Author Topic: Bishop Barron at it again  (Read 3233 times)

Offline ralfy

  • Vizekorporal
  • **
  • Posts: 157
  • Thanked: 55 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Bishop Barron at it again
« Reply #75 on: March 20, 2021, 09:07:18 AM »
I thought it would be obvious to almost anyone on a Traditional Catholic forum that Benedict XVI is a heretic, but apparently not. Among other things, Benedict XVI taught that the Old Testament "does not unequivocally point towards Christ" and "there are perfectly good reasons for denying that the Old Testament refers to Christ and for saying, No, that is not what he said." (Ratzinger's book God and the World). He also holds that Jews can be saved  without conversion ot Christianity, that "ecumenism of the return" (i.e converting non-Catholic heretics and schismatics to Catholicism) is no longer Church's mission (adress to Protestants from WYD in 2005), and that Protestantism is "not a heresy" (from his book The Meaning of Christian Brotherhood). He also denied inerrancy of Scripture several times and admitted that V2 documents consitute a "counte-syllabus" to bl. Pius IX's Syllabus of Errors, thus admitting that V2 contradicts Catholic Magisterium. He was also one of the most influential theologians during the V2 fiasco.

Benedict XVI is clearly not a Catholic.

What is this? Drama queen week? So when did the esteemed theologian Cardinal Arvinger start making such accusations against Pope Benedict XVI?

 

Offline Mr. Mysterious

  • Mr. Mysterious
  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 691
  • Thanked: 253 times
  • Religion: Traditional Catholicism
Re: Bishop Barron at it again
« Reply #76 on: March 20, 2021, 11:10:17 AM »
The declines didn't take place precipitously in Protestantism in the US. If it was changes in the culture, aging population, rise of secularism etc. and not changes in the liturgy that was the cause of the decline one should expect to see precipitous changes in church attendance across the board. That didn't happen.

Quote
It doesn't have to be precipitous because many factors might be involved. Not only that, many aspects of religious participation are also involved. For example, for Church attendance in the U.S., we see a decline a decade before Vatican 2 for Catholics and only a slight incline for Protestants throughout.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/232226/church-attendance-among-catholics-resumes-downward-slide.aspx
It declined slightly for Catholics after 1958 and precipitously after the changes in the Liturgy. The same didn't hold true for Protestants.   

Quote
On top of that, for Protestants, we see an increase only for older groups, and the declines started only in 2005 or so. It's similar for Catholics and probably even non-Christian groups: higher declines in younger populations.

These point to secularism, materialism, consumer spending, prosperity, high exposure to mass entertainment, and other factors as reasons for less religiosity.
And as I've been telling you throughout this thread if this were the case it would have affected Protestantism as much as it did Catholicism if not more so. Not to mention the fact the Church grew in its first three centuries of existence amidst pagan Rome.

Quote
And that, surprisingly, is a global phenomenon involving various religions:

https://www.pewforum.org/2018/06/13/young-adults-around-the-world-are-less-religious-by-several-measures/
This depends on which countries or areas one is discussing. This article also fails to mention the rise of various aspects of paganism (Wicca, Odinists, etc.) in certain places which is attracting more and more young people in certain areas of the world.

Quote
Notice, too, that belief in God appears to be stronger in poorer countries than in richer ones:

https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2020/07/20/the-global-god-divide/

Even as in several cases the higher declines for attendance take place among poor members of laity in richer countries:

https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2020/10/16/church-losing-touch-working-class-catholics
Historically, a nation or empire's wealth is not a factor in religious attendance. 16th century Spain was wealthy, literate and thoroughly Catholic. So was the Eastern Roman Empire for much of its history.

Quote
In Europe, we can also see attendance in light of fertility rates for both Catholics and Protestants:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228631214_From_Empty_Pews_to_Empty_Cradles_Fertility_Decline_Among_European_Catholics/figures?lo=1

even as Church attendance tends to be higher in poorer countries:

https://comparecamp.com/church-attendance-statistics/
And yet, immigration to Europe by Catholics from their former colonies or other nations is not saving the Church in Europe or North America. Parishes continue to merge and churches continue to close in spite of that.

