Recent posts

#1

General Catholic Discussion / Re: Message to Vigano and Burk...

Last post by Kathleen - Today at 01:44:47 PM

Call an imperfect Council, confirm that Bergoglio is a manifest heretic, and end this scandal.

Absolutely.

And while those that are never happy with anything less than precisely what they want are being obnoxious about it -- I'm very glad to see a bunch of the mainstream Catholic trad laity's open letter (on Rorate and Life Site) asking for precisely this.

I'm sick up to my eyebrows of the sneering that goes on. It doesn't help. At all.

It marks a turning point where mainstream voices are finally calling for a council.

It is not up to us as laity to determine the ruling on this mountain of misery.

So in reality it doesn't much matter if we're entirely agreed on WHY.

Our duty is to PUSH the princes to do their duty and call a council.

It should be encouraged.

And the snide crud from some corners need to knock it off.

#2

General News and Discussion / Re: Russia Invades Ukraine

Last post by james03 - Today at 12:35:09 PM

That's extremely disturbing.

We just sent them another $60 Billion.

#3

General News and Discussion / Re: Russia Invades Ukraine

Last post by james03 - Today at 12:33:55 PM

Kind of interesting.  The Russians are marking their vehicles with a ruin from ancient Russia.  The ancient Russians used this ruin when they went to war against the ancient Khazars, also known as the Ashkanazi.

Might be a coincidence, or they might be announcing who they are going to smite with a mighty smiting.

https://halturnerradioshow.com/index.php/news-selections/world-news/russia-paints-new-military-insignia-on-invading-force-same-symbol-used-in-past-wars-against-khazaria

#4

General News and Discussion / Re: Russia Invades Ukraine

Last post by Deirdre - Today at 12:28:07 PM

That's extremely disturbing.

#5

General News and Discussion / Re: Russia Invades Ukraine

Last post by james03 - Today at 12:21:08 PM

Ukrainian woman films her boyfriend being kidnapped to be sent to the death front.  The kidnappers beat the crap out of her with clubs.



https://twitter.com/MyLordBebo/status/1790081329981268159

#6

General Catholic Discussion / Re: Message to Vigano and Burk...

Last post by KreKre - Today at 12:20:29 PM

The idea that Vatican II isn't binding is a Trad myth. It absolutely is binding.

Can you tell me one dogma of Vatican II? No, because it was a pastoral council. So how could it possibly be binding?

It was all a big mistake. Anything that contradicts tradition is clearly a mistake. Otherwise, one has to accept the absurd idea that something that was right and true for centuries suddenly became wrong and false.

Popes and bishops are humans like all of us, they make errors all the time. They are as susceptible to sin as any other man. The infallibility of the pope and the Church applies only to dogma, because this is not something that pope has made up, but something that God reveals to mankind. Consequently, the authority of the pope is not absolute. For example, a pope might try to command me to worship pagan gods (that Mama-Pikachu idol, or whatever it is called), but he simply does not have that authority.

Both the neoconservatives and (some) sedevacantists hold this false idea that the authority of the pope is absolute. The former blindly obey and use chainsaws to destroy marble altars and replace them with Lutheran tables, the latter say: "since it's obviously wrong, it can't be by the true pope." The moderate position is the one by the SSPX, who simply and respectfully disobey everything that contradicts or harms the faith.

The last time papal infallibility was invoked was on November 1, 1950, quite a few years before Vatican II, when pope Pius XII defined the dogma of the Assumption of Our Lady into Heaven. There is not a single Catholic in the world who rejects the Assumption, because if he were to reject it, he would not be a Catholic. Notice also, how this dogma was, even before being defined as dogma, deep in the hearts and minds of the faithful, through tradition: for example, in the Glorious Mysteries of the Rosary. It wasn't something a pope suddenly came up with, that contradicted previous teachings.

Contrast this to the Vatican II, where papal infallibility was never invoked, and no new dogma was defined, and a large number of novelties are contradicting the tradition.

#7

Arts and Leisure / Re: My book- Defending Dixie's...

Last post by bilbobaggins - Today at 11:09:15 AM

90 pages full of original sources (including ALL of the secession documents quoted at length -Only four mention slavery), speeches, newspaper articles, etc, describing the causes of secession are found in Defending Dixie's Land!

Further, it takes an 1860 perspective (of a Union rather then post civil war "nation")on the issue of slavery, showing that when it was an issue, it was not the preservation of it (already legally protected) but the protection of states' rights from a centralized federal government expansion past its imitations that ultimately resulted in the issue we have today.

