This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
Locked on 12/23/2015 6:58:49 PM PST by Religion Moderator, reason:
Thread has degenerated into personal battles. |
Posted on 12/20/2015 10:29:03 AM PST by ebb tide
When Pope Francis was elected, I was entirely positive about the new pontificate, focusing in my commentary on the new Popeâs apparent devotion to the Blessed Virgin and his respect for the Fatima event, as shown by his request to the Patriarch of Portugal to consecrate his entire pontificate to Our Lady of Fatima. But I confess that at the time I knew next to nothing about the former Cardinal Mario Bergoglio. I did not know, for example, that he was âfamous for his inconsistency.â
After two-and-a-half years of experience with this pontificate, however, I was not the least surprised to learn that Francis had named the fulminating, anti-Fatima, anti-Marian heretic Enzo Bianchi as a consultor to the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of Christian Unity. This phony âmonk,â a layman who calls himself âPriorâ of the phony interdenominational âmonasteryâ of the âBose Community,â was rightly denounced by Monsignor Antonio Livi, former dean of the faculty of philosophy at the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross in Rome, as âsubstantially atheistâ and a âprophet of the end of Catholicismâ whose speeches are âa rhetorical device for his propaganda in favour of a humanism that is nominally Christian but substantially atheist.â
The heretic Francis has appointed to a pontifical council detests Marian devotion and despises the Message of Fatima. Mary, says the phony monk, âcan not be the reference point for the advancement of women in the Church.â As for Fatima, Bianchi pronounces Our Ladyâs apparitions there a âswindle.â Why? Because according to him, any God âwho talks about the persecuted Christians, but forgets the six million Jews annihilated in Germany is not a credible God.â
So, Francis has elevated to Vatican prominence a layman in a monkâs costume who dares to declare what God would had to have included in the Fatima prophecies in order to maintain the divine credibility. But as Vito Messori has observed: âBianchi should remember that Communism (Lenin seized power in 1917) has at least 100 million deaths on its conscience, and there would not have been Hitler, if there had not previously been Lenin.â In fact, Nazism â that is, National Socialism â is precisely the outcome of the spread of the âerrors of Russiaâ that Our Lady predicted, it having arisen in pre-World War II Germany as a rival to Marxism-Leninism. And during WWII the Hitler-Stalin Pact, pledging mutual non-aggression, ended only when Hitler invaded Poland.
For Bianchi, notes Msgr. Nicola Bux, a Consultor to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, âthe deconstruction of the papacy in its present form is an especially important concernâ¦â That being so, Bianchiâs appointment to a pontifical council is entirely in keeping with the ongoing deconstruction of the Church by its diabolically disorientated leadership, which seems intent (if it were possible) on committing ecclesial suicide.
Put the rise of this enemy of Our Lady of Fatima â by the Popeâs own hand â into the file marked âThird Secret.â
Catholics are not obligated to believe in any apparitions. 66 & 67 below, from the Catechism, make it pretty clear.
|
LOL ... you’re so entertaining.
“LOL ... youâre so entertaining.”
And you can’t refute what I said. Your source has errors and is apparently plagiarized or wound up in someone’s plagiarized work. Figures. Anti-Catholics, that’s what they do.
Oh yeah! Keep it coming, vlad, the hysteria is rising to amusing heights.
From the website which is frustrating you so much: “For More From The Same Author Click here ———> Lawrence Kelemen” That’s attribution, little man. That Kelemen lifted from Barlow’s book does not make the website poster a thief. But you would like to imply that. what a shame for you.
SOURCES[1] Addison G. Wright, Roland E. Murphy, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, âA History of Israelâ in The Jerome Biblical Commentary, (Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1990), p. 1247.
[2] The first mention of a Nativity feast appears in the Philocalian calendar, a Roman document from 354 CE, which lists December 25th as the day of Jesusâ birth.
[3] Increase Mather, A Testimony against Several Prophane and Superstitious Customs, Now Practiced by Some in New England (London, 1687), p. 35. See also Stephen Nissenbaum, The Battle for Christmas: A Cultural History of Americaâs Most Cherished Holiday, New York: Vintage Books, 1997, p. 4.
