Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
" First try to learn where the Catholic Church is and where the conciliar church is"
This is the question being repeatedly asked and discussed with no one able to answer the question to any one's satisfaction.
It sort of what your definition of "Church" is.
Is it a body of teachings?
Is it a hierarchy with Ordinary Jurisdiction?
Is it a Building? etc.

These are excellent questions, to which should be added - if Francis is Pope of the Catholic Church, why does he say Mass in the Conciliar Church of the table altars?

Since there is no sensible answer to this question, it follows that the Conciliar Church does not exist.  There is no such thing.  The Church of the table altars is the (occupied) Catholic Church.
2
Ask a Traditionalist / Re: Is Anyone into the Fr. Alfred Kunz Murder?
« Last post by Non Nobis on Today at 07:36:05 PM »
My uncle (RIP) was a priest who knew Fr. Kunz well and even stayed with him for a while sometime before the murder.  He even wrote a moving poem about him and the murder afterwards (which I do not have now).
3
Ask a Traditionalist / Re: Tattoos
« Last post by Chestertonian on Today at 05:55:07 PM »
As said previously, I don't buy the 5th commandment claim against tattoos at this time, nor really the idea of modesty, vanity, etc. if the tattoo is in a location where it cannot be seen or where it could be, but the wearer intends to cover it.

Fr. Peter Joseph has an article in Latin Mass magazine about the morality of tattoos and piercing: http://www.latinmassmagazine.com/articles/articles_2002_SU_Joseph.html

He begins by referencing, yet using those stupid ellipses (...) in order to cut out the true meaning of the verse. I ALWAYS look up full quotes when I see ellipses, on the chance the [redacted] portion is pertinent to the argument. In the case of Leviticus 19:28, it most certainly is and represented only a minor removal for space. As such, I consider his removal of the portion "for the dead" more of a rhetorical trick than necessitated by a long portion which was not pertinent or otherwise allowed the point to be made.

Fr. Peter Joseph's article: " “You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh…or tattoo any marks upon you: I am the Lord” (Leviticus 19:28)"

Full verse: "[28] You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh, for the dead, neither shall you make in yourselves any figures or marks: I am the Lord." Lev 19 DRB

Haydock:

Quote
Ver. 28.  Dead.  Adonis or Osiris; as if you were mourning for them, in which sense the former verse may be explained.  At funerals it was customary to cut off the hair.  Achilles and his soldiers did so at the death of Patroclus.  Homer. --- The Persians also cut the manes of their horses, to shew their grief for the loss of Masistius, (Herod. ix. 24,) as Alexander did when Hephæstion died.  Plutarch. ---  The Egyptians, Assyrians, &c. cut their hair on the like occasions, and the Hebrews did so too; whether they neglected this law, or it was rather designed only to hinder them from joining in a superstitious lamentation for some idol.  They also cut their bodies, Gen. l.  Jer. xli. 5.  The pagans did so, intending thereby to appease the anger of the infernal deities: ut sanguine...inferis satisfaciant, (Varro, Servius): or to please the deceased.  Plutarch, de consol.  Thus Virgil represents Anna, Æn. iv.: Unguibus ora soror fædans & pectora pugnis.  The Roman and Athenian laws restrained this cruelty of women towards themselves.  But in Persia, the children and servants of great men still make an incision upon their arms, when their father or master dies.  The women in Greece also observe a solemn mourning, with loud lamentations, tearing their cheeks and hair, and reciting the memorable actions of the deceased.  The Christians and Jews of Syria inflict still more serious wounds upon themselves.  The latter have always esteemed it lawful to adopt the customs of the nations with whom they lived, provided they were not attended with superstition; which makes us conclude, that what Moses here forbids was done in honour of some idol. --- Marks, made with a hot iron, representing false gods, as if to declare that they would serve them forever.  Philo. --- The Assyrians had generally such characters upon their bodies.  Philopator ordered the converts from the Jewish religion to be marked with ivy, in honour of Bacchus.  3 Macc.  Theodoret (q. 18) mentions, that the pagans were accustomed to cut their cheeks, and to prick themselves with needles, infusing some black matter, out of respect for the dead, and for demons.  Allusion is made to these customs, Apoc. xiii. 16, and Isai. xlix. 15.  Christians have sometimes marked their arms with the cross, or name of Jesus.  Procop. in Isai. xliv. 5.  C. --- As S. Jane Frances de Chantal did her breast.  Brev. Aug. 21.  Nomen pectori insculpsit.  S. Paul says, I bear the marks of the Lord Jesus in my body.  Gal. vi. 17.  The Church historians relate, that S. Francis and S. Catharine received miraculously the prints of his wounds.  H.

