Posted on 02/17/2011 7:35:48 AM PST by verdugo
Source please.
look at posts 22,23
22: fact statement about article being sedevacantis
23: a strong defense by coming out of left field by Verdugo stating that sedevacantists are good Catholics more or less.
Sedevacantist article and website, not catholic and improperly labeled as a Catholic Caucus if its purpose is to serve as an inducement article against Catholicism and towards sedevacantism. ?
23 posted on Friday, February 11, 2011 2:31:55 PM by RBIEL2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
The sedevacantes are baptized Catholic, who LIVE the faith, they just don’t believe the post Vatican II popes are valid popes. All the sedevacantes I’ve ever met had lots of children, that is, they don’t use birth control. That in and of itself makes them more Catholic than 99% of people who call themselves Catholic today.
If the post Vatican II popes had behaved like the popes of the first 1960 years of the church, the sedevacantes would not have cause to think as they do. Outside of traditionalists, are the Protestants the only ones who see something wrong with popes who kiss Korans, and allow Hindu priestesses to put cow dung on their foreheads. Open your eyes!
24 posted on Friday, February 11, 2011 3:50:28 PM by verdugo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
You know its interesting, most of the Saducees and Pharisees, the church leaders and intellectuals of Jesus’ time, thought he was the devil, and did not believe in the resurrection, and claimed the miracles of Jesus were satanic. Sound familiar?
After the Holy Spirit was released, the established church persecuted the believers, even going so far as to round them up and kill them. It might be wise to remember Gamaliel’s wise words to the Sanhedrin in this instance: “Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men...I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.” (Acts 5:34-39 NIV)
There are certainly devil-inspired charlatans and deceptive practices/movements in the world. But praying in the Spirit/tongues is scriptural. The Baptism in the Holy Spirit is most definitely scriptural. Spend some time in the New Testament, especially Paul’s letters, and there is no denying this. In fact, it would take a theologian (a modern day pharisee) to argue against this.
Believe what you will, but here is my story. I grew up in a home with two loving, spirit-filled Christian parents. I witnessed many miracles and gifts of the Spirit operating in their life and my own through their intercession. It would take many paragraphs to share the miraculous events in my life. It was God moving in a spectacular way for my family in answer to prayer and in response to faith that He will do what we ask. As I have grown in the Word, I have been blessed many times by faith in God’s Word. God’s Word is true and full of life. But if you read it as a mental exercise and/or spend no time meditating on it, you will never truly HEAR it with your spirit and faith comes from hearing the Word of God.
Satan can operate even in Christians if they yield to his promptings and temptation. When I see articles like this or run across ministries that are completely focused on “exposing” other ministries - i.e. not walking in love, I question who is their spiritual father. It is definitely not the Holy Spirit because God is love.
And frankly, why be a Christian when you continually believe Him to be unwilling or unable to fulfill all of His promises in your life? What faith can you have in an impotent god? I attended a dead church for far too long. It sounded like God was a big lottery - maybe He will, maybe He will not, who knows what God will do? How can you have faith in that!? God wants you to trust Him and His Word. You can’t have true fellowship without trust (faith).
In John 10:10 - Jesus said Satan comes to steal, kill and destroy, but Jesus came to give me life in abundance, to the full, until it overflows (paraphrase of AMP). I take God at His Word and desire/want/enjoy everything He promises His children. He is my Heavenly Father. Why would He not want the very best for His kids including spiritual gifts to better communicate/interact/fellowship with God who is Spirit?
I guarantee you one thing, you will never receive what you write/speak/preach against. You will destroy whatever faith you might have that way.
The Catholic Church claims Peter as its founder. Have you ever really read the account of his ministering to Cornelius and his house? (Acts 10)
Peter had a spiritual vision. He had been filled with the Holy Spirit at Pentecost and was operating in the gifts of the Spirit. Cornelius had seen an angel. He was not born again or Spirit filled yet, that is why an angel had to visit him, but the angel could not preach the gospel. Cornelius had to send for Peter. Peter began preaching the Word and the entire household and guests, were born again and filled with the Holy Spirt - the evidence - Peter AND the Jewish believers HEARD them praying in a spiritual language and praising God.
Peter even says that God does not show favoritism after witnessing these new believers operating in spiritual gifts. Later Paul tells us that God never changes. If Cornelius and his entire household, including guests, could be filled with the Spirit with evidence of speaking in tongues, why could this same gift not be manifest in the present day? Has God changed? Has the Holy Spirit changed? Or has the church preached against it so much that few people believe anymore?
I find it a little funny that the Jewish believers that came with Peter were “astonished” that the Holy Spirit filled these new Gentile believers. Even born again spirit-filled believers still have to renew their mind and get rid of racism, religious dogma and other demonic influences that hinder faith and love.
Can you post where the Church has ever taught that? That's a strawman. If anyone is "cherry picking", it is you. For you have picked out just two novel popes, I have ALL the popes of ALL antiguity in union. Catholic doctrine is determined by what has always been taught.
ST. VINCENT OF LERINS (400-450 AD)CONFESSOR OF THE CHURCH
"What then should a Catholic do if some part of the Church were to separate itself from communion with the universal Faith? What other choice can he make but to prefer to the gangrenous and corrupted member the whole of the body that is sound. And if some new contagion were to try to poison no longer a small part of the Church, but all of the Church at the same time, then he will take the greatest care to attach himself to antiquity which, obviously, can no longer be seduced by any lying novelty." (Commonitorium)
The personal likes and dislikes of EVEN popes, when opposed to ALL of 1900 years of POPES, are simply not Catholic (universal in time). Honorius I was excommunicated 45 years after he died, for "seeming to go along" with heresy.
