- Welcome to Suscipe Domine Traditional Catholic Forum.
Recent posts
#1
Ask a Traditionalist / Re: Engaging with the Eastern ...
Last post by LausTibiChriste - Today at 05:50:12 PMQuote from: Michael Wilson on Today at 05:08:28 PMThen he states (in support of the foregoing) that "we are allowed to venerate a number of post schism Orthodox saints": Yes, this is true, but only since Vatican II;
Wrong again.
Sheptytsky petitioned Rome in the early 20th century (I think 1905 but could be mistaken) to have all Orthodox saints included on their calendar. This was granted by the Vatican with some exceptions (St Mark of Ephesus being one of them).
On top of that, Pius XII approved the liturgical calendar for Russian Catholics that included numerous post-schism saints, including St Sergius of Radonezh (still trying to get my hands on one).
It's no wonder the Orthodox have no interest in swimming the river when you have people who wax lyrical about the papacy but also think it's been vacant for 60 years, then start making stuff up about the praxis of those Easterns who've decided to stay loyal to Rome.
It's also hardly surprising as to why so many Eastern Catholics feel abused and abandoned by Romans and would love to return home, as it were.
Latins should get their own shitty house in order first and foremost.
#2
General Catholic Discussion / Re: Article on Rise of Conserv...
Last post by Michael Wilson - Today at 05:22:52 PMVery good article; and I saw a headline from Cardinal Burke stating that the efforts to squash the TLM have backfired. I just haven't had the time to look it up and read it.
#3
Ask a Traditionalist / Re: Engaging with the Eastern ...
Last post by Michael Wilson - Today at 05:08:28 PMBonaventure,
I was just listening to the video that you posted; and while I tend to agree that being a schismatic in the formal sense of the word involves an act of the will; what that gentleman was describing viz: "an Orthodox person who accepted the Pope as the head of the Church"; was probably not a schismatic; I would have to disagree. To accept the Pope as head of the Church in the Orthodox sense, is to empty the office of its essence. Secondly he states that if a person is a member of an Orthodox Church, is he a schismatic? He responds: "Probably not"; there is no way of knowing this, since it involves the interior disposition of the soul, known only to God. Then he states (in support of the foregoing) that "we are allowed to venerate a number of post schism Orthodox saints": Yes, this is true, but only since Vatican II; while the Church has never said that everyone who does not die as an "actual" member of the Church will go to Hell; neither does she ever encourage people to have the idea that its O.K. To die outside the Church; in fact the contrary is the case (EENS). He admits that "before 1964 things were simpler"; right, both sides agree that there were two different religions and one was false and the other true; only one could be right.
The gentleman even goes on to state that an "Orthodox that does not hate the Church, has as much chance to save his soul and a Catholic does". So why try to convert the Orthodox to the true faith? The response from the Vatican since the Council is: "We don't try to convert them; in fact we prohibit any attempt to convert them (Treaty of Balamand). He goes on to practically say that both sides are equally guilty of the current state of affairs; which the Popes in the Past have condemned such statements, such as Pius XI in Mortalium Animus.
This gentleman is in good faith, but he has imbibed the "indiferentist" and "latitudinarian" spirit which the Council and the Conciliar Church are filled with and no longer has a firm grasp on the uniqueness of the Catholic Church as the sole custodian of truth and salvation.
I was just listening to the video that you posted; and while I tend to agree that being a schismatic in the formal sense of the word involves an act of the will; what that gentleman was describing viz: "an Orthodox person who accepted the Pope as the head of the Church"; was probably not a schismatic; I would have to disagree. To accept the Pope as head of the Church in the Orthodox sense, is to empty the office of its essence. Secondly he states that if a person is a member of an Orthodox Church, is he a schismatic? He responds: "Probably not"; there is no way of knowing this, since it involves the interior disposition of the soul, known only to God. Then he states (in support of the foregoing) that "we are allowed to venerate a number of post schism Orthodox saints": Yes, this is true, but only since Vatican II; while the Church has never said that everyone who does not die as an "actual" member of the Church will go to Hell; neither does she ever encourage people to have the idea that its O.K. To die outside the Church; in fact the contrary is the case (EENS). He admits that "before 1964 things were simpler"; right, both sides agree that there were two different religions and one was false and the other true; only one could be right.
