simple imo. This pope wants to please both sides, and it’s quite clear there are two side now isn’t it ? Now no one can deny there is a wall between Roman Catholics.

The spirit of VII has finally ripped the Church to pieces. Torn it in half. Unity does not exist in it’s fullest and never will again until a pope appears who is courageous enough to abrogate the OF, declare the contradictions of Doctrine and Dogma errors, and threaten excommunication of all who question this truth.

The post VII church is sweeping about face. Things Catholics just didn’t do or speak of in the past are tolerated today. Servers carrying the Processional Cross with the corpus facing the wrong way. EMHC’s being used at weekday Masses with only 25 people in the pews. A blatant disregard for the conditions of the indult granting the use of EMHC’s.

Liturgical rubrics introduced by laity and individual clergy instead of Rome. Jumping through hoops to get to Confession in some parishes.

The post VII church looks nothing like the Roman Catholic Church.

“Indeed, the true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries, nor innovators: they are traditionalists.”
Pope St. Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique

Problem is, even the trads can’t make up their minds to stand united. All I can do is ask myself how I feel about catacombs, cult compounds, and dark alleys ?

Those who don’t pray for H.H. all day every day better start right now. We haven’t seen anything yet.
 
Problem is, even the trads can’t make up their minds to stand united.
I think it would be difficult to expect even most traditional Catholics to support some of the ideas you offered here:
Unity does not exist in it’s fullest and never will again until a pope appears who is courageous enough to abrogate the OF, declare the contradictions of Doctrine and Dogma errors, and threaten excommunication of all who question this truth.
How do you know that’s the only path to unity?
In other words, are we required to accept your opinion on this?
If not, then how can you expect a unified approach since many will disagree?
 
I think it would be difficult to expect even most traditional Catholics to support some of the ideas you offered here:

How do you know that’s the only path to unity?
In other words, are we required to accept your opinion on this?
If not, then how can you expect a unified approach since many will disagree?
No, you don’t have to accept anything I say. I just feel the writing is on he wall. The fact we are having this conversation is evidence of my assertion. 🤷

Edit: the thread itself is what I meant
 
No, you don’t have to accept anything I say. I just feel the writing is on he wall. The fact we are having this conversation is evidence of my assertion. 🤷

Edit: the thread itself is what I meant
Ok, but I think our unity as traditional Catholics and the unity of the Church Herself is founded on a basis that we do agree on – and we accept necessarily.
 
Ok, but I think our unity as traditional Catholics and the unity of the Church Herself is founded on a basis that we do agree on – and we accept necessarily.
We have Christ’s promise to be sure.
 
Traditionalists question the pope, his own bishops question him, and mainstream Catholics question him.

Did we see this before VII ? No.

Why now ? Very simple imo. This pope wants to please both sides, and it’s quite clear there are two side now isn’t it ? Now no one can deny there is a wall between Roman Catholics.

The spirit of VII has finally ripped the Church to pieces. Torn it in half. Unity does not exist in it’s fullest and never will again until a pope appears who is courageous enough to abrogate the OF, declare the contradictions of Doctrine and Dogma errors, and threaten excommunication of all who question this truth.

The post VII church is sweeping about face. Things Catholics just didn’t do or speak of in the past are tolerated today. Servers carrying the Processional Cross with the corpus facing the wrong way. EMHC’s being used at weekday Masses with only 25 people in the pews. A blatant disregard for the conditions of the indult granting the use of EMHC’s.

Liturgical rubrics introduced by laity and individual clergy instead of Rome. Jumping through hoops to get to Confession in some parishes.

The post VII church looks nothing like the Roman Catholic Church.

“Indeed, the true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries, nor innovators: they are traditionalists.”
Pope St. Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique

Problem is, even the trads can’t make up their minds to stand united. All I can do is ask myself how I feel about catacombs, cult compounds, and dark alleys ?

Those who don’t pray for H.H. all day every day better start right now. We haven’t seen anything yet.
are you one of those people who believe the world will end next year? because this whole speech has that feel to it
 
are you one of those people who believe the world will end next year? because this whole speech has that feel to it
The world will end when God wills it to, not when I think it will.

Are you one of those atheists who feel the need to keep up on Catholicism ? I left the Church, informally by simply not practicing the Faith for many years, and never concerned myself with the doing of the Church during that dark time in my life. Why do atheists concern themselves if they don’t even believe in God ?

