Would I be welcome here.... IF?

  • Thread starter Thread starter myrna
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
swampfox:
Myrna

Sure wish you’d be honest with yourself and admit that you are no longer a Catholic in union with the One True Church–The fact is you are a reformationist, in other words, a Protestant. That doesn’t mean you are not welcome here.

PS You’re wrong about JPII–Any man whose faith and love and yes Catholicism virtually singlehandedly brought down communism and the Soviet Empire miraculously without a shot is filled with the Holy Spirit and is truly Christ’s representative here on Earth. I’m sure he prays for you to return too.
Click to expand...
Actually the truth is the reformist’s have taken the same actions that the Vatican II or novus ordo have done. They changed the Mass in the same way that the novus ordo has, you can now take a Luthern praybook and follow along very well in the novus ordo service.
The Lord’s prayer now resembles the Protestant version, as well as many of their hymns and prayers.
The practices are now similiar.
The problem is as some poster stated here, many people are so young they do not really know what the Mass, practices, and teachings were prior to Vatican II. If you were sincere you might want to do some research to see for yourself.

Someone even posted the Mass did not change, but if you take an old prayer book, maybe from your parents or grandparents, and try to follow it along with the novus ordo, you would find it impossible. However, as I stated you would follow just fine with the reformist changes.

You see the reformist you speak of are the ones that made the changes. The sedevacantist made absolutely no change in Roman Catholic church, if you can find just one, I will apologize.

You might say, well you don’t believe in the pope, but you would have define that: We believe in the office, the authority, the Vicar of Christ, the visible head of the Church. We do not believe that even a pope can change the doctrines of the Church.

Indifferentism is still a hersey.

Good is good even if the entire world refraims from it, and bad is still bad even if the entire world embraces it, in the eyes of God.
 
Wordplay and semantics are often used by fanatics to hide or obscure the truth, even from themselves. Rejecting the Pope is not just a little bit protestant. Creating your own “Vicar” or king has been tried before. The Church will survive internal dissenters as well as fringe breakaway groups that claim to be superorthodox. The behaviour of each heretical group is often rooted in hubris and a belief of being holier than the Pope. That’s hardly a truly Catholic belief or attitude.

In your mind, the Church created by Christ, has left you when in reality you have left the Church.
 
40.png
myrna:
We believe we are living in the Great Apostasy fortold to us in the Bible, II Thessalonians Chapter 2, verse 3; “Let no one deceive you in any way, for the day of the Lord will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and is exalted above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, so that he sits in the temple of God and gives himself out as if he were God.”
Click to expand...
Myrna, Myrna, Myrna,
Explain how there is one iota of difference between your “exegesis” and that promoted by the most rabid anti-Catholic? Same technique => same nutty result.
heed the Fatima message which was so very important for our time. The Third Secret was to be revealed in 1960 but it was surpressed and changed because the enemy was already in power.
Click to expand...
Alert the National Enquirer! Global Conspiracy!!
Tin Foil Alert! 😛

At least have the decency to try and support your wild charges rather than emply a drive-by shooting technique.
We believe we are close, but how close no one really knows to the Second Coming of Christ.
Click to expand...
OMG!!! We are closer to the Second Coming now than we were just 5 minutes ago!!! The Sedevacantists must be RIGHT!

Sheesh. :rolleyes:
 
Myrna, first of all, let me say that I admire you for having the patience to answer everyones’ questions on this forum. I am a first time poster on this site and have been reading this thread. I feel that I am getting to know you already. I respect your views but I have some questions/comments that I would like answered:
  1. Who in your sect (or group) would be the one to say, “okay, this is the right Pope, so we can all join back in again?”
  2. Modernists groups such as “Catholics for a Free Choice.” don’t recognize the Pope because he does not conform to their social beliefs. Your group does not recognize the Pope becsuse he recognizes VAT. II. Although you have different reasons, isn’t the end result the same - rejection of the Pope because of individual interpretation?
  3. Do you not think that most of the problems with Vat. II is not Vat. II itself but many distorted interpretations by some Bishops, Priests, and lay people?
  4. Do you think the new Catechism is valad?
Sorry to drill you with so many questions but I am truly interested in your response. And please believe me, I am not asking any of these questions in malice. Thanks for your answers Myrna.
 
