Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
General Catholic Discussion / Re: The Apostle's and their Wives
« Last post by LaybrotherDoug on Today at 01:43:15 AM »
As part of the New Testament evidence on the subject, include: 1 Corinthians 9:5,
Have we no right to lead about a wife that is a believer, even as the rest of the apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?
...
Implying that even in his apostolic missionary travels, Paul was single, while the other apostles generally were not...

As to tradition, there's a canon or 2 from the late 600's Quinisext Council on this; which at least Eastern Rite Catholics abide by. (Sometimes it is called the "Synod in Trullo". I'm sure its canons are online someplace.)
2
General Catholic Discussion / Re: The Apostle's and their Wives
« Last post by Philip G. on Today at 01:13:21 AM »
What are some arguments against belief that the marriages of the apostles were dissolved upon taking up their new vocation?  As far as I know, there is little to no scripture or tradition indicating that the twelve apostles had children, which opens the door of possibility that their marriages might not have been consummated(similar to Mary and Joseph).  Dissolution of non-consummated marriage for the sake of entering the religious life is found in tradition( Pope Alexander 3rd 12th century denzinger 395), and it seems that such a dissolution could describe in a way what occurred to the twelve upon their consecration to Christ. 

As for scripture, Mt 19:29 "and every one that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands for my names sake, shall receive an hundred fold, and shall possess life everlasting."  If only this passage neglected to mention children would it pad my theory. 

There is 1 Timothy 3,2 - "It behoveth therefore a bishop to be blameless, the husband of one wife, sober, prudent, of good behavior, chaste, given to hospitality, a teacher.  What do you think Paul means when he uses the word "chaste" in that passage?  I am not going to go so far as to say that what Paul is saying about "wife" is really an encrypted word for "the church" that is our "she" and a type of spouse for those in orders, but it is fun to entertain the idea. ;)

Other than this, what else is there?

There is nothing in Scripture to indicate that any of the apostles were married, chaste or not, at the time of their ministry.

Wasn't it Peter's mother in law who is referenced?  If Peter has a mother in law, he does so because he has a wife, correct?  Or, can his mother in law be his father's new wife as a result of a death of his spouse/Peter's biological mother?  Would not that make a mother in law as well?
3
General Catholic Discussion / Re: The Apostle's and their Wives
« Last post by Irishcyclist on Today at 12:30:50 AM »
What are some arguments against belief that the marriages of the apostles were dissolved upon taking up their new vocation?  As far as I know, there is little to no scripture or tradition indicating that the twelve apostles had children, which opens the door of possibility that their marriages might not have been consummated(similar to Mary and Joseph).  Dissolution of non-consummated marriage for the sake of entering the religious life is found in tradition( Pope Alexander 3rd 12th century denzinger 395), and it seems that such a dissolution could describe in a way what occurred to the twelve upon their consecration to Christ. 

As for scripture, Mt 19:29 "and every one that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands for my names sake, shall receive an hundred fold, and shall possess life everlasting."  If only this passage neglected to mention children would it pad my theory. 

There is 1 Timothy 3,2 - "It behoveth therefore a bishop to be blameless, the husband of one wife, sober, prudent, of good behavior, chaste, given to hospitality, a teacher.  What do you think Paul means when he uses the word "chaste" in that passage?  I am not going to go so far as to say that what Paul is saying about "wife" is really an encrypted word for "the church" that is our "she" and a type of spouse for those in orders, but it is fun to entertain the idea. ;)

Other than this, what else is there?

There is nothing in Scripture to indicate that any of the apostles were married, chaste or not, at the time of their ministry.


4
General Catholic Discussion / Re: My liberal church finally went over the edge.
« Last post by mikemac on September 23, 2019, 09:28:59 PM »
I have actually read every post in both threads myself as well.  In the last thread, which was about two months ago it was suggested to awkwardcustomer that he wears a pair of ear plugs.  At that time it sounded like he thought that was a good idea.  Yet in this thread he says he still has not tried using ear plugs.  And on top of that he gives the impression that the entire Church should change for him, and not him for the Church.  My answer to that is that it is his problem.  If he at least had tried using ear plugs then this round number two rant would not sound like such a self righteous whine.
5
I'm just sad....

I can't fathom how someone like Pope Pius V could have predicted Rome falling this far.

Yes it is sad. Let's not pretend it isn't.