[4] Nissenbaum, p. 3.
[5] David I. Kertzer, The Popes Against the Jews: The Vaticanâs Role in the Rise of Modern Anti-Semitism, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2001, p. 74.
[6] Kertzer, p. 33, 74-5.
[7] Clement Miles, Christmas Customs and Traditions: Their History and Significance, New York: Dover Publications, 1976, pp. 178, 263-271.
[8] Miles, p. 273.
[9] Miles, p. 274-5.
[10] Miles, pp. 276-279.
[11] John 8:44
Interesting reading in those sources. Reveals much the religion of catholiciism would like to sweep under their empowerment rug don'tchaknow.
“Oh yeah! Keep it coming, vlad, the hysteria is rising to amusing heights.”
What’s really amusing is that you linked to a seriously flawed and possibly plagiarizing website and you apparently didn’t even know it. And you still canât refute what I said.
“From the website which is frustrating you so much:”
First of all, the webpage is not frustrating me at all since its sheer stupidity serves as a sign of the worth of the knowledge and judgement of the person using it. That’s a win-win for me then.
âFor More From The Same Author Click here âââ> Lawrence Kelemenâ Thatâs attribution, little man.”
Pay attention now: I already mentioned Lawrence Kelemen was the attributed author is post # 337. That means I already posted that information so you’re way behind me as usual.
“That Kelemen lifted from Barlowâs book does not make the website poster a thief.”
1) How do we know for sure Kelemen lifted from Barlow? I assume that that is probably what happened, but do we know that for sure?
2) Did you even know about Barlow’s book before I pointed it out? I bet you didn’t. If you didn’t know, then once again I was way ahead of you even on origins of your own “source” (if indeed Kelemen stole from Barlow, which looks like the case).
“But you would like to imply that. what a shame for you.”
If you take something that is not yours, what are you? On the web, if you take something that is not yours - without any attribution - you are a thief. It’s just that simple. Now, maybe Kelemen had permission. But that is doubtful since he almost certainly would have said so if he went to the trouble to get it.
You relied on an apparent thief for your information. He relied on a poorly sourced, poorly researched and ultimately silly book. You apparently didn’t know any of that. What a shame for you.
“And BTW, here’s the footnoted source citation for the website:”
And BTW, I already know this since I read the webpage and already mentioned that you by relying on it were denying that John 8:44 was inspired scripture. Remember, this webpage that you’re touting denies there was a New Testament before 325 and specifically says “The [NT] text they produced portrayed Jews as âthe children of the devilâ[John 8:44] who sentenced Jesus to death.”
Do you uncritically accept their ridiculous anti-Christian claim? Well, apparently you do because you still haven’t disagreed with it even though it’s been pointed out to you. Perhaps that reveals much you “would like to sweep under” your “empowerment rug don’tchaknow”?
What part of, "...is thus a sacrifice because...." don't you understand??? It makes no difference if it's a re-presentation or not! Christ's sacrifice was once and for all on the cross... from which he rose again. There is NO need to "re-present" his sacrifice -- it's already done. We commemorate the Lord's Supper, but we don't do it as a "sacrifice" of any sort! Don't you get it?
The drivel referred to was the RCC twisting of it. Not Scripture.
The CCC and I both state that Christ was sacrificed, cannot be sacrificed again, but His sacrifice can be re-presented many, many times.
Really. Seems like the CCC SAYS the eucharist IS a sacrifice. The ACT of the eucharist then, by definition IS a sacrifice every time it's done.
I'm reading it as its written, not spinning it the RCC way.
When the CCC calls the eucharist a SACRIFICE, you can't just explain it away. Keep at it all you want: it's there in black and white for all to see. BTW, this is the same CCC that says Catholics worship the same "God" as Muslims and that Mary is a co-mediatrix -- which is refuted by 1 Timothy 2:5.
You can't have it both ways -- are you right or is Rome?
