Immaculate Conception

[katerinah1947]

Really? There was a non-commissioned (by leadership in the historical magisterial seat) itinerant Preacher who more than once challenged the interpretation of those in the historical magisterial office, as did His disciples.

But somehow you think that these dissenting preachers would exclude lay people -who were the very ones which heard this itinerant Preacher and His disciples, in dissent from those in the historical magisterial seat - from challenging an incorrect interpretation by them?

Even in the OT in which dissent from the magisterium was a capital offense, the Lord often raised up men from without it to provide Truth and help preserve faith.

But the reason we do not see NT believers challenging the manifest apostles of God is because, unlike Rome, they did not presume ensured magisterial infallibility themselves and teach things utterly absent from Scripture and contrary to it, from praying to created beings in Heaven to the very basis for the veracity of such, that of Rome's presumed ensured magisterial infallibility.

Instead, as has been told you they established their preaching and teaching on Scriptural substantiation in word and in power. We see this in Acts 15 among other places.

But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. (2 Corinthians 4:2)

By pureness, by knowledge, by longsuffering, by kindness, by the Holy Ghost, by love unfeigned, By the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left, (2 Corinthians 6:6-7)

But the basis for the veracity of oral preaching depended upon what was written, while most the words in NT was first given in writing, excluding duplicate accounts.

You keep trying this only to have the argument refuted! Why do you continually ignore what invalidates your argument and just repeat it? It makes yoru look bad.

No, the visible NT NEVER was that of Rome, and going back to Scripture being the supreme authority for obedience and testing and establishing Truth claims is a step in the Biblical direction, though not claiming new revelation or to preaching under the full inspiration that Scripture has and apostles engaged in. Which Rome does not, yet presumes to make tradition equal with Scripture, and the church, and church law, the supreme law.

And as also said, the one true church, which Christ promised would prevail, is the corporate body of Christ into which every believer is baptized by the Spirit at conversion, (1Co. 12:13; Eph. 1:13; Acts 10:43-47; 17:7-11) as it alone always only 100% consists of believers. While the various visible churches are or become admixtures of wheat and tares, esp. in Catholicism and liberal Prot churches.

Once again a RC tries to employ this simple text to support your RC falsehoods, yet as shown it does not support the church was being the basis for truth, but the church of the living God (versus the dead institutionalized one) supports as well as rests upon the Truth, which Scripture is, and the church was established upon.

And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. (Luke 24:44)

"Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,)" "But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:" (Romans `1:1,2; 16:26)

And as showed to another RC,​

It is amazing what RCs seem to extrapolate out of "church living God pillar/support and ground [hedraiōma: said to be unseen in the Hellenistic Jewish literature, or in the LXX or in secular Greek, or it is said to have meant in the latter fixed, steadfast, or immovable] the truth."

That the church of (though no word for "of appears in the Greek, nor in "of the truth") the living God supports and is fixed on the Truth is substantiated in Scripture, the Lord Himself taking time to go thru Scripture and show the basis for His Messiaship and ministry, and opening the understanding of the disciples (more than just apostles being present) to them, (Lk. 24:44,45) and with Biblical prophets being foundational. (Eph. 2:20).

But the often word for "foundation" is not used here, yet Caths seem to invoke this texts as if it said that the church was the pillar and basis of the Truth, for RCs seem to imagine that the church was like a kind of "big bang" and did [not] actually begin upon and flow from the foundation of Scripture, to which the NT abundantly quotes, references and appeals to.​

All your arguments have been exposed as invalid, while your provocative repetitious mantra for the Mary of Catholicism is unScriptural and disrespectful to the pious humble Mary of Scripture.

Hi,

Please remember what Jesus had to say, in Mark 9:38-42, and Paul said in Romans 14, when dealing with Catholics.

No where scripturally, do I see Holy Water mentioned.

Yet, like all things of God, especially things validated by The Holy Spirit, once validated, we Christians cannot throw away what God has validated.

Your position on The Vatican seems to be, that they are right on nothing, rather than having an error in some of what they say from time to time.

I find they are right on many things.

I find other Christian Religions are right on items that The Catholics use little of. Being in The Spirit, and using The Bible more.

The Doctrine of Mary, was backed up, in my approved mystical experiences with her, called approved private revelations.

I saw Holy Water cast out a demon, and change a man for life.

Others know of a fishing boat that was made better by that one day.

Mary is very much, what The Catholics say, independent of my thoughts and some others. She actually is what The Catholics say about her, and her role as Queen of Heaven. Yes, I have experienced her, always consistent with that.

LOVE,

 

[Rick Otto]

Hi,

Please remember what Jesus had to say, in Mark 9:38-42, and Paul said in Romans 14, when dealing with Catholics.

No where scripturally, do I see Holy Water mentioned.

Yet, like all things of God, especially things validated by The Holy Spirit, once validated, we Christians cannot throw away what God has validated.

Your position on The Vatican seems to be, that they are right on nothing, rather than having an error in some of what they say from time to time.

I find they are right on many things.

I find other Christian Religions are right on items that The Catholics use little of. Being in The Spirit, and using The Bible more.

The Doctrine of Mary, was backed up, in my approved mystical experiences with her, called approved private revelations.

I saw Holy Water cast out a demon, and change a man for life.

Others know of a fishing boat that was made better by that one day.

Mary is very much, what The Catholics say, independent of my thoughts and some others. She actually is what The Catholics say about her, and her role as Queen of Heaven. Yes, I have experienced her, always consistent with that.

LOVE,

LOL!I have used those verses against Catholic exclusivity.
I'm sure you had experiences, but I reserve my opinion about them.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Hi,

Please remember what Jesus had to say, in Mark 9:38-42, and Paul said in Romans 14, when dealing with Catholics.

Mark 9:38-42 actually refutes the RC charge that non-Catholic have no right to minister in the name of the Lord, while Rm. 14 deals with issues of personal liberty, such as lawful foods, not making doctrines, which it opposes making into such.

No where scripturally, do I see Holy Water mentioned.

No, and while God may sovereignly choose in certain instances or periods to use something as an instrument of grace, that does not sanction making it into a ritual practice. God used bones, the shadow, and clothing from certain persons in instances, but that was temporary, and the error of Rome is to make purported sacred objects constant means of grace, which wrongly elevates the objects themselves as the Israelites did with the brazen serpent.

