ANTE DIOS NUNCA SERÁS HÉROE ANÓNIMO
[Verrecchio] Apparently, after more than 8,000 views, the masterminds of “The Pope Video” have decided that my rendition offering a more proper translation of the apostasy therein must be suppressed.
I just received the following notice from Vimeo:
“We removed your video because a third party claims that it infringes a copyright that the third party owns or has the right to enforce.”
Jorge Bergoglio:EVIL PERSONIFIEDKarl
Oh... now on Vatican they know - that this was HERESY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What a joke... What a joke of this false papacy!!!!LOUI VERRECCHIO - you have discovered a fantastic weapon AGAINST THIS HORRIBLE POPE!!!God bless...
The Pope's comments after the Charlie Hebdo affair show that the Vatican has no real interest in freedom of speech.
It was a brilliant video, surely it can be posted elsewhere?
Get a grip on reality Karl, you are getting yourself tangled up in your own hyperbole.
Louie Verrechio also happens to be a self-identified sede-vacantist. Now that wouldn't color his judgment, would it?
It's posted at Gloria.tv.
No he's not.
For now it is on you tube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5AowgCvi90
Ben... what CATHOLIC do you find in pope's video? I will go today with Verrecchio 100% and run away ASAP from this heretic in the pope's clothing... I would never wanted to be with him in one room... EVER!!!
Thank you for reminding me that I'd better get these onto my hard drive before they are gone.
You're correct, Tancred, Louie is not a sedevacantist. He just wants Francis' sedes to be vacant immediately if not sooner. He also wants key documents of the Second Vatican Council to be rendered non extant because they don't fit Louie's ideology.Talk about cafeteria Catholicism and come as you are cherry picking!
There are no super dogmas in that Robber Council.
Benedict XVI taught in 'Porta Fidei' that Vatican II contains, preserves and passes on all the teachings of all preceding Councils of the Church. Vat II is in complete continuity with the Tradition of the Church.Over to you to demonstrate the opposite.
And pigs fly.
That is an interesting ens rationis. Now for your considered, non hypothetical, response to Benedict's teaching on the Magisterium of Vatican II.
It is easy to say V2 is in complete continuity with Tradition...until you actually look at the documents and compare them with what was taught previously. After such an examination, the statement can only be made in dishonesty, stupidity, or blindness.
Benedict was there at the council as Fr Dr Joseph Ratzinger. He has not only read the documents, he was a major writer for some of them.The onus is on you to prove, not just assert, that the Magisterium of Vatican II is discontinuous with the Tradition.Pope Francis is in complete agreement with his predecessors, JPII and Benedict XVI that Vatican II contains, preserves and passes on the Magisterium of all previous Councils.Assertion is not proof.
interference by the AJC, for example.
AJC can mean many things. What do you mean by these initials and what way does it (they) confound and nullify the teachings of Vat II, PJ II, Benedict XVI and Francis on the validity of Vatican II as the Gatekeeper of the Catholic Tradition?You're clutching at straws, Tancred and so is Graig V.
Comparing V2 and pre-V2 teachings is something you have to do yourself. If you do so honestly, you will see the discontinuity. If you don't see it, you're either stupid, blind or dishonest. It's really that simple. But alas, it's something you have to put the time and effort into. I'd suggest staring with Mortalium Animos vs. the V2 documents Unitatis Redintegratio and Nostra Aetate.Or you can simply put the time in and read this series of articles from Si Si No No: http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/SiSiNoNo/2003_January/errors_of_vatican_II.htmIt's up to you. A horse can be led to water, but it can't be made to drink.
JP II, Benedict XVI and confirmed by Francis teach that Vatican II, its documents and the Magisterium of 2800 bishops stand in continuity with and contain the teaching of all previous Councils.You would appear to be backing your own interpretation and claim the support of the as yet unreconciled and reunited SSPX. Thin ice comes to mind, Craig.
JP2 clearly stated V2 contained novelties, new doctrines. Francis despises pre-V2 catholic doctrine, and ridicules it regularly. Even B16 admitted Gaudium et spes was a "counter" syllabus. He invented the theory of a "hermenutic of continuity" in order to try to salvage V2. We see how that worked out for him. Ya can't square the circle.You should really read and study pre-V2 catholic doctrine. It's actually still catholic doctrine. Post-Conciliar novelties that contradict said doctrine aren't really catholic, and certainly aren't binding on the faithful. In fact, where there are contradictions, the faithful are bound to reject them. (See infallible dogmatic declarations of the FIRST Vatican Council). It's your soul. There's the water. Belly up to the trough and slurp.
So far you continue to insist that your private interpretation of Vat II, its documents and the Popes who have taught since and you do so without anything more than assertion. Assertion is not convincing argument. You claim statements from JP II, where are they? You claim that Benedict's 'hermeneutic of continuity' is some kind of therapeutic bandage on Vat II. Prove it. You claim that Benedict 'admitted' that Gaudium et Spes was a "counter syllabus." Show the reader your evidence. Read 'Porta Fidei' for Benedict's Magisterial teaching alternative to your private opinions.The onus is on you - that's the trough to which you should be doing the belly up routine.Simply trotting out the pre-digested scripts drawn by SSPX is not contributing to the credibility of your claims. You are dancing between thin ice and quick sand.
