tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post26541983030810495..comments2023-10-05T08:25:13.232-04:00Comments on Biblical Evidence for Catholicism: Refutation of Robert Sungenis' Charge that Pope St. John Paul II Denied the Reality of Hell and Taught UniversalismDave Armstronghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comBlogger72125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-78009330865251775452011-05-27T15:29:29.137-04:002011-05-27T15:29:29.137-04:00Links to Bob's two replies on his site have no...Links to Bob's two replies on his site have now been added to the end of the paper. No need to spend time refuting them, since they are as self-evidently absurd as his earlier rantings against pope and Church.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-71647502865891307362011-05-04T12:59:29.962-04:002011-05-04T12:59:29.962-04:00[continued] johnmartin goes on in his ridiculous p...[continued] johnmartin goes on in his ridiculous post:<br /><br /><i>"get over it man and admit JPII made a mistake. You don’t have to go through these intellectual contortions to demonstrate you are orthodox or love the Papacy. You simply have to be honest with yourself and say JPII was a flawed man, just like the rest of us. He did some great things, some ordinary things and some bad things. This is a case of a bad thing and we should frankly just admit it and move on for the sake of honesty. . . . There is no way out of this either other than to admit the truth about a flawed, but very good Pope. To say opponents of JPII concerning universal salvation have a heterodox mind is merely the projection of Dave’s mind. As far as I can tell from my dialogues with him on geocentrism and now the JPII incident, he is very selective in his engagement of the opposing view point. He regularly hides behind the opinions of others and rarely engages the substance of the opposing view.<br /><br />Dave has simply not engaged my arguments on geocentrism or on the JPII incident, even though those arguments have been posted for some time for all to see. Dave thinks he must defend the Papacy to the death, even though a Catholic apologist is not required to do so. Maybe this is part of his apologetic apostolate. Maybe he has determined that any opposition of the Papacy, no matter how compelling, must be opposed, due to his flawed understanding of what orthodox belief is and is not. He routinely accuses opponents of being suspect of a heterodox mentality, when he does not have the authority or the arguments to back up his claims. This is yet further evidence against his unbalanced mindset concerning the criteria for orthodoxy and herodoxy.<br /><br />What the heck, I could place this silly game and accuse Dave of being a quasi Protestant, because in his defense, he refuses to go to tradition to establish the meaning of the words “universal’ and “salvation”, therefore it is he who has heterodox tendencies. How do you feel now Dave? Someone has seen your game for what it is and called you out on it."</i><br /><br />What will I do NOW? I've been totally exposed as a dishonest (and heterodox) fraud.<br /><br />Right.<br /><br />Next time "slanderer-of-beatified popes" johnmartin needs to learn when he has said enough and to move on with grace. Instead he had to accuse me of running and trying to hide, when there wasn't an ounce of truth in that. <br /><br />He can always go over to his pal Sungenis' site and preach over there.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-18274785272565279252011-05-04T12:56:23.920-04:002011-05-04T12:56:23.920-04:00I deleted all of johnmartin's comments from th...I deleted all of johnmartin's comments from this thread (some 33 or so) because he questioned why I shut down the comments.<br /><br />It's the same old routine with jm. Before it was the issue of geocentrism. He insists on coming into venues where he knows his view is considered fringe, and blasting comboxes with trillions of words. He usually insults everyone who disagrees with him, not sparing even the blogmaster who nevertheless kindly allows his comments. <br /><br />He has been warned in the past, and he was warned in this thread that my patience with his antics was rapidly wearing thin. Hence I wrote on April 29th:<br /><br />"In the past it has come to a place where I ask him to cease and desist, or else I will delete all his posts. That time is coming very soon."<br /><br />In this instance his goal is lying about Blessed Pope John Paul II. I was content to let him talk, but he has taken it too far now with the following remarks on his own blog:<br /><br /><i>I wrote this piece before I found out Dave Armstrong have blocked off further comment on the matter of John Paul II's doctrine of universal salvation. Dave has the following reason for his blocking off the thread -<br /><br />"I'm winding down my Internet activities for a time, Neil, so I'll have to take a pass. I just posted on my Facebook page:<br /><br />'I'll be taking an extended break from the Internet to work on my new book (<i>The Quotable Newman</i>) and do some other things. Just so folks will know why when I don't post for a while . . . thanks for reading and we'll see you later!'<br /><br />I will take Dave's word for it that he has blocked off the combox and post my responses here. Nevertheless I find it very odd that he has done this due to the fact that the combox was running hot and he could have made a simple post about his future inactivity and left others to freely post. Maybe Dave is afraid he is holding to a false position on JPII and objections to his statements. We will probably never know.</i><br /><br />It's called a "time off". I live on the Internet 49 weeks of the year, day and night (most of the time doing work for which I am not directly paid anything at all), but if I dare take any time off, to rest or do some work that actually brings more income, someone like johnmartin will be sure to question my motivation, as if I don't need rest and relaxation once a year like anyone else does.