Intended Catholic Dictatorship

Independent Individualist ^ | 8/27/10 | Reginald Firehammer

[Pyro7480]

Moreover, the use of the term "Brazilian TFP" implies that this was small wayward branch of the organization

Nope, that's not what I had in mind. Most people who know he personally started the Brazilian TFP and that it was a big organization.

Where did these supposed authors of the blasphemous litany get their ideas? In what context did they think this was appropriate to use? In an organization so dedicated to hierarchy and loyalty why are we to believe this was an aberration? Is it possible that these "young members" took a bullet for the real author, their beloved Oliveira?

Now, you're getting conspiracy minded. I felt I had to speak up because I've had dealings with the American TFP for years now, and as much exposure I've had to them, I've never seen anything like what their detractors have accused of them. Yes, they have an unusual apostolate in these modern times, but that's what makes them stand out.

[Quix]

BEARING FALSE WITNESS IS NOT A FRUIT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.

[HarleyD]

Is this any surprise to anyone? The Catholic Church has always viewed itself as the ONE true church and historically before the Reformation had a view of groups of countries ruled over by the Holy Roman Empire. Sir Thomas More, a saint of the Church, wrote Utopia about this issue.

They have a schism within their own theology these days. If they believe salvation can take part outside the Catholic Church, then they are really saying they are not the ONE true church. Really, for what practical purpose is the Eucharist? If they say salvation and grace is given ONLY through the Catholic Church, then they do wish to become the Holy Roman Church. God's grace is truly given through the Eucharist dispense by the Church. They are really at odds with their own Canon 1 from the Fourth Laterin Council of 1215.

There is one Universal Church of the faithful, outside of which there is absolutely no salvation. In which there is the same priest and sacrifice, Jesus Christ, whose body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the forms of bread and wine; the bread being changed (transsubstantiatio) by divine power into the body, and the wine into the blood, so that to realize the mystery of unity we may receive of Him what He has received of us. And this sacrament no one can effect except the priest who has been duly ordained in accordance with the keys of the Church, which Jesus Christ Himself gave to the Apostles and their successors.

But the sacrament of baptism, which by the invocation of each Person of the Trinity, namely of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is effected in water, duly conferred on children and adults in the form prescribed by the Church by anyone whatsoever, leads to salvation. And should anyone after the reception of baptism have fallen into sin, by true repentance he can always be restored. Not only virgins and those practicing chastity, but also those united in marriage, through the right faith and through works pleasing to God, can merit eternal salvation.

Part of Canon 1 of the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215

You can't say you are dispensing God's grace through the Eucharist and still believe there are other means of salvation. You're either the ONE true Holy Church despensing God's grace or you're not. Their doctrine and logic is flawed IMO.

[Quix]

That’s a WELL PUT AND WELL FOUNDED PERSPECTIVE, imho.

[Legatus]

Well her mother was a Kennedy and her father was probably a Borgia, so yeah. When historians write of religion in our day will they talk about “information age televanelists” the way we talk about renaissance popes?

[Legatus]

bleh... it’s a Monday, that’s my excuse. Televangelists.

And I know Sister Whatsherface wasn’t a -tele-evangelist but a radio, but it’s the same premise.

[bronx2]

WhAT YOU WROTE YOU WROTE AND IT STANDS AS WRITTEN! YOU ARE INDICTED BY YOUR OWN TESTIMONY OF POST 598. IT STANDS AS WRITTEN MUCH LIKE WHAT PILATE WROTE.ARE YOU PROUD OF YOUR INFAMUOUS STATEMENTBE?

Neither is suicide a gift of the Holy Spirit . Did the Semple ones suicide in 1944 originate from her realization that she deceived so many into believing that private interpretation was permitted or that she had bore false witness? Oh Wait! She was already saved so no judgment for Aimee notwithstanding the commandment to refrain from killing.

So do what your sinful desires dictate as long as you accept Jesus with your lips? Where is that in the bible? Need chapter and verse. God bless

[D-fendr]

Thanks, I get from this that your church is not Christian, i.e., does not require or affirm the divinity of Christ, the basics creeds of orthodox Christian churches. It is, as it claims, Universalism. Do you consider yourself a Christian?

Also, on the topic of fallibility. In keeping with your position here, would you say your church holds they could be wrong about their absolute principles, e.g.:

“The inherent dignity and worth of every person.”

Is this always true, a certain and infallible proclamation of the “covenant” written by UU? I don’t see an “*But we could be wrong about this” in the document.

[Quix]

BEARING FALSE WITNESS IS NOT A FRUIT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.

---

However, it appears that the rabid clique type RC’s have shifted the last month or so into high gear toward much more relentlessly chronic

mean-spiritedness,
raw nastiness,
virulent vengeance,
brazen falsehoods [i.e. markedly above the usual high levels of such],
galactic level haughtiness,
prickliness of the 3” long thorn type,
. . .
etc. etc.

Given that this appears to be a significant and lasting shift, perhaps the Proddys would be willing to give extra points for such over-the-top evils.

Though the creativity involved is slightly above negligible, it’s at least markedly above usual.