As one can see, this verse is prohibiting cutting and tattooing (which would probably include branding) in the context of pagan worship, and very specifically ancestor worship (or appeasing the "gods" for the ancestors).

Aside from bad images, or images which might give the impression of impiety, I cannot really see a direct moral problem with them. I'd even say that if one had such a design, they could be right in getting it covered up depending on its nature. I have one such design on my right bicep. I don't buy the "body is a temple" argument either, as that opens a rabbit hole from which there is no real escape. I'll buy it when the person saying it loses their 30-250lbs of flubber (and don't they dare try the "it's genetic!" argument. No, you're a lard-ass. Try again.). If they really believed that in the context of their argument, they'd be doing their best to truly take care of their bodies.

Where I see the problem is in the realm of prudence: socially and financially.

Depending on the location (regardless of the design), it could be very problematic even if the design is innocuous.

Financial: tattoos ain't cheap. Any reputable artist (and they are artists) is going to charge minimum $100/hr and/or a price depending on the piece. They have to do the same setup of their equipment whether it's a tiny one or a big one. So, one needs to ask themselves if they could use that money more wisely. In the 5 years I was under the needle, I probably dropped about 4000 dollars on ink. Maybe less. Not more for sure. Unless one has money to burn, what really is the point?

Maturation: I'm not a very big fan of my tattoos these days. Some are still great art. Some haven't aged well (mainly certain colors). One is inappropriate. I suspect that the only one Christ won't blot out on my glorified body, if I am saved, is the Chi-Rho piece on my right elbow. I cannot see Him blotting out a Christogram.

Aside from social considerations, such as the Copts, the only marks we need on our entire selves are the marks of Baptism and Confirmation, and if a priest, Ordination. These are marks on our souls, much more indelible into aeviternity than mere marks on our bodies.

Do I want more tattoos? Sometimes. I go through periods where I think "oh, that would be a good one."

Since I don't buy the blanket moral argument (please, try... if there is one to be made, do your best and I'll listen), and we were thrown headlong into a persecution where social considerations are no longer relevant, I'd probably do some overtly Catholic tattoos just to solidify and reinforce my own desire to not commit apostasy.

After all, an old English rendering of "Hail Mary" fits conveniently across the knuckles. The two sides of the St. Benedict medal would look great in black/grey shades on the back of the hands. Perhaps tattoos of the stigmata to remind oneself of our Lord's passion. Who knows.

If you're gonna get your head cut off, might as well go out in "trashy", devout style I guess.

I don't buy the "return to brutish behavior" argument, either. Humans are humans are humans. Say otherwise, and you run into the nascent arguments of Modernism. We desire to worship and show devotion, and even our own internal dialogue, hopes, fears, dreams with external manifestation, including via our bodies. The clothes you wear, the hair style you have (well, for those of you not prematurely balding), etc., are all manifestations of something you desire to show the world. This extends, in some manner, to tattoos. The question is what does the tattoo (or tattoos) say about your inner self (i.e., your soul and intellect) at the time of its being received?

Nor do I buy the "low class" argument. I guarantee there are people you know who you think are great folks, and they have tattoos you don't know about. Are they low class? No.