Quote
No it's not illogical, it's a rational conclusion. The aged were and in some cases still are the only ones who attend Mass at all in many places in the West. Ditto for blaming it on the rise of secularism. So blaming it on an "aging population"  or "the rise of secularism" is a fallacy. Particularly when the Church has always been a bulwark against various negative changes in society throughout its history.

Quote
That makes no sense whatsover.
Well of course it makes no sense to you. You're a troll with an agenda and that's obvious to everyone here by now.
Quote
Between all age groups attending and only the aged attending, you have a decline!
And again you miss the point. The population of the West is living longer and longer than at any time in history thanks to medical advances so naturally there are more elderly people than ever before unlike in the past. Naturally you would think church attendance would be higher because of an increase in the number of senior citizens but this isn't what's occurring.

Quote
Do you not know how to critically read? I was referring to two different eras in history and their similarities.

Quote
Do you not know how to think critically?
Better than you do obviously. You said I accused you of being a pagan which wasn't the case. 


 
Quote
That has nothing to do with our discussion. Go over the data sets above and see for yourself.

Yes it does. History is our guide. And those who don't remember the past are not only doomed to repeat it, they're also convicted by it.

Quote
Once again, you're either missing the point, or are just trolling. There was no precipitous decline in attendance in those churches. Oh and conversions to the Church in sub Saharan Africa were doing just fine before all these changes. Archbishop Lefebvre was a missionary there to give an example. Not to mention that along with the "massive increases" have come the problems I alluded to in my previous post which is why I've been saying for some time in this thread that the Third World has its own problems and the changes should not be viewed as a great success.

Quote
Once again, you're either missing the point or you're just trolling.
This is what you're reduced to. Repeating yourself over and over in spite of the evidence brought before you and now repeating what others say because you don't have anything worthwhile to add and conveniently sidestepping other points. Classic trademarks of a troll.
 
Quote
Is the EF being used in Africa?
Actually, the TLM IS being used in Africa!

https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2015/04/the-tlm-and-africa.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/30/opinion/sunday/catholics-nigeria-traditional-mass.html

https://www.institute-christ-king.org/institute/african-missions

https://www.monitor.co.ug/uganda/magazines/life/young-catholics-causing-rebirth-of-tridentine-mass-1758328

Quote
No, "we" means anyone who has access to the internet who also attends the TLM, worldwide.

Quote
Which proves my point!
No, you said this:
"We" means U.S. Catholics, right?
 Your rhetorical question implied that it was limited to Catholics in the U.S.

Quote
Who cares? You don't attend the TLM anyway.

Quote
Nice try evading the issue. So much for trolling!
No, the issue is that you attend the Novus Ordo Mass so you don't have a vested interest in the return and growth of the Traditional Latin Mass. The only one evading here is you.

Quote
That's because men like Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI and others who based their lives and careers on Vatican II and the resulting changes will never admit it's been a failure.

By the way, years ago Ratzinger thought the whole "reform of the liturgy" aka the Novus Ordo was detrimental to the life of the Church.

“The drastic manner in which Pope Paul VI reformed the Mass in 1969 provoked extremely serious damage to the Church...The impression was given that this was completely normal...The old structure was broken to pieces, and its pieces were used to construct another structure, to the detriment of the liturgical tradition. The crux of the problem was that the reformed liturgy was presented as a new structure, in opposition to the one which had been formed through history.”
 —Joseph Ratzinger, My Life: Recollections 1927-1977

Yes there is and it's a glaring one.

...

No it's not the same Rite. One was the product of organic development, the other was put together by a committee. This is one of the reasons so many bishops and Cardinals have opposed any return of the TLM. It's an ecclesiology at odds with Vatican II. Pope Benedict XVI himself said it was a new Rite which I highlighted in my previous post. Your argument is ultimately with him, not me.


