Zone1 I need to clarify my views on the Novus Ordo sect v the Sedevacantist (both claim to be Catholic)

[nomadic5]

And yet we are called to stand for good and oppose evil, right?

you can't do that with charity?

 

[ding]

you can't do that with charity?

Yes and I do. Maybe the confusion lies in what charity actually means. Is it charitable to kick a drug addict out of your house? That answer depends upon circumstances, right? If it's the first move, probably not. But if reason and experience can't convince them that their ways are failed behaviors that lead to failure, and every opportunity has been given to no avail, then at some point the charity becomes enabling and it is no longer charity. Sometimes people must learn things the hard way. Sometimes the best way to salvation is to reach rock bottom. So... what exactly is charity and when does charity actually become harmful to you?

 

[nomadic5]

Yes and I do. Maybe the confusion lies in what charity actually means. Is it charitable to kick a drug addict out of your house? That answer depends upon circumstances, right? If it's the first move, probably not. But if reason and experience can't convince them that their ways are failed behaviors that lead to failure, and every opportunity has been given to no avail, then at some point the charity becomes enabling and it is no longer charity. Sometimes people must learn things the hard way. Sometimes the best way to salvation is to reach rock bottom. So... what exactly is charity and when does charity actually become harmful to you?

I don't see how you can compare being charitable to another poster on the forum (or not charitable), someone who is seeking truth and understanding.. to dealing with a drug addict.

 

[ding]

I don't see how you can compare being charitable to another poster on the forum who is seeking truth and understanding.. to dealing with a drug addict.

It's called an analogy. First of all the OP and apparently you do not understand that Vatican II imposed no new doctrine or required any assent from it's members. So your claim that the Pope, church and ordained priests are invalid is invalid. By continuing to bear false witness you and the OP continue to do harm to yourselves and your church. Of which I am a part of.

 

[nomadic5]

It's called an analogy. First of all the OP and apparently you do not understand that Vatican II imposed no new doctrine or required any assent from it's members. So your claim that the Pope, church and ordained priests are invalid is invalid. By continuing to bear false witness you and the OP continue to do harm to yourselves and your church. Of which I am a part of.

So your claim that the Pope, church and ordained priests is invalid.

this in your post makes NO sense.

And it also makes no sense that just because Trads believe differently about modern history of the Church, they are all wrong and those who (blindly, it seems) follow the Vatican are perfectly OK. How can anyone say that? Look what Francis is teaching?! THAT is not Christian. Those outside the CC concur and are ridiculing Catholics in general, pointing their fingers and saying:

See, we told ya! We told you those Catholics are (fill in the blanks)!

But I have yet to see you attack Protestants. I guess you can't deal with their scathing rebukes of your Catholic beliefs...

And you are dead wrong that V2 did not impose new doctrine or require assent. Lefebvre was persecuted and basically told that he had to conform to V2 or be excommunicated.

 

[ding]

So your claim that the Pope, church and ordained priests is invalid.

this in your post makes NO sense.

And it also makes no sense that just because Trads believe differently about modern history of the Church, they are all wrong and those who (blindly, it seems) follow the Vatican are perfectly OK. How can anyone say that? Look what Francis is teaching?! THAT is not Christian. Those outside the CC concur and are ridiculing Catholics in general, pointing their fingers and saying:

See, we told ya! We told you those Catholics are (fill in the blanks)!

But I have yet to see you attack Protestants. I guess you can't deal with their scathing rebukes of your Catholic beliefs...

And you are dead wrong that V2 did not impose new doctrine or require assent. Lefebvre was persecuted and basically told that he had to conform to V2 or be excommunicated.

Where's the heresy, buddy? Make your case. Be specific, because I don't believe you can. I believe that you have accepted that on authority without investigating it for yourself. I'm here to make you investigate it.

 

[ding]

And you are dead wrong that V2 did not impose new doctrine or require assent.

Prove it. What was the new doctrine that required assent from its members?

 

[ding]

But I have yet to see you attack Protestants. I guess you can't deal with their scathing rebukes of your Catholic beliefs...

Why on earth would I ever attack anyone else's beliefs on God? That's between them and God.