Yet, like all things of God, especially things validated by The Holy Spirit, once validated, we Christians cannot throw away what God has validated.

But we do not see such things of Rome validated, as they are part of unScriptural practices and doctrines, such as praying to created beings, and what really is worship of Mary.

One would have a hard time in Bible times explaining kneeling before a statue and praising the entity it represented in the unseen world, beseeching such for Heavenly help, and making offerings to them, and giving glory and titles and ascribing attributes to such which are never given in Scripture to created beings (except to false gods), including having the uniquely Divine power glory to hear and respond to virtually infinite numbers of prayers individually addressed to them

Which manner of adulation would constitute worship in Scripture, yet Catholics imagine that by playing word games then they can avoid crossing the invisible line between mere "veneration" and worship.

Moses, put down those rocks! I was only engaging in hyper dulia, not adoring her. Can't you tell the difference?

And despite the Spirit inspiring the recording of about 200 prayers, and of this being a most basic practice, the only prayers or offerings in Scripture to anyone else in the spiritual world is by pagans, including to the only Queen of Heaven see therein:

As for the word that thou hast spoken unto us in the name of the Lord, we will not hearken unto thee. But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth, to burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and our princes... (Jeremiah 44:16-17)

Your position on The Vatican seems to be, that they are right on nothing, rather than having an error in some of what they say from time to time.

No, that is not true. Evangelicals have been the strongest contenders for basic Scripturally substantiated truths we both agree on, and which cults typically deny, and likewise they contend against the extra and non-Scriptural aspects of Catholicism.

I find other Christian Religions are right on items that The Catholics use little of. Being in The Spirit, and using The Bible more.

You are not a typical RC, and others would object to this if i said it.

The Doctrine of Mary, was backed up, in my approved mystical experiences with her, called approved private revelations.

Supernatural manifestations are only a secondary attestation, and subject to the word of God, as even the devil will working with all power and signs and lying wonders. (2 Thessalonians 2:9) The first 3 miracles of Moses were duplicated by the magicians, but Scripture opposes that as it dies the hyper exaltation and hyperdulia of the false Mary of Catholicism, which is far "above that which is written" which we are not to do, (1Co. 4:6) and far above the manner of veneration given to any created being.

I saw Holy Water cast out a demon, and change a man for life.

Even if so, the Jews of Jesus day cast out devils, but it does not validate all they held.

Mary is very much, what The Catholics say, independent of my thoughts and some others. She actually is what The Catholics say about her, and her role as Queen of Heaven. Yes, I have experienced her, always consistent with that.

Then RCs have been seduced by a lying spirit, as this Mary is not the holy humble Mary of Scripture, but is one of powerful psychological attraction which the devil presents as a distracting substitute for Christ, and basically deifies her into a type of goddess, ascribing, as Caths do, powers, privileges and adulation only given to God in Scripture.

While Caths can pray to God/Christ directly, it is abundantly obvious that for multitudes Mary shines more immediately brighter than Him, even as preference in prayer, for the devil himself comes as an angel of light, which God allows in order to test the people what they really want.

And which Marian hyper exaltation insults the Spirit of Christ who only presents the Lord Jesus as the only heavenly intercessor btwn God and man, (1Tim. 2:5) and by whose blood believers have immediate direct access into the holy of holies in Heaven by, into which they are exhorted to come to meet with God (Heb. 10:19) - not exhorted to pray to saints in glory - and who is the only one who ever lives to make intercession for us, (Heb. 7:25) and who alone is uniquely qualified and able to be that intercessor since He alone was "tempted in all points like as we are, yet without sin," (Heb. 4:15) And that "He himself hath suffered being tempted, He is able to succour them that are tempted. (Hebrews 2:18)

Yet in Catholicism's unholy presumption she, whether by prelates or sanctions popular devotions, presents what is not seen in Scripture, and contrary to what it does say, even presenting a mary

• an almost almighty demigoddess to whom "Jesus owes His Precious Blood" to,
• whose [Mary] merits we are saved by,
• who "had to suffer, as He did, all the consequences of sin,"
• and was bodily assumed into Heaven, which is a fact (unsubstantiated in Scripture or even early Tradition) because the Roman church says it is, and "was elevated to a certain affinity with the Heavenly Father,"
• and whose power now "is all but unlimited,"
• for indeed she "seems to have the same power as God,"
• "surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven,"
• so that "the Holy Spirit acts only by the Most Blessed Virgin, his Spouse."
• and that “sometimes salvation is quicker if we remember Mary's name then if we invoked the name of the Lord Jesus,"
• for indeed saints have "but one advocate," and that is Mary, who "alone art truly loving and solicitous for our salvation,"
• Moreover, "there is no grace which Mary cannot dispose of as her own, which is not given to her for this purpose,"
• and who has "authority over the angels and the blessed in heaven,"
• including "assigning to saints the thrones made vacant by the apostate angels,"
• whom the good angels "unceasingly call out to," greeting her "countless times each day with 'Hail, Mary,' while prostrating themselves before her, begging her as a favour to honour them with one of her requests,"
• and who (obviously) cannot "be honored to excess,"
• and who is (obviously) the glory of Catholic people, whose "honor and dignity surpass the whole of creation."
Sources and more​

 

[katerinah1947]

LOL!I have used those verses against Catholic exclusivity.
I'm sure you had experiences, but I reserve my opinion about them.

Hi,

As in all things of God, you can reserve your opinion.

That is essentially what we all do.

After all, who wants to accept a falsity. And, reservation, allows one not to oppose God, if It Is God.

Whatever The Roman Catholic Church is, in it's Totality it is.

Part of it's Totality, is what it is in error on, as said by Jesus perhaps, with "My church will never fail"

Attacks on that church come from everywhere. Cures for the colds and sniffles from time to time come from everywhere.

Was not Galileo sent in to cure a problem?

Internally did not Luther cure a problem?

Joan of Arc, was a lesson to the church they learned from.

Faustina, the church was taught some things on.

This goes on and on.

Today, that church is being corrected.

However, in all Other churches, where is the perfect one? Where?

Holy Water Works. A Roman Catholic thing from God.

Salvation through faith seems to work. A Protestant thing from God.

Science seems to work. A Bible thing from God.

We humans through fear, our own internal spirit, our ignorance and our Distance from God, allows each of us to oppose God, and support false doctrines.

None of us do that intentionally. Even the most vocal opposers of God, are not as bad as we think, rather they are just damaged in invisible ways to us.

