Question for the Sedevacantist: stay on topic!!

[jim28]

She is extra smart. I am very impressed with her credentials.

You are not dealing with slouches here. We can answer your posts, like hitting a softball out of the park.

Keep up the good work, catharina.

peace

I have never been in the midst of such modesty and humility in my life. Thank you for refuting my posts and taking the time to try and convert me to your “church”. Which I might add, you have spared no proverbial expense in showing me the most charity, while not calling me and other Sedevacantists names, all the while sticking to the facts.

I can only wish to have your type of holiness… and…and… smartness… and one day convert to your false church.

Thanks but no thanks:tsktsk:

 

[SFD]

She is extra smart. I am very impressed with her credentials.

What credentials? How about quoting some sources with real credentials instead?

You are not dealing with slouches here.

True, we’re dealing with some who can’t reason through an argument…and don’t know their basic catechism.

We can answer your posts, like hitting a softball out of the park.

Yes, like you hit that ten commandments post “out of the park”. I think you’re “out to lunch”.

 

[catharina]

How did you get that interpretation from what JPII said. You must be extra smart.:bowdown:

Why thank you. Yes I am very smart and I’m from a very smart family and we consider the greatest gift of our lives to be our FAITH. The teaching is the same teaching that I learned in first grade.

 

[catharina]

She is extra smart. I am very impressed with her credentials.

You are not dealing with slouches here. We can answer your posts, like hitting a softball out of the park.

Keep up the good work, catharina.

peace

Thank you. The greatest gift in my life is FAITH. That’s the treasure.

 

[mgrfin]

I have never been in the midst of such modesty and humility in my life. Thank you for refuting my posts and taking the time to try and convert me to your “church”. Which I might add, you have spared no proverbial expense in showing me the most charity, while not calling me and other Sedevacantists names, all the while sticking to the facts.

I can only wish to have your type of holiness… and…and… smartness… and one day convert to your false church.

Thanks but no thanks

I am not speaking for anyone but myself.

And, I am not trying to convert you to the Catholic Church. I assumed all along that you belonged to it.

In that regard, your personal profile says you are a Catholic.

Yes, we will continue to have charity, and to remember you in our prayers.

peace

 

[mgrfin]

I was merely saying that it really needed no interpretation.
If I were to say to you that every one is saved and no one is going to hell, would you call me a heretic?
The same applies to someone who says that Christ’s Blood reaches all and saves all. This is very easy to understand, JPII taught all are saved.
Anybody who utters heresy is required to either abjure it or try to explain it in an orthodox sense. If not, Catholics are to condemn them as heretics.

I doubt very much that John Paul II said that all men are saved. The salvific act of Jesus Christ was that he died in the Cross for all mankind.

I quoted to you passages from the New Testament, post #89, to which you have not responded.

peace

 

[jim28]

I doubt very much that John Paul II said that all men are saved. The salvific act of Jesus Christ was that he died in the Cross for all mankind.

I quoted to you passages from the New Testament, post #89, to which you have not responded.

peace

You must have missed post #96:thumbsup:

 

[catharina]

He came to save all, but He does not save all.

So as long as you believe that Christ existed, you won’t perish?

He is the Savior of the world but does not Save the whole world.

Thank the Lord that mgrfin is not the interpreter of scripture. If he was then we would have to accept God’s Scriptures here as meaning universal salvation. Mgrfin says that these scripture passages mean the same as JPII’s: “This Blood Reaches ALL and SAVES ALL”. Is there nothing humans can do to change that, even if they reject Christ?

Open your mind. Jesus in His salvation has saved all. Men choose to accept that salvation or they choose otherwise. This is Religion class for children in first grade. It’s not rocket science. Nothing men can do can change the fact that Jesus offers universal salvation. FIRST GRADE!

 

[latinmass]

Good points by all here. The one I like best is, things said by a pope can be interpreted heretical by one, and orthodox by another. The actions though of one would be the final test. Why did JP2 when at Assisi not preach the saving gospel of Jesus as the only way to salvation when he had all the heretical religions together. If JP2 would have taught that salvation is only through the Son of God at Assisi, JP2 would have been the greatest Pope in history. Just think if even one of these leaders of false religions went home a Christian? But he did not. He prayed with them as equals in salvation.