Ahh....so the Pope really isn't Catholic.
Thanks for clearing that up.
If what you say really is true, then we might as well fold the tent and all go home. If we're comfortable with the notion that God has allowed a rupture in the Church and as a result, recent Popes are not worthy of credence, then we've embraced Protestantism.
http://www.smac.edu/?LinksSSPX
Hey marshmallow, isnt this the kind of guy who likes to butter his bread on both sides?
Um..........a novel Pope?? What makes a Pope novel and who decides??
You? SSPX? The blogosphere?
That makes you the Pope doesn't it?? Or would that be the uber-Pope, seeing as you are apparently above the Pope?
I've picked out the two most recent Catholic Popes who have spoken on the Charismatic renewal. I accept their words.
You have zero Popes because neither Pius XI nor Pius XII spoke about the Catholic Charismatic Renewal because there simply wasn't one at that period in the twentieth century.
What you actually have are the words of laymen....people like John Vennari who are attempting to apply the words of previous Popes to the Charismatic Renewal. You're giving us the viewpoints of laymen who are interpreting the words of previous Popes for us and attempting to post-date them to the Charismatic Renewal.
No sale.
Outer darkness, awaits my friend.
Benedict XVI........ad multos annos!!
You wrote:
“SSPX has founded no universities.”
Well, they do have a college in St. Marys, Kansas. “College” is stretching it a bit in that case, however.
“Neither has the SSPV, neither has “Pope Michael”, or “Pope Pius XIII” or any of the other numerous sedevacantist groups.”
True enough.
“I would never say that Steubenville is the same thing as Catholicism (neither would they — that’s why they take the oath to the Magisterium, not to Steubenville!).”
I understand. Some of the graduates, however, seem to have that attitude.
I like the charismatic movement in our area. I’m not one myself, but I’m a fan, if you will. They pray with real joy and hope. Hearing the whole Anaheim arena bloom with beautiful sound as people pray aloud during the annual liturgy at the Southern California Renewal Communities convention is really uplifting.
Also, the charismatics that I know are the most loyal to the Magisterium and most interested in knowing their faith in terms of correct doctrine and appropriate spiritual practice. I cant’ vouch for everyone, but there are many very solid Catholics among them. It’s also the only place I’ve ever seen so many traditional clergy and religious. A lot of cloistered Carmelite nuns always attend, along with various brothers and priests from orders as well as diocesan.
Of all the problems in the Church, I’m not seeing a big threat here. If you want to do something a little more helpful to the Church, try saving some marriages instead. That’s an area where the devil has really had a field day.
You are replying to a person who posts sedevacantist and traditionalist articles here under the Catholic banner.
You are falling into the same mistake as the sedevacantes, a conundrum. Catholics do not even need step into debate on those two simplistic, false, conclusions. Sedevacantesism (he is not a pope because he teaches error) or Papalolotry (he can't teach error because he is the pope).
. If a pope is opposed to 1900 years of POPES on some opinion, then in that opinion he is separated himself from antiquity. AND so have any others that follow him against 1900 years of popes.
Vatican Council I: Pastor Aeternus
First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ
Chapter 4: On the infallible teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff
6. For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.
ST. VINCENT OF LERINS (400-450 AD)CONFESSOR OF THE CHURCH
"What then should a Catholic do if some part of the Church were to separate itself from communion with the universal Faith? What other choice can he make but to prefer to the gangrenous and corrupted member the whole of the body that is sound. And if some new contagion were to try to poison no longer a small part of the Church, but all of the Church at the same time, then he will take the greatest care to attach himself to antiquity which, obviously, can no longer be seduced by any lying novelty." (Commonitorium)
Where does the Church teach that traditionalists are not Catholic? If you are a Catholic, you should start posting from Catholic sources (Popes, Doctors, Fathers of the Church, Councils, Dogma etc), as I do. If you can't, then I would highly suggest that you get off playing religion on the Internet, and go to mass, pray, and study the faith.
sorry me and my simple fact statements are not going away.
My evangelization and mission within the church is not very inclusive nor exclusive to the internet.
Beats me. Plenty of people don’t find charismatic prayer to be their “thing,” which is fine with me, but those who get in a tizzy about other people’s way of praying confuse me. If God doesn’t like the way I pray, He can say so.
BTW, good use of Stock Response Number 2! Given the density of the text and the tone of outrage, “This is a parody, right?” would have worked, too.
re: If you want to do something a little more helpful to the Church, try saving some marriages instead.
The divorce rate among Catholics is high because they have not LIVED the Catholic faith. Once couples begin look at marriage as a sacrament, a life commitment to have all the children that God sends, and raise them in the pure faith and sacred doctrines, doing the rosary every day and going to confession, and throwing out the window that TV,(the door by which they let in bad example), once they do that, you will not see divorce.
I understand where you're coming from, but all but saying that I run the risk of becoming Protestant just because I'm looking at a real problematic phenomenon inside the Church and the papal component to it is skirting the line of making a rash judgment against me.
re: My evangelization and mission within the church
Are you a Roman Catholic?
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.