Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
They really need to read the actual history of the Crusades if they're going to make such decisions. If anyone was violating peace and tolerance, it was the muslims in their illegal occupation of the holy land.
Ask a Traditionalist / Re: Use of religious symbols.
« Last post by St.Justin on Today at 06:40:49 PM »
We do say we venerate the object but that is because it is a Blessed Sacramental but at the same time we really venerate what it represents unless of course the Crucifix contains a relic of the True cross in which case we would be venerating the True Cross.
Ask a Traditionalist / Re: Use of religious symbols.
« Last post by MilesChristi on Today at 06:36:10 PM »
Both are fine descriptions and are different based upon the intent of the user.
Look what happened to Cardinal Ranjith..
I cannot find anything. Could you please tell me what happened to him?

He held the same position as Cardinal Robert Sarah, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship. He was removed for supporting the same thing as Cardinal Robert Sarah.
"Archbishop Ranjith was appointed Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments on 10 December 2005. He has described the liturgical reforms inspired by the Second Vatican Council as "a mixed bag of results." While praising the use of vernacular languages, he also criticized the "quasi total abandonment" of Latin and the "acceptance of all kinds of 'novelties' resulting from a secularizing and humanistic theological and liturgical mindset overtaking the West." He has also lamented the "banalization and obscuring of the mystical and sacred aspects of the liturgy in many areas of the Church in the name of a so-called Konzilsgeist (spirit of the Council)."

Ranjith opposes the reception of Communion in the hand and standing, once saying, "I think it is high time to...abandon the current practice that was not called for by Sacrosanctum Concilium, nor by Fathers, but was only accepted after its illegitimate introduction in some countries."[3] A staunch supporter of the Tridentine Mass, Ranjith once said that bishops who opposed Summorum Pontificum were allowing themselves to be "used as instruments of the devil," accusing them of "disobedience...and even rebellion against the Pope."[4] He once said, "I'm not a fan of the Lefebvrians...but what they sometimes say about the liturgy they say for good reason."[5]"
Ask a Traditionalist / Re: Stress Relievers for Catholics
« Last post by lauermar on Today at 06:33:53 PM »
I find cheese and wine works quite well.

 :cheesehead: :cheeseheadbeer:   :beer:

My Asian doctor whose family was Catholic and has since turned to new age practices, gave me his mantra and tried to get me to meditate to relieve stress.

As soon as he was out of the room, I meditated on BVM and said the Memorare repeatedly.
General Catholic Discussion / Re: Fatima is demonic
« Last post by Graham on Today at 06:32:52 PM »
35.msg435212#msg435212 date=1521416830]
Take your analogy:  Instead of you getting in the car with your husband,  a stranger gets in the car with your husband and says, "I've spoken to you wife.  She says the tunnel is going to collapse. She can call the engineers and get it fixed, but first she wants you to drive where I tell you and when.  If you don't do this, the tunnel will collapse, many people will die and you are going to suffer." 

Do you think your husband will feel a bit threatened by this?  He should, because de facto he is being threatened and the victim of extortion.

No, he is not "de facto" being threatened: that a threat exists is not a logical deduction, since it is logically possible that this stranger is telling the truth, however improbable that is made  by the contrived nature of the scenario.

But rather than argue about the implications of an idiot's analogy, I'll do better to just point out what an absurdly false one it is:

Firstly, simply driving somewhere has no conceivable causal connection with stopping the tunnel from collapsing; on the other hand, consecrating Russia to the Immaculate Heart does have such a causal connection to the events prophesied by the apparition, namely, the otherwise inevitable consequences of the spreading of the "errors of Russia" can be averted, by God's merciful grace. Of course this connection doesn't exist if one is a trolling apostate.

Secondly, while the person in your analogy may be trying to make you drive to a place of his choosing in order to do you harm, consecrating Russia to Our Lady would be an intrinsically good act - not only is there nothing evil in doing it, but it is laudable and desirable in itself, and Satan asking it to be done would be like Satan asking you to make a good confession or pray a Rosary.

Finally, the "stranger" does not appear with the authority of the Queen of Heaven. If the stranger appeared as a policeman, complete with badge number which, when contacting his station, checked out, one might be inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt, just like one does in the case of a miracle witnessed by tens of thousands of the faithful and confirmed by the Church. But, of course, in the world of a trolling apostate, God would in allow a false Mary to deceive the greater multitude of Catholics, not for a lack of faith, hope or charity, but for the grievous error of failing to recognise an apparent "threat" to the Papacy in the apparition's message whose existence is entirely a matter of subjective impression not objectively contained in its words.

35.msg435212#msg435212 date=1521416830]
It's not an impression, that's what the words convey.  Nobody wants to accept that simple fact because they've been trained to presuppose that it actually is the BVM.

Yes, it is merely an impression. Nowhere is it stated that the evil consequences of not carrying out the consecration will be caused by the one warning of them. Therein lies the incontestable fact that your opinion of the words being a "threat" does not follow logically from the text itself.

Finally, even if it were a threat, it would be entirely within the rights of the Queen of Heaven to make it. The Pope has authority on Earth to teach and lead the Church, but he is not its head, he is not its king, and he is not above and he is not above the rights of the Mother of God and Queen of Heaven to bring chastisement upon him and upon us for our failures of faith, through her supplications to her Son, in order that greater good might come. And the message of Fatima, its central call, is for us to do or by wway of trial and tribulation to be brought to what is good and holy - it is absolutely impossible that the origin of this should be "demonic", but the origin of your nonsense is absolutely demonic.

You have no argument.

/end thread
General Catholic Discussion / Re: Fatima is demonic
« Last post by Kirin on Today at 06:31:47 PM »
Why just Fatima? In all truth none of the Marian apparitions are known for having been accurate in their predictions.
They have a habit of either predicting something that has already happened (Potato blight with La Salette), is likely to happen (Russian Revolution with Fatima) or to support recent Dogmatic movements (Lourdes with the Immaculate Conception).

I'm still not quite sure why the Mother of God seems to favour pursuing schoolgirls in fields post-Guadalupe with only the occasional exceptions (Akita, Catherine Laboure) but I suppose mystery being the idea and whatnot perhaps it fits.
General Catholic Discussion / Re: Fatima is demonic
« Last post by Arvinger on Today at 06:22:26 PM »
To conclude:

Can God command something to a Pope at a specific point in time? Of course, yes.
Can God warn the Pope that He will punish him and the world in case of refusing to heed a command? Yes.
Can God choose means He will employ to deliver that command? Yes.
Can God hold the Pope accountable for disobediance to that command and other sins? Yes.
Can God demand from the Pope that he uses his power is a specific way in a specific point in time? Yes.
Can God punish the world and the Pope for their sins and disobediance physically and/or spiritually, in this world? Yes.

To deny any of that is to deny God's sovereignty and place the Pope above God in Church's hierarchy. But to make Gerard's argument about alleged "usurpation of Papal power" you have to deny the above.

I'm vain.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10