Posted on 08/08/2005 2:41:43 AM PDT by bornacatholic
Oh just another little bit of insanity from our fun lovin' friend.
He used his native languages, Aramaic and Hebrew!!!!!!
The premier world-wide Sedevacantist site:
http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/
... run by my friend John Lane, notes this on its homepage:
"On Saturday July 6th 2002 at the Turning Stone Resort, in up-state New York, Mr. John S. Daly of France and Mr. John Lane of Australia presented two papers on the vacancy of the Holy See, followed by a short presentation by Mr. Gerry Matatics of the USA. Mr. Matatics proceeded to provide a series of objections to the "sede vacante" thesis, which the speakers answered."
Dear Hermann the Cherusker,
So, what exactly does this mean, regarding Mr. Matatics, that in 2002, he objected to the sedevacantist thesis?
Thanks,
sitetest
No, he made a presentation on Sedevacantism, then played Devil's Advocate to Messers. Lane and Daly to allow them to answer common objections to the thesis.
More to the point, he was a speaker at a Sedevacantist conference.
Dear Hermann,
Gotcha, thanks.
I was a sedevacantist for a couple of weeks back in April.
;-)
sitetest
Lingua graeca maybe, but not lingua franca. ;-)
Of course, you can't have three native tongues. A native tongue is that which you grow up speaking and thinking in.
You don't know what you are talking about, as usual.
Quite how you manage to convince yourself of this while rejecting outright several Popes in succession
Another ridiculous conclusion of yours. Obviously "rejecting" a Pope has two different meanings between you and I. I don't reject a Pope because He's a bad Pope. You obviously reject truth and common sense for your false sense of communion.
and openly supporting an organization which defies the Pope in consecrating its own bishops, is simply one more example, to go with the many others highlighted here by various posters, of the distorted Catholicism which you present.
As usual, you are stuck in this loop that you are afraid to get around. I can back up my positions with doctrine and facts. You won't address those issues. You are a broken record. The truth is the last few Popes have been systematically dismantling the Catholic Church. You wouldn't know this since you don't know the Catholic faith. But facts are facts.
"Bad"? What sort of a nebulous, ill-defined term is that?
No more nebulous and ill-defined than your use of terms like "communion" and "obedience" in reference to the Pope.
The whole thing is hopelessly subjective.
No. It's not.
You say that John Paul II was a "bad" Pope.
Based on facts.
I say he was an inspiration.
Based on nothing to do with the Catholic faith.
Neither opinion really matters.
No. Opinions based on facts are better than fantasies based on feelings.
Is this Protestantism where we each get to decide how "bad" the Pope is?
No. You use the word "Protestantism" as a dodge to avoid the word, "reason." You seem to have no trouble beleiving that Alexander VI or Pope Stephen VI were bad Popes.
As I've pointed out before, we owe the Pope customary obedience.
When the Pope behaves customarily.
The obedience due to our earthly, biological father.
If you're father is an ass, then you adjust your level of obedience accordingly.
It's not for me-or you- to decide whether the Pope is "bad".
No. It's for us to determine. I decide what I'm having for lunch. I determine that food is fresh or spoiled. We don't judge the Pope. The facts do. If you can't determine that the Pope is bad, you can't determine that he is good.
You've started with a false premise. It's our duty to humbly submit to his authority. Nothing more.
No. That is your false premise. It's our duty to submit to the truth.
At what point is it permissible to resist a Pope?
Denying or altering the deposit of faith.
You're wrong of course. Would the deacon that was ordered to provide answers for the corpse of Formosus have been wrong to refuse to participate in that abomination of a trial? Yes or No? If you answer Yes, then your premise is wrong. If you answer no. Then you have no clue about Catholicism.
Ping me when this happens.
How would you determine when it happens? What criteria will you use to determine that?
What is the requirement for knowing that a Pope is in error?
See previous response.
Not good enough. See previous rebuttal.
There seems to be a major difference in outlook, here. Most of my thoughts and spiritual reflections center on my own transgressions and unworthiness.
I doubt you even know half of your transgressions and errors in thinking. It's not your fault though, you simply do not have a Catholic formation.
The question of whether the Pope is good or "bad" is something I seldom, if ever, consider.
Well, you are contradicting yourself because you seem to be able to say JPII was an inspiration. Unless that means something other than "good". But that's part of the problem. You think everything that pops out of a Pope's mouth is automatically good. Bad Popes are a thing of the past. (pre-Vatican II) But if a modern Pope spouts out error and nebulous ill-defined doctrine and leads others into more severe error, while ignoring vast aspects of the faith. Well, he's an inspiration.
You, on the other hand, seem to think it's a topic for daily evaluation. Strange.
We live in strange times with strange Popes popping out strange statements on a daily basis. Maybe you should stop worrying about Me "on the other hand." You seem a bit obsessed with judging my interior disposition.
Hermann,
I'll get to your "Trent" citations a little later, I don't have time to deal with a "shot-gun" blast of citations and with your loosey goosey conclusions.
But I have to say this one made me laugh.
"None of these points address what Fr. Groeschel may or may not have said, which I cannot fully address."