No one predicted how bad it would become except St. Vincent of Lerins. He has the only answer to this problem but the problem is his theology was rejected at Vatican I. How to rectify the problem I don't know, no one does. The Vincentian Canon seems to be the only way but "sono tradizione io!" of Pius IX makes it hard to be both. If anyone has a solution I'd love to hear it.

FWIW, I have no special knowledge about this, but I found a "reasonable looking" post (on CAF) that says that the claim that Pope Pius IX said "I am tradition" is probably only "a pope fiction":

Quote
Allegedly, Bl. Pope Pius IX said “Tradition? I am tradition!” when confronted with an argument against papal infallibility at the First Vatican Council.

The misquotation originates from an 1870 book called Letters from Rome on the Council that claims to preserve the letters of three people who informally met various persons who were present at the First Vatican Council. The preface of the book sets itself up as offering “the most serviceable weapons for combating the legitimacy of the Council” and its audience is “Liberal Catholic[s ].” (Preface Page VII) Among those letters is Letter 61, on pages 712-731, which reports that the pope said the words “La tradizione son’ io,” which means “I am tradition,” to a cardinal who objected to papal infallibility.

The specific letter that these words appear in argues that the pope himself might have started the chain of gossip that produced these words: “The following account of the dialogue between the Pope and the Cardinal is current at Rome, and it seems to rest on…Pius himself, who is notoriously fond of telling every one he meets how he lectured this or that dignitary.” Then follows the account with the words “La tradizione son’ io.”

Note well: does the book claim to report the direct words of the pope? No, the preface says it contains only a bunch of letters from other people who happened to be in Rome at the time, and this specific letter merely conjectures that the pope might have said these words. Does it report the direct words of people who talked with the pope? No, it says this dialog comes from gossip circulating in Rome, or rather one particular version of the gossip written by “Liberal Catholic[s ]” interested in “combating the legitimacy of the Council.”

Do these letters report formal interviews with the people who met the pope? No. Do they report impressions made on third-party people based on informal talks with those people? They claim to, and such impressions are problematic as a historical source. But the book doesn’t even claim to report those informal impressions accurately. It says, “[The original] letters were addressed to a friend in Germany, who added now and then historical explanations to elucidate the course of events, and then forwarded them to [someone else].” (Preface Page V)

Based on the preface and the introduction to Letter 61, this supposed quote from the pope is unreliable. It is information handed down informally through at least eight different parties, some of which added things, some of which was pure gossip, and some of which was written with the specific intention of making the Council and its pope look bad. Allegedly, the pope (the first party) said “I am tradition” to a cardinal (the second party), someone at the council found out about it somehow (the third party), then it became gossip (the fourth party), this gossip was informally mentioned in conversation to a letter writer (the fifth party), he forwarded an informal writing about it to an anonymous guy in Germany (the sixth party), he added some things, then forwarded it to someone else (the seventh party), and they finally made it to the compiler of this book (the eighth party), who, by the way, uses the pseudonym Quirinus and not his real name, which is unknown.

The letter is gossip handed down through at least eight questionable sources. It should not be regarded as historical or a real quote from the pope. Rather, it is simply a “pope fiction!”

https://forums.catholic.com/t/bl-pope-pius-ix-tradition-i-am-tradition-another-pope-fiction/424351
6
General Catholic Discussion / Re: My liberal church finally went over the edge.
« Last post by orate on September 23, 2019, 07:52:37 PM »
The entire text you quoted refers to children, not babies and toddlers which is the issue here. 

I believe in the first round of your rant, a month or so ago you were referring to all children, not just babies and toddlers.  Well at least you are coming around; a bit.  It's very nice of you to allow older children into your Church.   :rolleyes:

You are way off mark to think that anything regarding this came out of VII.  That is your imagination working overtime.

Nasty.


Quote
And how does this putdown contribute to the debate?

Because it highlights that the poster who made the uncalled for comment Awkward was responding to (#153) was not contributing to the debate themselves, but making an unjustified attack.   It was nasty.  Awkward clarified way back in #70 that they were not referring to children, but only babies or toddlers.  That’s about 90 posts ago. Perhaps one could not be bothered to read them all?  That’s fine, and a perfect reason to refrain from making any comment at all. 

I find Awkward’s and Munda’s (in particular) posts worthy of thought and I haven’t yet come to any conclusion.  Posts like #153 don’t help.

In fact I have read this entire thread from the beginning, as well as this entire thread:  https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=22198.msg477134#msg477134

The fact remains that this thread was hijacked to rehash what has been beaten to the ground in a previous thread.  Prior to post #153 I purposely refrained from commenting as I had commented fully, respectfully, I might add, in the previous thread.