<br /><br />Knowing johnmartin's obsessive tendency to try to take over comboxes, I knew that it was necessary to shut off the comments. Period. End of story. That's why I made the same announcement on my Facebook page, where this discussion wasn't even taking place at all. I'm not scared of him (what a joke!), or worried about my own position (nice try). <br /><br />I simply don't waste time interacting with foolish, absurd positions. That is the sole reason I don't interact with johnmartin. But I commend the patience of those who do interact with him (<i>someone</i> has to oppose the nonsense).Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-26226379348016734202011-05-01T15:56:08.533-04:002011-05-01T15:56:08.533-04:00I'm winding down my Internet activities for a ...I'm winding down my Internet activities for a time, Neil, so I'll have to take a pass. I just posted on my Facebook page:<br /><br />=========================<br /><br />I'll be taking an extended break from the Internet to work on my new book (<i>The Quotable Newman</i>) and do some other things. Just so folks will know why when I don't post for a while . . . thanks for reading and we'll see you later!Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-51775044988998210432011-05-01T14:54:50.950-04:002011-05-01T14:54:50.950-04:00Dave,
I have read some Catholics who claim that &...Dave,<br /><br />I have read some Catholics who claim that "yes" if you die in mortal sin you are going to hell, but it's possible that no one dies in this state.<br /><br />Of the statements you cite, only one indicates that there are people in hell:<br /><br />____<br /><br />In her motherly concern, the Blessed Virgin came here to Fátima to ask men and women "to stop offending God, Our Lord, who is already very offended". It is a mother's sorrow that compels her to speak; the destiny of her children is at stake. For this reason she asks the little shepherds: "Pray, pray much and make sacrifices for sinners; many souls go to hell because they have no one to pray and make sacrifices for them". . . .<br />______<br /><br />With the exception of that quote it seems that everything is compatible with Hans urs Von Balthasar's view that it is possible that everyone is going to heaven.<br /><br />I'm curious, do you agree with Balthasar? Do you think Dulles is wrong to suggest that JP may have held a similar view?<br /><br />http://www.firstthings.com/article/2008/08/the-population-of-hell-23Neil Parillehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11074901258306769278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-22911044554932857722011-05-01T14:34:39.130-04:002011-05-01T14:34:39.130-04:00I think your reasoning is flawed. You seem to be s...<i>I think your reasoning is flawed. You seem to be saying.<br /><br />1. Paul said things that sound universalist, but he wasn't a universalist.<br /><br />2. John Paul said things that sound universalist.<br /><br />3. Therefore John Paul was not a universalist.</i><br /><br />Not quite. My reasoning is:<br /><br />1) Blessed John Paul II said things that critics claim sound universalist.<br /><br />2) But St. Paul and other inspired biblical writers said very similar things that at first sight might wrongly be interpreted as universalist as well, but they weren't universalists.<br /><br />3) We know the Bible writers didn't hold that view because many obvious statements elsewhere (about hell and the reprobates) show that they didn't.<br /><br />4) Likewise, we know that Blessed Pope John Paul II didn't hold that view because many obvious statements elsewhere (about hell and the reprobates) -- not to mention the Catechism that he promulgated -- show that he didn't.<br /><br />5) Therefore, by <i>reductio ad absurdum</i>, if one wishes to assert that Blessed Pope John Paul II was a universalist because of some statements he made, then one must also assert the same of the inspired Bible writers, who spoke in the same kind of language.<br /><br />6) Since that is ridiculous, the contentions collapse. Things must be read in context. It is the hallmark of the heretical or otherwise disturbed, illogical, heterodox mind (the mind that isn't thinking with the Mind of the Church), to isolate words from their immediate contexts and divorce them from other statements made by the same writer.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-22008571049849505942011-05-01T10:38:07.065-04:002011-05-01T10:38:07.065-04:00Dave,
I think your reasoning is flawed. You seem...Dave,<br /><br />I think your reasoning is flawed. You seem to be saying.<br /><br />1. Paul said things that sound universalist, but he wasn't a universalist.<br /><br />2. John Paul said things that sound universalist.<br /><br />3. Therefore John Paul was not a universalist.<br /><br />(3) doesn't follow.<br /><br />Actually I'm not persuaded that JP was a universalist. Avery Dulles, who apparently was friends with the pope, seemed to think that JP may have accepted Hans urs Von Balthasar's view that it's possible that everyone is going to heaven.<br /><br />The pope made H von B a Cardinal and must have known his views because they created quite a stir in Europe. He also appointed Walter Kasper the head of Vatican's bureau of dialogue with non-Christians and didn't remove or reprimand him when he came out against Jewish evangelism. I'm nor saying that this indicates what JP's views are, but taken as a whole I think there is quite a bit of uncertainty on this issue.<br /><br />I don't imagine this would be defended if done by someone other than the pope.Neil Parillehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11074901258306769278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-42905069462321463982011-05-01T05:13:32.358-04:002011-05-01T05:13:32.358-04:00Hi Jim, Very fair question!
