Posted on 05/25/2016 3:19:08 PM PDT by ebb tide
Really?
The "old brand" of Catholicism goes much further back than Francis.
Agreed.
Incoherent screed. Do you just post anything you can find?
No. I would post Summa Theologica also; but I doubt people like you would understand that either.
You might make me a believer again after that...
This guy is definitely the Kardinal of the Kremlin.
Check out the book “AA-1025” when you get a chance. Seems it came true.
I have checked out that book; and I believe it to be real.
Amen! “One thing is for certain. We will never be silent again. We are guardians of something. The Bear does not want to label it, because it does not belong to this faction or that. But he thinks his readers know what he’s talking about. We encourage one another — and it is just as much readers encouraging ephemerists as the other way around. Pope Francis and his minions are learning that whatever they do in public will be challenged by some very smart and talented people. (And also, the Bear.) It obviously bothers them.
And the Bear says ultramontanism is solemn nonsense. “
Don’t be ridiculous. SCB is a blessing.
Thank you, Romulus. Ha. Now you know. Bear’s a Freeper.
I am a friend of the Bear. In fact he is the person who introduced me to Free Republic 20 years ago. His knowledge of, and study of the Faith is the greatest of anyone I know. Thank you for posting.
You’re quite welcome. Please give him my own thanks in return.
“Check out AA-1025...”
It is time for that book. I have recommended it on two recent threads myself.
Definitely consider becoming a believer again ... the Church still keeps the Truth; it is now hidden but there.
“...I am a friend of the bear...”
Well tell him that he is nailing it. Amazing and best writing I have seen lately on the subject.
“Pope Francis the Avatar of a different spirit...the spirit of Vatican II ... prince of this world” is just a brilliant analysis.
Francis is sowing confusion and chaos which is the sign of the Prince of this world. Not that Francis is the anti-Christ; not at all. He is sowing the anti-spirit though, the spirit of confusion opening the door to untruth which began in Vatican II now personified by him as your bear points out so astutely.
RE “...that book....”
Every time I think of it, “Don’t Fear the Reaper” plays in the back of my mind.
RE “...becoming a believer again...”
I’m comfortable in my nominal Christian skepticism. I’ll find out one way or the other eventually. Meanwhile, while I’m here, I’ll be the best man, and the best American, that I can be.
"...The paradox is this: Francis is the first pope since St. John XXIII who had no role whatsoever in the Second Vatican Council (1962-65), yet Vatican II arguably is the foundation of his entire papacy. As Galeazzi puts it, “Francis’ program is the council … the realization and actualization of the conciliar spring.”..."
---------
http://www.cruxnow.com/church/2016/05/11/new-book-says-vatican-ii-key-to-understanding-pope-francis/
Once the tactic of infiltration of religious organizations was set by the Kremlin... the Communists discovered that the destruction of religion could proceed much faster through the infiltration of the Church by Communists operating within the Church itself. The Communist leadership in the United States realized that the infiltration tactic in this country would have to adapt itself to American conditions and the religious makeup peculiar to this country. In the earliest stages it was determined that with only small forces available to them, it would be necessary to concentrate Communist agents in the seminaries. The practical conclusion drawn by the Red leaders was that these institutions would make it possible for a small Communist minority to influence the ideology of future clergymen in the paths conducive to Communist purposes... The policy of infiltrating seminaries was successful beyond even our communist expectations.
A Catholic monk who heard ex-Communist Bella Dodd speak at Fordham University in the 1950s had this to say:
I listened to that woman for four hours and she had my hair standing on end. Everything she said has been fulfilled to the letter. You would think she was the world's greatest prophet, but she was no prophet. She was merely exposing the step-by-step battle plan of Communist subversion of the Catholic Church. She explained that of all the world's religions, the Catholic Church was the only one feared by the Communists, for it was its only effective opponent.
The whole idea was to destroy, not the institution of the Church, but rather the Faith of the people, and even use the institution of the Church, if possible, to destroy the Faith through the promotion of a pseudo-religion: something that resembled Catholicism but was not the real thing.
Once the Faith was destroyed, she explained that there would be a guilt complex introduced into the Church…. to label the ‘Church of the past’ as being oppressive, authoritarian, full of prejudices, arrogant in claiming to be the sole possessor of truth, and responsible for the divisions of religious bodies throughout the centuries. This would be necessary in order to shame Church leaders into an ‘openness to the world,’ and to a more flexible attitude toward all religions and philosophies. The Communists would then exploit this openness in order to undermine the Church.
In the human element of our Church, we are seeing the results of this infiltration coupled with the effects of the pressures of secular materialism and sheer hedonism in the popular culture..."
http://fisheaters.com/traditionalcatholicism.html
Looking for some clarification here. Is he saying that the Devil is the spirit that worked at Vatican II? If so, how does this happen to an ecumenical council of the Holy Catholic Church? Ecumenical/general councils are infallible:
Per the Catholic Encyclopedia, "All the arguments which go to prove the infallibility of the Church apply with their fullest force to the infallible authority of general councils in union with the pope.
“...how does this happen at an ecumenical council...”
None of the documents of Vatican II explicitly state the intent to define Faith and Morals.
Solemn dogmatic definitions are required for infallibility and this was not done at Vatican II.
The Council was pastoral in nature and not dogmatic.
It was a terrible idea to call a Pastoral Council at that time and important Vatican II documents are purposely ambiguous and sow the seed of discord that is bearing bad fruit to this day. It is this discord that comes from the fallen dark side; the confusion in and itself does not end with the premise: therefore the Pope is not a Pope.
“...the Council ... avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility” as per Pope VI’s statement on January 12, 1966.
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.