Quote
Pope Benedict XVI disagrees with you.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/voxnova/2007/07/07/pope-benedict-xvi-likes-the-novus-ordo/


No, Pope Benedict XVI disagrees with himself. He's made any number of contradictory statements regarding any number of subjects through the years and this is one of them.

Quote
No, the problem is that you don't understand that liturgy is part of the Rite, and this includes other Western Rites and their liturgies such as the Ambrosian, Sarum, Mozarabic, etc.

Quote
Actually, the point that liturgy is part of the rite proves Pope Benedict XVI's point.
Which was not YOUR point. YOUR point was that I confused liturgy with Rite. You're contradicting yourself now.

Quote

Oh please. Are you that ignorant that you don't know that "ship" has been used as a metaphor for the Church (ex: The Bark of Peter) and that the Church is often portrayed as a ship in theology and architecture? Good grief.
http://www.philipkosloski.com/how-the-church-is-portrayed-as-a-ship-in-theology-architecture/


Quote
Oh, please. Are you that ignorant that you don't know that the other Churches don't use the Roman Rite?

Good grief.
Once again, reduced to repeating other people's lines because you're a troll with nothing worthwhile to say.
Also once again, the Eastern Catholic Churches are not the issue here nor are their liturgies. The Roman Rite is the flagship Rite of the Church.

Quote
After "that" beginning in 1969 we've had a Tower of Babel inside the Roman Catholic Church.

Quote
Actually, more than a thousand years before that.
False. Latin has been the official language of the liturgy in the Roman Catholic Church since the Papacy of Pope St. Damasus I.

Quote
Once again, point missed.

Quote
Once again, not only point missed but reality missed.
The reality is that the Novus Ordo is dying and it won't be saved by the Third World with all of the problems they have in their respective churches where the Novus Ordo is used.
« Last Edit: March 20, 2021, 05:45:39 PM by Mr. Mysterious »
"Take courage! I have overcome the world." John 16:33
 
The following users thanked this post: Miriam_M, Elizabeth.2

Offline Vincentus Ioannes

  • Vizekorporal
  • **
  • Posts: 224
  • Thanked: 233 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Bishop Barron at it again
« Reply #77 on: March 20, 2021, 11:47:31 AM »
Yesterday I came across the story of Fr. Montgomery-Wright.  He was an Anglican Cornishman who converted to Catholicism and then went to Normandy to be the pastor of a small country parish.  He was an early enthusiast of the liturgical changes, but eventually became disillusioned and reverted to the Traditional Mass.  His Novus bishop/“bishop” (?) basically left him alone, and the parish continued the old ways until he died in 1996.  It was basically the only parish in the area whose Mass attendance numbers didn’t collapse during that period.

 
The following users thanked this post: Lynne, Miriam_M, Prayerful

Offline Arvinger

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Korporal
  • **
  • Posts: 379
  • Thanked: 447 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Bishop Barron at it again
« Reply #78 on: March 20, 2021, 12:27:56 PM »
I thought it would be obvious to almost anyone on a Traditional Catholic forum that Benedict XVI is a heretic, but apparently not. Among other things, Benedict XVI taught that the Old Testament "does not unequivocally point towards Christ" and "there are perfectly good reasons for denying that the Old Testament refers to Christ and for saying, No, that is not what he said." (Ratzinger's book God and the World). He also holds that Jews can be saved  without conversion ot Christianity, that "ecumenism of the return" (i.e converting non-Catholic heretics and schismatics to Catholicism) is no longer Church's mission (adress to Protestants from WYD in 2005), and that Protestantism is "not a heresy" (from his book The Meaning of Christian Brotherhood). He also denied inerrancy of Scripture several times and admitted that V2 documents consitute a "counte-syllabus" to bl. Pius IX's Syllabus of Errors, thus admitting that V2 contradicts Catholic Magisterium. He was also one of the most influential theologians during the V2 fiasco.

Benedict XVI is clearly not a Catholic.

