Author Topic: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim  (Read 1413 times)

Offline awkwardcustomer

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 2463
  • Thanked: 967 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
« Reply #90 on: October 12, 2019, 12:39:26 PM »
The fact that you find an argument comprised solely on written/visual imagery and loose correlations convincing, and then support it, could be cited as an example of this forum's irresponsibly feminist policy of allowing females to freely read and post their opinions.

Here's my thinking.

Vatican II is the 'revolt' warned about by St Paul in 2Thess 2, the revolt that would signal the coming of the Antichrist.

The one who 'witholdeth' is the Pope, and he has been 'taken out of the way', ergo Sedevacante.  This is another condition fulfilled according to 2Thess 2.

Which leaves the 'signs and lying wonders' that St Paul warned would accompany the above.  Well, the Marianist Apparitions since the beginning of the 20th century have attempted to deify Our Lady and sideline Christ as Kreuzritter rightly pointed out.  They are filled with error, they point to the Conciliar apostates being true Popes, and they claim that a restoration is possible if only Catholics would stay passive and make lots of reparation.   I'm sure there will be plenty more 'signs and lying wonders' to come but so far, there seem to be hundreds of them judging by Xavier's posts, and that's not including the famous ones.

It fits what's going on. 
And formerly the heretics were manifest; but now the Church is filled with heretics in disguise.  
St Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lecture 15, para 9.

And what rough beast, it's hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
WB Yeats, 'The Second Coming'.
 
The following users thanked this post: Maximilian

Offline Michael Wilson

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 6960
  • Thanked: 4708 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
« Reply #91 on: October 12, 2019, 02:08:07 PM »
If a man is not Catholic, then by canon law he is not a true pope, therefore there is no actual magisterium he can write that we would be bound to obey. For example, new sins against ecology (i.e. failing to recycle as a mortal sin.)

The problem, of course, is that this line of reasoning doesn't work in the Catholic model.

The pope is not the representative of the Church. He is the representative of God. He is not judged by the Church but by God alone. Prima sedes a nemine judicatur. As the supreme lawgiver, he is also above canon law.
Except if he fall into heresy; per Innocent III:
"Still less can the Roman Pontiff boast, for he can be judged by men — or rather, he can be shown to be judged, if he mani-festly ‘loses his savor’ in heresy. For he who does not believe is already judged. [Sermo 4: In Consecratione PL 218:670.]"
One can either deny that Francis is a heretic despite all the evidence to the contrary, including open appeals from Cardinals, bishops and theologians or one can conform one's beliefs to his errors. But it is clear to most people who still retain the faith of the pre-Vatican II Church; Francis is not and has not been a Catholic for a long time.
"The World Must Conform to Our Lord and not He to it." Rev. Dennis Fahey CSSP

"My brothers, all of you, if you are condemned to see the triumph of evil, never applaud it. Never say to evil: you are good; to decadence: you are progess; to death: you are life. Sanctify yourselves in the times wherein God has placed you; bewail the evils and the disorders which God tolerates; oppose them with the energy of your works and your efforts, your life uncontaminated by error, free from being led astray, in such a way that having lived here below, united with the Spirit of the Lord, you will be admitted to be made but one with Him forever and ever: But he who is joined to the Lord is one in spirit." Cardinal Pie of Potiers
 
The following users thanked this post: Aeternitus, awkwardcustomer, Blue Violet

Offline Philip G.

  • Korporal
  • **
  • Posts: 449
  • Thanked: 203 times
  • Ordinary Cult
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
« Reply #92 on: October 12, 2019, 02:39:17 PM »
@Kreuz, do not pay attention to the writings of people not vetted by the historical traditional Catholic church. All you need to know about proper Marian devotion comes from St. Louis De Montfort. Scratch out all the other crap and pay no attention to it.

