What is wrong with kissing the Qu'ran?

[bear06]

If some modernist Cardinal pulled the same type of actions (illicit ordinations) that the SSPX did, I’d be all over them like white on rice. I’m an equal opportunity critic…are you?

 

[Walking_Home]

Actually WH, you missed this part which I was addressing:

Quote:
despite what you and the other John Paul II popolators would say

Quote:bear06
Originally Posted by palmas85
Modernist theology has not been slain. In fact it is alive and well despite what you and the other John Paul II popolators would say. You see, I happen to remember what John Paul II did. He did some great things. He also did some horrible things. He hurt the faith tremendously and helped it out a little. He seemed willing to accept anything at all as long as it claimed to be Catholic. His ringing endorsement of the neocatechumanal movement comes to mind for instance. And lets not forget his acceptance of the Taize
community.

Anyone for resurrecting the Knights of the Popolators? If people are going to be participating in calumny and slander, we might as well have some fun with it

---

Actually no. Above I include your response to palmas85. In it --you did not denote what you now say you addressed. You made a statement of calumny and slander aimed at palmas85’s post.

 

[Sure]

In all seriousness, have you ever done an in depth study of Veritatis Splendor? It is THE definitive anti-modernist work of the last 200 years or more. It is John Paul II using the power of Aquinas to slay modernist theology.

Modernist theology has not been slain. In fact it is alive and well despite what you and the other John Paul II popolators would say. You see, I happen to remember what John Paul II did. He did some great things. He also did some horrible things. He hurt the faith tremendously and helped it out a little. He seemed willing to accept anything at all as long as it claimed to be Catholic. His ringing endorsement of the neocatechumanal movement comes to mind for instance. And lets not forget his acceptance of the Taize
community.

It is rather telling that when I asked you a direct question about an important document by Pope John Paul II, you didn’t answer me you just decided to call me a silly name like “popolator” (which isn’t even a word). Is this your idea of a meaningful debate?

So I wonder since you didn’t answer…have you read Veritatis Splendor? Or are you criticizing something that you haven’t bothered to examine?

 

[bear06]

---

Actually no. Above I include your response to palmas85. In it --you did not denote what you now say you addressed. You made a statement of calumny and slander aimed at palmas85’s post.

Did I mention Taize? No, I mentioned the Knights of the Popolators. My charge stands.

Anyone for resurrecting the Knights of the Popolators? If people are going to be participating in calumny and slander, we might as well have some fun with it.

You simply chose to skip this part of his post:

despite what you and the other John Paul II popolators would say

So, now that you understood without doubt what I was addressing, there’s no mention of it being wrong?

 

[Walking_Home]

Sorry, I guess I just don’t have the super secret knowledge of those close to the Pope who know what he REALLY thinks. I just go by what the official documents say. If eventually, the official documents are changed, I’ll change my position. However, if the official documents are NOT changed, then I won’t change. See, my position is pretty simple: Follow what the Church teaches, not what rumors you hear. I don’t make excuses for one group or another and I find it, well, totally illogical that you call that “prejudice.”

If some modernist Cardinal pulled the same type of actions (illicit ordinations) that the SSPX did, I’d be all over them like white on rice. I’m an equal opportunity critic…are you?

---

You got that right–you don’t --neither does bear06, or me. But the men who work closely with the Pope would have access to that type of information. So it goes back to you wanting to keep the Pope frozen in time and binding his mind.

 

[bear06]

---

You got that right–you don’t --neither does bear06, or me. But the men who work closely with the Pope would have access to that type of information. So it goes back to you wanting to keep the Pope frozen in time and binding his mind.

OK, this one is getting down right confusing.

People who *do not *bash the SSPX --*do so based on statements made by those who are close to the Pope *and have access to information that you nor I have. Those who indulge in bashing it seems—have kept the Pope (past and present) frozen in time—to where by their own prejudice–bind him in not being able to develope a benevolent view of the SSPX, which is then reflected by statements made by those close to the Pope.

Do we “bash” the SSPX because of statements made those close to the Pope or not. You seem to have two conflicting statements about the mysterious people who are close to the Pope who seem to be influencing all. Can you clarify?

 

[bear06]

---

You got that right–you don’t --neither does bear06, or me. But the men who work closely with the Pope would have access to that type of information. So it goes back to you wanting to keep the Pope frozen in time and binding his mind.

 

[bear06]

you didn’t answer me you just decided to call me a silly name like “popolator” (which isn’t even a word).

And if we’re going to be using silly, slanderous made up words, can we spell them a better way? I like papolator better.

 

[Sure]

---

You got that right–you don’t --neither does bear06, or me. But the men who work closely with the Pope would have access to that type of information. So it goes back to you wanting to keep the Pope frozen in time and binding his mind.

No, it goes to me basing my view on official Church documents and not hearsay. I am not keeping the Pope or his Curia frozen in time. If they amend the previous statements, I will immediately change my position as I have already stated. Will you ever change yours?

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

And if we’re going to be using silly, slanderous made up words, can we spell them a better way? I like papolator better.

**Your insults are anti-Christian. **

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

OK, this one is getting down right confusing.(after reading your posts I do not blame you for being confused with yourself)

Do we “bash” the SSPX because of statements made those close to the Pope or not. You seem to have two conflicting statements about the mysterious people who are close to the Pope who seem to be influencing all. Can you clarify? **(Bash and Bash away like most modernist/liberlist sects. It matters not since the teaching of V2 is clear, crystal clear:

separated Churches …have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation.

…Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation (according to V2, unless of course you disagree?) **

 

[Sure]

ThereCanBeOnly1:
I think you’re getting the threads confused. The participation of separated brethren in the community of salvation is being discussed here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=194884

It’s clear since well before Vatican II that protestant churches participate in salvation insofar as they administer valid sacraments of Baptism an Marriage.

 

[Walking_Home]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walking_Home
Actually no. Above I include your response to palmas85. In it --you did not denote what you now say you addressed. You made a statement of calumny and slander aimed at palmas85’s post.

Did I mention Taize? No, I mentioned the Knights of the Popolators. My charge stands.
quote:
Anyone for resurrecting the Knights of the Popolators? If people are going to be participating in calumny and slander, we might as well have some fun with it.

You simply chose to skip this part of his post:
quote:
Quote:
despite what you and the other John Paul II popolators would say

So, now that you understood without doubt what I was addressing, there’s no mention of it being wrong?

---

Did I say you mentioned Taize–I believe palmas85 did. Your charge of what stands–that those who do not have the same view as you – Sure --etc. and use the term popolator participate in slander and calumny. Well that says a lot about how defend your position–call someone a slanderer, etc.

I did not skip that part of palmas85’s post. It was your response to him --that was lacking in pointing to what you now say you were addressing.

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

Is it not fair to say that those who condemn the modernists and apologize for the SSPX are applying a double standard? I mean really, why not criticize both? Sorry, I just don’t see criticizing both equally as a “prejudicial bias.” I would call it even-handed.**(I think the ‘SSPX this’ and ‘SSPX that’ is ridiculous. They are obviously Catholic and according to the V2 which stated without caution:

separated Churches …have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation.

…Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation (according to the V2)

SureBear you have to admit, it does not matter if you agree with SSPX or not, they and others are not deprived of Salvation.

What is with the modernists/liberalist sects accepting Pagans/Muslims/Cults/Scientologists/Protestants/etc., before the SSPX, who worship the Triune God and are Catholic. In addition according to V2, the SSPX need not reunite with Rome since they are not deprived of Salvation **

 

[Sure]

---

Did I say you mentioned Taize–I believe palmas85 did. Your charge of what stands–that those who do not have the same view as you – Sure --etc. and use the term popolator–participate in slander and calumny. Well that says a lot about how defend your charge–call them slanderers etc.

I did not skip that part of palmas85’s post. It was your response to him --that was lacking in pointing to what you now say you were addressing.

Since you mentioned me in here, I just thought I would clarify that I have not accused anyone of slander or calumny. I have accused people of using “silly names” and I stand by that brave accusation!

 

[Sure]

ThereCanBeOnly1:
What is with the modernists/liberalist sects accepting Pagans/Muslims/Cults/Scientologists/Protestants/etc., before the SSPX, who worship the Triune God and are Catholic. In addition according to V2, the SSPX need not reunite with Rome since they are not deprived of Salvation

They don’t.

According to Vatican II, separated brethren participate in the community of salvation. This was also true waaaay before Vatican II as the Church has accepted valid baptisms and marriages from protestant churches for a very long time. So, the SSPX (if they are separated) participate in the community of salvation as do the protestant churches. DO you deny they have some valid sacraments?

BUT, Vatican II does not say that the members of these separated brethren are “saved” or that this “participation” is sufficient. On the contrary, Vatican II says, “For it is only through Christ’s Catholic Church, which is “the all-embracing means of salvation,” that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation.” I guess maybe you missed that part.

 

[Walking_Home]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walking_Home​

Did I say you mentioned Taize–I believe palmas85 did. Your charge of what stands–that those who do not have the same view as you – Sure --etc. and use the term popolator–participate in slander and calumny. Well that says a lot about how defend your charge–call them slanderers etc.

I did not skip that part of palmas85’s post. It was your response to him --that was lacking in pointing to what you now say you were addressing.

Since you mentioned me in here, I just thought I would clarify that I have not accused anyone of slander or calumny. I have accused people of using “silly names” and I stand by that brave accusation!

---

Sorry if it came out that way–it was not meant to include you in that manner. I included your name–because bear06’s response (where the slander, etc came in) --was aimed at palmas85’s response–to you. If you note my use of you and your to bear06 meant my response was specific to her post.

 

[Sure]

---

Sorry if it came out that way–it was not meant to include you in that manner. I included your name–because bear06’s response (where the slander, etc came in) --was aimed at palmas85’s response–to you. If you note my use of you and your to bear06 meant my response was specific to her post.

Thanks for the apology!

Well, for the record, I don’t believe popolator to be slander or calumny. I just believe that it is a stupid, made-up word that substantially reduces the credibility of those who use it!

 

[Walking_Home]

Well for the record, I don’t believe popolator to be slander or calumny. I just believe that it is a stupid, made-up word that substantially reduces the credibility of those who use it!

---

That is good to know Sure.– As to the rest–to each his own.

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

According to Vatican II, separated brethren participate in the community of salvation. This was also true waaaay before Vatican II as the Church has accepted valid baptisms and marriages from protestant churches for a very long time. So, the SSPX (if they are separated) participate in the community of salvation as do the protestant churches. DO you deny they have some valid sacraments? (Their (SSPX) sacraments are valid of course)

BUT, Vatican II does not say that the members of these separated brethren are “saved” or that this “participation” is sufficient. (You have got to be kidding, right? A person with your intelligence surely does not actually believe this nonsensical jargon? Does it say they are not ‘saved’ or that this ‘participation is not sufficient’? ) On the contrary, Vatican II says, 'For it is only through Christ’s Catholic Church, which is “the all-embracing means of salvation,” that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation." I guess maybe you missed that part.**(Nah I did not miss it, Since V2 also says this: The Universal Church subsists in the Catholic Church. )
Now I know you missed this part **