Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
21
Quote
What are you talking about?
The anti-cop protests.  The methods of the protestors you describe work.  Is it 100% effective in every instance?  I hope you don't need that explained to you.

The same holds true for the pro-life protests.  They are working.

I am talking about an actual singular demonstration in my city that I witnessed. I don't know what you think it was, but it was around 10 people making some noise downtown on Saturday. Don't conflate all protests.

You can pick any pattern you want out of the noise if you do that.
22
Quote
What are you talking about?
The anti-cop protests.  The methods of the protestors you describe work.  Is it 100% effective in every instance?  I hope you don't need that explained to you.

The same holds true for the pro-life protests.  They are working.
23
Ask a Traditionalist / Re: Treasury of Merit
« Last post by james03 on Today at 07:52:55 PM »
And for completeness, you are brought to repentance through Grace, which leads you to the confessional.  In the confessional you have to have a firm resolve to avoid the sin in the future.
24
Quote
One wonders what outcomes they were looking for...even had the government people been in the building, they wouldn't be the right government people, and even had they wanted to do something, our police do not have the issues that were being protested, so there were no reforms possible.
  They were quite specific in the outcomes they wanted: no cash bail, reduced sentencing, getting criminal friendly DA's elected, and cutting police budgets.  Their protests worked.  They obtained their goals.

What are you talking about?  None of those things happened in this county/city either, so even if they were goals of the protests they didn't work. But they were not the goals of the protest, so curb your imagination a bit. Making noise that nobody relevant can hear does not accomplish anything. I and others like me heard it.


25
Coffee and Donuts / Re: Anybody here from Michigan?
« Last post by Melkor on Today at 07:51:07 PM »
Personality type?
I am not a pleasant person to be around.

Haha welcome! I'm sure we'll get along.  :cheeseheadbeer:
26
Ask a Traditionalist / Re: Treasury of Merit
« Last post by james03 on Today at 07:49:37 PM »
Quote
If I were a member of the Catholic Church, how can I receive an indulgence from the treasury of merit to remit a grave mortal sin? What are the practical steps? Does the priest offer this for me or do I have to ask? I do know there are jubilee periods where everyone gets it.

The person is confused.  You can't "remit a grave mortal sin" by "the treasury of merit".  And I don't know what "an indulgence from the treasury of merit" even means.

The mortal sin is forgiven in the confessional.  Reducing the punishment due to the sin which occurs in purgatory can be reduced or eliminated by performing the works prescribed in an indulgence.

I'm pretty sure that merit obtained via good works also reduces the suffering in purgatory, but someone else has to confirm that.

As far as your gold in heaven, i.e. your treasure of merit, that will increase your joy in heaven.  It also merits an increase in Grace.  I am unfamiliar with the term "treasury".
27
Quote
One wonders what outcomes they were looking for...even had the government people been in the building, they wouldn't be the right government people, and even had they wanted to do something, our police do not have the issues that were being protested, so there were no reforms possible.
  They were quite specific in the outcomes they wanted: no cash bail, reduced sentencing, getting criminal friendly DA's elected, and cutting police budgets.  Their protests worked.  They obtained their goals.
28
Thanks, Kaese, for moving this to the Relevant Sub-Forum, Traditional Catholic Discussion. God Bless you.

I updated and completely revised the article. There was simply no need to speak of Protestantism at such length.

""One Peter Five Article: Let us be Traditional Catholics, not Conservative Catholics:

Are you a Traditional Catholic or a Conservative Catholic, my dear Catholic Brother, my Dear Catholic Sister? This writer is a Traditional Catholic. How could such a term be defined in the Tradition of the Church, you ask me? It is a valid question. Specifically, we know that assenting to the Infallible Nicene, which we sing in Latin every Sunday during Holy Mass, makes a man a Christian, whereas the heretic who denies it is an Arian and not a Christian at all. Likewise, we know that assenting to the Canons and the Council of Trent makes a man a Catholic Christian and not a Protestant Christian.

So, if our Conservative Catholic brethren ask us, "All right, you proudly declare that you are "Traditional Catholics". Show us, in the Tradition of the Church - since you appeal to it most of all - especially from Infallible Tradition such as a Creed promulgated by a Traditional Roman Pontiff, if you have it, where the DOCTRINAL distinction between "Conservative Catholic and Traditional Catholic comes from", what would be your answer? The following would be mine.

"My Dear Catholic Brother/Sister, that's a Great Question. To answer it, I have another question: Have you perhaps of His Holiness Pope St. Pius X, a Great Saintly Pontiff who lived about a 100 years ago? This Holy Father, St. Pope Pius X, issued for us a Dogmatic Creed against a certain error called "Modernism" for just precisely such a purpose as you ask. Have you heard of Modernism, by the way". Most Conservative Catholics would answer: "No". You can answer, "Well, then, my dear brother, would you like to say this Dogmatic Creed with me, which Holy Mother Church has Infallibly Approved for all Catholics of all ages to freely say without fear or scruple". At this point, our beloved Catholic brother or sister may say, "Sure, I'd like that". And if he does, "you have won your brother". (Mat 18:15).

Without further daily, both of you can raise your right hand, over the Holy Bible, as befits those who are going to swear to an Eternal and Unchangeable Truth (the Core Heresy of Modernism is the Evolution of Dogma and the Mutability - Changeableness - of Truth from every age, so that the Church can supposedly teach Abortion is Absolutely Wrong today, and a Moral Obligation Tomorrow, to Modernists - in this Writer's Estimation, 95% of Average Lay Catholics are not Heretical Modernists but Simply Good Confused Catholic Christians).