At least Alphonsus Ligouri doesn't typify the Mother of God as a murderous slave owner, exempt from molestation(Justice) by the law, spouse of antichrist, queen of the one world government.
For the stone shall cry out of the wall; and the timber that is between the joints of the building, shall answer.  Woe to him that buildeth a town with blood, and prepareth a city by iniquity. - Habacuc 2,11-12
 

Offline John Lamb

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 1527
  • Thanked: 1708 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
« Reply #93 on: October 12, 2019, 02:57:47 PM »
So, John, if Mary is al of these things, "vitrtually eternal" and a "quasi-incarnation", is she not a quasi-goddess worthy of quasi-worship? Perhaps the Church should let quasi-ordained women preside over her quasi-sacraments.

The Church does worship Mary with the worship of hyperdulia. Mary is the most divine being in existence after God; not that she is divine by nature (no mere creature is whatsoever), but by supernatural participation in the life of grace which she has most abundantly. Christ calls us all gods. Mary is the most godlike being in existence after God. Yes we should worship her. The only mistake we could make in worshipping Mary is by offering her liturgical-ritual sacrifice, which would be the worship of latria that belongs to God alone. Everything besides that is permissable and praiseworthy.

Edit: Mary's priesthood is not a public or liturgical priesthood so there's no grounds for women priestesses on that account. She offers the spiritual sacrifice of her intellect and will, and the praise of her Immaculate Heart.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2019, 03:03:31 PM by John Lamb »
As many as received him, he gave them power to be made the sons of God, to them that believe in his name. (John 1:12)
 
The following users thanked this post: Non Nobis, mikemac, Lynne, Michael Wilson, Xavier

Offline Heinrich

  • Steig mal auf den Berg hinauf
  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 7311
  • Thanked: 2546 times
  • Roter Fleisch, der Speck und Bourbon
  • Religion: römisch-katholisch
Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
« Reply #94 on: October 12, 2019, 04:00:43 PM »
If a man is not Catholic, then by canon law he is not a true pope, therefore there is no actual magisterium he can write that we would be bound to obey. For example, new sins against ecology (i.e. failing to recycle as a mortal sin.)

The problem, of course, is that this line of reasoning doesn't work in the Catholic model.

The pope is not the representative of the Church. He is the representative of God. He is not judged by the Church but by God alone. Prima sedes a nemine judicatur. As the supreme lawgiver, he is also above canon law.

No.
Schaff Recht mir Gott und führe meine Sache gegen ein unheiliges Volk . . .   .                          
Lex Orandi, lex credendi, lex vivendi.
"Die Welt sucht nach Ehre, Ansehen, Reichtum, Vergnügen; die Heiligen aber suchen Demütigung, Verachtung, Armut, Abtötung und Buße." --Ausschnitt von der Geschichte des Lebens St. Bennos.
 

Offline TheReturnofLive

  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 611
  • Thanked: 185 times
  • Saint Cyprian, pray for me, a sinner!
  • Religion: Eastern Orthodox Inquirer
Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
« Reply #95 on: October 12, 2019, 05:09:42 PM »
If a man is not Catholic, then by canon law he is not a true pope, therefore there is no actual magisterium he can write that we would be bound to obey. For example, new sins against ecology (i.e. failing to recycle as a mortal sin.)

The problem, of course, is that this line of reasoning doesn't work in the Catholic model.

The pope is not the representative of the Church. He is the representative of God. He is not judged by the Church but by God alone. Prima sedes a nemine judicatur. As the supreme lawgiver, he is also above canon law.

No.

Yes.

"Since the Roman pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole church, we likewise teach and declare that
he is the supreme judge of the faithful, and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment. The sentence of the apostolic see (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman pontiff.
So, then,
if anyone says that
the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and
not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, and this not only in matters of
faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that
he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful:
let him be anathema."

And it's evident that what Kreutz said is true, because Pope John Paul II abolished the 1917 Code of Canon Law for the 1983 Code of Canon Law. And even the SSPX doesn't know which one to follow.