I have never heard of Catholic exclusivity. Never.

I have seen the idea though in Catholicism. And, it looks to me like Luther, and others, have been chosen by God, to let the other part of God's church on earth, correct The Roman Catholic Church there also.

Corrections by God mean what? He Loves who He is correcting. (Like in male terms probably)

The other part of The Roman Catholic Church is The Parishioners.

And before you might say that is not true, even their Catechism says that quite Esoterically.

It's there.

It is not to priests and clergy alone, that God directs things.

LOVE,

 

[Albion]

Whatever The Roman Catholic Church is, in it's Totality it is.

Part of it's Totality, is what it is in error on, as said by Jesus perhaps, with "My church will never fail",

You strive to be fair and to avoid narrow-mindedness, katerinah. I respect that. But the real issue here and in all of these threads that touch upon the same point in one way or another is this:

"What is the church?" That is to say, "How do we identify the church of Christ?"

It comes down to one of two ideas--

1. That it's to be identified with one and only one denomination, whether that be the Roman Catholic Church or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or some other.

or

2. That it's to be identified with the mystical union of all true believers of all times and places, regardless of denomination (which is not to say that all denominations themselves are to be considered equal).

 

[katerinah1947]

Mark 9:38-42 actually refutes the RC charge that non-Catholic have no right to minister in the name of the Lord, while Rm. 14 deals with issues of personal liberty, such as lawful foods, not making doctrines, which it opposes making into such.

No, and while God may sovereignly choose in certain instances or periods to use something as an instrument of grace, that does not sanction making it into a ritual practice. God used bones, the shadow, and clothing from certain persons in instances, but that was temporary, and the error of Rome is to make purported sacred objects constant means of grace, which wrongly elevates the objects themselves as the Israelites did with the brazen serpent.

But we do not see such things of Rome validated, as they are part of unScriptural practices and doctrines, such as praying to created beings, and what really is worship of Mary.

One would have a hard time in Bible times explaining kneeling before a statue and praising the entity it represented in the unseen world, beseeching such for Heavenly help, and making offerings to them, and giving glory and titles and ascribing attributes to such which are never given in Scripture to created beings (except to false gods), including having the uniquely Divine power glory to hear and respond to virtually infinite numbers of prayers individually addressed to them

Which manner of adulation would constitute worship in Scripture, yet Catholics imagine that by playing word games then they can avoid crossing the invisible line between mere "veneration" and worship.

Moses, put down those rocks! I was only engaging in hyper dulia, not adoring her. Can't you tell the difference?

And despite the Spirit inspiring the recording of about 200 prayers, and of this being a most basic practice, the only prayers or offerings in Scripture to anyone else in the spiritual world is by pagans, including to the only Queen of Heaven see therein:

As for the word that thou hast spoken unto us in the name of the Lord, we will not hearken unto thee. But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth, to burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and our princes... (Jeremiah 44:16-17)

No, that is not true. Evangelicals have been the strongest contenders for basic Scripturally substantiated truths we both agree on, and which cults typically deny, and likewise they contend against the extra and non-Scriptural aspects of Catholicism.

You are not a typical RC, and others would object to this if i said it.

Supernatural manifestations are only a secondary attestation, and subject to the word of God, as even the devil will working with all power and signs and lying wonders. (2 Thessalonians 2:9) The first 3 miracles of Moses were duplicated by the magicians, but Scripture opposes that as it dies the hyper exaltation and hyperdulia of the false Mary of Catholicism, which is far "above that which is written" which we are not to do, (1Co. 4:6) and far above the manner of veneration given to any created being.

Even if so, the Jews of Jesus day cast out devils, but it does not validate all they held.

Then RCs have been seduced by a lying spirit, as this Mary is not the holy humble Mary of Scripture, but is one of powerful psychological attraction which the devil presents as a distracting substitute for Christ, and basically deifies her into a type of goddess, ascribing, as Caths do, powers, privileges and adulation only given to God in Scripture.

While Caths can pray to God/Christ directly, it is abundantly obvious that for multitudes Mary shines more immediately brighter than Him, even as preference in prayer, for the devil himself comes as an angel of light, which God allows in order to test the people what they really want.

And which Marian hyper exaltation insults the Spirit of Christ who only presents the Lord Jesus as the only heavenly intercessor btwn God and man, (1Tim. 2:5) and by whose blood believers have immediate direct access into the holy of holies in Heaven by, into which they are exhorted to come to meet with God (Heb. 10:19) - not exhorted to pray to saints in glory - and who is the only one who ever lives to make intercession for us, (Heb. 7:25) and who alone is uniquely qualified and able to be that intercessor since He alone was "tempted in all points like as we are, yet without sin," (Heb. 4:15) And that "He himself hath suffered being tempted, He is able to succour them that are tempted. (Hebrews 2:18)

Yet in Catholicism's unholy presumption she, whether by prelates or sanctions popular devotions, presents what is not seen in Scripture, and contrary to what it does say, even presenting a mary

• an almost almighty demigoddess to whom "Jesus owes His Precious Blood" to,
• whose [Mary] merits we are saved by,
• who "had to suffer, as He did, all the consequences of sin,"
• and was bodily assumed into Heaven, which is a fact (unsubstantiated in Scripture or even early Tradition) because the Roman church says it is, and "was elevated to a certain affinity with the Heavenly Father,"
• and whose power now "is all but unlimited,"
• for indeed she "seems to have the same power as God,"
• "surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven,"
• so that "the Holy Spirit acts only by the Most Blessed Virgin, his Spouse."
• and that “sometimes salvation is quicker if we remember Mary's name then if we invoked the name of the Lord Jesus,"
• for indeed saints have "but one advocate," and that is Mary, who "alone art truly loving and solicitous for our salvation,"
• Moreover, "there is no grace which Mary cannot dispose of as her own, which is not given to her for this purpose,"
• and who has "authority over the angels and the blessed in heaven,"
• including "assigning to saints the thrones made vacant by the apostate angels,"
• whom the good angels "unceasingly call out to," greeting her "countless times each day with 'Hail, Mary,' while prostrating themselves before her, begging her as a favour to honour them with one of her requests,"
• and who (obviously) cannot "be honored to excess,"
• and who is (obviously) the glory of Catholic people, whose "honor and dignity surpass the whole of creation."
Sources and more​

Hi,

Please. You have full permissions with me to be who and what you are.