This matter is proba...Hi Jim, Very fair question!<br /><br />This matter is probably worth email. But as an overview...<br /><br />At the moment, South East Asia is where it is at. For a start, the money and the power are shifting there. I would argue that there at five signs of a civilisation in collapse and the West, with the UK once trailing but now in the lead, is showing all five signs.<br /><br />So I would hold that nowhere in the West is safe. The zeitgeist is too widespread and advanced. Both New Zealand and Australia are falling. But, as the West is falling, the East is rising and not iust China. All the one time 'developing countries' of South East Asia are rising - fast! They will overtake the West in just a few years. Economically it is a very good time to head out East, especially while the West is still admired. (The sun will set on that day soon so speed of movement is an issue.)<br /><br />My heart was originally stolen by the Philippines which is a very Catholic country and I could wax lyrical about the small islands. I really, really wanted to emigrate there. But I found the visa restrictions would have left me in absolute poverty. Unless you have, say, a military income AND have married a Filipino citizen, the small islands are lovely but impossible to get into. I would also say that Filipinos are the kindest, softest people I have ever known and that counts for a huge amount. But the food is awful and you have to love dancing to go out there. They are dance obsessives! Where we would say, "See you down the pub" they will say, "See you at the dancing!" <br /><br />Anyway, God closed off the Philippines but opened up a surprising other door. (Long story but if I may, He always warned my persecution was coming to the UK right back to the 1980's... and always promised me that he would take me out and protect me when it came. Promise came true.) I then married an Indonesian! Now a LOT of Christians freak when you mention Indonesia - because the West's reporting of the East is dreadful. I mean, really bad! So everyone associates Indonesia with radical Islam. It is not true at all. Indonesia is very safe country and I feel far more safe out there than in the UK and my wife, a lifelong Catholic, never experienced religious persecution. Until she came to the UK. <br /><br />So reports of rising Islamic militancy and Sharia law and all that... not true. In fact, Indonesia is undergoing a major Christian revival right now - mostly among Catholics! Islamic insurgency exists but in five small, isolated areas. And they are despised by the local population. And the food is much better than the Philippines and you do not have to be a dance obsessive. But alcohol is out.<br /><br />It is also VERY easy for Westerners to get into the country and the rules regarding visas are being loosened. My wife and I are heading out there this year. My wife probably in the next few weeks. God willing, I will follow in about three months.<br /><br />For more information - catch me. Oh, and in South East Asia you will find care, community, respect (for you and your religion) the likes of which does not exist in the UK. When I met Filipinos I was shocked to the core – in a good way. When I went out to the small islands, I was crying on my return. Because the UK has lost it's moral core, we have become a cold, cruel, selfish people in so many ways. The abortion rates tell their own story alone, leave alone the fact the British are officially the most promiscuous in the world. No, we are not a caring people. Indonesians (and Filipinos) are.<br /><br />So I would say, look to South East Asia. And Indonesia is probably the easiest and best place for British ex-pats to head out if they are not married to a 'local.' Going East is not just about avoiding persecution and our mind control sex-education, but also entering a family oriented culture which makes bring up children both easier and more enjoyable.<br /><br />PM me for more info if you want!Jedinovicehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16401504300105353435noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-59446318295621684432011-05-01T04:52:05.195-04:002011-05-01T04:52:05.195-04:00>Because he has debated Sede Vacantists in the ...>Because he has debated Sede Vacantists in the past, where he thought he own the debate, it seems unlikely that he will travel down this path.<br /><br />Fiver says he'll jump ship within eighteen months!<br />(And I don't mean the rabbit.)Jedinovicehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16401504300105353435noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-29729714837928362542011-04-30T17:51:31.026-04:002011-04-30T17:51:31.026-04:00Sungenis Returning to the Church:
(From Surprised...Sungenis Returning to the Church:<br /><br />(From Surprised by Truth)<br /><br />“But the Lord rescued me from my wanderings. What heavenly irony that he chose to use former Evangelical anti-Catholics…Scott and Kimberly Hahn, Thomas Howard...and others – to show me the way back home to Rome” (p. 117)<br /><br />“As I sifted through the pile of Catholic books Bob [Swenson] and Gerry [Hoffman] sent me, the first thing I re-examined was the Protestant concept of sola scriptura…it was like a slap in the face to realize the truth of the Catholic claim that sola scriptura is a false doctrine…As I studied the Catholic case against sola scriptura I knew instinctively that the whole debate between Catholicism and Protestantism could be boiled down to authority.” (p. 117)<br /><br />“After all the anti-Catholic propaganda to which I had been exposed in my Protestant years, what I found in the Catholic Church were the most reasonable and trustworthy interpretations of Scripture I had ever seen. It was this faithfulness to Scripture that sealed my decision to enter the Catholic Church.” (p. 126)<br /><br />Do you see anything in there that sounds like the new story he’s telling his ultra-trad friends?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-71477201112222636322011-04-30T17:50:35.546-04:002011-04-30T17:50:35.546-04:00Sungenis Leaving the Church:
(From Surprised by T...Sungenis Leaving the Church:<br /><br />(From Surprised by Truth)<br /><br />“I never took the time or had the motivation to really understand Catholicism.” (p. 104)<br /><br />“I made friends with the wrong crowd and promptly fell away from the Church. I soon found myself floundering with no sense of direction…” (pp 104-105)<br /><br />“I continued to attended [sic] the Catholic church [sic] in my neighborhood in Washington D.C. At this point I wasn’t trying to figure out whether the Catholic Church was the true Church…One Saturday evening I found a call-in radio program in which the host was answering Bible-related questions. I was enthralled…at one point in the show, a particular doctrine of the Catholic Church was the topic of discussion. The host informed his audience that this particular Catholic belief was ‘unbiblical,’ and offered a few verses to support his claim. I naively agreed with his arguments and, without realizing it just then, took my first step away from the Catholic Church. I found myself wanting to do what this teaching was doing – be on the radio...” (p. 107)<br /><br />“Not long after this, I met with some well-intentioned Protestants who, once they found out I was Catholic, persuaded me that the Catholic Church was too steeped in meaningless ritual and corrupt traditions and had strayed far from the Bible. They convinced me that what I really wanted was a simple faith, a ‘biblical’ faith that I couldn’t enjoy within the strictures of Catholicism - just me, Jesus and the Bible. My newfound love for Jesus and the Bible coincided with a rejection of the Catholic Church, which I thought had ‘hidden’ Jesus from me – a notion my Protestant friends egged me on to believe. My weak moorings in the Catholic Church were easily cut under the sharp knife of their anti-Catholic arguments, and I soon found myself no longer a Catholic. I had accepted the Protestant recipe for eternal happiness and began to grope my way toward what I hoped would be a vibrant relationship with Jesus, not realizing that each step was leading me away from his Church…I didn’t merely drift away…I developed a robust hatred for Catholicism…seeing it as a deception, a diabolical detour which led souls away from Christ by entangling them in a morass of ritual, legalism and unbiblical traditions of men.” (pp 107-108)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-79499882560027957132011-04-30T17:48:01.337-04:002011-04-30T17:48:01.337-04:00After finding out that the voodoo/snake/cucumber s...After finding out that the voodoo/snake/cucumber story was bunk, I went back and looked over some of the other things Sungenis wrote about all this. Another thing that hit me was this exchange: <br /><br />Dejak: “Sungenis has an interesting history which, while not dispositive of his current position, may explain some of his oddities. He rejected the Catholic faith of his youth to become a Protestant pastor and teacher for a number of years…”<br /><br />Sungenis: “No, I didn’t reject the Catholic faith. I rejected the perversion of the Catholic faith I saw coming out of Vatican II’s aftermath. The Catholic faith of tradition I loved, but I couldn’t stand the monster that was created in the 1960s, 70s and 80s. Too bad I was too young and naïve not to see the difference back then. I came back to the Catholic Church to help it retrieve its original doctrines and practices.”<br /><br /><br />I remembered enough of his conversion story in Surprised by Truth to know that this didn’t sound right so I went and checked it. At least if you believe what he wrote back then, then his new story here is bunk. Maybe he thinks this story will make him look good to his new fringe ultra-trad friends? For his sake, I hope they don’t ever read his own conversion story to see what really led him out of the Church and back into it because it’s not exactly the kind of story that will go over big with them. One of the main reasons he left was because hated the ritual and traditions of the Catholic Church and thought they were from the Devil. Another was just because he was lazy and never took the time to learn his faith. And who rescued him and brought him back to the Church? The ultra-trads? Nope. People like Scott and Kimberly Hahn. And that's all according to Sungenis himself, at least before he went ultra-trad.<br /> <br />It’s too bad that he can’t seem to stay calm and humble long enough to be happy anywhere for long.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-11812397498832881132011-04-30T16:32:38.543-04:002011-04-30T16:32:38.543-04:00@jedinovice