The Catholic Church promotes diverse opinions. That's how growth filled communities discover objective truth. As far as scathing rebukes go, when they are objectively valid there's no reason to fight them. God is spirit and we are called to worship God in spirit and truth. But for the invalid rebukes, we are called to oppose them for the sake of truth because God is truth.

 

[nomadic5]

Where's the heresy, buddy? Make your case. Be specific, because I don't believe you can. I believe that you have accepted that on authority without investigating it for yourself. I'm here to make you investigate it.

It looks like you are quick to believe everyone is less informed than yourself.

looks like pride to me.

You have no idea what I have learned over the years and if you think I'm going to sit here all day typing out a fraction of what I know just so you can--well, you would just jump on something else and the cycle would continue.

 

[nomadic5]

Why on earth would I ever attack anyone else's beliefs on God? That's between them and God.

The Catholic Church promotes diverse opinions. That's how growth filled communities discover objective truth. As far as scathing rebukes go, when they are objectively valid there's no reason to fight them. God is spirit and we are called to worship God in spirit and truth. But for the invalid rebukes, we are called to oppose them for the sake of truth because God is truth.

You contradict yourself.

If everyone's beliefs are equal, something V2 promoted, then why would you or anyone else have to stand up for truth? Person A's truth is just as good as Person B's or Person C;s

But no, the Catholic Church once taught (and this is STILL true, hate to tell everyone) that Jesus and His Church have the Truth and everyone else needs to come to that Truth. Jesus set up the Church to save people, not tell them that whatever they want to believe is copostectic with God.

 

[ding]

It looks like you are quick to believe everyone is less informed than yourself.

looks like pride to me.

You have no idea what I have learned over the years and if you think I'm going to sit here all day typing out a fraction of what I know just so you can--well, you would just jump on something else and the cycle would continue.

You haven't named anything specific at all. Not one thing. Am I supposed to just trust you?

 

[ding]

You contradict yourself.

If everyone's beliefs are equal, something V2 promoted, then why would you or anyone else have to stand up for truth? Person A's truth is just as good as Person B's or Person C;s

But no, the Catholic Church once taught (and this is STILL true, hate to tell everyone) that Jesus and His Church have the Truth and everyone else needs to come to that Truth. Jesus set up the Church to save people, not tell them that whatever they want to believe is copostectic with God.

Dude, tell me what the heresy was. Be specific. Let's hear it.

 

[nomadic5]

Dude, tell me what the heresy was. Be specific. Let's hear it.

V2 was not a dogmatic council. But most everyday Catholics likely do not know that--do not know that they don't have to listen to V2's teachings. Of course not all V2 teachings contradict the Word or appear to change doctrine, but Satan likes to mix truth with error.

A lot of Catholics think that Francis is the pope. But no, he is a heretic. And Jesus promised that the gates of Hell (which the saints describe as: heresy) would not prevail against the True Church He founded. Logic tells us that a heretic therefore cannot be pope (except in appearances, but we know how deceptive appearances can be).

Even Christians outside the CC know that Francis is a heretic, because his words contradict Scripture. Jesus never condoned same sex marriage, for example. Francis does.

So the doctrine always taught by the CC that homosexual acts are "intrinsically" evil has been (again: according to appearances) over-ridden by the heretic Francis. But heretics cannot over-ride TRUTH/dogma. No one can over-ride GOD.

 

[ding]

V2 was not a dogmatic council. But most everyday Catholics likely do not know that--do not know that they don't have to listen to V2's teachings. Of course not all V2 teachings contradict the Word or appear to change doctrine, but Satan likes to mix truth with error.

A lot of Catholics think that Francis is the pope. But no, he is a heretic. And Jesus promised that the gates of Hell (which the saints describe as: heresy) would not prevail against the True Church He founded. Logic tells us that a heretic therefore cannot be pope (except in appearances, but we know how deceptive appearances can be).

Even Christians outside the CC know that Francis is a heretic, because his words contradict Scripture. Jesus never condoned same sex marriage, for example. Francis does.

So the doctrine always taught by the CC that homosexual acts are "intrinsically" evil has been (again: according to appearances) over-ridden by the heretic Francis. But heretics cannot over-ride TRUTH/dogma. No one can over-ride GOD.

