Posted on 05/02/2005 7:25:14 AM PDT by worldclass
Well, at least you've judged JPII to have made Purgatory.
There are some who would question that.
1. Transitional papacy which slowed and then halted termite trends of "progress."
2. Named a college of cardinals which elected B-16.
3. Suppressed the "liberation" theologians with the able assistance of Cardinals Ratzinger and Dario castrillon de Hoyos.
4. Stripped Hans Kung of status as "Catholic" theologian.
5. Disciplined Edward Schillebecx, OP, for his deviations on theology.
6. Disciplined those who resisted papal authority over naming and consecrating of bishops. I really don't like to see people who are very much like me punished for bad tactics, but how else to vindicate the very necessary institution of papal authority. We suffered through John XXIII and Paul VI. We get to celebrate their successors.
7. Opened the door to a restoration of the Tridentine Mass with Ecclesia Dei.
8. Published the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
9. Performed brilliantly in concert with Ronaldus Maximus and the Iron Lady in laying waste to the soviet Empire.
10. Was, by far, a more eloquent defender of innocent human life than any of his recent predecessors.
11. Engaged the enthusiasm of many young people who have acceopted Catholic standards of morality on life issues as a reslt.
12. Achieved an effective de facto alliance with Muslim and Third World nations in resistance to the United Nations and the Hildebeast on abortion at international conferences.
13. Answered Stalin's historic question: How many divisions has the pope?
14. Has seen an uptick in orthodox Catholic priestly vocations whose lib-left mentors at seminaries endlessly whine about the orthodoxy of their students.
15. Labored under fiercely antagonistic circumstances from entrenched but rapidly aging Kumbayas and a militantly secular world, among, ummmm, other forces.
16. Was human and accomplished much but failed often enough to remind us that he was human.
17. Showed us how to live.
18. Showed us how to die.
Others may feel free to add to the list.
Smartypants.
>> Do the priests in your parish use the ICEL version of the Consecration, "for all" instead of "for many"? If so, all the orthodoxy you refer to maybe moot, if the Mass contradicts sacred scripture by misquoting Christ.<<
Honestly, I'll have to look at the translation.
The consecration at our 9:30 Holy Mass is in Latin.
Our pastor is one of three priests who celebrate the TLM in Downtown Detroit, so I'm not really sure!
But I'll tell you FRiend, I'll take this mass over the Protestant/Catholic parish I left!!!! Dancing girls and all!
I suspect that JPII will also be credited with a large surge of adult conversions beyond the ECUSA-dropouts.
VERY large, and multi-national, and in the next 12-36 months.
LOL!
I certainly hope so, but I can't make that judgment.
Latin is the official language of the Catholic Church to which you DO NOT belong whatever you may imagine. The details of the administration of your church are none of my business as a Catholic. The details of the administration of the Catholic Church are none of your business as a non-Catholic.
That you may imagine the moon as being made of green cheese does not make it so. Also, there was no shooter on the grassy knoll; the earth really is, roughly speaking, a spherical body; the validity of most sacraments depends on apostolic succession (see Leo XIII's examination of this question as to certain groups of Christians) of him who ordained the priest; and, Latin is the official language of the Catholic Church.
“If Peter really was "all that" why did Paul never once mention it. … So how could those verses possibly mean what you suggest they mean?”
Most of the epistles were written to local churches in order to help with moral or doctrinal problems. There was no attempt to impart a vast body of basic doctrinal instruction to non-believers, or even to simply summarize everything for the believers who received the letters. This is why Paul never had to write about Peter as the head of the Church. They all knew this to be true. This is why Paul had to write to the Corinthians about the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. “Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.”1 Corinthians 11:27 When Christ said “This is My Body”, we Catholics do not have to determine what the meaning of “is” is. We believe what Jesus said.
Non-Catholics have a real problem, in that they believe that all they need to believe is in the Bible. However, the Bible itself never makes that claim. The Bible never says that the Bible is sufficient and all one needs. This belief is a tradition of man. The Bible is God-breathed and useful, yes, but where does the Bible say that it is sufficient? “But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. 2 Timothy 3:14-17
The Scripture that Timothy studied in his infancy was the Old Testament. Paul said nothing about the New Testament here, much of which was not yet written at the time.
So, where in the Bible does the Bible say it is all you need for salvation?
It doesn’t. We have over 20,000 denominations that make the claim that they have the proper interpretation of scripture. If Martin Luther would have had his way, you would have a Bible without the letter to James. “You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.” James 2:24 This didn’t agree with his interpretation of salvation by faith alone, so he wanted to take that one out as well. (“Tell them Martin Luther says it is so”). Jesus wanted us to be one. “I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought. My brothers, some from Chloe's household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas”; still another, “I follow Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul? 1 Cor 1:10-13 We cannot be one if everyone brings his own version of the Truth. Christ was not stupid, and He knew He had to establish a visible Church with authority to keep men from twisting His words. He did just that.