What is this? Drama queen week? So when did the esteemed theologian Cardinal Arvinger start making such accusations against Pope Benedict XVI?
Predictably, you refuse to address the well-documented fact that Benedict XVI taught numerous heresies on varius occasions, not to mention public acts of apostasy like participating in a Jewish religious service, praying in a Mosque with Muslims, etc. 
 

Offline Arvinger

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Korporal
  • **
  • Posts: 379
  • Thanked: 447 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Bishop Barron at it again
« Reply #79 on: March 20, 2021, 12:31:22 PM »

I thought it would be obvious to almost anyone on a Traditional Catholic forum that Benedict XVI is a heretic, but apparently not. Among other things, Benedict XVI taught that the Old Testament "does not unequivocally point towards Christ" and "there are perfectly good reasons for denying that the Old Testament refers to Christ and for saying, No, that is not what he said." (Ratzinger's book God and the World).

I pulled out my copy of God and the World and I can't find the passage you're talking about. What page or chapter is it in?  What I'm reading is stating the opposite of what you claim. 

"if therefore, I read the Bible in the Spirit in which it was written, from Christ, in fact. or if I read it as a believing Jew, if I read it from the right starting point, that is, and read in faith, then indeed it has the power to transform me. It leads me into the attitude of Christ; it interprets my life to me, and changes me personally."  (God and the World) Ignatius press ---page 155 The Two Testaments

It is in chapter 8, "Revelation". Here is the full quote:

"It is of course possible to read the Old Testament so that it is not directed toward Christ; it does not point quite unequivocally to Christ.  And if Jews cannot see the promises as being fulfilled in him, this is not just ill will on their part, but genuinely because of the obscurity of the texts and the tension in the relationship between these texts and the figure of Jesus. Jesus brings a new meaning to these texts - yet it is he who first gives them their proper coherence and relevance and significance.  There are perfectly good reasons, then, for denying that the Old Testament refers to Christ and for saying, No, that is not what he said.  And there are also good reasons for referring it to him – that is what the dispute between Jews and Christians is about."
 
The following users thanked this post: Innocent Smith

Offline Gerard

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 4112
  • Thanked: 1832 times
  • .. and his raiment became white and glittering
Re: Bishop Barron at it again
« Reply #80 on: March 21, 2021, 01:29:45 AM »
Interesting.  I'm having difficulty finding particularly what is wrong in what Benedict VI is stating based on my personal experience of slogging through the Old Testament page by page and I'm developing some interesting questions to explore as a result. As I started, a priest warned me, "You have to read the Bible with two sets of eyes.  If you don't have the Church teaching you what it means, it'll scandalize you with all of the bad behavior, the wars and murders etc."

But what Benedict is stating doesn't seem unreasonable to me.  I'm thinking of the Ethiopian Eunuch and Phillip the Deacon.  The Eunuch reads the Scriptures and Phillip asks him if he understands what he's reading.  He says basically, no.  I need someone to teach me what this is all means.  Obviously he was reading the O.T.  A few more examples come to mind with the risen Christ having to explain the Scriptures on the road to Emmaus in order for them to understand truly what they had been taught all their lives.  Jesus in the Temple as a boy would be a third example. 

One of the many points/ or questions I've been meaning to put together AFTER I've finished reading the Bible cover to cover is this:  Are the books of Bible actually intended to be a resource by which someone can actually find THE faith independently of the Church?  Or, are they something that must be and can be only understood correctly if they are guided by and supplemented by the full Deposit of Faith contained in the Church?  I mean, the Bible wasn't inspired or collected in order to be an outside book that all sorts of "Christians" are supposed to fight over.  But it is.  Sola Scriptura and the Bible doesn't have the stability within its own text to guarantee a theological and authentic understanding of all Public Revelation. 

I'm actually confounded that we even have Protestants at all.  I think they actually take a lot of what the Church teaches and assume it's directly there in the Scriptures and then they add on quotes and passages to use against the Church because their ultimate reason for existing is to oppose the Church, not learn the Truth.  They have a dim set of second eyes that comes from the Church. 