The Pope is not above dogma, however. The irony is that the Pope is supposed to "Saintly safeguard" the dogma, and dogma cannot change, and it's obvious that the Popes haven't been doing that. Pope Paul VI really fricken didn't do it well and was clearly malicious in doing so - anybody who looks at his speeches will figure that out, Pope John Paul II accentuated Pope Paul VI's auto demolition, Benedict....eh, he tried to stay within the realms of the auto demolition but reverse the auto demolition, and Pope Francis actively and visibly wants to change dogma in a way that makes Paul VI look tame.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2019, 05:21:25 PM by TheReturnofLive »
 

Offline St.Justin

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 2251
  • Thanked: 920 times
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
« Reply #96 on: October 12, 2019, 05:13:28 PM »
If a man is not Catholic, then by canon law he is not a true pope, therefore there is no actual magisterium he can write that we would be bound to obey. For example, new sins against ecology (i.e. failing to recycle as a mortal sin.)

The problem, of course, is that this line of reasoning doesn't work in the Catholic model.

The pope is not the representative of the Church. He is the representative of God. He is not judged by the Church but by God alone. Prima sedes a nemine judicatur. As the supreme lawgiver, he is also above canon law.

No.
Wrong
 

Offline Heinrich

  • Steig mal auf den Berg hinauf
  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 7311
  • Thanked: 2546 times
  • Roter Fleisch, der Speck und Bourbon
  • Religion: römisch-katholisch
Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
« Reply #97 on: October 12, 2019, 05:43:02 PM »
If a man is not Catholic, then by canon law he is not a true pope, therefore there is no actual magisterium he can write that we would be bound to obey. For example, new sins against ecology (i.e. failing to recycle as a mortal sin.)

The problem, of course, is that this line of reasoning doesn't work in the Catholic model.

The pope is not the representative of the Church. He is the representative of God. He is not judged by the Church but by God alone. Prima sedes a nemine judicatur. As the supreme lawgiver, he is also above canon law.

No.
Wrong
Oh.

ETA: Dogma. That's what I was understanding the statement to be.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2019, 05:45:59 PM by Heinrich »
Schaff Recht mir Gott und führe meine Sache gegen ein unheiliges Volk . . .   .                          
Lex Orandi, lex credendi, lex vivendi.
"Die Welt sucht nach Ehre, Ansehen, Reichtum, Vergnügen; die Heiligen aber suchen Demütigung, Verachtung, Armut, Abtötung und Buße." --Ausschnitt von der Geschichte des Lebens St. Bennos.
 
The following users thanked this post: Xavier

Offline Gardener

  • Drink the poison yourself.
  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 8511
  • Thanked: 5985 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
« Reply #98 on: October 12, 2019, 06:05:20 PM »
The pope can change Canon Law within reason but is bound to follow what is in effect. Simply doing whatever he wants is a novel idea.


"And what use are the victories on the battlefield if we are ourselves are defeated in our innermost personal selves?" - St. Maximilian Kolbe

Providence is a present mystery by which our hope is confirmed and our faith solidified, if we give not into despair or disbelief.
 
The following users thanked this post: Lynne, Xavier

Offline Gerard

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3796
  • Thanked: 1456 times
  • .. and his raiment became white and glittering
Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
« Reply #99 on: October 12, 2019, 11:37:13 PM »
The pope can change Canon Law within reason but is bound to follow what is in effect. Simply doing whatever he wants is a novel idea.


I don't think that holds.  There is nothing to stop a Pope from changing, overriding, ignoring or abolishing Canon Law.  Remember we have 2 codes of Canon Law neither or which binds the universal Church and we've never really had a canon of laws until the 20th century.  The Pope isn't really bound by red tape.  It would simply be a courtesy of the Pope to follow the rules he's laid down for everyone else, but that's about it.  It can't really bind him because he can abolish it at will.  It only has binding power because it is tied to the papacy. 
 