The Catholic Church has existed for nearly 2,000 years. This is testimony to the Church’s divine origin. Jesus promised, "I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18). This means that His Church will never be destroyed and will never fall away from Him. Jesus established His Church and assured the apostles and their successors, the popes and the bishops, "He who listens to you listens to me, and he who rejects you rejects me" (Luke 10:16). He gave them authority, "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" (Matt. 18:18). Jesus promised to guide his Church into all truth (John 16:12–13). We can have confidence that His Church teaches only the truth.
So my brother in Christ, I ask you two questions:
Where in the Bible does it say that the Bible is all you need to believe for salvation?
What is your authority for interpreting scripture?
Knock it off.
Yes, we should pray for John Paul, but I have no doubt that he will one day be raised to the altars. He was an inspiring example of personal sanctity, which is why his death moved so many.
The problem with "hearing evidence" in the case of JPII is that he was (1) over in Rome, so he was getting only paper, and only the paper that liberal bishops were providing (see item (2)); (2) being fought every step of the way by certain liberal U.S. bishops whose lack of orthodoxy included not only tolerance and promotion of active homosexuals but resistance to the authority of Rome; (3) cautious about getting American Catholics in trouble over the "nativist" issues. Add to this his own experience that these allegations were bogus and instigated by communists attacking the church, and you can see how action was delayed.
Once the word got through and he assigned Ratzinger to directly hear all these cases, things moved very fast.
That's not an excuse -- something should have been done much sooner -- but it just shows what was working against him, and amounts to an explanation for the delay other than support for the homosexual element, disdain, or indifference.
In fact, there were probably so many of those indulgences obtained by Catholics and applied by God that JP the Great led an unprecedented army of souls from the Church suffering to the Church Triumphant (assuming, of course, that JP the Great made Purgatory and did not make Heaven instantaneously). With him or without him, that army of Purgatorians is now in Heaven.
As to your #272, you needn't lose any sleep over any concern that I may be a sissy. Also, I will check but I probably was not being defensive. I usually strive to and succeed at being offensive. The best defense is usually a good offense. If I was being defensive, I will reply further on that subject. If not, I will not.
Finally, if you are worked up over the mistranslation of pro multis as for all instead of for many, this is no big deal. When Jesus Christ gave His life in atonement for our sins, he did not have a specific list of those who could be saved and another of those who could not. We are not Calvinists. He shed His Blood for all mankind, knowing that some would accept and others would reject (each group exercising individual free will) the benefit of that sacrifice. Thus He shed His Blood for the many who would accept salvation but they would be self-selected as would be those who would reject salvation. ALL were eligible. MANY accepted salvation and will accept salvation. If you want to resist ICEL, how about the translation of the first word of the Creed (Credo) as WE believe (which would be Credimus) rather than I believe? As most of us repeatedly demonstrate at FR, I can tell God what I believe but I may be a bit challenged to assure Him of what others believe.
I really think that my daughter sticking with the altar server program has been a good thing. So many Catholic kids fall away as they near the end of high school. We're looking at colleges with strong, active, orthodox parishes near the campus (rather than just the campus programs), and she is going to work this year in the Spanish Ministry at our parish here. But continuing to serve at the altar is a pretty direct reminder of What It's All About.
Also, she had just been promoted to Second Server in our old (ECUSA) parish, assisting at the altar instead of just carrying felt banners, etc. So she would have been very disappointed . . . I'm glad she can continue to serve.
Report from Teenage Altar Server is that the Catholic altar servers have more fun . . . especially at the early services where she is often the only assistant. Faves are the lavabo (which our ECUSA parish did not do), ringing the bells (ditto), and the hope of someday soon getting to be thurifer and create large clouds of smoke (to quote somebody's tag line, if you can see the altar, there's not enough incense.)
. . . you say that like it's a dirty word or something! < g > . . .
I occasionally describe myself as a "renegade Episcopalian". Gets some funny looks, some laughs, some "welcome home sister"s.
Don't forget (4): a Curial bureaucracy filled with fellow-traveling homosexuals.
That's been remarked upon, privately, by a number of Curia-watchers here.
Good stuff. Has to be high-Anglican quote. RC's are too cheap with the stuff, in my experience.
"I have no idea what you are quoting or what it means, and I suspect you don't either."
Not surprising.
FIRST VATICAN COUNCIL (1869-1870)
Session 3 : 24 April 1870
Dogmatic constitution on the Catholic faith
http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.HTM
So absolutely true. I, too, hope this is finally going to be stomped out. Not just gays, but openly heretical clergy and their lay helpers who also cause immeasurable harm. Folks like 'Fr' Matthew Fox trotted out as 'spokesmen' for the Church, commenting, negatively of course, on the new Pope. And many lay Catholics have become apathetic to the situation, apathetic to faith in general.
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.