"(Scotland, I gather, has real m...@jedinovice<br /><br />"(Scotland, I gather, has real men and real Bishops.)"<br /><br />Not that many left. I fear we are going down the same road as our neighbours. But I do know that the few that are left will go down fighting. <br />Strange how I noticed that you are leaving the UK when my wife and I have discussed this also. Pray tell where there is a safe haven these days? <br /><br />@Paul<br /><br />This evidence spells the end for Sungenis. I don't know how he can possibly get his credibility back after this. Whatever next, are we going to find out that he has plagiarized James White? <br />Probably not since bishop White makes sense from time to time. Sede's never do.Jimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04608918306750440883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-84904988203811360772011-04-30T16:08:14.730-04:002011-04-30T16:08:14.730-04:00"I have never said JPII was a heretic. I have..."I have never said JPII was a heretic. I have said he taught universal salvation and I provided evidence for that from JPII, the CCC, NT, other Popes and the catholic encyclopedia to make my case."<br /><br />Has a canonical court charged JPII with teaching this heresy?<br />And what does your charge say of the magisterium for beatifying such a man?Jimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04608918306750440883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-36102492270264305672011-04-30T16:00:51.536-04:002011-04-30T16:00:51.536-04:00Hi Paul,
How much this reveals! If Bob is reduced...Hi Paul,<br /><br />How much this reveals! If Bob is reduced to using sedevacantist citations (and even altering them), then all the more reason to think that this is the road he is headed down. If we start quoting people in agreement, pretty soon we may be in their camp, by the principle of "we are what we eat."Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-6498932190331689612011-04-30T14:43:00.577-04:002011-04-30T14:43:00.577-04:00To Dave Armstrong et al here:
I thought you might...To Dave Armstrong et al here:<br /><br />I thought you might like to know that johnmartin’s hunch was right. The original source of the voodoo/cucumber/snake story that Sungenis didn’t disclose is “Voodoo You Trust,” written by the rabid sedevacantist John Weiskittel (originally in “Sacerdotium” and then republished at the sedevacantist website Novus Ordo Watch). It’s almost a word-for-word representation of a section of Weiskittel’s footnote #67. It also looks as though Sungenis made a small but important change in the original quote that hides the fact that it was written by a sedevacantist.<br /> <br />In the original, the sedevacantist put quotation marks around the word “Pope” as a way of saying that JPII wasn’t really a Pope (like the way people write that Sungenis is a “prophet”). But Sungenis omitted the quotation marks in his version.<br />Worse, his version adds an important sentence that wasn’t even in the original article, “the pope is said to have nodded in acknowledgment.” It looks like Sungenis just made that up himself (as opposed to picking it up from someone else who made it up) because if you do a net search you see that he’s the only source for it.<br /> <br />http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=%22The+Pope+is+said+to+have+nodded+in+acknowledgment%22&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 <br /><br />I found out that Sungenis used the same voodoo/cucumber/snake story in his article about EWTN and Assisi but he didn’t add the sentence about the Pope nodding “in acknowledgment” in that one.<br /> <br />http://www.catholicintl.com/noncatholicissues/ewtn-assisi2.htm<br /><br />Probably the worst of it though is that Sungenis hid from his readers the fact that Weiskittel repeatedly made clear that he had nothing factual to corroborate that the story was true. It’s pretty sad when you’re willing to sink even lower than a rabid sedevacantist to take a cheap shot at the Pope.