The following users thanked this post: abc123, Blue Violet

Offline Michael Wilson

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 6960
  • Thanked: 4708 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
« Reply #100 on: October 13, 2019, 12:45:44 PM »
The Canon Law of the Latin Church is considered universal; and while the Church has always had Canon laws, they were gathered in separate collections, leading to the repetition and overlapping of many laws; so in the 20th C. Pope Pius X ordered the gathering of all the collections into a single volume, plus the harmonization of the laws; the elimination of laws that had fallen into disuse etc. That is the 1917 Code.
Here is the Catholic Encyclopedia article: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09056a.htm
"The World Must Conform to Our Lord and not He to it." Rev. Dennis Fahey CSSP

"My brothers, all of you, if you are condemned to see the triumph of evil, never applaud it. Never say to evil: you are good; to decadence: you are progess; to death: you are life. Sanctify yourselves in the times wherein God has placed you; bewail the evils and the disorders which God tolerates; oppose them with the energy of your works and your efforts, your life uncontaminated by error, free from being led astray, in such a way that having lived here below, united with the Spirit of the Lord, you will be admitted to be made but one with Him forever and ever: But he who is joined to the Lord is one in spirit." Cardinal Pie of Potiers
 
The following users thanked this post: Heinrich, Lynne

Offline Kreuzritter

  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 1244
  • Thanked: 874 times
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
« Reply #101 on: October 13, 2019, 12:53:25 PM »
So, John, if Mary is al of these things, "vitrtually eternal" and a "quasi-incarnation", is she not a quasi-goddess worthy of quasi-worship? Perhaps the Church should let quasi-ordained women preside over her quasi-sacraments.

The Church does worship Mary with the worship of hyperdulia. Mary is the most divine being in existence after God; not that she is divine by nature (no mere creature is whatsoever), but by supernatural participation in the life of grace which she has most abundantly. Christ calls us all gods. Mary is the most godlike being in existence after God. Yes we should worship her. The only mistake we could make in worshipping Mary is by offering her liturgical-ritual sacrifice, which would be the worship of latria that belongs to God alone. Everything besides that is permissable and praiseworthy.

Aka, quasi-goddess. And did you hear that? So long as you don't offer "liturgical-ritual sacrifice", you can worship, serve and adore her. There's not even a pretence here of caring about the words of the Ten Commandments.


Quote
Edit: Mary's priesthood is not a public or liturgical priesthood so there's no grounds for women priestesses on that account. She offers the spiritual sacrifice of her intellect and will, and the praise of her Immaculate Heart.

Is said quasi-sacraments and quasi-priestess. Funny how you you want to ditch the adjectival word games when it comes to something you don't want.
 

Offline Kreuzritter

  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 1244
  • Thanked: 874 times
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
« Reply #102 on: October 13, 2019, 12:56:41 PM »
So, John, if Mary is al of these things, "vitrtually eternal" and a "quasi-incarnation", is she not a quasi-goddess worthy of quasi-worship? Perhaps the Church should let quasi-ordained women preside over her quasi-sacraments.

You're not a Catholic, this clear.
You came here as a troll, and Xavier, quite innocently triggered you so hard that you're now emotionally unable to continue your schtick.

More and more your rantings reveal the simple-minded heresies a gassed up and uncontrollable ego leads a person to.

Hatred of Mary often comes across as petty jealousy.
God has offended the envious one's supposed virtue in not selecting them to mediate His graces.

If being "Catholic" means godess-worship and saying Mary paid our debts and won our salvation, then no, I'm not "Catholic", but neather is the Apostolic Church.
 
The following users thanked this post: Philip G.

Offline Gardener

  • Drink the poison yourself.
  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 8511
  • Thanked: 5985 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
« Reply #103 on: October 13, 2019, 12:56:57 PM »
The pope can change Canon Law within reason but is bound to follow what is in effect. Simply doing whatever he wants is a novel idea.