When you wrote, as an analogy: 'basically deified Mary', it was shocking.

Deifying Mary is a personal uninformed view of Mary, with much positive and popular mob lynching types of support.

That perfectly, tender and mild Jesus was approached in that fashion.

There were two swords among the Apostles and disciples.

Only those two swords and Jesus proving by actions, that he was and is tender and mild, was Jesus saved from an angry mob.

Please do not approach the subject of Mary, the mother of Jesus this way.

The first time that I encountered Mary, no one in heaven was telling me it was her.

No one.

An action of mine, which is and was wrong, caused her to let me know, it was her.

Later God The Father, God The Son and God The Holy Spirit started helping her, just like family would, for a female, when the female is correct.

Now, I knew who was asking me, and I knew Who was helping her, when I was not wanting to listen, but do things my way.

The Catholics say some things about her. Totally, that is how I interface with her.

(Oh. Notice the pronouns for her are never capitalized, by me. She is not God. That is another Catholic view.)

I am a normal Catholic, meaning that I fit into the full range of valid people with valid experiences within that church, but I also fit into all other Christian churches, and most assuredly with all people everywhere, also.

In each church or group of people, someone can in Romans 14, stumbling style, be stumbled by me, in their progress with God.

So, in many cases, I do not display my permissions, nor what I know, per Romans 14, but also Mark 9:38-42, and really because Love to God, means doing their actual and secret wills, which is always to be happy, and that always means getting closer to God.

The Catholics have some things.

The Protestants have some things.

The Government (Romans 13:1-5) has some things.

Science (Genesis1:28 Subdue the earth) has some things.

Atheists (honest ones) have some things.

And even The Bible talks of all the above, those places God can be found.

LOVE,

 

[katerinah1947]

You strive to be fair and to avoid narrow-mindedness, katerinah. I respect that. But the real issue here and in all of these threads that touch upon the same point in one way or another is this:

"What is the church?" That is to say, "How do we identify the church of Christ?"

It comes down to one of two ideas--

1. That it's to be identified with one and only one denomination, whether that be the Roman Catholic Church or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or some other.

or

2. That it's to be identified with the mystical union of all true believers of all times and places, regardless of denomination (which is not to say that all denominations themselves are to be considered equal).

Hi,

Item two sounds perfect, but, I am female and can be fooled.

What leads to me being fooled, is not enough time to check with God on things.

So, even though item 2, sounds perfect to me out of those two choices, what is God's View on the matter?

I will think about this. The man on the cross with Jesus, and Abram with faith are just two items that I will think about here.

LOVE,

 

[Albion]

Hi,

Item two sounds perfect, but, I am female and can be fooled.

What leads to me being fooled, is not enough time to check with God on things.

So, even though item 2, sounds perfect to me out of those two choices, what is God's View on the matter?

I will think about this. The man on the cross with Jesus, and Abram with faith are just two items that I will think about here.

LOVE,

Thoughtful as always, katerinah.

I'd just add that, if we turn to Jesus for the answer, I can find nowhere in Scripture that he chooses or authorizes one grouping of followers of his over another grouping of his followers. He distinguishes between real and shallow devotees and he speaks to the differences in what people think about him, but as for the nature of his church, all I find are references to being for him and believing in him (or not).

 

[katerinah1947]

You strive to be fair and to avoid narrow-mindedness, katerinah. I respect that. But the real issue here and in all of these threads that touch upon the same point in one way or another is this:

"What is the church?" That is to say, "How do we identify the church of Christ?"

It comes down to one of two ideas--

1. That it's to be identified with one and only one denomination, whether that be the Roman Catholic Church or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or some other.

or

2. That it's to be identified with the mystical union of all true believers of all times and places, regardless of denomination (which is not to say that all denominations themselves are to be considered equal).

Hi,

It is trying to be honest Albion, not fair, nor open minded really, rather it is a commitment to honesty, over life on earth even.

Does honestly allow, unfairness?
Does honesty allow a closed mind?

Other than pain and strife and God, what does honesty get a person on earth?

LOVE,

 

[Albion]

It is trying to be honest Albion, not fair, nor open minded really, rather it is a commitment to honesty, over life on earth even.

Does honestly allow, unfairness?
Does honesty allow a closed mind?

IMO, honesty does require partiality. I'm not inclined to say that it allows or requires a closed mind. Ever. If one has a closed mind, it means he's not willing to be honest since the facts, if considered, might cause a change of mind.

Other than pain and strife and God, what does honesty get a person on earth?

Seems like an odd question, Katerinah, and I'd be guessing at your thinking if I took a stab at an answer based only on what I'm reading in that sentence.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Hi,

As in all things of God, you can reserve your opinion.

That is essentially what we all do.

After all, who wants to accept a falsity. And, reservation, allows one not to oppose God, if It Is God.

Whatever The Roman Catholic Church is, in it's Totality it is.

Part of it's Totality, is what it is in error on, as said by Jesus perhaps, with "My church will never fail"

Attacks on that church come from everywhere. Cures for the colds and sniffles from time to time come from everywhere.

Was not Galileo sent in to cure a problem?

Internally did not Luther cure a problem?

Joan of Arc, was a lesson to the church they learned from.

Faustina, the church was taught some things on.

This goes on and on.

Today, that church is being corrected.

However, in all Other churches, where is the perfect one? Where?

Holy Water Works. A Roman Catholic thing from God.

Salvation through faith seems to work. A Protestant thing from God.

Science seems to work. A Bible thing from God.

We humans through fear, our own internal spirit, our ignorance and our Distance from God, allows each of us to oppose God, and support false doctrines.

None of us do that intentionally. Even the most vocal opposers of God, are not as bad as we think, rather they are just damaged in invisible ways to us.

I have never heard of Catholic exclusivity. Never.

I have seen the idea though in Catholicism. And, it looks to me like Luther, and others, have been chosen by God, to let the other part of God's church on earth, correct The Roman Catholic Church there also.

Corrections by God mean what? He Loves who He is correcting. (Like in male terms probably)

The other part of The Roman Catholic Church is The Parishioners.

And before you might say that is not true, even their Catechism says that quite Esoterically.

It's there.

It is not to priests and clergy alone, that God directs things.