Ironically, it's also a very common practice among the most virulent anti-Catholic Protestants to avoid looking in the Old Testament for proofs that refer to a Catholic understanding of the New Testament which demonstrates how the Church is the reality that the New Testament describes. 

So, why wouldn't Jews simply look at the Old Testament and simply see Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac being stopped as a decree from God that He doesn't want human sacrifice, instead of the Catholic understanding that Isaac is a figure of Christ and the Angel stopping Abraham was because the sacrifice was not going to be sufficient to reconcile God and Man the way Christ's would be.  Ultimately the argument won't be in the text but rather the authority to interpret the text or to declare the text inspired. 

Anybody have any thoughts on this?

« Last Edit: March 21, 2021, 10:09:36 AM by Gerard »
 
The following users thanked this post: Innocent Smith, Prayerful

Offline Innocent Smith

  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 1285
  • Thanked: 745 times
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
Re: Bishop Barron at it again
« Reply #81 on: March 21, 2021, 01:47:04 PM »
Interesting.  I'm having difficulty finding particularly what is wrong in what Benedict VI is stating based on my personal experience of slogging through the Old Testament page by page and I'm developing some interesting questions to explore as a result. As I started, a priest warned me, "You have to read the Bible with two sets of eyes.  If you don't have the Church teaching you what it means, it'll scandalize you with all of the bad behavior, the wars and murders etc."

But what Benedict is stating doesn't seem unreasonable to me.  I'm thinking of the Ethiopian Eunuch and Phillip the Deacon.  The Eunuch reads the Scriptures and Phillip asks him if he understands what he's reading.  He says basically, no.  I need someone to teach me what this is all means.  Obviously he was reading the O.T.  A few more examples come to mind with the risen Christ having to explain the Scriptures on the road to Emmaus in order for them to understand truly what they had been taught all their lives.  Jesus in the Temple as a boy would be a third example. 

One of the many points/ or questions I've been meaning to put together AFTER I've finished reading the Bible cover to cover is this:  Are the books of Bible actually intended to be a resource by which someone can actually find THE faith independently of the Church?  Or, are they something that must be and can be only understood correctly if they are guided by and supplemented by the full Deposit of Faith contained in the Church?  I mean, the Bible wasn't inspired or collected in order to be an outside book that all sorts of "Christians" are supposed to fight over.  But it is.  Sola Scriptura and the Bible doesn't have the stability within its own text to guarantee a theological and authentic understanding of all Public Revelation. 

I'm actually confounded that we even have Protestants at all.  I think they actually take a lot of what the Church teaches and assume it's directly there in the Scriptures and then they add on quotes and passages to use against the Church because their ultimate reason for existing is to oppose the Church, not learn the Truth.  They have a dim set of second eyes that comes from the Church. 

Ironically, it's also a very common practice among the most virulent anti-Catholic Protestants to avoid looking in the Old Testament for proofs that refer to a Catholic understanding of the New Testament which demonstrates how the Church is the reality that the New Testament describes. 

So, why wouldn't Jews simply look at the Old Testament and simply see Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac being stopped as a decree from God that He doesn't want human sacrifice, instead of the Catholic understanding that Isaac is a figure of Christ and the Angel stopping Abraham was because the sacrifice was not going to be sufficient to reconcile God and Man the way Christ's would be.  Ultimately the argument won't be in the text but rather the authority to interpret the text or to declare the text inspired. 

Anybody have any thoughts on this?

Look, Gerard.  The trouble isn't that it is possible for the Jews, or anyone else, to interpret Scripture differently than the Catholic Church.  The trouble is they do it in opposition to the Church as one front in their war to undermine Christendom.  Christendom being Europe until fairly recently.  And this is necessary so they can trade in cloth and paper and live off what basically amounts to the taxation of every transaction between 2 or more human beings. 

Further, it is the job of the Church, of which Benedict was once the head, to instruct Jews rather than to engage in dialogue with them.  So his quotes which you have supplied do indeed supply a nice cover, or exculpation from his failure as a council "father, lol" close advisor to JPII, Pope, and now Pope Emeritus who resides at the Vatican Retirement Home. 