Are you really agnostic, rather than full blown atheist ? I can’t imagine an atheist thinking about these things unless they have doubt of their convictions.

Also, will you agree that most atheists keep most of the 10 commandments anyway ? 😉
 
quite frankly i should have known better. but step into my shoes. people are taking shots at my beliefs because they feel they are entitled to do so on a catholic forum. and after listening to so much illogical rubbish (not everything that was said, but there are those who just wish to slander others beliefs) i lost my cool. of course i should not have lowered myself to the level of those attacking what i believe in by attacking what they believe in. but what is the golden rule of christianity… treat one another as you would like to be treated. well the treatment i have come across has lacked respect quite often. so when i am not shown respect and common decency, how am i expected to show it in return.

so i apologise for my comment. it was a jibe at what i do believe are some of the weaker points of catholcism, but it was not my place to discredit them.
after what your original post said this is a pretty lame excuse. nobody forced you to come here, post or reply and then to top it off you repeat it. “it was a jibe at what i do believe are some of the weaker points of catholcism”
maybe you should learn “common decency”
 
after what your original post said this is a pretty lame excuse. nobody forced you to come here, post or reply and then to top it off you repeat it. “it was a jibe at what i do believe are some of the weaker points of catholcism”
maybe you should learn “common decency”
“atheists” who debate Christians are not atheists, they are agnostics. They aren’t even sure what they believe.

There is something they fear. They are not comfortable in their mindset.
 
Traditionalists question the pope, his own bishops question him, and mainstream Catholics question him.

Did we see this before VII ? No.
.
Yes we did. Throughout history it has happened over and over again. The difference was that once upon a time popes were also temporal leaders with armies. Bishops were also temporal leaders with armies. They had to dance around each other very gingerly. I’ll give you one simple example, but it’s one of many.

In 1208, St. Dominic approached Pope Innocent III with a rule for his new order, the Order of Preachers. The Pope and bishops had decided that there would be no new rules for religious orders. All new religious orders had to follow one of the existing rules. They simply had to adapt the rule to their ministry. The existing rules of the time were: Benedictine, Basilian, Carmelite, and Augustinian.

Dominic’s rule was rejected. St. Dominic adopted the Rule of St. Augustine and wrote statutes to address those points that Augustine does not address. That has governed the Dominicans to this day.

In 1209, St. Francis of Assisi approached Pope Innocent III with a rule for his new order, the Order of Friars Minor. Because the law said that there were to be no new rules, St. Francis was denied. St. Francis himself declared that what he has written he had written with no human help. He asserted that his rule had been dictated to him by the Lord Jesus himself. Therefore, he could not accept one of the existing rules, because it was not the Lord’s will.

After hearing him out, Pope Innocent sent him away. That night he had a dream where he saw St. Francis rescuing the Church from collapse. The next day, he called Francis to him and he gave verbal approval to the rule. The Cardinals and bishops were furious on two grounds: 1) There are not more revelations since the death of the last Apostle. Yet, Francis of Assisi claimed that the rule had been revealed to him by Christ and the pope was allowing it to go into public usage. 2) The had already been a law thta said that no new rules were allowed. The pope was not abrogating the law, but was was making an exception that they deemed inappropriate and poor prudential judgment. To avoid conflicts, Pope Innocent III gave the rule verbal approval.

In 1221, Francis again approaches the pope. This time Honorius III was in power. Again,the Cardinals, bishops and canonists argued that they approval of the new rule was problematic on the same two grounds. The debate lasted until 1223 when Pope Honorius III issued a Papal Bull approving the rule for all eternity.

Fastforward, St. Ignatius approaches with his rule for the Society of Jesus. He is told that there is a law that forbids new rules and he must adopt an existing one or have no rule at all. Priests and bishops reminded the pope that there was a precedent. Francis had been granted permission to write his own rule just 300 years earlier. The debate and criticism continued until Ignatius agreed to retract the petition. The Society of Jesus was approved without a rule and was to be governed by a set of statutes that they would democratically write and democratically approve according to a set of criteria that Ignatius would give them. This has been how they govern themselves to this day.

This is just one area of conflicts between popes and bishops or between popes and theologians. There were other areas: Immaculate Conception, the ordination of married men in the Roman Church, the liturgy, the rights of monarchs, the rights of the laity, the rights of religious orders, the ownership of property, service in the armed forces.