LOVE,

It almost seems you are trying to pen poetry about your mythical one true unchanging unified church, the devotees of which tell us we need to look to their magisterium to settle debates, but as one poster wryly remarked,

The last time the church imposed its judgment in an authoritative manner on "areas of legitimate disagreement," the conservative Catholics became the Sedevacantists and the Society of St. Pius X, the moderate Catholics became the conservatives, the liberal Catholics became the moderates, and the folks who were excommunicated, silenced, refused Catholic burial, etc. became the liberals. The event that brought this shift was Vatican II; conservatives then couldn't handle having to actually obey the church on matters they were uncomfortable with, so they left. — http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/blog/2005/05/fr-michael-orsi-on-different-levels-of.html

And at least one priest has the gift of poetry in illustrating one of the internal sectarian debates within Rome.

"The following dialogue is purportedly written by Bishop Williamson. I have no idea if that is true. But whatever of that, it is an informative exposition of the debate within the SSPX."

SL = SSPX soft-liner. HL = SSPX hard-liner.

SL Outside the Church is not where we should be! HL Who left the Church? Vatican II! Not we!

SL Once in the Church, we could do so much more! HL If we detested error, as before.

SL Why should we stop detesting error, pray? HL Because we would be joining in their fray.

SL We need to live within the Church’s law. HL Not if it is not serving God any more.

SL The Catholic Church is visible. We’re not there. HL The Church is holy. Do we see that? Where?

SL But things have changed since the Archbishop’s day. HL The modernists still hold exclusive sway.

SL What Rome now offers, he would have approved. HL Never, once Benedict to Assisi moved!

SL The SSPX stands strong, need fear no fall. HL Let all who stand fear falling, says St. Paul.

SL But our Superiors have grace of state. HL Did leading churchmen never prevaricate?

SL Our leaders to the SSPX belong! HL And does that mean they never can do wrong?

SL But, Pre-condition One, Rome freed the Mass. HL And left in place the “bastard rite”, so crass.

SL Rome also lifted the ban on bishops four. HL But did that make them more free than before?

SL Yet Benedict is calling for our aid. HL To make Truth prosper, or to help it fade?

SL Of harming Truth, how can the Pope be accused? HL His modernist mind is hopelessly confused.

SL Yet truly, Benedict wants us all back in. HL As a modernist, yes, but modernism is a sin.

SL Then do you still believe that he is Pope? HL Yes, but we must for his conversion hope.

SL What can you mean by, “As a modernist, yes”? HL Our true Faith he can only harm, not bless.

SL Our welfare is his genuine concern. HL Not our true welfare, if our true Faith he spurn.

SL A lack of supernatural spirit you show! HL If woe I say there is, where there is woe?

SL Not everything in the Church is gloomy, dark! HL Where do you see of true revival a spark?

SL A movement towards Tradition is under way! HL While fully in control the modernists stay?

SL Then is the official Church still God’s own Church? HL Yes, it’s the churchmen left us in the lurch.

SL But surely Pope and Rome have both meant well. HL So? – “Good intentions pave the way to Hell.”

SL But evils worse that Vatican Two can be. HL The Archbishop – remember? – called it World War III.

SL You’re harsh. Your attitude to schism will lead. HL Better than undermine the entire creed!

SL Not all the Church authorities are bad. HL The good ones have no power. It’s very sad.

SL Priests should not say, authority is untrue. HL But bishops were the cause of Vatican II!

SL Still, Catholic instincts seek their Catholic home. HL Today, for Catholics, that’s no longer Rome.

SL Then where is the Church? Just in Tradition? Where? HL “One, holy, catholic, apostolic” – there.

SL You want to solve this problem overnight! HL No, just that a start be made to set it right.

SL We trust in God. We trust in his Sacred Heart. HL Bravo! But humans too must play their part.

SL That part is not for us just to complain. HL Tradcats work hard, Tradition to maintain.

SL If we went in with Rome, we could turn back. HL No. More and more we’d follow in Rome’s track.

SL Why stop the Romans making restitution? HL Because they’re set upon our destitution.

SL Back in the mainstream Church we’d set to work! HL Rather we’d lose our way in all their murk.

SL But we are strong, with bishops one and three. HL Alas, the three with the one do not agree.

SL We’re firm in the Faith. Modernists are no threat! HL We’d easily slide. You want to take a bet?

SL Strong in the Faith, we can afford to agree! HL But that Faith says, from heretics to flee.

SL But Gott mit uns! We are the SSPX! HL Not if we choose to ignore all prudent checks.

SL Were we approved, Romans would learn from us! HL O Heavens, no! They’d throw us under the bus.

SL Were we approved, the earth of Rome could quake. HL But not before to pieces we would shake.

SL Our leader has graces of state. We must obey. HL Was Paul the Sixth given graces to betray?

SL Rome is now weak, meaning, we could stay strong. HL For right, Rome’s feeble. Mighty it is for wrong.

SL So what’s the answer, if you’re always right? How can the Church be rescued from its plight?

HL The Church belongs to God. In his good time We’ll see his answer, stunning and sublime.

Till then we grieve, and thirst for right, and trust. That which we cannot cure, endure we must.

From error and the erring stay away, Even while for their immortal souls we pray.

And tell God’s truth, however few will hear – As close as the nearest door, his help is near.

Posted by Fr John on May 11, 2012 in Culture, Current affairs, Liturgy | www.boacp.com/tag/sspx/

 

[katerinah1947]

IMO, honest does require partiality. I'm not inclined to say that it allows or requires a closed mind. Ever. If one has a closed mind, it means he's not willing to be honest since the facts, if considered, might cause a change of mind.


Seems like an odd question, Katerinah, and I'd be guessing at your thinking if I took a stab at an answer based only on what I'm reading in that sentence.

Hi,

Although honesty and my paltry 60 year accomplishments with that, were shown by God to me, as just how little I had actually progressed on that, I chose honest in youth out of fear, and in the hopes of a good life.

Never can I say, that I chose honesty, because of God, even if that is the one thing that is internal to all of us, that is, if anyone can say any choice, that is good, is not God causing that choice in the first place.

Yet, I marched along, expecting wonderful things all the time.

Honesty is tested though. This I did not know.

Much pain comes from that testing. Much.

Strife from others, is a source of that pain, as they too want me to do and say what they say, independent of what is true.

Eventually because I am thick headed or what not, in the midst of attacks from all sides, I forgot about money, health and happiness that was supposed to come from that, and dug my heals in on being honest.