People, mostly bishops and evil priests, have been privately interpreting it since day one.I get pretty tired of the dishonesty, but you believe what you want.
The citation where then Father Ratxinger describes GS as a "counter-syllabus" is in his book, Principles of Catholic Theology.http://www.traditioninaction.org/ProgressivistDoc/A_031_RatzingerCouterSyllabus.htmThat's why I don't like you around, because you're just so flagrantly dishonest .
I have cited the authoritative teaching of Pope Benedict XVI in his Apostolic Letter, 'Porta Fidei' which clearly states all the teaching of the Church throughout the centuries subsists in the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council and all its documents.If you have persist in your charges of dishonesty, take them to him.I suspect however, it is not dishonesty which upsets you but evidence which counters your own comfortable syllabus. Ross Douthat of the NYT warned Trads and Conservatives about attacking their 'opponents' simply by appealing to the blunt instrument of past authority instead of being persuasive in their arguments. Evangelization does not work by endless assertions.
If most of the world's bishops don't respect Vatican II, it's pretty diffucult to expect anyone else to respect it. Go away.
Ben, you started off this farcical conversation with the obviously false assertion that "Louie Verrechio also happens to be a self-identified sede-vacantist." You have proceeded with your sloppy, willful tunnel vision by giving homework assignments to people by which they are supposed to prove to you what is plainly available to anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear. While Holy Mother Church is being brutally raped by modernists, souls are endangered by vague and misleading teachings and bad examples, you want to pretend that those responsible to keep the barque on the path of Truth are not steering it towards the maelstrom. No one can help someone of ill will who refuses to see the facts, and that is you.
Douthat is right.
I will give just one tiny teaser as to a contradiction here, just for the sake of giving you a taste of what lies down the rabbit hole, and to demonstrate why such an exercise is unsuited, format-wise, for a combox discussion...PRE-VATICAN-II:"For you well know, venerable brethren, that at this time men are found not a few who...dare to teach that "the best constitution of public society and (also) civil progress altogether require that human society be conducted and governed without regard being had to religion any more than if it did not exist; or, at least, without any distinction being made between the true religion and false ones." And, against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that "that is the best condition of civil society, in which no duty is recognized, as attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace may require." From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an "insanity," viz., that "liberty of conscience and worship is each man's personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way." But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching "liberty of perdition;" and that "if human arguments are always allowed free room for discussion, there will never be wanting men who will dare to resist truth, and to trust in the flowing speech of human wisdom; whereas we know, from the very teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, how carefully Christian faith and wisdom should avoid this most injurious babbling."...Amidst, therefore, such great perversity of depraved opinions, we, well remembering our Apostolic Office, and very greatly solicitous for our most holy Religion, for sound doctrine and the salvation of souls which is intrusted to us by God, and (solicitous also) for the welfare of human society itself, have thought it right again to raise up our Apostolic voice. Therefore, by our Apostolic authority, we reprobate, proscribe, and condemn all the singular and evil opinions and doctrines severally mentioned in this letter, and will and command that they be thoroughly held by all children of the Catholic Church as reprobated, proscribed and condemned."-Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura, 1864-POST-VATICAN-II:"This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself. This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right."-Vatican Council II, Dignitatis humanae, 1965-*****Aside from one coming after the other in the course of time, there is absolutely no continuity whatsoever between the two. They are contradictory. The latter is simply a novelty. The former is in complete continuity with the entirety of the history of the Church Christ founded. Take your pick.
And as for the post Vatican II popes...."In the Third Secret, it is foretold, among other things, that the great apostasy in the Church will begin at the top." Cardinal Ciappi, personal theologian to five popes from 1955 to 1989, and was elevated to the cardinalate in 1977.
So now, Craig V, it's really all about the authority of private 'revelation' over the Magisterium of Ecumenical Councils.Tell that to the Apostles, the Fathers of the Church, the Doctors of the Church and all the Council Fathers throughout the history of the Catholic Church.Tell that to Jesus Christ.
Nope. It's about magisterial teaching vs a new contradictory magisterial teaching. The law of non-contradiction (and common sense) lets us know they can't both be true. Good thing magisterial teaching teaches us how to figure what is infallible and what isn't. But for that, you're going to have to put some effort into it and learn what the Church has taught us for 2000+ years. Get off your duff and do your homework. The Good Lord is allowing this to happen at a time in human history when Church doctrine and dogma are a mouse click away. All you have to do is want the Truth.
Furthermore, it isn't about "private interpretation"...the infallible binding dogmas and definitions and teachings given to us by the Magistarium ARE the interpretation. It's not me your arguing with...it's the popes and councils down through the ages. It's their interpretations you are rejecting....even when said interpretations are CLEARLY infallible. Wake up man before it's too late.
Post a Comment