Otherwise, it’s pretty typical crud—just exaggerated in mean-spirited, etc. ways to unusually high [as in low] levels. Perhaps the Proddys would be willing to acknowledge such an ‘achievement’ in reverse in some memorable or meaningful way.

Pondering . . . .

I know . . . we could award them 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 BLACK HANKYS depending on the level of awfulness demonstrated.

Any better ideas, group?

We don’t have to worry about points for style given the utter absence of such.

[Quix]

In case you need a break TC, let us know if you have any clever ideas.

ping to above post.

[bronx2]

You would be well advised to concentrate your efforts on the LOVE demanded by Jesus in LK 6 27:35 instead of paying His words mere lip service without the heartfelt sincerity of acceptance.

Remember well Mt 7 21:22 as it may apply to your infamous behavior of blithely dismissing sins.

[OLD REGGIE]

Catechism? Is this an "official" documented, referenced list?

I think I'm beginning to understand the problem here. The list I provided is from Ott's "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma". He went through all the documents of the Church and extracted specific propositions and tagged them according to the degree of authority behind the statement. For instance some are "de fide" meaning they have been solemnly defined by ecumenical councils or the popes. Some are listed because they arise by necessity from a solemnly defined dogma and others are somewhat undefined, still others are "merely" pious beliefs. I believe there are about 800 in all divided into six or seven degrees of certitude. Each of those 800 items has a paragraph or page explaining its origin, usually a citation from the defining document.

I think my point is that the "Faith" isn't a checklist. There is no Catholic shopping list saying "a dozen eggs, a pound of butter, six lemons, a hamster" because it's supposed to be lived. Guess what? I agree with your logic and I agree that there are many "teachings" which do not require the "Infallible" label.

The major problem is this argument is not accepted when proposed by a non-Catholic.

Quoting a Papal Bull, quoting a Papal Encyclical, quoting a well favored Church Father, quoting a Catholic Publication, and on and on is always ridiculed as "not Catholic Teaching" if the "quote" contradicts the opinion of the Catholic "apologetic" of the moment.

[Quix]

Is teaching RC’s

to wallow in grossly flawed ASSUMING and CARNAL JUDGMENT

part of the Regular Catechism of the RCC

or is it reserved for the Rabid Clique types’ extra credit classes only?

[Quix]

The major problem is this argument is not accepted when proposed by a non-Catholic.

Quoting a Papal Bull, quoting a Papal Encyclical, quoting a well favored Church Father, quoting a Catholic Publication, and on and on is always ridiculed as "not Catholic Teaching" if the "quote" contradicts the opinion of the Catholic "apologetic" of the moment.

INDEED
TO THE MAX!

However, when duplicity, weasel worded daffynitionaries and the like are a major aspect of the dogma, beliefs and practices of such a !!!!TRADITIONS!!!! of man bound INSTITUTION, what can we expect?

[Legatus]

The major problem is this argument is not accepted when proposed by a non-Catholic.

I appreciate the problem. There are probably multiple causes but I can readily identify two:
1. Particularly in the area of EENS (outside the Church everyone is doomed) we Catholics are practically schizophrenic. You'll see it mainly with converts (like me) and with Catholics who are heavily influenced by professional convert apologists. I just can't wrap my head around the idea of my parents going to hell so I'll commit all sorts of theological gymnastics to come up with a way for the dogma to not mean what it looks like it means. You'll notice it with the hierarchy in the area of inter-religious dialog, they just can't wrap their heads around the idea that all these nice pagans are going to hell.
2. Have you ever talked to a European about life in these United States? If you have, replace European with Protestant and United States with Catholic Church and you'll understand what I'm saying perfectly. If you haven't... it's kind of difficult to explain so I'll just hope you have. :)

[Quix]

WELL PUT, imho.

[stockpirate]

I like how they think they are “The Church”

“well.....for 1500 years “they” were the only church.....they were the church founded by Christ, they were the church that wrote, interpreted, and saved the bible.....I guess that gives them more than a little credence......ya think???”

I think you need to read the real history of Christs church.

Oh BTW Christ lived over 2,000 years ago, not 1,500; and that’s my point, his church predates the Catholics by a few years....ya think,

[The Comedian]

(rappels down a rope from somewhere up in the night)

(guffaw)

I think this thread is a waste of time, and so is talking to your tormentors as though they were reasonable people.

But that's just me.

Thanks for the invite though.

(rappels back up the rope and into the night)...

Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.

[Quix]

HEY! I have to have some light diversion from my class paperwork, grading, administrivia.

FREEPING IS MY REWARD . . . every so many students worth of assignments . . . WHACK A MOLE TIME! YIYPPEE!

I can’t get into heavier tasks on here or I won’t get my paper work and grading done.

Prayers for the project and all your other duties and doings.

[Quix]

your infamous behavior of blithely dismissing sins.

.

.

REALLY? So, you arrived at such a NONPERSONAL tirade just how?

And "blithely" was discerned just how?

And, while you're at it . . . perhaps you could manage an explanation about how rabid clique types who seem to have such a horrid time living by FR Rel Forum's rules manage to abide so flawlessly by the Sermon on the Mount?