<br /><br />What’s also sad is that you’ll see that other people picked up on Sungenis’ account and ran with it as the Gospel truth. Like this guy on Free Republic:<br /><br />http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/947854/posts#36 <br /><br />John Weiskittel’s Original:<br /><br />“Standing with a voodoo chief before a snake hut in the center of the town, he cast cucumber peelings on the ground in front of its entrance. Moments later, a serpent slithered forth from it. The chief then turned to the “Pope,” exclaiming that the reptile’s appearance meant the snake god had favored his offering.” (“Voodoo You Trust”, fn. 67)<br /><br />Sungenis’ version:<br /> <br />“…standing with the voodoo chieftan before a snake in the center of town, John Paul cast cucumber peelings on the ground in front of its entrance. Moments later, a serpent slithered forth from it. The chieftan then turned to the Pope exclaiming that the reptile’s appearance meant the snake-god had favored his offering. The pope is said to have nodded in acknowledgment.” (“When a Pope Errs”)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-29098222489782129882011-04-30T13:56:18.486-04:002011-04-30T13:56:18.486-04:00@ Dave,
Dr. Sungenis got his fame but this time w...@ Dave,<br /><br />Dr. Sungenis got his fame but this time with the Reformed bloggers, he is the subject of intense interest and ridicule much like his forerunner, Gerry Matatics.<br /><br />This post you wrote is just really an excellent refutation of the likes of them and JM's obstinate, blind and dubious logic.<br /><br />Peace.Jaehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08949794711507726903noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-36968644132327359602011-04-30T13:14:04.338-04:002011-04-30T13:14:04.338-04:00I released five comments that were caught in the s...I released five comments that were caught in the spam filter.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-47256698136981928362011-04-30T06:26:40.870-04:002011-04-30T06:26:40.870-04:00Hmmm.. the second part of my post was lost for som...Hmmm.. the second part of my post was lost for some reason. I was in a hurry.<br /><br />My point was that if these ‘Prophets’ want to speak truth to power – let them come to the UK and walk the path of the Prophet for real. Let’s see them criticise the TRULY corrupt Bishops here. Let them speak on street corners in the UK and end up arrested by the police for breaching section 5 of the Public Order Act. Let them decry homosexual marriage and up sued under both section 5 of the Public Order Act and the Equality Act 2010. Let them make mention they are a Christian and get hounded out of work. <br /><br />These Prophets sit safe behind their keyboards sniffing contemptuously at Saints while being silent where the battle really is. In the UK Christians are heading underground. It is widely anticipated (noted on Protestant bogs) that when (not if) homosexual marriages are allowed in churches the Catholic Church will shut up shop. They will close down the Churches and sell them off. Even if Quislings like Cormac – and maybe Nichols – seek a ‘compromise’ the Vatican will force closure, send over African missionaries and prepare for secret house group churches. The Catholic Church is used to persecution. By the way, do not think for a minute the word ‘allow’ means anything other than impose. The likes of Stonewall – who are formally committed to this mode of operation – will sue relentlessly any church that refuses to bless a Gay wedding. The judges – appointed by the likes of Blair and Brown with the sole intention of closing Christianity down – will only leap to side with the lobbyists. So the Catholic Church will be formally closing down in the UK. It may just be months anyway. The Protestant Churches will have to make their choice.<br /><br />Where were these prophets before? Were they not speaking out about this? Did they not foresee? Will they now come as Prophets of the UK, become true Jeremiahs and be thrown in a hole?<br /><br />No? Then they can go away. I know Christians the UK prepared to go to prison now. They graced to be arrested, torn from their family and their children taken into care for re-education. I exaggerate not. These heroes in the making will not leave knowing even what is to come.<br /><br />The likes of John Martin are amusing for a while but worse than useless in a real fight, pitting Christian against Christian, Catholic against Catholic.<br /><br />Prophesy against the UK Government, her Bishops, her Judges, her anti-Christian lobby groups. Put your life where your mouth is.<br /><br />Or shut up.<br /><br />The rest of us have things to do.Jedinovicehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16401504300105353435noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-24864294599609408002011-04-30T00:13:10.329-04:002011-04-30T00:13:10.329-04:00Jordanes551 - And yet Peter has authority from Jes...<i>Jordanes551 - And yet Peter has authority from Jesus to beatify, while you and Sungenis have no authority or right to speak against the Church's beatifications. No traditional Catholic would dare do such as you are doing.<br /><br />JM – I’m not a traditional catholic. I attend the Novus Ordo mass at a local parish. Sorry to burst your bubble ol’ boy.