[only]

#8

General Catholic Discussion / Re: Message to Vigano and Burk...

Last post by james03 - Today at 10:36:38 AM

The documents very clearly did change Catholic moral and doctrinal teaching (otherwise we wouldn't be talking about it), and the documents themselves state very clearly that they are magisterial, doctrinal, and binding (sic). The Code of Canon Law was revised to reflect Vatican II. The Catechism was changed to reflect Vatican II - the Catechism states that Muslims, Jews, and Hindus worship the same God as Catholics.

You are shifting goal posts.  The question on the table was how was it that the bishops went along with it.  Various posters have given reasons for that.  It is multi-faceted.  The question wasn't: "Is Vatican II harmless?".  Clearly it is not.  It's a horror show that needs to be put on the Index.

The idea that Vatican II isn't binding is a Trad myth. It absolutely is binding. Pope Benedict XVI told the SSPX that the only way they could be reconciled is if they accepted Vatican II, and the Vatican has issued at least 4 statements saying that one has to accept Vatican II to be in communion with Rome.

It's also a ridiculous myth -

The statement that Vat. II isn't binding is not a myth, and certainly not ridiculous.  It is grounded in truth:

"Taking conciliar custom into consideration and also the pastoral purpose of the present Council, the sacred Council defines as binding on the Church only those things in matters of faith and morals which it shall openly declare to be binding. The rest of the things which the sacred Council sets forth, inasmuch as they are the teaching of the Church's supreme magisterium, ought to be accepted and embraced by each and every one of Christ's faithful according to the mind of the sacred Council. The mind of the Council becomes known either from the matter treated or from its manner of speaking, in accordance with the norms of theological interpretation."

#9

General Catholic Discussion / Re: Message to Vigano and Burk...

Last post by Aethel - Today at 09:35:45 AM

So you are some bishop from some podunk diocese and you attend.  You are told this is merely a "pastoral" council.  When question arise about whether the council is "binding", you get the announcement that essentially nothing in the conciliar documents is binding.  And when it comes to "reform" of the Mass, you get all sorts of reassuring words.  However as well documented, there were ambiguous time bombs that soon after the council detonated.

I don't think that's what happened. It was clearly a Liberal council that sought to overturn perceived outdated doctrine, praxis, and morality from its very beginning; these ambiguous sentiments of "pastoral" or "the council didn't define new dogmas" is gaslighting doublespeak as a bone to the dog so the dog stops yapping. Notice how the terms "pastoral" or "didn't define new dogmas" is ambiguous, not once has Pope Paul VI stated that Vatican II didn't change anything.

It's no different than Catholic Neocons gaslighting the Catholics in the 90s that Pope John Paul II didn't technically touch the Church's teaching on the death penalty, and we were allowed to believe in Thomistic Natural Theology. Yet here we are, now under Pope Francis the death penalty is immoral, which I guess means that God is a sinful being for all the executions he gave in the Old Testament.

The documents very clearly did change Catholic moral and doctrinal teaching (otherwise we wouldn't be talking about it), and the documents themselves state very clearly that they are magisterial, doctrinal, and binding. The Code of Canon Law was revised to reflect Vatican II. The Catechism was changed to reflect Vatican II - the Catechism states that Muslims, Jews, and Hindus worship the same God as Catholics.

Almost all of the previous recent Papal teaching was disposed of. No Catholic theologian in Rome cites Pope Pius X, Pope Leo XIII, Pope Pius XI, or Pope Pius IX. Almost all of Francis's encyclicals invoke Vatican II and the subsequent Popes, or himself.
Seldolmly are Church Fathers cited, and if they are, it's non-contextual and divorced from what they believed in. Extremely rare are Church Fathers post the 1500s.

The idea that Vatican II isn't binding is a Trad myth. It absolutely is binding. Pope Benedict XVI told the SSPX that the only way they could be reconciled is if they accepted Vatican II, and the Vatican has issued at least 4 statements saying that one has to accept Vatican II to be in communion with Rome.

It's also a ridiculous myth - why would Rome spend ridiculous amounts of money organizing an Ecumenical Council which gathered every Bishop from every corner of the world into Italy to not change anything or not bind anybody to anything?

#10

The History Subforum / Re: Discover the Truth of Medi...

Last post by Heinrich - Today at 08:26:27 AM

Why do you need support if the book is done?