Posted on 08/08/2005 2:41:43 AM PDT by bornacatholic
I have heard about this "Protocol". But Protocol or not- ARE YOU GOING TO DENY THERE ARE NOT ZIONISTS PRESENT-ESPECIALLY TODAY? HAVE YOU SEEN THE NEWS WITH THE ZIONISTS THRETENING TO KILL THE ISRAELI SOLDIERS IF THEY ARE REMOVED FROM THE WEST BANK? WAS IT NOT THE ZIONISTS WHO WERE THE ORIGINAL "TERRORISTS" AFTER WWII, KILLING AND BLOWING UP THE BRITISH WHO WERE TRYING TO LEAVE PALESTINE IN SOME SORT OF A SEMBLANCE OF A DEMOCRACY-BUT WERE KILLED AND MAIMED BY THE RADICAL JEWS IN THE 30'S AND 40'S?
You should really learn your history before tagging names and labels around, as is the usual liberal way of getting anyone who is "Conservative" to back down. The Democrats use the "Racist" label on Conservative Republicans-and lose every time, and now you have the Novus Ordo Catholics, who really cant debate the issue on merit as they have nothing of substance to fall back on, throwing the antisemitic label around.
Took a quick look - it's amazing how closely the old Book of Common Prayer (Episcopal 1928 and earlier) followed the Latin. To-wit, the Sursum Corda:
The Lord be with you.
And with thy Spirit.
Lift up your hearts.
We lift them up unto the Lord.
Let us give thanks to the Lord our God.
It is meet and right so to do.
It is very meet, right and our bounden duty, that we should in all times and in all places give thanks unto thee, O Lord, Holy Father, Almighty, Everlasting God.
[preface changeable by liturgical season], e.g. the preface for Easter:
But chiefly are we bound to praise thee for the glorious Resurrection of thy Son Jesus Christ our Lord: for he is the very Paschal Lamb, which was offered for us, and hath taken away the sin of the world; who by his death hath destroyed death, and by his rising to life again hath restored to us everlasting life.
Therefore with Angels and Archangels, and with all the company of heaven, we laud and magnify thy glorious Name; evermore praising thee, and saying,
HOLY, HOLY, HOLY, Lord God of hosts, Heaven and earth are full of thy glory: Glory be to thee, O Lord Most High. Amen.
The Pope is by definition the Bishop of Rome. Ergo, no man upon being elected to the Papacy, can become Pope without also becoming a Bishop. And if he does not become Bishop, he does not become Pope, but must at least tacitly resign the election.
But this is quite silly. The election of the Pope belongs by right to the Clergy of the City of Rome. It is not necessary for any of the Cardinals, who hold the office of the titual Churches of Rome to be Bishops for the Pope-elect to become Pope.
And as usual, a man with no spiritual lineage is trashing a man who has helped produce many converts through his writings and apologetics.
Well, certainly some sort of Spirit guides Gerry. It remains to be demonstrated that it is the Holy Spirit. Usually those who are convinced the Holy Spirit is personally guiding them are under the malignant influence of Spirit of Darkness that is flattering their fancies of themselves.
Gerry needs to read a lot of the Sayings of the Desert Fathers. Maybe if he spent some years in ascetical struggle and penance for his previous criminal life as a Protestant, he would gain some real insight and actual Theology.
Dear seamole,
Thank you for finding the answer to the question that I asked of another, only to be told that I was spreading error.
sitetest
Dear Hermann the Cherusker,
"But this is quite silly. The election of the Pope belongs by right to the Clergy of the City of Rome. It is not necessary for any of the Cardinals, who hold the office of the titual Churches of Rome to be Bishops for the Pope-elect to become Pope."
I think that the issue is not whether there were folks who could elect him, but whether he had been validly consecrated a bishop.
It's wearying.
sitetest
I've never seen one. Ever.
I've never seen one. Ever.
You need to check out the "Sola Scriptura When It Suits My Purpose" edition. Very handy when citing to the "Spirit of the Council" fails you. ;-)
Are you implying that angelqueen.org is an anti-semitic site? If so, you could not be more wrong. Management there has the same attitude against antisemitism that is official policy here, and if anything is even more vigilant than FR in policing any antisemitic garbage. If you had spent any time at that site, you would know that. If you HAVE spent time there and still posted this, you should be ashamed!
Sure looks like it to me. I can't imagine why anyone who thinks a site is anti semitic would post there like you do NYer.
Let's see NYer, you've called Gerry Matatics a pharisee and Angel Queen anti semitic in this one thread, what a glorious witness to the fruit of charity bursting forth from the New Spring Time!
Your friends at Angel Queen would like you to back up your accusations:
Is it me, or does the extreme Traditional viewpoint against the N.O. smack of an understanding of the liturgy as magic?
In other words, unless one says things a certain way, using certain movements and in a certain language, the sacrament is an invalid action. To my understanding, this makes the liturgy appear as dependent on the actions of the priest - magic.
If Catholics believe that the Church has been given the power to bind and loosen, authority given by God Himself, then it shouldn't be a problem that when the Church proclaims that it is doing x or y, (despite the actual form and matter, etc) then it really is doing it. GOD is providing grace through the sacrament. Thus, once the Church has established a general form of conducting a sacrament, and is legitimately followed, we understand God as acting. Otherwise, we treat the sacraments as magic.
An example that I believe Traditionalists would agree with is emergency Baptism. Is it valid? I think it is the same with the Liturgy. It is valid if the Church says it is valid. And the Church proclaims the N.O. as valid in its ordinary teaching. What is important is that God is working, and the congregation understands that, not that only particular rituals can call down God.
Regards
Amen, sister. I have been to the beautiful DL of the Maronites
As to why Mr. Keating is interested in "traditionalists" I think he expresses those reasons when he charitably writes about them
I sure do, sister. I also like his other columns he now writes. His reporting is very informative
Jan 23rd. I know the date off the top of my head because I have so freq. referenced her Feast in trying to dissuade trads from their Feenyism.
Brother, I appreciate the tone and quality of your exchanges. Thank you.
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.