</i><br /><br />You're right that you're not a traditional Catholic -- that is, a Catholic who adheres to the Apostolic Tradition.<br /><br />You probably thought I meant "traditionalist Catholic." That you seem to be, but as I said, no traditional Catholic would dare to speak against any of the Church's beatifications.<br /><br /><i>It is the right of all faithful Catholics to questions the church’s prudential judgments</i><br /><br />Tanquerey quotes Pope Benedict XIV writing that, should anyone claim that the Pontiff erred in this or that canonisation, we should say that he is, if not a heretic, at least temerarious, a giver of scandal to the whole Church, an insulter of the saints, a favorer of those heretics who deny the Church’s authority in canonizing saints, savoring of heresy by giving unbelievers an occasion to mock the faithful, the stater of an erroneous opinion, and liable to very grave penalties:<br /><br />"Si non haereticum, temerarium tamen, scandalem toti Ecclesiae afferentem, in Sanctos injuriosum, faventem haereticis negantibus auctoritatem Ecclesiae in canonizatione Sanctorum, sapientem haeresim, utpote viam sternentem infidelibus ad irridendum fideles, assertorem erroneae opinionis et gravissimis poenis obnoxium dicemus eum qui auderet asserere Pontificem in hac aut illa canonizatione errasse."<br /><br />http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=l-EQAQAAIAAJ&q=%22asserere+Pontificem+in+hac+aut+illa+canonizatione+errasse%22&dq=%22asserere+Pontificem+in+hac+aut+illa+canonizatione+errasse%22&hl=en&ei=O66ZTfvbIoSY8QOq46WzCQ<br /><br />You and Mr. Sungenis have no right whatsoever, nor any divine calling (let alone the intellectual and theological skill), to do what you are doing. Get to confession as soon as you can.Confiteborhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17951083063448447552noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-34724922964218336662011-04-29T21:20:42.509-04:002011-04-29T21:20:42.509-04:00Hi James Dean,
Yep, I did notice that. Major CYA ...Hi James Dean,<br /><br />Yep, I did notice that. Major CYA move there. LOL I have to believe it was that since Bugay was allowed to spout nonsense for maybe a year now. Myself and a few others have been speaking up about his nonsense, and they finally faced the music. <br /><br />It's better they did it than not, but I question the "purity" of the motives. If it was actually a principled move it should have been done many months ago.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-14444004683203776232011-04-29T19:16:06.352-04:002011-04-29T19:16:06.352-04:00Did you notice that John Bugay, and Matthew Schult...Did you notice that John Bugay, and Matthew Schultz names are gone from BA Blog?James Deanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01767660575886231531noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-9189712352057472092011-04-29T16:07:03.011-04:002011-04-29T16:07:03.011-04:00@John "Judge" Martin
"The Pope mus...@John "Judge" Martin<br /><br />"The Pope must rule within the tradition given from the apostles. If he decides to teach outside that tradition then he will be judged for it, just as a bishop or informed Catholic is judged"<br /><br />Judged? By whom? Mr Martin perhaps?<br /><br />St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30: <br />"A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction."<br /><br />Bob Sungenis: "Not judging the Magisterium relieves us of being judged by God. God alone is the judge of the Magisterium, not you, not me, not the Dimond Brothers."<br /><br />UNTIL the Pope becomes a "Manifest heretic" THEN you can judge him Mr Martin. And ONLY then, NOT before. So for your own sake, hush!Jimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04608918306750440883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-28407557873303874012011-04-29T15:21:58.874-04:002011-04-29T15:21:58.874-04:00The Barbarians are that gate! My wife and I are h...The Barbarians are that gate! My wife and I are having to flee the country so as to be able to bring up a family without the risk of one or both of us going to prison. I have battled with my conscience on whether to stay or leave. Thankfully I have a spiritual director who has confirmed a call to south East Asia. I also know good, noble Christians in the country who know persecution is coming and are graced for the journey. “I am not afraid.” They tell me. “I have peace.” They have been graced in a way I have not. I am, in a way, watching saints and martyrs being created before my eyes. I weep in admiration of them (I am a very emotional person. Artistic temperament! It runs deep on my mother’s side.)<br /><br />Right, so where were the likes of Martin and co. when then Sexual Orientation Regulations were being debated in the commons? Where were they when our Bishops water down the Church’s teaching, spoke of green issues and always encouraging voters to go for Marxist Labour? You want to debate error? Take on Cormac or Nicholls! You want to fight compromise? Come here and mention you are a Christian and get spat upon for it – quite literally. Be here and be ready to be taken away by the police who are the first to jump at signs someone is being “politically incorrect.”