Posted on 08/22/2014 4:54:36 PM PDT by ebb tide
The Second Vatican Council was not evil: no Council of the Church ever is. But because it was dominated by Modernist experts, periti, the considerations of its bishops reflected their influence. Thus, the Council served as a catalyst for the resurgence of the heresy within the Church.
You swore a masonic oath on the “bible”? Was it the King Jame’s bible?
Obama and Eric Holder also swore oaths on bibles; I’m not impressed.
What the hell does George Washington have to do with this discourse?
Christ the Sovereign King is the true Ruler of all countries.
It’s obvious to me that you’re a freemason and not a Catholic; because you can’t be both.
“The Father of our county”?
Are you that into worshipping false gods?
While I am no longer a Mason, I guess, Freemasonry has never discouraged me or anyone I know from worshiping God...In fact, when I joined, they gave me this beautiful, massive bible...
While the members do not speak of religion during the meetings, everyone is required to believe in God...
I have never met a more friendly, generous and kind group of men anywhere...
I'd bet you do know Masons...You just don't know it...
Do you deny that George Washington was a mason. If you do, then you really know nothing about this matter.
Benedict also said this:
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached". The emperor goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God is not pleased by blood, and not acting reasonably is contrary to God’s nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death...".
The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God’s nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality. Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazn went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God’s will, we would even have to practise idolatry.
This attempt, painted with broad strokes, at a critique of modern reason from within has nothing to do with putting the clock back to the time before the Enlightenment and rejecting the insights of the modern age. The positive aspects of modernity are to be acknowledged unreservedly: we are all grateful for the marvellous possibilities that it has opened up for mankind and for the progress in humanity that has been granted to us. The scientific ethos, moreover, is the will to be obedient to the truth, and, as such, it embodies an attitude which reflects one of the basic tenets of Christianity. The intention here is not one of retrenchment or negative criticism, but of broadening our concept of reason and its application. While we rejoice in the new possibilities open to humanity, we also see the dangers arising from these possibilities and we must ask ourselves how we can overcome them. We will succeed in doing so only if reason and faith come together in a new way, if we overcome the self-imposed limitation of reason to the empirically verifiable, and if we once more disclose its vast horizons. In this sense theology rightly belongs in the university and within the wide-ranging dialogue of sciences, not merely as a historical discipline and one of the human sciences, but precisely as theology, as inquiry into the rationality of faith.
Is that akin to Islam forbidding stuff? The word "catholic" used to mean all-inclusive, but it seems that it has evolved to mean "having more rules than God has".
I can’t seem to open this. Anyone else having this issue?
No. I do not deny it. Do you think George Washington is a saint?
FreeMasons put the Lodge above God. That’s a big problem. It’s also secretive and involves many demonic activities.
It still opens for me.
OK. It’s opening now.
So Benedict XVI never gave a nod to Pascendi’s 100th anniversary and Francis never gave a nod to the 100th anniversary of Pius X’s death.
Two peas in the pod of the Modernist, Vatican II Church.
Yes; unfortunately, both of the above inactions are correctly stately.
Yet, Francis, the Bishop of Rome, did choose to acknowledge the 9th anniversary of the death of a Pope Saint who invoked St John the Baptist to protect Islam.
Francis recalls John Paul II's death 9 years ago
For the modernists, Church dogma and discipline were reset to zero and then redefined, in a protestant direction, at VC II.
Pope John Paul II was the first pope to enter a mosque, and pray with the devil worshippers, and each of his successors have done so also.
Wise move. They probably do not want the type of choleric "discussions" which one so often sees in the Religion forum.
You could be right...
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.