Slowly things started happening. Proverbs in action was happening with Wisdom, and the wisdom she is assigned to give. (My interpretation)

One day, I knew the answer but would not let myself hear the words. Trauma was in those words.

"Why is it that I am solving all these problems that no one else is? The only tool I am using is honesty. Does that........"

The other internal words were felt. I knew the answer.

Time passed with honesty. After solving 80% of their semiconductor processing problems, everyone wanted to do what I was doing. Soon others complained, and I passed my projects to them.

God, was still unknown to me then.

I had no proof, yet.

Later after the proof, I would find out, that even then, doing nothing more than being honest, God led be, straight to Him, eventually, but in the meantime was helping me to solve problems, by essentially Giving me The solutions and even The Paths to follow, while working.

Prior to those events, non honest professors had me and the other top students, so we could prove no bias by that, telling the dean to fire thus or that professor, because tgey are horrible.

That cost me GPA, in at least one class, if not a few more.

In another case The President of the Company had me fired for telling the truth, after he told me to tell the truth to a customer, but He never meant it.

Thus can go on and on and on. Telling the truth, not my truth, not a relative truth, but an objective provable truth, gets people hurt.

It also, seems to be Honored by God., to this extreme point.

When I was a kid in Seventh Grade, my mom, The Jesus Freak in our family, put us all in Catholic school for years.

One day, The Holy Spirit asks me a question, and I am going to answer totally honestly, in all ways, then wonder if I will be punished. I hoped I wouldn't be. I did tell the truth though.

AND I DID NOT KNIW EVER TGAT IT WAS THE HILY SPIRIT, THEN, so please do not think too, badly of me.

~Do you believe in God?~ An infused question was also in that. It is: ~Do you believe in all The Roman Catholic Church says is true?~

Yes, by the way, I am in a room full of people. No one else hears anything, nor notices anything.

"No not without proof" And I meant all of The Roman Catholic Church's Dogma.

What I was put through, was rough after that, or very very very very sweet and then some, depending on how one looks at it. It does not change.

With being nothing more than honest, to me, I have the proof for God, and lots of The Roman Catholic Church's things they say.

Pain yes.
Strife yes.
Gid yes.

Is that any clearer?

LOVE,

 

[Albion]

Thus can go on and on and on. Telling the truth, not my truth, not a relative truth, but an objective provable truth, gets people hurt.

That's true. OTOH, what you asked me was whether honesty allows unfairness or a closed mind.
......................................................................................................................................

With being nothing more than honest, to me, I have the proof for God, and lots of The Roman Catholic Church's things they say.
Pain yes.
Strife yes.
Gid yes.
Is that any clearer?

Nope. Not a bit.

 

[katerinah1947]

That's true. OTOH, what you asked me was whether honesty allows unfairness or a closed mind.
......................................................................................................................................

Nope. Not a bit.

Hi,

And you answered, but being partial is a closed part of a mind, unless your partiality is for honesty only.

And, wow. I did expect that I was more clear that time.

I truly sorry. It is not intentional.

LOVE,

 

[katerinah1947]

It almost seems you are trying to pen poetry about your mythical one true unchanging unified church, the devotees of which tell us we need to look to their magisterium to settle debates, but as one poster wryly remarked,

The last time the church imposed its judgment in an authoritative manner on "areas of legitimate disagreement," the conservative Catholics became the Sedevacantists and the Society of St. Pius X, the moderate Catholics became the conservatives, the libieral Catholics became the moderates, and the folks who were excommunicated, silenced, refused Catholic burial, etc. became the liberals. The event that brought this shift was Vatican II; conservatives then couldn't handle having to actually obey the church on matters they were uncomfortable with, so they left. — http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/blog/2005/05/fr-michael-orsi-on-different-levels-of.html

And at least one priest has the gift of poetry in illustrating one of the internal sectarian debates within Rome.

"The following dialogue is purportedly written by Bishop Williamson. I have no idea if that is true. But whatever of that, it is an informative exposition of the debate within the SSPX."

SL = SSPX soft-liner. HL = SSPX hard-liner.

SL Outside the Church is not where we should be! HL Who left the Church? Vatican II! Not we!

SL Once in the Church, we could do so much more! HL If we detested error, as before.

SL Why should we stop detesting error, pray? HL Because we would be joining in their fray.

SL We need to live within the Church’s law. HL Not if it is not serving God any more.

SL The Catholic Church is visible. We’re not there. HL The Church is holy. Do we see that? Where?

SL But things have changed since the Archbishop’s day. HL The modernists still hold exclusive sway.

SL What Rome now offers, he would have approved. HL Never, once Benedict to Assisi moved!

SL The SSPX stands strong, need fear no fall. HL Let all who stand fear falling, says St. Paul.

SL But our Superiors have grace of state. HL Did leading churchmen never prevaricate?

SL Our leaders to the SSPX belong! HL And does that mean they never can do wrong?

SL But, Pre-condition One, Rome freed the Mass. HL And left in place the “bastard rite”, so crass.

SL Rome also lifted the ban on bishops four. HL But did that make them more free than before?

SL Yet Benedict is calling for our aid. HL To make Truth prosper, or to help it fade?

SL Of harming Truth, how can the Pope be accused? HL His modernist mind is hopelessly confused.

SL Yet truly, Benedict wants us all back in. HL As a modernist, yes, but modernism is a sin.

SL Then do you still believe that he is Pope? HL Yes, but we must for his conversion hope.

SL What can you mean by, “As a modernist, yes”? HL Our true Faith he can only harm, not bless.

SL Our welfare is his genuine concern. HL Not our true welfare, if our true Faith he spurn.

SL A lack of supernatural spirit you show! HL If woe I say there is, where there is woe?

SL Not everything in the Church is gloomy, dark! HL Where do you see of true revival a spark?

SL A movement towards Tradition is under way! HL While fully in control the modernists stay?

SL Then is the official Church still God’s own Church? HL Yes, it’s the churchmen left us in the lurch.

SL But surely Pope and Rome have both meant well. HL So? – “Good intentions pave the way to Hell.”

SL But evils worse that Vatican Two can be. HL The Archbishop – remember? – called it World War III.

SL You’re harsh. Your attitude to schism will lead. HL Better than undermine the entire creed!

SL Not all the Church authorities are bad. HL The good ones have no power. It’s very sad.

