Posted on 01/25/2005 2:58:28 PM PST by csbyrnes84
Funny how G always uses authoritative Church documents, usually prior to Vatican II, to debunk your notions. The Kingship of Christ IS reaffirmed in the new Catechism and even in Dignitatis Humanae itself. But don't bother yourself with the facts.
Sometimes I wonder if you even know what the content of modernism is. It seems to be free flowing with you.
As a traditional Catholic who is not blinded to where authority lies, keep up the good work. Your witness here is sorely needed and is in complete harmony with truth and unity.
"The establishment of Catholicism as the national religion is forbidden by our constitution, and Catholicism as a "state religion" is the very thing the concept of the Kingship of Christ advocates."
You are correct. It was founded based upon Freemasonic principles and is a heresy--as is freedom of speech.
No, only anti-Catholics call it the Dark Ages. But with today's educational system and media propaganda, who can blame you for spreading this misinformation.
"Free speech" as in Protestants preaching in their churches?
That has to do with religious liberty. In the U.S., religious liberty can be "tolerated" according to Church teaching and Dignitatis Humanae.
But is of course not the ideal. We cannot coerce people against their will to convert to Catholicism. It is about as simple as that.
Also, error has no rights. So nobody has a moral right to publicly promulgate error. Sometimes though, to avoid a greater evil, this must be tolerated by the State.
2108 The right to religious liberty is neither a moral license to adhere to error, nor a supposed right to error,37 but rather a natural right of the human person to civil liberty, i.e., immunity, within just limits, from external constraint in religious matters by political authorities. This natural right ought to be acknowledged in the juridical order of society in such a way that it constitutes a civil right.382109 The right to religious liberty can of itself be neither unlimited nor limited only by a "public order" conceived in a positivist or naturalist manner.39 The "due limits" which are inherent in it must be determined for each social situation by political prudence, according to the requirements of the common good, and ratified by the civil authority in accordance with "legal principles which are in conformity with the objective moral order."40
37 Cf. Leo XIII, Libertas praestantissimum 18; Pius XII AAS 1953,799.
38 Cf. DH 2.
39 Cf. Pius VI, Quod aliquantum (1791) 10; Pius IX, Quanta cura 3.
40 DH 7 § 3.
While I don't believe you are intending to be mean spirited and hateful toward your Protestant brethren, your dogmatic attitude is no different from those Protestants who believe that the Pope is the anti-Christ and that the Roman Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon.
Weakly, Mershon. It's done weakly. Like everything else anymore. Kind of like how you approach traditional Catholicism.
"Sometimes I wonder if you even know what the content of modernism is."
Yes I do.
"It seems to be free flowing with you."
Of course Modernism is free flowing. That's part of the nature of it.
G uses whatever texts suits his purpose of trying to make the new stuff jive with the old stuff. If you like it, hey, who's stopping you from being every which way at once.
Doesn't matter. Tomorrow you'll change your mind again anyways.
Actually, not at all. I actually get along with them quite well in person. You know what? I think they appreciate the fact that I'm completely up front with them. Perhaps they find it more refreshing than seeing the usual walking on pins and needles and psuedo-tact and bogus politeness and all that garbage... we obvious watering down and preparation of hard Catholic dogma for their consumption. They clue in real fast to that kind of dishonesty.
"...your dogmatic attitude is no different from those Protestants who believe that the Pope is the anti-Christ and that the Roman Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon."
There's a big difference. They're wrong. lol!
True. The Constitution is silent on establishment of religion by states and as far as I know several states had religious requirement for voters and for office holders.
Separation of church and state, as the modern conventional view understands it, is a fiction as far as American Constitution, or common sense, are concerned.
True enough but what we ususally hear on TV and school is that politicians derive their power from the people--but that is not correct.
I have a question that seems to be over looked, many traditionalist believe, that the New Ordinations are NOT VALID. So with this news of Priests converting Back, to the One True Mass, the Latin Mass, were these priest re- Orained in the Old Rite, (like Fr. Sommerville time), and who did the re- Ordaining!!!!?//??? This is an all important question, please answer.
Lord, give us priests, many holy Catholic priests!
Gooooooood one !!!
Yes this is a very astute question, and it was one of the first things that I thought about when I heard that Fr. Paul was leaving for California. I really doubt that Fr. Paul will agree to be re-ordained. Personally I was hoping that some of the parishoners out in California would figure out that Fr. Paul was ordained as a Novus Ordo priest, and result in his coming back to New Jersey. I don't know if this will be the case however. It seems as though the Pastor of the Independent Chapel in California is extremely smart, I think he has a PhD., so I doubt he'll allow something like that to happen.
Thank you.
Father Perez, the pastor of Our Lady Help of Christians, has not been reordained in the Old Rite so I strongly doubt he would request that of Fr. Paul.
In my experience, the idea of reordination is controversial. My spiritual director is the former diocesan director of CCD and a brilliant priest. He, and I gather those in the SSPX hierarchy, maintain that the essentials are still there in the N.O. ordination so the sacrament does not need to be repeated. I know there are others who disagree. Then of course, consideration always has to be given as to the bishop who ordained the priest and whether the ordination was altered to make it outright invalid.
My two cents.
It won't happen. Fr. Perez and Fr. Smith are in the same situation.
I sensed something was very wrong but chose not to respond because I did not have all the facts. I also do not like to get into controversies with Catholics,with whom I have much in common,because I love the Church and see disunity as troubling to the max. However,in addition to the change of commitment,there was something odd about the statement he attributed to Opus Dei,which he claimed was the last straw. I have never heard Opus Dei members say anything remotely like that.
Furthermore,nothing was said to indicate that archBishop Myer's had refused to answer him or dismissed his concerns. In fact it seemed to me that he wished to discuss this further. This then led me to wonder whether the young priest gave a hoot what the archBishop,to whom,I assume he pledged obedience,had said. (I don't know who the FSSPdoes report to so am not sure of the whole story) Nonetheless,I sensed something was amiss and I was sad and concerned.
After reading your comment,I am convinced that he is in great need of our prayers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.