The Protestants do use the Old Testament all the time to refute Catholicism so I am puzzled why you would even bother to mention that "Protestants do not use the Old Testament to prove Catholicism".  Maybe  you were just being sarcastic. 

About 5  years ago the Vatican published a document that was supposedly the final say on Jews.  It said remaining a Jew was A-Ok with the Church founded by Jesus Christ.
I am going to hold a pistol to the head of the modern man. But I shall not use it to kill him, only to bring him to life.
 

Offline Gerard

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 4112
  • Thanked: 1832 times
  • .. and his raiment became white and glittering
Re: Bishop Barron at it again
« Reply #82 on: March 21, 2021, 05:22:37 PM »

Look, Gerard.  The trouble isn't that it is possible for the Jews, or anyone else, to interpret Scripture differently than the Catholic Church.  The trouble is they do it in opposition to the Church as one front in their war to undermine Christendom.  Christendom being Europe until fairly recently.  And this is necessary so they can trade in cloth and paper and live off what basically amounts to the taxation of every transaction between 2 or more human beings. 

You're ignoring the question because it's not the question you want Ratzinger to have answered.  Now you seem to be agreeing with Ratzinger's answer to the question in order to jump off into a tangent about the rest of his career. 

The question wasn't about the "ill will" of Jews which he actually mentioned, it's about the obscurity of the texts themselves.  If the question had been about how the Jews persecute the Church, I'm sure there would have been a different answer, probably one that would have caused the whole world to go into a ruckus and he would've gone not far enough for many "trads." 

Quote
Further, it is the job of the Church, of which Benedict was once the head, to instruct Jews rather than to engage in dialogue with them.

Clarify the distinction between "instruct" and "dialogue."  You seem to be making hay out what kind of pedagogy you prefer.  That's a fair argument but it's not a sin. 

Quote
So his quotes which you have supplied do indeed supply a nice cover, or exculpation from his failure as a council "father, lol" close advisor to JPII, Pope, and now Pope Emeritus who resides at the Vatican Retirement Home. 

This is nuts.  You are taking a simple question he was asked and using his answer about that particular question as a means to judge his whole existence.  The answer he gave is about the Scriptures themselves, Vatican II, relations with Jews is all irrelevant nonsense. 

Quote
The Protestants do use the Old Testament all the time to refute Catholicism so I am puzzled why you would even bother to mention that "Protestants do not use the Old Testament to prove Catholicism".  Maybe  you were just being sarcastic. 

That's not what I wrote.  Protestants are not monolithic.  So, "The Protestants..." is wrong.  I stated that many (not all) virulantly Anti-Catholic Protestants do not refer to the Old Testament at all when they attack the Church.  They prefer to quote the New Testament in order to superficially make a case against Church because the text, out of context can look damning.  The Old Testament bears too many similarities to what has been fulfilled in the Church, so they avoid looking at the prefigurements for the Church and Catholicism in general in the Old Testament.  Other Protestants will use the OT to attack the Church, I wasn't referring to them. 


Quote
About 5  years ago the Vatican published a document that was supposedly the final say on Jews.  It said remaining a Jew was A-Ok with the Church founded by Jesus Christ.

How does any of that invalidate what Ratzinger said about the obscurity of the texts of the Old Testament?  I'm simply pointing out that what was cited as Ratzinger's big, criminal statement and heresy about the Old Testament, is not incorrect as far as I can tell.  He's either right or wrong.  How he ties his shoes or handled Covid or drank beer or answered any other question before or after is irrelevant.  If the answer is wrong, state how the answer is wrong, not how Ratzinger or Benedict XVI was wrong somewhere else.  You'd think if you asked him the time some people would pile on him if he said "it's about 5pm" when it's 4:57 pm.   
 