The Most Holy and Sacred Papal Oath against Modernism - to be mandatorily sworn by all Clergy according to His Holiness St. Pius X

An Introduction to the Oath: "The oath against modernism was required of "all clergy, pastors, confessors, preachers, religious superiors, and professors in philosophical-theological seminaries" of the Catholic Church from 1910 until 1967. It was instituted on 1 September 1910 by Pope Pius X in his motu proprio Sacrorum antistitum and rescinded on 17 July 1967 by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith with the approval of Paul VI.[1]

The oath marked the culmination of Pius X's campaign against the theological movement of modernism, which he extensively analyzed and denounced as heretical in his encyclicals Pascendi Dominici gregis and Lamentabili sane exitu, both of 1907. Thomas Pègues, O.P. was also influential in the anti-modernist movement within the Church.[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_against_modernism

The Oath itself from EWTN: "The Oath Against Modernism
Author: Pope Pius X
THE OATH AGAINST MODERNISM

Pope Pius X

Given by His Holiness St. Pius X September 1, 1910.

To be sworn to by all clergy, pastors, confessors, preachers, religious superiors, and professors in philosophical-theological seminaries.

I firmly embrace and accept each and every definition that has been set forth and declared by the unerring teaching authority of the Church, especially those principal truths which are directly opposed to the errors of this day.

And first of all, I profess that God, the origin and end of all things, can be known with certainty by the natural light of reason from the created world (see Rom. 1:90), that is, from the visible works of creation, as a cause from its effects, and that, therefore, his existence can also be demonstrated:

Secondly, I accept and acknowledge the external proofs of revelation, that is, divine acts and especially miracles and prophecies as the surest signs of the divine origin of the Christian religion and I hold that these same proofs are well adapted to the understanding of all eras and all men, even of this time.

Thirdly, I believe with equally firm faith that the Church, the guardian and teacher of the revealed word, was personally instituted by the real and historical Christ when he lived among us, and that the Church was built upon Peter, the prince of the apostolic hierarchy, and his successors for the duration of time.

Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. I also condemn every error according to which, in place of the divine deposit which has been given to the spouse of Christ to be carefully guarded by her, there is put a philosophical figment or product of a human conscience that has gradually been developed by human effort and will continue to develop indefinitely.

Fifthly, I hold with certainty and sincerely confess that faith is not a blind sentiment of religion welling up from the depths of the subconscious under the impulse of the heart and the motion of a will trained to morality; but faith is a genuine assent of the intellect to truth received by hearing from an external source. By this assent, because of the authority of the supremely truthful God, we believe to be true that which has been revealed and attested to by a personal God, our Creator and Lord.

Furthermore, with due reverence, I submit and adhere with my whole heart to the condemnations, declarations, and all the prescripts contained in the encyclical Pascendi and in the decree Lamentabili, especially those concerning what is known as the history of dogmas. I also reject the error of those who say that the faith held by the Church can contradict history, and that Catholic dogmas, in the sense in which they are now understood, are irreconcilable with a more realistic view of the origins of the Christian religion. I also condemn and reject the opinion of those who say that a well-educated Christian assumes a dual personality—that of a believer and at the same time of a historian, as if it were permissible for a historian to hold things that contradict the faith of the believer, or to establish premises which, provided there be no direct denial of dogmas, would lead to the conclusion that dogmas are either false or doubtful. Likewise, I reject that method of judging and interpreting Sacred Scripture which, departing from the tradition of the Church, the analogy of faith, and the norms of the Apostolic See, embraces the misrepresentations of the rationalists and with no prudence or restraint adopts textual criticism as the one and supreme norm.

Furthermore, I reject the opinion of those who hold that a professor lecturing or writing on a historico-theological subject should first put aside any preconceived opinion about the supernatural origin of Catholic tradition or about the divine promise of help to preserve all revealed truth forever; and that they should then interpret the writings of each of the Fathers solely by scientific principles, excluding all sacred authority, and with the same liberty of judgment that is common in the investigation of all ordinary historical documents.

Finally, I declare that I am completely opposed to the error of the modernists who hold that there is nothing divine in sacred tradition; or what is far worse, say that there is, but in a pantheistic sense, with the result that there would remain nothing but this plain simple fact—one to be put on a par with the ordinary facts of history—the fact, namely, that a group of men by their own labor, skill, and talent have continued through subsequent ages a school begun by Christ and his apostles. I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the belief of the Fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the apostles. The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way.

I promise that I shall keep all these articles faithfully, entirely, and sincerely, and guard them inviolate, in no way deviating from them in teaching or in any way in word or in writing. Thus I promise, this I swear, so help me God. . ."

https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/oath-against-modernism-8935
29
Yes indeed, Russia still has its errors, just as BVM said at Fatima. There are some on SD that regard Putin as a good guy because he doesn't approve of homosexuality. Not everyone that disapproves of it is necessarily good.

David Miscavige, L Ron Hubbard and the Scientology cult punishes homosexuality.

Hitler persecuted them. After the Nazi takeover in 1933, the first homosexual movement's infrastructure of clubs, organizations, and publications were shut down, leading to an explosion in arrests and convictions.

So, Nazis were better than the Catholic bishops on homosexuality? 

Weird.

Oof.
30
I think it's obligatory on a societal level but not for every single individual, if that makes sense. It needs to be done. I don't think every single Catholic needs to be directly involved in protesting against the horrible crime of abortion, as we all have different duties of state and abilities, etc. But the Church needs to be involved, somehow.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10