40.png
choicenctr:
Myrna, first of all, let me say that I admire you for having the patience to answer everyones’ questions on this forum. I am a first time poster on this site and have been reading this thread. I feel that I am getting to know you already. I respect your views but I have some questions/comments that I would like answered:
  1. Who in your sect (or group) would be the one to say, “okay, this is the right Pope, so we can all join back in again?”
  2. Modernists groups such as “Catholics for a Free Choice.” don’t recognize the Pope because he does not conform to their social beliefs. Your group does not recognize the Pope becsuse he recognizes VAT. II. Although you have different reasons, isn’t the end result the same - rejection of the Pope because of individual interpretation?
  3. Do you not think that most of the problems with Vat. II is not Vat. II itself but many distorted interpretations by some Bishops, Priests, and lay people?
  4. Do you think the new Catechism is valad?
Sorry to drill you with so many questions but I am truly interested in your response. And please believe me, I am not asking any of these questions in malice. Thanks for your answers Myrna.
Click to expand...
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=17470#post17470
 
Myrna, thank you for your responses to my questions. I think I understand where you are coming from in your viewpoint. The Church has had various things happen to it over its history that has called the “tearing away” as you said, of different parts (sects) of it, right? You feel that eventually, things will reset and we will come back together. I think that is what you are saying. I still have a couple of questions. You didn’t really respond to my question when I asked who will be the one to determine when the above has happened. Will it be by some group consensus (I don’t mean to be smart) or will it be by an appointed leadership group? How will you know? Also, I’m sure you would agree that the Church has been developing since its inception guided by the Holy Spirit. When you mention change, it’s as thought you feel there should be no change. I truly believe that we could sit down and go through Vat. II documents and find no instance that changes Apostolic Tradition nor the Gospel. I again state that I feel people object to some of the distorted practices that have developed than the document itself. The Pope has been trying to reign everyone back in for a few years now. Remember, most of this corruption we see has been in the United States. One more thing, I didn’t mean to say that your group does not believe in the Papacy, I meant that you don’t recognize the current Pope or any future Pope that supports Vat. II. Finally, with the greatest respect for your determination in supporting your beliefs, I still say, in the end, your group is not different from the modernist groups in that you reject the Pope based on individual interpretation. I pray for all of us to come to the truth through the guidance of the Holy Spirit and the Church. Thanks, choicenctr.
 
Hi Myrna,

I just want to ask you one thing. What in your view is wrong with the mass as it is today?

Now don’t tell me to go and compare things here and there. Just honestly tell us. What is wrong with the mass.

Thanks and God bless you,
J.C.
 
To choice, sorry I guess I assumed that you would understand if Vatican II abjured its error and came back to the True church that would be all it would take. I don’t think it would take a particular person to tell us, I believe those who love the truth will just KNOW. The Holy Ghost works that way, He Inspires. I have thought often if there was a true Pope and my Bishop was too proud to accept this, I would have to leave C.M…R.I. I am not saying that my Bishop would not see the light, but I have seen too much ambition even in the Traditional camps and even here I do Watch and Pray. Even as a child I always prayed for the Truth, to know the truth and love the truth, I have also prayed to be united the Christ’s church at the moment of my death. I pray too that if their is a True pope in the world I would be united to him always.

As far as development of doctrine is concerned, I do understand that, but one can not change the concept of the teaching and call it development.

Someone wanted to know what is wrong with the Mass, and because I am leaving for a short vacation, (a few days) I can not go into detail till I return but in short it is similiar to a Protestant service, and as a Catholic I desire to remain one.

Ah yes the Diache, one good quote from it is … "4:13 thou shalt not abandon the commandments of the Lord, but shalt guard that which thou hast received, neither adding thereto nor taking therefrom;
 
You are certainly welcomed here (after all I am tolerated!). What good would debate be if we all agreed? But sInce you said you have a thick skin…

I just spent a great deal of time reading through this thread, and I am sorry, I just don’t get it. If our Lord said or did something you disagreed with, does that mean He is not longer recognized as the Son of God? Help me understand…by what authority do you reject 2000 years of carefully studied and developed Church Doctrine? And exactly how is His Holiness JPII not the Heir of St. Peter when a direct succession can be easily traced? Are you suggesting that somehow after JPI’s death that the College did not have the authority to elect a new Pope?

Yes the mass has changed in the U.S and the world in a most disturbing way. But that is not coming from Rome, it is coming from a lack of Faith on the part of Catholics that have decided it is OK to reinterpret the Catholic Faith and re-create it in their own selfish image. If anything, the Holy Father has fought this trend bravely and relentlessly.

Its sad to see someone so eloquent arguing (and dare I say recruiting) for such an obvious heresy. Examine your conscience! Remember that the prince of darkness conquers first through division and accusation and is always warm and inviting.
 
I was just wondering, what is in the new mass, that
would cause a traditionalist to question whether any
trans-substantiation takes place during the mass?

Jeff
 
Smack Daddy, thanks for the articles, they were very enlightening.
 