 

[jim28]

Open your mind. Jesus in His salvation has saved all. Men choose to accept that salvation or they choose otherwise. This is Religion class for children in first grade. It’s not rocket science. Nothing men can do can change the fact that Jesus offers universal salvation. FIRST GRADE!

This is reading first grade: "This Blood REACHES ALL AND SAVES ALL"
You said Jesus in his salvation saves all and then the next sentence
you contradict your self.
Men choose to accept salvation or they choose otherwise. YOU ARE CORRECT. But quit trying to convince me that that is what JPII said. He said it “reaches all and saves all”, he did not say "it reaches all and saves all who accept it. "

It’s first grade reading and comprehension.
You can only lead a horse to the water.:banghead:

 

[catharina]

This is reading first grade: "This Blood REACHES ALL AND SAVES ALL"
You said Jesus in his salvation saves all and then the next sentence
you contradict your self.
Men choose to accept salvation or they choose otherwise. YOU ARE CORRECT. But quit trying to convince me that that is what JPII said. He said it “reaches all and saves all”, he did not say "it reaches all and saves all who accept it. "

It’s first grade reading and comprehension.
You can only lead a horse to the water.:banghead:

Your refusal to comprehend and accept truth that is crystal clear is puzzling - but if you’re a sede and determined to remain so, maybe not.

 

[jim28]

Your refusal to comprehend and accept truth that is crystal clear is puzzling - but if you’re a sede and determined to remain so, maybe not.

Your refusal to comprehend and accept truth that is crystal clear is puzzling - but if you’re a Vatican II Protestant and determined to remain so, maybe not.

 

[catharina]

Your refusal to comprehend and accept truth that is crystal clear is puzzling - but if you’re a Vatican II Protestant and determined to remain so, maybe not.

If it matters (probably doesn’t) I’m sad for you.

 

[jim28]

If it matters (probably doesn’t) I’m sad for you.

Same here

 

[cam100]

No, cam100. My point was that an ommission can be lethal. That is precisely why that proposition was condemned. You and others were saying that we need to add whatever is reasonably required to interpret it as orthodox.

Originally Posted by Jansenist Synod of Pistoia
“After the consecration, Christ is truly, really and substantially present beneath the appearances (of bread and wine), and the whole substance of the bread and wine has ceased to exist, leaving only the appearances.”

SFD, you left out this part from the same paragraph:

…since by an indiscreet and suspicious omission of this sort knowledge is taken away both of an article pertaining to faith, and also of the word consecrated by the Church to protect the profession of it, as if it were a discussion of a merely scholastic question…

As I stated above, it was due to the “indiscreet and suspicious omission” that this was condemned, not because the words in themselves were incorrect. If you read the paragraph from Denzinger as whole, it indicates that the description of the Holy Eucharist that was condemned was deliberately left incomplete in order to cause confusion.

Now, John Paul II says the following, "We are dealing with “each” man, for each one is included in the mystery of the Redemption and with each one Christ has united himself forever through this mystery."

It is impossible to excuse this unorthodoxy by arguing that his sentence can be given an orthodox interpretation. Even if this sentence really could admit of an orthodox interpretation, it is still unorthodox by defect. The obvious sense of the sentence, taken in text and context, is quite incontrovertibly unorthodox.

Your example from Denzinger is a situation in which the pope was condemning an error that was made by the Synod of Pistoia (a synod conducted by a Jansenist bishop to promote Jansenism) due to an “indiscreet and suspicious omission”. The key is that** this was a condenmation of a particular case, for a paricular reason, by a legitimate Church authority,** not a general condemnation of every instance where a complete explanation of doctrine is not given.

 

[mgrfin]

Good points by all here. The one I like best is, things said by a pope can be interpreted heretical by one, and orthodox by another. The actions though of one would be the final test. Why did JP2 when at Assisi not preach the saving gospel of Jesus as the only way to salvation when he had all the heretical religions together. If JP2 would have taught that salvation is only through the Son of God at Assisi, JP2 would have been the greatest Pope in history. Just think if even one of these leaders of false religions went home a Christian? But he did not. He prayed with them as equals in salvation.