That last one was an interesting one. Francis of Assisi wrote the Rule for the Brothers of Penance, which governs the Secular Franciscans. He prohibitted, under pain of mortal sin, the service in the armed forces and the pledge of alegiance to any nation or ruler. When wars arose, the Secular Franciscans refused to serve out of obedience to the Rule of their order. There were great debates between the Franciscans and the bishops, the Franciscans and the popes, the bishops and the popes over this prohibition. The answer always came back the same. There was no way to mandate that the Secular Franciscans serve in the Armed Forces unless the pope himself edited the Rule of St. Francis. The debates went on from the time of Pope Honorius to the time of Pius X who finally lifted the restriction.

It is incorrect to say that there have never been confrontations, debates, disagreements, or conflicts between papacy, bishops, clergy, religious and laity. The difference was that they did not have Internet. Most people never found out about these debates.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Traditionalists question the pope, his own bishops question him, and mainstream Catholics question him.

Did we see this before VII ? No.
.
Yes we did. Throughout history it has happened over and over again. The difference was that once upon a time popes were also temporal leaders with armies. Bishops were also temporal leaders with armies. They had to dance around each other very gingerly. I’ll give you one simple example, but it’s one of many.

In 1208, St. Dominic approached Pope Innocent III with a rule for his new order, the Order of Preachers. The Pope and bishops had decided that there would be no new rules for religious orders. All new religious orders had to follow one of the existing rules. They simply had to adapt the rule to their ministry. The existing rules of the time were: Benedictine, Basilian, Carmelite, and Augustinian.

Dominic’s rule was rejected. St. Dominic adopted the Rule of St. Augustine and wrote statutes to address those points that Augustine does not address. That has governed the Dominicans to this day.

In 1209, St. Francis of Assisi approached Pope Innocent III with a rule for his new order, the Order of Friars Minor. Because the law said that there were to be no new rules, St. Francis was denied. St. Francis himself declared that what he has written he had written with no human help. He asserted that his rule had been dictated to him by the Lord Jesus himself. Therefore, he could not accept one of the existing rules, because it was not the Lord’s will.

After hearing him out, Pope Innocent sent him away. That night he had a dream where he saw St. Francis rescuing the Church from collapse. The next day, he called Francis to him and he gave verbal approval to the rule. The Cardinals and bishops were furious on two grounds: 1) There are not more revelations since the death of the last Apostle. Yet, Francis of Assisi claimed that the rule had been revealed to him by Christ and the pope was allowing it to go into public usage. 2) The had already been a law thta said that no new rules were allowed. The pope was not abrogating the law, but was was making an exception that they deemed inappropriate and poor prudential judgment. To avoid conflicts, Pope Innocent III gave the rule verbal approval.

In 1221, Francis again approaches the pope. This time Honorius III was in power. Again,the Cardinals, bishops and canonists argued that they approval of the new rule was problematic on the same two grounds. The debate lasted until 1223 when Pope Honorius III issued a Papal Bull approving the rule for all eternity.

Fastforward, St. Ignatius approaches with his rule for the Society of Jesus. He is told that there is a law that forbids new rules and he must adopt an existing one or have no rule at all. Priests and bishops reminded the pope that there was a precedent. Francis had been granted permission to write his own rule just 300 years earlier. The debate and criticism continued until Ignatius agreed to retract the petition. The Society of Jesus was approved without a rule and was to be governed by a set of statutes that they would democratically write and democratically approve according to a set of criteria that Ignatius would give them. This has been how they govern themselves to this day.

This is just one area of conflicts between popes and bishops or between popes and theologians. There were other areas: Immaculate Conception, the ordination of married men in the Roman Church, the liturgy, the rights of monarchs, the rights of the laity, the rights of religious orders, the ownership of property, service in the armed forces.

That last one was an interesting one. Francis of Assisi wrote the Rule for the Brothers of Penance, which governs the Secular Franciscans. He prohibitted, under pain of mortal sin, the service in the armed forces and the pledge of alegiance to any nation or ruler. When wars arose, the Secular Franciscans refused to serve out of obedience to the Rule of their order. There were great debates between the Franciscans and the bishops, the Franciscans and the popes, the bishops and the popes over this prohibition. The answer always came back the same. There was no way to mandate that the Secular Franciscans serve in the Armed Forces unless the pope himself edited the Rule of St. Francis. The debates went on from the time of Pope Honorius to the time of Pius X who finally lifted the restriction.