The gentleman even goes on to state that an "Orthodox that does not hate the Church, has as much chance to save his soul and a Catholic does". So why try to convert the Orthodox to the true faith? The response from the Vatican since the Council is: "We don't try to convert them; in fact we prohibit any attempt to convert them (Treaty of Balamand). He goes on to practically say that both sides are equally guilty of the current state of affairs; which the Popes in the Past have condemned such statements, such as Pius XI in Mortalium Animus.
This gentleman is in good faith, but he has imbibed the "indiferentist" and "latitudinarian" spirit which the Council and the Conciliar Church are filled with and no longer has a firm grasp on the uniqueness of the Catholic Church as the sole custodian of truth and salvation.
#4
General Catholic Discussion / Re: Russell Brand is getting B...
Last post by maryslittlegarden - Today at 03:24:23 PMNever underestimate the Rosary
#5
General Catholic Discussion / Re: Russell Brand is getting B...
Last post by LausTibiChriste - Today at 01:05:06 PMQuote from: drummerboy on Today at 12:54:02 PMQuote from: TradGranny on Today at 11:36:14 AMNot Catholic but Protestant.
I thought a river baptism was rather un-Catholic myself. But he prays the Rosary? An odd blend he's got going on, hopefully he reaches the correct destination eventually
He was playing with tarot cards recently too. He's a lost soul looking for answers. Hopefully he answers the call of grace, but he's far from a Catholic convert at this point
#6
General Catholic Discussion / Re: Article on Rise of Conserv...
Last post by drummerboy - Today at 12:55:02 PMGotta get the anti-Semite accusation in there somewhere!
#7
General Catholic Discussion / Re: Russell Brand is getting B...
Last post by drummerboy - Today at 12:54:02 PMQuote from: TradGranny on Today at 11:36:14 AMNot Catholic but Protestant.
I thought a river baptism was rather un-Catholic myself. But he prays the Rosary? An odd blend he's got going on, hopefully he reaches the correct destination eventually
#8
General News and Discussion / More Jewish Terror in the US
Last post by james03 - Today at 11:46:59 AMIt's out in the open. They don't try to hide it:
Reading St. Paul is now a hate crime:
This will easily pass the Senate with major support from Demoncrats and Republicucks. Fortunately there is no way this gets by the Supreme Court.
But once they get the Supreme Court, this will eventually become law and the jewish Terror State will emerge on steroids.
QuoteThe House of Representatives passed the "Antisemitism Awareness Act" (H.R. 6090) on Wednesday, which has sparked significant debate over the interpretation of religious texts and the definition of hate speech. ...
The bill defines antisemitism broadly, incorporating definitions provided by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), including traditional antisemitic actions and accusations such as those against the state of Israel. ...
3. Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
4. Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
5. Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
6. Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations. ...
9. Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
Reading St. Paul is now a hate crime:
Quote from: 1Thess 214 For you, brethren, are become followers of the churches of God which are in Judea, in Christ Jesus: for you also have suffered the same things from your own countrymen, even as they have from the Jews, 15 Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and the prophets, and have persecuted us, and please not God, and are adversaries to all men;
16 Prohibiting us to speak to the Gentiles, that they may be saved, to fill up their sins always: for the wrath of God is come upon them to the end.
This will easily pass the Senate with major support from Demoncrats and Republicucks. Fortunately there is no way this gets by the Supreme Court.
But once they get the Supreme Court, this will eventually become law and the jewish Terror State will emerge on steroids.
#9
General Catholic Discussion / Re: Russell Brand is getting B...
Last post by TradGranny - Today at 11:36:14 AMNot Catholic but Protestant.
#10
General News and Discussion / Re: Simping for Eva
Last post by LausTibiChriste - Today at 11:26:55 AMQuote from: Bonaventure on Today at 09:16:05 AMQuote from: james03 on Today at 08:31:34 AMThe proper reply:
Yeah, I do. My b@lls are so big I have to walk funny.
As a former Marine Corps combat vet once told me, so much ... I could shampoo a buffalo.
Putting that one in the rolodex. Can't believe this is my first time hearing it.