Myrna, you will probably not see this until you get back. My point about who would be the one to determine when everything is okay to reunite with other Catholics is, even within your group their are different beliefs. I think there are about four other people that Claim to be the Pope (None of them by the way, have received this through Apolistic succession). Someone would have to be the one to call the shots on when everything is okay again. If, as you say, that you are Catholic and you believe in the Papacy, then you would look for leadership in that designated person. Otherwise, you are no different from our protestant brothers in just waiting for private interpretation and have no need for the Universal Church. You say that your church services are much like a protestant service. Doesn’t that make you think? Anyway, as I have said before, I do respect your beliefs but I do believe that you and your group are in error.
 
Hello! I was referred here by Myrna since she is going away for a while. I have looked over all of the messages and have decided what answer needs to be given first, to build upon.

But first, to start off, I do not believe JP2 is a true pope because of his heresy. The term “sede vacante” is a Latin term from canon law that can apply to any seat of any bishop. It does not pertain just to the Roman diocese. Other related terms in canon law are "sede plena" and “sede impedita” (the “see is filled” and the “see is impeded”, respectively). As you know, those who believe the see if filled with a true pope are not called “sedeplenists”.

The term “sedevacantist” was invented in the early 1970’s for the sake of convenience in referring to those who claim that the temporary status of the Roman see is vacant. I just consider myself “Catholic” who recognizes a temporary fact other might not recognize yet. These so-called “sedevacantists” don’t have a following and are not a sect. Nor is there really an ISM to go along with this IST any more than there is an ISM to go along with “motorist” or “pianist”.

Finally, what I really think people need to focus on first is the following related quotes, and build up from there:

St. James (2:10): “whosoever shall keep the whole law, but offend in one point, is become guilty of all.”

St. Thomas Aquinas: “To reject but one article of faith taught by the Church is enough to destroy faith as one mortal sin is enough to destroy charity…”

Baltimore Catechism: “A person who denies even one article of our faith could not be a Catholic; for truth is one and we must accept it whole and entire or not at all.”

St. Francis de Sales: “Now when [the Pope] is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church must either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See.”

Catholic Encyclopedia: “a heretical pope has ceased to be a member of the Church, and cannot, therefore, be its head.”

[For added interest, go to this link to see a coin made upon the death of the pope in 1823. Death, resignation or insanity can likewise produce a vacant see besides heresy. http://www.numisinvest.it/Pagine%20foto/doppiogiulio1823%20D.jpg”]http://www.numisinvest.it/Pagine foto/doppiogiulio1823 D.jpg]
 
Smack Daddy, that article is also on catholic.com (sponsors of this forum!) at:

catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0003fea1.asp

as well as Karl’s link to his writing on this subject.

The problem sedevacantists have is they can’t infallibly prove their point-of-view, it would have taken a majority of Bishops to declare that Pope Paul VI (at that time) was excommunicated (or something to that effect). They merely declare that he excommunicated himself and “prove” it with other “observations” (tautology).

The true question is: who (singular or group) has the *authority * to declare the Pope excommunicated (or the chair vacant)?

One part of the answer (at least): not them.

Otherwise, Myrna, welcome to the forum, keep bringing it on! 👍

-JohnDeP.
 
40.png
JLC:
But first, to start off, I do not believe JP2 is a true pope because of his heresy…

St. James (2:10): “whosoever shall keep the whole law, but offend in one point, is become guilty of all.”

St. Thomas Aquinas: “To reject but one article of faith taught by the Church is enough to destroy faith as one mortal sin is enough to destroy charity…”

Baltimore Catechism: “A person who denies even one article of our faith could not be a Catholic; for truth is one and we must accept it whole and entire or not at all.”

St. Francis de Sales: “Now when [the Pope] is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church must either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See.”

Catholic Encyclopedia: “a heretical pope has ceased to be a member of the Church, and cannot, therefore, be its head.”
Click to expand...
So you are admiting to being a heretic then? Once again, accusations and divisiveness are the key tools of Satan. Still no clear words on exactly what JPII has done wrong, typical from what I’ve seen of this thread.
 
40.png
tcaseyrochester:
So you are admiting to being a heretic then? Once again, accusations and divisiveness are the key tools of Satan. Still no clear words on exactly what JPII has done wrong, typical from what I’ve seen of this thread.
Click to expand...
No, tcasey. My message says what it says. People have to realize that in accord with Catholic teaching, a pope can become a heretic, like anyone else can, and cease to be a pope. It is not a Protestant concept. Papal Infallibility protects a pope from accidentally erring. It does not prevent him from wilfully losing the Faith as a private individual. And if he becomes a heretic as a private individual and proceeds to deal with the official magisterium, he is no longer protected and his errors can manifest themselves. Once they manifest themselves, we can see that the man is not a true pope, otherwise the Holy Ghost would have protected him.
  1. People must realize that it is possible.
  2. People must realize that we can make that moral judgment that it has occurred.
  3. What JP2 might have done for this to apply to him.
Let us not jump the gun. Does anyone here say that such a thing is NOT possible?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top