Hoss
Bwhahaha ... attaboy, keep trying to stand up those strawmen. LOL, you’re so entertaining ... but you’re still way short of the mark established by the apologists of that other popular cult, Mormonism. Do you imagine you’re to be rewarded for your magic mindreading?
Hmm, that indicates the catholic mass at Christmas, is not about the Bbay Jesus coming into physical life among us, but as a sacrifice for continued exploitation by the 'ism'! Did you know that Mormons celebrate 12/25 as Joseph Smith's birthday? at least with that cult 12/25 is a celebration of a birth not a sacrifice committed by their priesthood ...
Ah, but you see, catholics have been taught to believe their priest brings Jesus down from the Throne of Heaven at each mass, to 'continue' the sacrifice. Catholics are taught by the magicsteeringthem to believe these heresies as fundamental to the 'other gospel' called catholicism. So true. And sad, no?
Hoss
“What part of, “...is thus a sacrifice because....” don’t you understand??? “
What part of, âThe Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross...â (CCC 1366) do you not understand?
“It makes no difference if it’s a re-presentation or not!”
Of course it does.
“Christ’s sacrifice was once and for all on the cross... from which he rose again. There is NO need to “re-present” his sacrifice — it’s already done. We commemorate the Lord’s Supper, but we don’t do it as a “sacrifice” of any sort! Don’t you get it?”
I sure do get it - the Eucharist is a re-presentation of the sacrifice on the cross made voluntarily by Christ. I not only get it, I can discuss it without getting it wrong as you did.
“The drivel referred to was the RCC twisting of it. Not Scripture.”
Except that’s not what you said. Here’s EXACTLY what you said: “Not according to this drivel. Try reading God’s Word.” Now that shows you were denying the Bible readings are God’s Word and you were calling God’s Word - in the passages read at Mass and in the prayers in the Mass - drivel. That’s all there is to it. There was no “RCC twisting” of anything. There was just you calling the Word of God “drivel”. That’s all there was.
“Really. Seems like the CCC SAYS the eucharist IS a sacrifice.”
Here’s what the CCC says:
1366 The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit: [Christ], our Lord and God, was once and for all to offer himself to God the Father by his death on the altar of the cross, to accomplish there an everlasting redemption. But because his priesthood was not to end with his death, at the Last Supper “on the night when he was betrayed,” [he wanted] to leave to his beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands) by which the bloody sacrifice which he was to accomplish once for all on the cross would be re-presented, its memory perpetuated until the end of the world, and its salutary power be applied to the forgiveness of the sins we daily commit.””
Thus THE EUCHARIST IS A RE-PRESENTATION of the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross. It is a sacrifice, but the same one rather than a new one or different one.
“The ACT of the eucharist then, by definition IS a sacrifice every time it’s done.”
Again, THE EUCHARIST IS A RE-PRESENTATION of the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross. It is a sacrifice, but the same one rather than a new one or different one.
“I’m reading it as its written, not spinning it the RCC way.”
I’m reading it too: “The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross...” Thus it is only a sacrifice because it is a re-presentation of the one sacrifice of Christ on the Cross. That’s not spin. It’s just the truth.
“When the CCC calls the eucharist a SACRIFICE, you can’t just explain it away.”
Ha! I wouldn’t even think to do so. The CCC is just proving you wrong again and again and again - and you keep quoting it even though it proves you wrong. That’s the best part. You’re being done in by the weapon you chose!
“Keep at it all you want: it’s there in black and white for all to see.”
It sure is. Here’s what you posted AGAIN that proves I was right all along: “The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross...”
“BTW, this is the same CCC that says Catholics worship the same “God” as Muslims and that Mary is a co-mediatrix — which is refuted by 1 Timothy 2:5.”
And still none of that helps you here. I guess though in your situation the kitchen sink is all that’s left huh?
“You can’t have it both ways — are you right or is Rome?”
What is true is that you are wrong. As I already demonstrated I and the CCC are both saying there is only one sacrifice, it is just re-presented many times. It’s so funny you posted that paragraph when it so clearly proves you wrong.