Offline Innocent Smith

  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 1285
  • Thanked: 745 times
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
Re: Bishop Barron at it again
« Reply #83 on: March 22, 2021, 01:24:34 PM »

Look, Gerard.  The trouble isn't that it is possible for the Jews, or anyone else, to interpret Scripture differently than the Catholic Church.  The trouble is they do it in opposition to the Church as one front in their war to undermine Christendom.  Christendom being Europe until fairly recently.  And this is necessary so they can trade in cloth and paper and live off what basically amounts to the taxation of every transaction between 2 or more human beings. 

You're ignoring the question because it's not the question you want Ratzinger to have answered.  Now you seem to be agreeing with Ratzinger's answer to the question in order to jump off into a tangent about the rest of his career. 

The question wasn't about the "ill will" of Jews which he actually mentioned, it's about the obscurity of the texts themselves.  If the question had been about how the Jews persecute the Church, I'm sure there would have been a different answer, probably one that would have caused the whole world to go into a ruckus and he would've gone not far enough for many "trads." 

Quote
Further, it is the job of the Church, of which Benedict was once the head, to instruct Jews rather than to engage in dialogue with them.

Clarify the distinction between "instruct" and "dialogue."  You seem to be making hay out what kind of pedagogy you prefer.  That's a fair argument but it's not a sin. 

Quote
So his quotes which you have supplied do indeed supply a nice cover, or exculpation from his failure as a council "father, lol" close advisor to JPII, Pope, and now Pope Emeritus who resides at the Vatican Retirement Home. 

This is nuts.  You are taking a simple question he was asked and using his answer about that particular question as a means to judge his whole existence.  The answer he gave is about the Scriptures themselves, Vatican II, relations with Jews is all irrelevant nonsense. 

Quote
The Protestants do use the Old Testament all the time to refute Catholicism so I am puzzled why you would even bother to mention that "Protestants do not use the Old Testament to prove Catholicism".  Maybe  you were just being sarcastic. 

That's not what I wrote.  Protestants are not monolithic.  So, "The Protestants..." is wrong.  I stated that many (not all) virulantly Anti-Catholic Protestants do not refer to the Old Testament at all when they attack the Church.  They prefer to quote the New Testament in order to superficially make a case against Church because the text, out of context can look damning.  The Old Testament bears too many similarities to what has been fulfilled in the Church, so they avoid looking at the prefigurements for the Church and Catholicism in general in the Old Testament.  Other Protestants will use the OT to attack the Church, I wasn't referring to them. 


Quote
About 5  years ago the Vatican published a document that was supposedly the final say on Jews.  It said remaining a Jew was A-Ok with the Church founded by Jesus Christ.

How does any of that invalidate what Ratzinger said about the obscurity of the texts of the Old Testament?  I'm simply pointing out that what was cited as Ratzinger's big, criminal statement and heresy about the Old Testament, is not incorrect as far as I can tell.  He's either right or wrong.  How he ties his shoes or handled Covid or drank beer or answered any other question before or after is irrelevant.  If the answer is wrong, state how the answer is wrong, not how Ratzinger or Benedict XVI was wrong somewhere else.  You'd think if you asked him the time some people would pile on him if he said "it's about 5pm" when it's 4:57 pm.

All I have to say in response to this is the OT is not obscure.  The Church has an entire Operating System which would tend to disagree with that statement from the German Professor.   

This Operating System has different Operating Systems within it.  The Bible, Tradition with a capital 'T', and Magesterium.  Add to that what touches the clergy and laity on a daily basis which is the Mass of the Day and the Divine Office.  Priests have been praying those Old Testament Psalms for almost 2k years.  I think We, the Church, have made it abundantly clear that the Old Testament points to Jesus Christ. 

Sorry you get so lost in the minutiae. 

You and Ratzinger deserve each other.
I am going to hold a pistol to the head of the modern man. But I shall not use it to kill him, only to bring him to life.
 

Offline Gerard

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 4112
  • Thanked: 1832 times
  • .. and his raiment became white and glittering
Re: Bishop Barron at it again
« Reply #84 on: March 22, 2021, 02:09:34 PM »
I was being nice.  I see now that you're just an a-hole.   A calumniating, lying a-hole. 

I thought perhaps you were just stupid but well intentioned.  I don't have a problem with that.  But  it's clear that you're stupid and an a-hole. 