SL Priests should not say, authority is untrue. HL But bishops were the cause of Vatican II!

SL Still, Catholic instincts seek their Catholic home. HL Today, for Catholics, that’s no longer Rome.

SL Then where is the Church? Just in Tradition? Where? HL “One, holy, catholic, apostolic” – there.

SL You want to solve this problem overnight! HL No, just that a start be made to set it right.

SL We trust in God. We trust in his Sacred Heart. HL Bravo! But humans too must play their part.

SL That part is not for us just to complain. HL Tradcats work hard, Tradition to maintain.

SL If we went in with Rome, we could turn back. HL No. More and more we’d follow in Rome’s track.

SL Why stop the Romans making restitution? HL Because they’re set upon our destitution.

SL Back in the mainstream Church we’d set to work! HL Rather we’d lose our way in all their murk.

SL But we are strong, with bishops one and three. HL Alas, the three with the one do not agree.

SL We’re firm in the Faith. Modernists are no threat! HL We’d easily slide. You want to take a bet?

SL Strong in the Faith, we can afford to agree! HL But that Faith says, from heretics to flee.

SL But Gott mit uns! We are the SSPX! HL Not if we choose to ignore all prudent checks.

SL Were we approved, Romans would learn from us! HL O Heavens, no! They’d throw us under the bus.

SL Were we approved, the earth of Rome could quake. HL But not before to pieces we would shake.

SL Our leader has graces of state. We must obey. HL Was Paul the Sixth given graces to betray?

SL Rome is now weak, meaning, we could stay strong. HL For right, Rome’s feeble. Mighty it is for wrong.

SL So what’s the answer, if you’re always right? How can the Church be rescued from its plight?

HL The Church belongs to God. In his good time We’ll see his answer, stunning and sublime.

Till then we grieve, and thirst for right, and trust. That which we cannot cure, endure we must.

From error and the erring stay away, Even while for their immortal souls we pray.

And tell God’s truth, however few will hear – As close as the nearest door, his help is near.

Posted by Fr John on May 11, 2012 in Culture, Current affairs, Liturgy | www.boacp.com/tag/sspx/

Hi, (need coffee, will edit later for spelling)(done)

NICE. And now hopefully a treat for you, on Vatican II.

The old retired totally spiritual Catholic priest from Fargo North Dakota, who is suffering from Parkinson's, that will kill him back then in about five to seven years from then not now, but at this time none of us know that as he is asymptomatic:

"I want you to read Vatican II and tell me what you think."

What in the world would a cleric be asking me to do that for., No I think I said.

I walked close to him, outside of Saint Mary's in Corvallis. Near the bell outside I think he was.

A priest does not ask me I thought, such a thing.

He was answered eventually. I really resisted.

The first two paragraphs or so were blatantly wrong. They were absurd. I did not want to tell him that. I read further, one right statement after another was made, until I became so bored that I stopped reading.

Still the absurdity and wrongness of those first few paragraphs, invalidated the whole book.

Time passed.

One day The Bible validated those first few paragraphs. It was I that was uninformed and in error, not those first two paragraphs.

Eventually we met again. He heard all that you have just heard, but sounding every bit like , Otto, Albion, Der Alter and others here in those days to that priest we talked further after he said this to me.

"I became a priest because of Vatican II. I wanted to know what you thought of it"

I heard a lot then from him. A lot.

Almost never do I get to talk to people, who I am sure KNOW God personally, by the way they talk.

That man, knew something about God Personally.

LOVE,

 

[katerinah1947]

That's true. OTOH, what you asked me was whether honesty allows unfairness or a closed mind.
......................................................................................................................................

Nope. Not a bit.

Hi,

Let me try this in guessing format. I am going to guess at the confusion between us.

You have heard, even if you have to reject it all, that I am one of those mystic types, who has learned to handle that mysticism correctly by sticking to what the Bible says even about those things. The spirits of the dead for instance, are totally off limits to me, because Biblically that is not allowed. So is things like interpreting the stars.

Being mystical, perhaps like having blue eyes, which I do not have, is perhaps like having blue eyes, as both are possibly God given and unreachable by all others, at this time.

Almost all of my learning about God, was done by God, mystically,.

The wonderful part for others, is that two years of those mystical encounters have been verified by the church as having no errors. Those two years are also backed up by the science folks in mental health as being real in my case not delusions or hallucinations.

Mystically is how I was taught about Holy Water and the Catholic Eucharist during Mass.

I am also taught about what is true in Protestant churches by the same methods.

What I get to see is all the places where Gifts of The Holy Spirit are called heresy by various denominations.

It seems to me, that insufficient honesty is what allows heresy to be called on things that are not.

Does that make things any more clear?

LOVE,

 

[Albion]

Hi,

Let me try this in guessing format. I am going to guess at the confusion between us.

You have heard, even if you have to reject it all, that I am one of those mystic types, who has learned to handle that mysticism correctly by sticking to what the Bible says even about those things.

No, I really have no memory of whatever past posts you may have in mind there.

The spirits of the dead for instance, are totally off limits to me, because Biblically that is not allowed. So is things like interpreting the stars.

Being mystical, perhaps like having blue eyes, which I do not have, is perhaps like having blue eyes, as both are possibly God given and unreachable by all others, at this time.

Almost all of my learning about God, was done by God, mystically,.

The wonderful part for others, is that two years of those mystical encounters have been verified by the church as having no errors. Those two years are also backed up by the science folks in mental health as being real in my case not delusions or hallucinations.

Mystically is how I was taught about Holy Water and the Catholic Eucharist during Mass.

I am also taught about what is true in Protestant churches by the same methods.

What I get to see is all the places where Gifts of The Holy Spirit are called heresy by various denominations.

It seems to me, that insufficient honesty is what allows heresy to be called on things that are not.

Does that make things any more clear?

Yes, it does, but FWIW, I am quite leery of the idea of coming to God's truth by way of any kind of mystical experiences apart from God's word. If such happenings were to confirm what the Bible says, that might be different, but that's as far as I'd go. However, your intention was to see if I could understand where you're coming from, not to debate it.

 

[katerinah1947]

No, I really have no memory of whatever past posts you may have in mind there.


Yes, it does, but FWIW, I am quite leery of the idea of coming to God's truth by way of any kind of mystical experiences apart from God's word. If such happenings were to confirm what the Bible says, that might be different, but that's as far as I'd go. However, your intention was to see if I could understand where you're coming from, not to debate it.