I don't accept your assertion that Francis has overridden any doctrine at all.

The Catholic Church opposes same-sex sexual activity and same-sex marriage. While the Church says it opposes "unjust" discrimination against homosexual persons, it supports what it considers "just" discrimination in the employment of teachers or athletic coaches, in adoption, in the military and in housing.[1][2] The Catechism of the Catholic Church promulgated by Pope John Paul II considers sexual activity between members of the same sex to be a mortal sin against chastity. It sees homosexual orientation as objectively disordered.[3][4] This teaching has developed through a number of ecumenical councils and the influence of theologians, including the Church Fathers.​

​

The Congegration for the Doctrine of the Faith, in a document approved by Pope Francis, said that the church can not bless same-sex relationships because "God cannot bless sin", while also stating that the non-sexual aspect of the personal relationships between such people may have "positive elements".[5]​

​

Catholic Church and homosexuality - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Care to try again?

 

[notmyfault2020]

It's interesting to me how Protestants are so quick to condemn what they think is the Catholic Church (the Vatican et al) and yet when they have information showing that the Vatican is not where the Catholic Church resides anymore... they just ignore it.

It's so fun to hate the Catholic Church, isn't it?

What's that all about?

I mean, really, what is that about? Why do people love to hate the RCC?

I say that is DEMONIC

Maybe I am wrong (vis a vis INTENTIONS). Maybe it is just abysmal ignorance. But it looks diabolical to me (at this point). Of course Jesus warned us. He said His people would be "hated by all" Mk 13:13 (the old unlucky, apropos number 13)

 

[Donald H]

It's interesting to me how Protestants are so quick to condemn what they think is the Catholic Church (the Vatican et al) and yet when they have information showing that the Vatican is not where the Catholic Church resides anymore... they just ignore it.

It's so fun to hate the Catholic Church, isn't it?

What's that all about?

I mean, really, what is that about? Why do people love to hate the RCC?

I say that is DEMONIC

Maybe I am wrong (vis a vis INTENTIONS). Maybe it is just abysmal ignorance. But it looks diabolical to me (at this point). Of course Jesus warned us. He said His people would be "hated by all" Mk 13:13 (the old unlucky, apropos number 13)

Don’t Be a Superstitious Christian

Scott Redd encourages Christians to reject their pious-sounding superstitions and talismans and rely on Christ alone.

www.thegospelcoalition.org

Superstitious beliefs are demonic.

 

[nomadic5]

Don’t Be a Superstitious Christian

Scott Redd encourages Christians to reject their pious-sounding superstitions and talismans and rely on Christ alone.

www.thegospelcoalition.org

Superstitious beliefs are demonic.

What you call superstitious may not actually be that.

 

[Donald H]

What you call superstitious may not actually be that.

Name one then and see if you get any support. I've already suggested that you've got a head start with Ding and Meriweather on the big boat/big flood event. They both believe in the boat part at least!

 

[nomadic5]

Name one then and see if you get any support. I've already suggested that you've got a head start with Ding and Meriweather on the big boat/big flood event. They both believe in the boat part at least!

Frankly, I don't care about whehter or not I can prove the Flood or any other biblical event happened. I have experienced Christ's actual, tangible Presence and that will always keep me Catholic... always!

Jesus can do things with a person no one else can (or would even if they could). remember, Jesus even brought people back from the dead. All should spend much time in HIs presence. The Flood happening or not.. bleh.. Who cares?

 

[Donald H]

Frankly, I don't care about whehter or not I can prove the Flood or any other biblical event happened. I have experienced Christ's actual, tangible Presence and that will always keep me Catholic... always!

Jesus can do things with a person no one else can (or would even if they could). remember, Jesus even brought people back from the dead. All should spend much time in HIs presence. The Flood happening or not.. bleh.. Who cares?

That's good!
So we'll just have to conclude that there's no supernatural that can be proved from the Christians' POV.

Can we now move on to something that doesn't need proof from the bibles?

How about a horseshoe, 4-leaf clover, levitation, extraterrestrials, the god, whatever seems the best bet?