John Paul II Address at Assisi 27 Oct. 1986
"In relation to the last prayer, the Christian one, in the series we have all heard, I profess here anew my conviction, shared by all Christians, that in Jesus Christ, as Saviour of all, true peace is to be found, “peace to those who are far off and peace to those who are near”. His birth was greeted by the angels’ song: “Glory to God in the highest and peace among men with whom he is pleased”. He preached love among all, even among foes, proclaimed blessed those who work for peace and through his Death and Resurrection he brought about reconciliation between heaven and earth. To use an expression of Paul the Apostle: “He is our peace”.

This is the statement which these folks find ‘heretical’?

“…that in Jesus Christ, as Saviour of all, true peace is to be found…”

I find that alsolutely true. I keep hearing these people talking about the day at Assisi, and I fully expected to find texts which might be difficult to interprete, or that there was something difficult to translate. But from this ‘harmless’ sentence, these folks find our Holy Father to be a heretic?

I find it hard to charaterize such a conclusion. It certainly was a true statement by the Holy Father, and I think there is reading into his words something that is not there.

We pray for all for enlightenment.

Peace

 

[catharina]

John Paul II Address at Assisi 27 Oct. 1986
"In relation to the last prayer, the Christian one, in the series we have all heard, I profess here anew my conviction, shared by all Christians, that in Jesus Christ, as Saviour of all, true peace is to be found, “peace to those who are far off and peace to those who are near”. His birth was greeted by the angels’ song: “Glory to God in the highest and peace among men with whom he is pleased”. He preached love among all, even among foes, proclaimed blessed those who work for peace and through his Death and Resurrection he brought about reconciliation between heaven and earth. To use an expression of Paul the Apostle: “He is our peace”.

This is the statement which these folks find ‘heretical’?

“…that in Jesus Christ, as Saviour of all, true peace is to be found…”

I find that alsolutely true. I keep hearing these people talking about the day at Assisi, and I fully expected to find texts which might be difficult to interprete, or that there was something difficult to translate. But from this ‘harmless’ sentence, these folks find our Holy Father to be a heretic?

I find it hard to charaterize such a conclusion. It certainly was a true statement by the Holy Father, and I think there is reading into his words something that is not there.

We pray for all for enlightenment.

Peace

I know. It makes for a terrible leap. I think the prayer is “That all be one, O dearest Lord, we pray. That all be brought within Thy one true fold.” It’s stagggering to learn that in this time of desperate need for faithfulness that some have declared anti-Popes and non-Popes.

 

[latinmass]

John Paul II Address at Assisi 27 Oct. 1986
"In relation to the last prayer, the Christian one, in the series we have all heard, I profess here anew my conviction, shared by all Christians, that in Jesus Christ, as Saviour of all, true peace is to be found, “peace to those who are far off and peace to those who are near”. His birth was greeted by the angels’ song: “Glory to God in the highest and peace among men with whom he is pleased”. He preached love among all, even among foes, proclaimed blessed those who work for peace and through his Death and Resurrection he brought about reconciliation between heaven and earth. To use an expression of Paul the Apostle: “He is our peace”.

This is the statement which these folks find ‘heretical’?

“…that in Jesus Christ, as Saviour of all, true peace is to be found…”

I find that alsolutely true. I keep hearing these people talking about the day at Assisi, and I fully expected to find texts which might be difficult to interprete, or that there was something difficult to translate. But from this ‘harmless’ sentence, these folks find our Holy Father to be a heretic?

I find it hard to charaterize such a conclusion. It certainly was a true statement by the Holy Father, and I think there is reading into his words something that is not there.

We pray for all for enlightenment.

Peace

I agree with what you have stated. I think the word you used which is most disturbing but accurate is “harmless sentence.” I have no axe to grind here, I can read though, and it seems clear that a statement like “one MUST have Jesus and the Church to be saved” at Assisi would have been a defending of the Deposit of Faith, which did not occur. But it seems that JP2 is remembered for everything except defending the Depost of Faith.