In both threads awkwardcustomer has had some pretty snarky replies to those who respectfully disagree with him.  I guess I'm just tired of him dishing it out and then feigning feeling ganged up upon when anyone replies in kind.

The Church has never made a ruling calling for infants and toddlers NOT to attend Mass.  She has, however, made it a law of the Church to attend Mass on Sundays and holy days.

Again, I see no need to imply that  young Catholic parents are somehow doing something wrong when they try to do both their duties of state and obey the Laws of the Church.

Modified because of quotation error
7
Traditional Catholic Discussion / Re: The Problem with Benevacantism
« Last post by Lucy_Helene on September 23, 2019, 07:52:18 PM »
I am on a FB page with other Catholic mothers with big families....you would be amazed how many are clueless to Francis being a bad pope, and how many are just fine and dandy with the way the Church is.
An uninformed public is a dangerous one. This is how the modernist leaders turn the average pewsitter into promoters of their destructive agenda, without anyone batting an eyelash. :(

Benedict holds to various post V2, modernist positions and quite likes Teilhard de Chardin. Not being remotely as appalling as Francis does not make him a paladin for tradition.
Exactly; Benedict brought temporary normalcy, but he still operated within the Novus Ordo paradigm. Hence my comparison between him and Bonaparte, who brought temporary order but still operated within a revolutionary system.

While [Francis] treacherously encouraged Mohammadan invasion, and wrecks rather than restores the Church, no one has better exposed V2, not 10,000 traditional sermons or blog posts.
I wholeheartedly concur. This is why I don't understand why conservative prelates like Cdl. Burke and Bp. Schneider appear to simply be waiting for divine intervention now; this is the plan they have decided on, I suppose. It isn't very coherent. Isn't Francis already living proof that God is intervening?
8
1.  It is an heresy to believe that the Catholic Church can promulgate heresies. 

2.  The intention of this crusade is to prevent the Catholic church from promulgating heresy.

3.  The very act of praying/fasting for this crusade is in and of itself heretical.

If these vile heresies are approved, then what calls itself the Catholic Church is not the Catholic Church.  Wait and see.

They have the buildings, we have the Faith.

That is not the way it was framed, the request is for "O IMPLORE GOD THAT ERROR AND HERESY DO NOT PERVERT THE COMING SPECIAL ASSEMBLY OF THE SYNOD OF BISHOPS FOR THE PAN-AMAZON".  It is not a wrong thing to pray that a synod be preserved from Heresy being spoken, indulged in, or confessed by the attendees of the council.

Yes.  Just praying for heresy not to be spread is good in itself, no matter the status of those who might spread it. Even IF the synod is not truly Catholic, most everyone THINKS that they speak for the Church, and their speaking heresy will make many THINK that the Church does teach heresy.  It will make some foolish modern Catholics BELIEVE the heresy. I'm praying this doesn't happen. I'd pray for evil non-Catholic people (even if it were Satan himself, posing as Catholic) not to spread error against God, error that hurts the souls of men.  This doesn't mean I'd support the evil people as good, but that I'd pray they don't spread their evil.
9
General Catholic Discussion / Re: DEBATE br Dimond vs dr Fastiggi
« Last post by mikemac on September 23, 2019, 07:25:49 PM »
The argument was about whether the Orthodox and Protestants are part of the Catholic Church.  I listened from where Catholics7777 suggested, 1:12:50 until Peter Dimond some how lost phone contact, whether that was intentional or not.  Dimond argued that there was a clear difference before the Second Vatican Council, when the Orthodox and Protestants were not recognized as part of the Catholic Church, and after when they were.  Kind of ironic for a sede to be arguing, but he was saying pretty much what most of us would say.  Either Albrechts or Fastiggi mentioned that a bishop in the 1700s wrote that a person that was Baptized by a heritic would be a valid Baptism; not a very solid argument.  It did sound like Albrechts and Fastiggi were losing ground to Dimond, and losing patience with him too.  Dimond sounded calm, although he did interrupt a couple of times.  I didn't listen any further to see whether Dimond got back on.
10
General Catholic Discussion / Re: My liberal church finally went over the edge.
« Last post by Davis Blank - EG on September 23, 2019, 07:21:10 PM »
Aeternitus,

Sorry for the delayed reply.  This is with regards to your question about cry-rooms pre-VII:

https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=22198.msg477134#msg477134

This is also a link to a prior 13-page thread on this same topic.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10