You don't know what Groeschel said and you can't fully address them. But you know that none of them apply.
That is a howler!
God Bless.
No, your relation of what he was trying to say does not indicate any applicability of the points from the Syllabus.
You, sir, are an idiot. You know nothing about me but you know what I wear to work and Church, and call me names in response to a simple question.
Ever hear of RESPECT?
So only priests are to receive the Eucharist?
How do you know?
We do know how the traditional passover meal was eaten.
It's the priests that have maintained those forms of reverence
It is the Church that maintains the Traditions. It is the priests who create their own traditions.
So only priests are to receive the Eucharist?
No. But only priests were taught how to consecrate at that Last Supper.
We do know how the traditional passover meal was eaten.
That Last Supper wasn't finished traditionally. Jesus put the cup of consummation down and would not drink from it until he was on the cross. It was then that he finished it.
"It's the priests that have maintained those forms of reverence..."
It is the Church that maintains the Traditions. It is the priests who create their own traditions.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. The original comment was about priests who have exhibited supernatural piety and miraculous events.
No, your relation of what he was trying to say does not indicate any applicability of the points from the Syllabus.
Groeschel said that people are saved by believing in their own religion sincerely. He doesn't want people to convert. He wants Jews to be good Jews, Moslems to be good Moslems, Protestants to be good Protestants. etc.
15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true.—Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862; Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.--CONDEMNED
He did not distinguish even Christianity as an exclusive way to salvation. Basically a Jew can be saved by being a good Jew.
16. Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation.—Encyclical "Qui pluribus," Nov. 9, 1846..--CONDEMNED
He is positive that people are saved who are not in the Catholic Church.
17. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ.—Encyclical "Quanto conficiamur," Aug. 10, 1863, etc..--CONDEMNED
Ya know, when I sit and read your posts, I see very little of substance. Strip away the customary condescending "I'm so smart, your so dumb" schtick, such as that above, and there's nothing there. Honestly.
The truth is the last few Popes have been systematically dismantling the Catholic Church. You wouldn't know this since you don't know the Catholic faith. But facts are facts.
This is a good example of what I'm talking about.
The "truth"? Really?
Let's be a little more honest with words, shall we?
You say it's the truth, right? It's the truth according to Gerard, right? And in my world, that makes it nothing more than an opinion, yes? Your opinion.
It's 150 miles from Augusta to Atlanta. That is a fact. "The last few Popes have been systematically dismantling the Church" is an opinion, dufus. A crazy one. Oh.....in my opinion, of course. Mustn't forget that.
Then, of course, to try and cover this smokescreen and confer a little false gravitas on this bluster, you throw in a little more of the usual "you're so dumb schtick"..... "You wouldn't know this since you don't know the Catholic faith."
In other words, don't question me because you don't know anything and can't be right.
We've all read your BS about the Council of Trent on this thread.
You're an empty suit, pal.
Guess what?
When the Pope is trashed unrelentingly, Catholics get angry.
What a shocker! Who new?
A significant amount of what has been posted here over the past months and years, under the guise of "tradition" has been aimed precisely at achieving this. Whether you in particular have been a party to this, I'm unsure.
Many of the main offenders have since been shown the door and the tone of the boards has improved appreciably, in my opinion.
However, it's a little unrealistic to expect that the forum can be spammed relentlessly with negative material about the Pope without eliciting some sort of reaction, wouldn't you say?
I have re-read your post #190. While I sympathise with your sentiment -- that trads have been disregarded and abused for 40 years -- I have to concede there's some truth in bornacatholic's post. Just as I've seen insolent rebellion, schismatic contempt for authority, and an insidious will to discard Tradition in preference for a man-made church on the AmChurch side, I've seen ignorance, pride, disobedience, and (in extreme cases) heresy amongst many ultra-trads. I don't recall much if any trad anti-semitism (blinkered triumphalism and a disordered grasp of EENS should not be taken as such). Neither side appears to have any use for obedience.
Game. Set. Match. :)
Brilliant and succinct summary of the situation, Diva--you're 100% right. I dunno if you caught my comment earlier, but I go to a wonderful indult parish, and only attend the N.O. when I have to.
No. The facts don't judge the Pope. You do.
That's because there's a subjective element involved in drawing conclusions from facts. Any given "fact" can be interpreted in different ways by different individuals.
Here's what I mean.
Two men wait 5 minutes for a burger in a fast food outlet. There's your fact right there.
Now the conclusions drawn from that fact differ between the two men. One man decides that 5 minutes is too long to wait, the service is far too slow for his liking, becomes totally disatisfied and complains. The second concludes that this is nothing more than the normal ebb and flow of business and waits patiently for his order.
The subjective dispositions of the respective indiviuals determine how the "fact" is processed.
It's the same with your so called "facts" about the last five Popes. There's a subjective element involved in processing these facts.
If you can't determine that the Pope is bad, you can't determine that he is good.
True.
But that's only half of the story.
There's a default position for Catholics, of customary obedience. This assumes that the Pope is good. Second guessing his every move and deciding whether he is good or bad is not a part of this process. He's the Pope.
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.