<br /><br />If calling to persecution is not your thing, come with me to South East Asia. Join “Couples for Christ.” Raise up a new generation of missionaries to come the sceptered isles. <br /><br />But no… our ‘Prophets’ prefer to turn on a saintly Pope of all things. Ignoring the real serpents in our midst, they turn on saints! As people like me are forced to flee these ‘useful idiots’ turn Catholic, nay, Christian against Christian and do the enemy’s work. The Christian Church in the West, Europe especially and theUK most of all, is about to fall back to persecution the likes of which has not been seen Rome. And Matatics and Co are on the wrong side, lashing out against those who have to go through this.<br /><br />There is a point when it is not funny anymore. I am scrambling to leave my own country! I am watching saints being spiritually born in front of my eyes, true Christian ready to be sent to prison, be separated from spouses and have their children taken off them for ‘re-education’. (The last one is already happening in embryonic form.) I could go on and on.<br /><br />But it boils down to this – either you do something or get out. If you only ‘solution’ to the troubles is to complain and lash out at the ALLIES then it is time I, at least, say, “Join the resistance or get out their way.”<br /><br />The obstinacy of the likes of JM is amusing to a degree. But when you are pressed to the wall, it ceases to amuse. Oh yeah, it’s easy to be ‘Prophets’ to JPII where there is no risk – especially in front of a keyboard. You come to the UK and just mention you are a Christian in public! You dare to suggest in public they you think homosexual marriage is not a God Thing. You WILL be visited by the police. Come on Matatics et al. Come over here and play the Prophet to the police, to social services, to the judges. Come on. Here is your chance to be Jeremiah!<br /><br />No?<br /><br />Then shut up. The rest of us have things to do.Jedinovicehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16401504300105353435noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-77604658021733888252011-04-29T15:21:41.103-04:002011-04-29T15:21:41.103-04:00OK, a moments real rant.
This thing that gets me ...OK, a moments real rant.<br /><br />This thing that gets me is…<br /><br />If the likes of Matatics, or Sugenis, or our mutual friend Martin want to be Prophets then can they please be real Prophets??<br /><br />Can they speak truth to error.? Real Error?<br /><br />England and Wales have the worst, most quisling Bishops in the nations history. Christianity is imploding here. Abortion is rampant. Euthanasia is being brought in by stealth. Explicit sex education is forced on children at the age of five USING CARTOON PORN!!! Faith schools do not escape. <br /><br />If I may blow my own horn as a ‘Prophet’ – I was warning people back in 1989 that persecution of Christians was coming the country. I said homosexual marriage was coming and, following, vicious persecution of the Church. I said back in 2006 that after ‘Civil Unions’ were allowed Christianity would be driven to the wall and, eventually, underground. We are seeing that happen now. The Christian Institute, the ONLY body willing to fight for Christians in the court rooms have recently made a statement that they will no longer take cases to the courts because the system is so stitched up, the defeats so relentless and total, that going to the judges is just allowing worse and worse precedents to happen. “The only solution is the law.” They say.<br />Well, that is only going to go one way.<br /><br />I have been saying for decades that the law and politics are not solutions. The only way out is through. The Church is going underground. We are just about at that very point. The Government is about to ‘allow’ homosexual marriages to be celebrated in religious buildings.<br /><br />That means ‘impose.’ Every single ‘gay right’ that has been allowed in the UK has been tested in the courts (with a 100% success rate) to close down, silence them and drive Christians underground.. Celebration of homosexual marriage will force certainly the Catholic Church to close down shop here. The Quisling Bishops here will grovel to the Vatican and Government for a ‘compromise’ but – as Protestant commentators recognise – the Vatican will force the UK Church to close up shop. The buildings will be sold and the Church will go underground. At that point the mask will come off – on both sides. (And the Bishops of this age will go down in history as the worst we have ever known in this isles. I wonder if the likes of Cormac will jump for a seat in the Lords?)Jedinovicehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16401504300105353435noreply@blogger.com