Oh, and you might want to read the second paragraph of CCC 1353, all of 1364, and 1407, but perhaps most especially:
1367 The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: “The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different.” “And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner. . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory.”
Thus, between I and the CCC, you’re the one who is wrong.
The CCC says PLAINLY that the eucharist IS a SACRIFICE.
Who's right? You or Rome?
Hoss
“Bwhahaha ... attaboy, keep trying to stand up those strawmen.”
What straw men? I noted the author Kelemen before you did. I noted the errors on the webpage. I noted that Kelemen had passages word-for-word that matched Barlow’s book. You apparently knew NONE OF THIS.
You apparently did not know or did not care (you’ll have to tell which is which) that Kelemen or Barlow or both believe the NT was “created” in 325; that the text of John 8:44 is anti-Jewish and was “produced” in 325. None of that is a straw man. Logically there are only three possibilities:
1) you didn’t know because you did a poor job of vetting the website.
2) You don’t care and just wanted a quick weapon.
3) You knew and you agree.
Which is it?
“LOL, youâre so entertaining ... but youâre still way short of the mark established by the apologists of that other popular cult, Mormonism. Do you imagine youâre to be rewarded for your magic mindreading?”
No mind reading involved. It’s just logic. Either you knew or you didn’t. If you knew and didn’t care then that’s either a just a terribly poor choice on your part to have any weapon at all or you agree with what was typed on the webpage by Kelemen. So which is it?
Guess not everyone is on the same page!
:D
Hoss
“You or the RCC?”
You’re the one in error. As I’ll demonstrate in this post.
“The CCC SAYS the eucharist IS a SACRIFICE.”
So do I. Neither of us says it’s anything other than the one sacrifice re-presented.
“Again, doesn’t matter about presentation or re-presentation.”
Of course it does! You even HIGHLIGHTED THAT WORD “re-presented” in post #340 so how can YOU now say it doesn’t matter when you HIGHLIGHTED the word in YOUR OWN POST??? Why on earth would you bother highlighting it if it didn’t matter?
“YOU SAID the eucharist was NOT a SACRIFICE.”
I never once said that. Let me help you since you stating something that is categorically untrue. Here’s what I wrote in post #339 - and I will use asterix to block off where I think you’re getting your wires crossed since you started posting from the CCC that the Eucharist is a sacrifice (as if I had ever denied it!) in the responding post (#340 - you know, the one where you called Bible passages “drivel”):
“Whatâs false is clearly your understanding if you think anyone could sacrifice Jesus over and over again. No one could and no one wants to either. *****So which is it that you are getting wrong there? Are you wrong about someone being able to sacrifice Jesus over and over again or are you wrong on believing Catholics sacrifice Jesus over and over again?***** It has to be one or the other OR BOTH according to your own words. The correct answer is - BOTH - since both are impossible.”
Note I said the answer was BOTH. You’re wrong on BOTH points if you think Catholics:
1) believe they are “able to sacrifice Jesus over and over again”
2) believe they “sacrifice Jesus over and over again?”
“The CCC says PLAINLY that the eucharist IS a SACRIFICE.”
And I never denied it is a re-presentation of the one sacrifice and I even pointed out - and apparently you’re ignoring it - that the CCC paragraph you tout 1366 says: “The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross...” Thus, as I already pointed out in a previous post and you apparently ignored, the CCC says specifically that the Eucharist IS a sacrifice precisely because it “re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross...” And I never once denied that the Eucharist is a sacrifice. All I denied was your erroneous belief that there is any possibility of Jesus being a “sacrifice...over and over” as you falsely claimed in post #335.
I’ve been right all along and you keep proving it with every post.
“Who’s right? You or Rome?”
Clearly your question makes no sense since the CCC says:
1) Jesus was sacrificed (CCC 1367) I have said the same thing (Post #339)
2) Jesus cannot be sacrificed again (CCC 1353). I have said the same thing (Post #339).
3) The Eucharist is a re-presentation of that sacrifice (CCC 1365-1366). I have said the same thing (Post #343)
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.