Hi,

Yes that was my intention. It was, do you understand me. And you do.

Talking, not debating for many times debate does not lead to truth but merely to a win by the best debater, is my preferred way to do things.

LOVE,

 

[katerinah1947]

No, I really have no memory of whatever past posts you may have in mind there.


Yes, it does, but FWIW, I am quite leery of the idea of coming to God's truth by way of any kind of mystical experiences apart from God's word. If such happenings were to confirm what the Bible says, that might be different, but that's as far as I'd go. However, your intention was to see if I could understand where you're coming from, not to debate it.

Hi,

Leery is fine. Even The Roman Catholics say that to everyone, in my case; Private Revelations, even approved ones, are binding only on the one receiving them, and no one else.

Hence Leery is not only acceptable, it is rather required of all believers, unless, until, and if, only if, God lets you also know that is true.

LOVE,

 

[katerinah1947]

It almost seems you are trying to pen poetry about your mythical one true unchanging unified church, the devotees of which tell us we need to look to their magisterium to settle debates, but as one poster wryly remarked,

The last time the church imposed its judgment in an authoritative manner on "areas of legitimate disagreement," the conservative Catholics became the Sedevacantists and the Society of St. Pius X, the moderate Catholics became the conservatives, the liberal Catholics became the moderates, and the folks who were excommunicated, silenced, refused Catholic burial, etc. became the liberals. The event that brought this shift was Vatican II; conservatives then couldn't handle having to actually obey the church on matters they were uncomfortable with, so they left. — http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/blog/2005/05/fr-michael-orsi-on-different-levels-of.html

And at least one priest has the gift of poetry in illustrating one of the internal sectarian debates within Rome.

"The following dialogue is purportedly written by Bishop Williamson. I have no idea if that is true. But whatever of that, it is an informative exposition of the debate within the SSPX."

SL = SSPX soft-liner. HL = SSPX hard-liner.

SL Outside the Church is not where we should be! HL Who left the Church? Vatican II! Not we!

SL Once in the Church, we could do so much more! HL If we detested error, as before.

SL Why should we stop detesting error, pray? HL Because we would be joining in their fray.

SL We need to live within the Church’s law. HL Not if it is not serving God any more.

SL The Catholic Church is visible. We’re not there. HL The Church is holy. Do we see that? Where?

SL But things have changed since the Archbishop’s day. HL The modernists still hold exclusive sway.

SL What Rome now offers, he would have approved. HL Never, once Benedict to Assisi moved!

SL The SSPX stands strong, need fear no fall. HL Let all who stand fear falling, says St. Paul.

SL But our Superiors have grace of state. HL Did leading churchmen never prevaricate?

SL Our leaders to the SSPX belong! HL And does that mean they never can do wrong?

SL But, Pre-condition One, Rome freed the Mass. HL And left in place the “bastard rite”, so crass.

SL Rome also lifted the ban on bishops four. HL But did that make them more free than before?

SL Yet Benedict is calling for our aid. HL To make Truth prosper, or to help it fade?

SL Of harming Truth, how can the Pope be accused? HL His modernist mind is hopelessly confused.

SL Yet truly, Benedict wants us all back in. HL As a modernist, yes, but modernism is a sin.

SL Then do you still believe that he is Pope? HL Yes, but we must for his conversion hope.

SL What can you mean by, “As a modernist, yes”? HL Our true Faith he can only harm, not bless.

SL Our welfare is his genuine concern. HL Not our true welfare, if our true Faith he spurn.

SL A lack of supernatural spirit you show! HL If woe I say there is, where there is woe?

SL Not everything in the Church is gloomy, dark! HL Where do you see of true revival a spark?

SL A movement towards Tradition is under way! HL While fully in control the modernists stay?

SL Then is the official Church still God’s own Church? HL Yes, it’s the churchmen left us in the lurch.

SL But surely Pope and Rome have both meant well. HL So? – “Good intentions pave the way to Hell.”

SL But evils worse that Vatican Two can be. HL The Archbishop – remember? – called it World War III.

SL You’re harsh. Your attitude to schism will lead. HL Better than undermine the entire creed!

SL Not all the Church authorities are bad. HL The good ones have no power. It’s very sad.

SL Priests should not say, authority is untrue. HL But bishops were the cause of Vatican II!

SL Still, Catholic instincts seek their Catholic home. HL Today, for Catholics, that’s no longer Rome.

SL Then where is the Church? Just in Tradition? Where? HL “One, holy, catholic, apostolic” – there.

SL You want to solve this problem overnight! HL No, just that a start be made to set it right.

SL We trust in God. We trust in his Sacred Heart. HL Bravo! But humans too must play their part.

SL That part is not for us just to complain. HL Tradcats work hard, Tradition to maintain.

SL If we went in with Rome, we could turn back. HL No. More and more we’d follow in Rome’s track.

SL Why stop the Romans making restitution? HL Because they’re set upon our destitution.

SL Back in the mainstream Church we’d set to work! HL Rather we’d lose our way in all their murk.

SL But we are strong, with bishops one and three. HL Alas, the three with the one do not agree.

SL We’re firm in the Faith. Modernists are no threat! HL We’d easily slide. You want to take a bet?

SL Strong in the Faith, we can afford to agree! HL But that Faith says, from heretics to flee.

SL But Gott mit uns! We are the SSPX! HL Not if we choose to ignore all prudent checks.

SL Were we approved, Romans would learn from us! HL O Heavens, no! They’d throw us under the bus.

SL Were we approved, the earth of Rome could quake. HL But not before to pieces we would shake.

SL Our leader has graces of state. We must obey. HL Was Paul the Sixth given graces to betray?

SL Rome is now weak, meaning, we could stay strong. HL For right, Rome’s feeble. Mighty it is for wrong.

SL So what’s the answer, if you’re always right? How can the Church be rescued from its plight?

HL The Church belongs to God. In his good time We’ll see his answer, stunning and sublime.

Till then we grieve, and thirst for right, and trust. That which we cannot cure, endure we must.

From error and the erring stay away, Even while for their immortal souls we pray.

And tell God’s truth, however few will hear – As close as the nearest door, his help is near.

Posted by Fr John on May 11, 2012 in Culture, Current affairs, Liturgy | www.boacp.com/tag/sspx/

Hi,

This is still really good. I am loving it's depth.

LOVE,