I don't think that holds.  There is nothing to stop a Pope from changing, overriding, ignoring or abolishing Canon Law.  Remember we have 2 codes of Canon Law neither or which binds the universal Church and we've never really had a canon of laws until the 20th century.  The Pope isn't really bound by red tape.  It would simply be a courtesy of the Pope to follow the rules he's laid down for everyone else, but that's about it.  It can't really bind him because he can abolish it at will.  It only has binding power because it is tied to the papacy.

You're describing tyranny and hypocrisy as a tenet of the papal power? lol. Please.

He can change the law, but is bound by said law until it's changed; there is a distinct difference between power to change and power to violate (the latter of which is not possessed by a Pope) -- dispensation, which he has power to do as well, is also a distinction which must be made. But, dispensation is not violation. Further, for those laws which touch on divine law, he has no power to change them.

"And what use are the victories on the battlefield if we are ourselves are defeated in our innermost personal selves?" - St. Maximilian Kolbe

Providence is a present mystery by which our hope is confirmed and our faith solidified, if we give not into despair or disbelief.
 
The following users thanked this post: Philip G.

Offline Gardener

  • Drink the poison yourself.
  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 8511
  • Thanked: 5985 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: I'm astounded by Xavier's latest claim
« Reply #104 on: October 13, 2019, 01:03:27 PM »
KR, I think you might need to brush up on the CE articles on Dulia and Adoration:

Quote
(Greek doulia; Latin servitus), a theological term signifying the honour paid to the saints, while latria means worship given to God alone, and hyperdulia the veneration offered to the Blessed Virgin Mary. St. Augustine (City of God X.2) distinguishes two kinds of servitus: "one which is due to men . . . which in Greek is called dulia; the other, latria, which is the service pertaining to the worship of God". St. Thomas (II-II:103:3) bases the distinction on the difference between God's supreme dominion and that which one man may exercise over another. Catholic theologians insist that the difference is one of kind and not merely of degree; dulia and latria being as far apart as are the creature and the Creator. Leibniz, though a Protestant, recognizes the "discrimen infinitum atque immensum between the honour which is due to God and that which is shown to the saints, the one being called by theologians, after Augustine's example, latria, the other dulia"; and he further declares that this difference should "not only be inculcated in the minds of hearers and learners, but should also be manifested as far as possible by outward signs" (Syst. theol., p. 184). A further distinction is made between dulia in the absolute sense, the honour paid to persons, and dulia in the relative sense, the honour paid to inanimate objects, such as images and relics. With regard to the saints, dulia includes veneration and invocation; the former being the honour paid directly to them, the latter having primarily in view the petitioner's advantage.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05188b.htm

From Adoration:
Quote
The Blessed Virgin, as manifesting in a sublimer manner than any other creature the goodness of God, deserves from us a higher recognition and deeper veneration than any other of the saints; and this peculiar cultus due to her because of her unique position in the Divine economy, is designated in theology hyperdulia, that is dulia in an eminent degree. It is unfortunate that neither our own language nor the Latin possesses in its terminology the precision of the Greek. The word latria is never applied in any other sense than that of the incommunicable adoration which is due to God alone. But in English the words adore and worship are still sometimes used, and in the past were commonly so used, to mean also inferior species of religious veneration and even to express admiration or affection for persons living upon the earth. So David "adored" Jonathan. In like manner Miphiboseth "fell on his face and worshipped" David (2 Samuel 9:6). Tennyson says that Enid in her true heart, adored the queen. Those who perforce adopted these modes of expression understood perfectly well what was meant by them and were in no danger of thereby encroaching upon the rights of the Divinity. It is hardly needful to remark that Catholics, too, even the most unlearned, are in no peril of confounding the adoration due to God with the religious honour given to any finite creature even when the word worship, owing to the poverty of our language, is applied to both.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01151a.htm

"And what use are the victories on the battlefield if we are ourselves are defeated in our innermost personal selves?" - St. Maximilian Kolbe

Providence is a present mystery by which our hope is confirmed and our faith solidified, if we give not into despair or disbelief.
 
The following users thanked this post: mikemac, Xavier