Now, I have to apologize to other readers for pointing that obvious statement out with a rough description but unfortunately it's apt and it fits you to a tee.   
And I also have to decide if I want to waste the time demonstrating what an embarrassing lying, moron you are. 

You couldn't even read a simple and respectful response I made without distorting it. Whether it was because you are a malicious liar or a well intentioned moron is now settled.  You are a liar. When I clarified it further out of charity, you decided you want to be what you are.  Fine. We can play that game. Kid gloves are off.

The idea of you being a fellow Catholic is out the window.  You are just some freakshow that makes up what he wants because you want to fight some fight you don't even understand. 

It doesn't matter to you if you are telling the truth, or being fair.  You just want to blow smoke and scandalize people to buying into your deceit, if you have to make it up...so be it.   



All I have to say in response to this is the OT is not obscure. (this is a moronic assertion, the very notes themselves in the Haydock edition state obscurity in passages all the time. Why do you think we have so many commentaries that give alternatives as to what is being actually referred to in the text? )  The Church has an entire Operating System which would tend to disagree with that statement from the German Professor.  You don't even understand what he said or the whole context.  The very fact that you are referring to the Church's understanding vs. how a Jew or Protestant would read it is proof that you don't even care about the question.

This Operating System has different Operating Systems within it.  The Bible, Tradition with a capital 'T', and Magesterium.  Add to that what touches the clergy and laity on a daily basis which is the Mass of the Day and the Divine Office.  Priests have been praying those Old Testament Psalms for almost 2k years.  I think We, the Church, have made it abundantly clear that the Old Testament points to Jesus Christ.   You are an utter and complete idiot.  That's what Ratzinger said and I wrote. But that is a "cover" according to you, but not when you state it.  You admit that the texts themselves need the Church to show where and how they point to Christ. You simply deny the corollary that without the Church the Scriptures are liable to be misunderstood.  (which is what the Scriptures themselves say!   

Sorry you get so lost in the minutiae.  Sorry you have no reading comprehension nor good will, nor moral standards of behavior.

You and Ratzinger deserve each other.  Thanks. Because an argument with him would be a challenge and you wouldn't be there to misrepresent anyone.  I wouldn't have to condescend to someone who doesn't even understand the basics of Catholicism, let alone clear thinking nor honest debate. 


Have a blessed and fruitful Lent. 
« Last Edit: March 23, 2021, 11:02:39 AM by Gerard »
 

Offline Arvinger

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Korporal
  • **
  • Posts: 379
  • Thanked: 447 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Bishop Barron at it again
« Reply #85 on: April 09, 2021, 11:49:09 AM »
We have to remember about the wider context of the Ratzinger quote about the Old Testament prophecies and the Jews. We know the Conciliar Church believes that Jews can be saved without conversion to Catholicism and that the Old Covenant is still valid, which is in itself heretical and is repeated in the heretical new Catechism. Benedict XVI himself participated in a Jewish worship service, which is in itself a sin against First Commandment. In that quote Ratzinger does not merely says that the Old Testament prophecies are obscure, he is saying that the Jews are justified in their rejection of Christ. So, it is not merely an isolated quote, but expression of a heretical belief of the Conciliar Church in that regard.
 

Offline james03

  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 9876
  • Thanked: 4327 times
  • The Brutal Clarity of a Winter Morning
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Bishop Barron at it again
« Reply #86 on: April 09, 2021, 01:03:39 PM »
Quote
that the Old Covenant is still valid, which is in itself heretical

Yep.  Just do a search on DRBO for "void covenant" and see how many times in the OT it is stated that the jews voided the Old Covenant.

Quote
And the Lord said to Moses: Behold thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, and this people rising up will go a fornicating after strange gods in the land, to which it goeth in to dwell: there will they forsake me, and will make void the covenant, which I have made with them,"
"But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God (Jn 3:18)."

"All sorrow leads to the foot of the Cross.  Weep for your sins."

"Although He should kill me, I will trust in Him"