It is incorrect to say that there have never been confrontations, debates, disagreements, or conflicts between papacy, bishops, clergy, religious and laity. The difference was that they did not have Internet. Most people never found out about these debates.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
“atheists” who debate Christians are not atheists, they are agnostics. They aren’t even sure what they believe.

There is something they fear. They are not comfortable in their mindset.
oh thank yoy for your words of wisdom. how would you know? really, i want a proper answer here. you have absolutely no idea what i do and dont believe in. i actually stated on another post before what some of my beliefs are. i dont understand some people. since that post which i apologised for, and most people accepted the apology, i have had interesting discussions with many members. all of these discussions were very civil, they were not arguments. so why do some people feel the need to come on and have a go at me for being atheist. you really could leave that out and let me get on with talking to some of the polite members of this forum. if you dont like it, stay out of the discussions
 
what actually is the story with pork. i was a catholic for many years and never actually asked or questioned it. why could it not be eaten?
I don’t entirely understand the question. If you mean, why couldn’t the OT Jewish people eat pork, it was because God told them not to. Why God told them not to is a harder question, but it might have had to do with trichinosis for all I know.

If you mean why can’t Catholics eat pork, we can. Christianity is the only major world religion in which even the strictest adherents are allowed to eat a bacon cheeseburger. 😃

If you want a better answer, you could start a new thread, maybe in the Non-Catholic Religions forum.

–Jen
Actually, the Apostles never lifted the dietery laws. They were lifted very gradually, for very good reasons.

The issue with pork was the same as the issue with alcohol, pot, cigarettes, etc. The moral law has always been the human life is sacred, from conception to natural death. This was handed down through Judaism to Christianity. It is to be found in Genesis.

Anything that unnecessarilly put human life in danger is still a sin. This is how the dietery restrictions in the Torah came about. The result of certain things was an indication that these were not good for the people. Therefore, the action was immoral, because of the outcome.

The Jews did not have a moral code that was well developed. That came much later with the use of philosophy to understand morality. In their mind, there were no hierarchies of sin. Every sin was equally grave. Also, they did not understand the difference between objective and subjective wrongness of an act. Therefore, they did not understand culpability. Heck, we still have people who do not understand culpability and go around either condemning everyone or justifying everyone. We’re supposed to be much better educated than Jews of 4,000 years ago.

When making moral judgment, the law must be understood. This is was the difference between the Christians and the Jews. Through the Revelation of Christ, the Law is understood. It’s not really the case that there is a new law that undermines the old law. That’s playing too much with Paul’s words.

Through Christ the meaning and purpose of the Law is clarfied and fulfilled. Therefore, some laws are no longer necessary. They were meant to prepare for the coming of the Messiah. The Messiah came, the law is no longer needed. Other laws were understood correctly in light of what Christ taught and what the Holy Spirit inspired. The application of those laws also changed, because their true meaning and purpose becomes fully revealed.

Because application and purpose changes, resulting from revelation, we have laws that apply in one Church and not in another, such as fasting and abstinence laws. There are 22 Catholic Churches. There are different applications of the same law. This happens when you go from the objective to the subjective. The law may say that it is necessary for men to fast and abstain. How one fasts and what one abstains from is going to be subjectivized according to customs and spiritualities. Nonetheless, the objective law does not change. We must fast and abstain.

The Jews understood that law to be “don’t eat this or that”. We understand the law to be bigger and more complete than that. It actually means, “you must fast and abstain as part of penance.”

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
oh thank yoy for your words of wisdom. how would you know? really, i want a proper answer here. you have absolutely no idea what i do and dont believe in. i actually stated on another post before what some of my beliefs are. i dont understand some people. since that post which i apologised for, and most people accepted the apology, i have had interesting discussions with many members. all of these discussions were very civil, they were not arguments. so why do some people feel the need to come on and have a go at me for being atheist. you really could leave that out and let me get on with talking to some of the polite members of this forum. if you dont like it, stay out of the discussions
that was not an apology. you repeated your insult. what a rude person
 
that was not an apology. you repeated your insult. what a rude person
it was an apology. what i said further on was what i was attacking, but i also said i never should have attacked it. i was in the wrong and i acknowledged that
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top