Story: "Louisiana Church Uses Crop Duster/Plane To Spray Holy Water"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Victoria33
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Traddy1962 said:
Looking at the entire message though, it is clear the person was talking about Traditionalists as a group, not just me. It was just improper spelling.

Not that I’m trying to start any arguments here, just saying what is deduced from their message.
Click to expand...
To be fair I’ve never used the word ‘traddies’ to reference traditionalist ever before. It was just personalised to your own reference as a forum name. The consequent who ha was purely people looking for a reason to ‘fight on the internet’.
 
This is where I may need to bid my fair goodbye. Either you have different information or a differing opinion that of CA Apologists.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Eh, I’ve listened to CA Live and watched some of their videos. Seems to differ.

Anyways…
 
Last edited:
There are lots of EENS threads already, do we have to fight over that here? We all know what the Church teaches, so let’s not make this thread into another debate over Feeneyism.
 
Lenny said:
I provided a secondary source given by a priest of the One Holy Catholic Church given the assumption that you are a Catholic in good standing.
Click to expand...
??

You provided a link to a youtube channel with no named priest, the website that is linked in the youtube video is not a good link.

The lack of a name has no bearing on my “standing”. Attempting to shift the debate is disingenuous.

It is okay to say “I do not have any verifiable evidence, I have an opinion and found an anonymous person on youtube who agrees with me.”
Lenny said:
They do it all the time. People in food plants, clothing plants, developers of media put spells on our goods regularly. That is why it is prudent to make the sign of the cross on all of your food before consuming it.
Click to expand...
Once again, please document who is “they”. Where is evidence of “they” putting spells in food plants, clothing plants, or media development.

Where does the Church teach that making the SOTC over food is required because = spells?
 
TC3033 said:
I’ll need to give it back to … @acanonlawyer but I was pretty sure that the Church didn’t teach that today’s non-Catholics are consitered heretics.
Click to expand...
Well, as a canon lawyer, I would use the terms “heresy” and “heretic” in the legal context and in that context only Catholics can be called heretics and/or commit the crime of heresy. Throughout the course of history, however, there have been other contexts in which these terms have been used. So, people may have used the terms (or have used the terms) in ways other than the legal/canonical one. Besides that, the way canon law “understands” baptized non-Catholics has changed. They used to be considered subjects, but not members, of the Catholic Church (a point of view with merit, in my lawyerly opinion). So, they could have been called (and we’re called), in law, heretics.

Anyway, as I said, I wouldn’t use the terms in that way (in a legal context) since that’s not how the law uses them.

Dan
 
Last edited:
I appreciate your candid analysis. How would you harmonize the following from UR into the documents you cited previously?

" For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. The differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church - whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or concerning the structure of the Church - do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion. The ecumenical movement is striving to overcome these obstacles. But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ’s body, and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church."

Thanks and Merry Christmas!
 
Interesting. Odd that it would continue as follows then, no?

"The brethren divided from us also use many liturgical actions of the Christian religion. These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community. These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation.

It follows that the separated Churches(23) and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church."

It even goes on (very kindly, I might add):

"On the other hand, Catholics must gladly acknowledge and esteem the truly Christian endowments from our common heritage which are to be found among our separated brethren. It is right and salutary to recognize the riches of Christ and virtuous works in the lives of others who are bearing witness to Christ, sometimes even to the shedding of their blood. For God is always wonderful in His works and worthy of all praise.

Nor should we forget that anything wrought by the grace of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of our separated brethren can be a help to our own edification. Whatever is truly Christian is never contrary to what genuinely belongs to the faith; indeed, it can always bring a deeper realization of the mystery of Christ and the Church."

Interestingly, a Catholic priest (a good friend) married me and my wife. He never questioned my love for and commitment to Christ. On the contrary, he always has, and always will view me as his brother in Christ. Please forgive me if I take his interpretation of Catholic doctrine over yours.

(He also gave the best wedding sermon I’ve ever heard - I’m not the most impartial judge though 🙂 )
 
I’m not Catholic. I’m just reading what I find in Unitatis Redintegratio (which I think is part of Vatican 2, no?) Are you saying that UR is wrong? This would be odd, but I’ll defer to you of course as a Catholic.

I would be interested to know though how one could “bear witness to Christ, sometimes even to the shedding of blood” and possess the “riches of Christ” and be “truly Christian”, without being…well…Christian.
 
So you can be Christian and not be saved? Perhaps we have different definitions of the word “Christian”. How would you define one?

So V2 is optional? My goodness, they went through a lot of trouble! How do Catholics ever figure out which way is up? Kidding of course. Thanks for the dialogue. Merry Christmas!
 
You do realize that if someone with dirty hands dips into the Holy water right after you clean it, it is still contaminated.
All it takes is one little germ or virus.
 
@MasterHaster,
I was replying to this comment.
 
Last edited:
Why read Vatican II, and Popes of the 20th. and 21st. C. when you can read Papal bulls and exhortations from the 1600’s, not to mention the “Syllabus of Errors”?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top