And one last thing: tattoo removal. Don't kid yourself if you think this is a future possibility as based on current technology. I tried to start the process and went through about 6 sessions. 1) it was painful as could be. Worse than the actual tattoo. 2) it succeeded in doing a poor job and only partially faded it. Good tattoos are HARD to remove. Some piece of crap you got at 16 in a "prison" style with low amounts of ink and bad ink at that? possible. Good, professional ink? Very, very hard with the modern laser removal methods. Surgery can do it, but it will cost you and likely leaves a scar.

I didn't  think He would get rid of scars because didn't He retain His wounds?
4
" First try to learn where the Catholic Church is and where the conciliar church is"
This is the question being repeatedly asked and discussed with no one able to answer the question to any one's satisfaction.
It sort of what your definition of "Church" is.
Is it a body of teachings?
Is it a hierarchy with Ordinary Jurisdiction?
Is it a Building? etc.
5
Show it to you? Show you that which is right in front of your very eyes?
The conciliar church is literally, everywhere. Walk into any diocesan church and you are in the conciliar church. 

No, if I walk into any diocesan church I am in the Catholic Church, the Church that has Francis as Pope as you insist.

Where is the Conciliar Church?

No, that's where you are wrong. There is absolutely no Catholic Church that has a table right out in front of the sanctuary. Whenever you see a table right out in front of the sanctuary, let that be your clue, it's how we knew in the late 60s and it's how you will always know, without fail,  that you are in the conciliar church. All diocesan churches have that table, all diocesan churches are conciliar churches whether or not you choose to believe it.

Try not to get hung up on whether Francis is the pope or not, or if he is pope of two different churches with different faiths or not - your well being and salvation is not dependent upon the popes' status. First try to learn where the Catholic Church is and where the conciliar church is, once you learn that, completely avoid and always stay out of the conciliar church no matter what and don't concern yourself with the status of the pope, instead, concern yourself with saving your own soul.

If Francis is Pope, then he is the Pope of the Catholic Church. He can't also be Pope of the Conciliar Church.

Francis, who you insist is Pope, says Mass at a table altar, and yet you say that churches with table altars are not Catholic but Conciliar.

Does Francis say Mass in the Catholic Church or the Conciliar Church?
6
Family Life / Re: would this bother you?
« Last post by Chestertonian on Today at 05:41:06 PM »
It's a routine thing they do to cover their butts.  I remember when my wife was pregnant for the 2nd or 3rd time (ended in miscarriage) and the doctor took her aside and asked her if I beat her.  We both thought it was kind of silly because I was barely able to walk, underweight and on dialysis.  She said "the only time he beats me is if we're playing Scrabble"
8
Show it to you? Show you that which is right in front of your very eyes?
The conciliar church is literally, everywhere. Walk into any diocesan church and you are in the conciliar church. 

No, if I walk into any diocesan church I am in the Catholic Church, the Church that has Francis as Pope as you insist.

Where is the Conciliar Church?

No, that's where you are wrong. There is absolutely no Catholic Church that has a table right out in front of the sanctuary. Whenever you see a table right out in front of the sanctuary, let that be your clue, it's how we knew in the late 60s and it's how you will always know, without fail,  that you are in the conciliar church. All diocesan churches have that table, all diocesan churches are conciliar churches whether or not you choose to believe it.

Try not to get hung up on whether Francis is the pope or not, or if he is pope of two different churches with different faiths or not - your well being and salvation is not dependent upon the popes' status. First try to learn where the Catholic Church is and where the conciliar church is, once you learn that, completely avoid and always stay out of the conciliar church no matter what and don't concern yourself with the status of the pope, instead, concern yourself with saving your own soul.
9
The Coffee Pot / Re: Memorable things a teacher has said.
« Last post by Heinrich on Today at 03:04:08 PM »
After 4 years, one of my football coaches actually thought my first name was "Dammit!"
10
Show it to you? Show you that which is right in front of your very eyes?
The conciliar church is literally, everywhere. Walk into any diocesan church and you are in the conciliar church. 

No, if I walk into any diocesan church I am in the Catholic Church, the Church that has Francis as Pope as you insist.

Where is the Conciliar Church? 
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10