PDA

View Full Version : The Heresies of Pope Benedict XVI



Sol Invictus
10-14-2009, 01:57 PM
Benedict XVI “Hailed for Praying like Muslims Toward Mecca,” Dec 1, 2006 — ISTANBUL (Reuters) – “Pope Benedict ended a sensitive, fence-mending visit to Turkey on Friday amid praise for visiting Istanbul's famed Blue Mosque and praying there facing toward Mecca ‘like Muslims.’… ‘The Pope's dreaded visit was concluded with a wonderful surprise,’ wrote daily Aksam on its front page. ‘In Sultan Ahmet Mosque, he turned toward Mecca and prayed like Muslims,’...’”[1]

http://i36.tinypic.com/2pzjxgz.jpg

Benedict XVI praying like Muslims toward Mecca in a mosque, with arms crossed in the Muslim prayer gesture called “the gesture of tranquility,” on Nov. 30, 2006

Benedict XVI is Joseph Ratzinger. Joseph Ratzinger was one of the most radical theologians at Vatican II, where his ideas were influential in guiding the revolutionary course of the council.

At Vatican II, Ratzinger hung around with notorious heretics such as Karl Rahner. And even though he was a priest, Joseph Ratzinger showed up at Vatican II not in clerical garb, but in a suit and tie.

Ratzinger was named a “cardinal” by Paul VI in 1977, and became Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith five years later.

During these years, Ratzinger wrote a staggering number of books. The heresies from Ratzinger that will be covered here come from having read many of his speeches and 24 books written by him.

Many Catholics are familiar with the fact that in the year 2000 the Vatican allegedly revealed the Third Secret of Fatima. Most traditionalists immediately recognized that the so-called “Third Secret” which the Vatican released was not the real Third Secret of Fatima, but rather that a massive fraud had been perpetrated on the world. The primary author of the document which attempted to convince the world of this fraud against Our Lady’s message at Fatima was Joseph Ratzinger, Benedict XVI.

The document on the so-called “Third Secret,” entitled The Message of Fatima, was authored by Ratzinger and “Cardinal” Bertone. It was an attempt to “debunk” the Message of Fatima, as the Los Angeles Times was forced to admit. In the document, Ratzinger referred to only one Fatima scholar, Fr. Edouard Dhanis. Fr. Dhanis held that large portions of the Message of Fatima were fabrications of Lucy. By referring to Dhanis as his Fatima “expert,” Ratzinger showed that he also holds that the Message of Fatima is a fabrication.

This reveals one of the primary characteristics of Ratzinger. He is a deceiver. He will give the appearance of devotion to something (e.g. Fatima), while trying to rip apart its meaning. He will give the appearance of conservatism, while inculcating the most abominable heresies. We will now cover the astounding heresies of Joseph Ratzinger, Benedict XVI.

BENEDICT XVI’S HERESIES ON THE JEWS

Based on Scripture and Tradition, the Catholic Church teaches infallibly that it is necessary for salvation to believe in Jesus Christ and the Catholic Faith.

John 8:23-24-“… for if you believe not that I am He, you shall die in your sin.”

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, 1439, ex cathedra: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith… it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ... the Son of God is God and man...”[2]

The Catholic Church also teaches infallibly that the Old Covenant ceased with the coming of Christ, and was replaced with the New Covenant. The Council of Florence taught that those who practice the Old Law and the Jewish religion are sinning mortally and are “alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation, unless someday they recover from these errors.”[3]

In 2001, however, the Pontifical Biblical Commission released a book entitled The Jewish People and Their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible. This book rejects the dogma that the Old Covenant has ceased. It teaches that the Old Covenant is still valid, and that the Jews’ wait for the Coming of the Messiah (which was part of the Old Covenant) is also still valid. It teaches that Jesus doesn’t have to be seen as the prophesied Messiah; it is possible to see Him, as the Jews do, as not the Messiah and not the Son of God.

In section II, A, 5, The Jewish People and their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible states:

“Jewish messianic expectation is not in vain...”[4]

In section II, A, 7, The Jewish People and their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible states:

“…to read the Bible as Judaism does necessarily involves an implicit acceptance of all its presuppositions, that is, the full acceptance of what Judaism is, in particular, the authority of its writings and rabbinic traditions, which exclude faith in Jesus as Messiah and Son of God… Christians can and ought to admit that the Jewish reading of the Bible is a possible one…”[5]

So, according to this Vatican book, Christians can and ought to admit that the Jewish position that Jesus is not the Son of God and the prophesied Messiah is a possible one! The preface for this totally heretical book was written by none other than Joseph Ratzinger, the now Benedict XVI.

This is antichrist!

1 John 2:22 – “... he who denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist…”

Heresy is a rejection of a dogma of the Catholic Faith; apostasy is a rejection of the entire Christian Faith. This book contains both heresy and apostasy, fully endorsed by Benedict XVI.

Benedict XVI teaches that Jesus doesn’t have to be seen as the Messiah

Benedict XVI teaches the same denial of Jesus Christ in a number of his books:

Benedict XVI, God and the World, 2000, p. 209: “It is of course possible to read the Old Testament so that it is not directed toward Christ; it does not point quite unequivocally to Christ. And if Jews cannot see the promises as being fulfilled in him, this is not just ill will on their part, but genuinely because of the obscurity of the texts… There are perfectly good reasons, then, for denying that the Old Testament refers to Christ and for saying, No, that is not what he said. And there are also good reasons for referring it to him – that is what the dispute between Jews and Christians is about.”[6]

Benedict XVI says that there are perfectly good reasons for not believing that the Old Testament refers to Christ as the prophesied Messiah. He says that the Old Testament doesn’t point unequivocally to Our Lord as the Messiah. This is another total denial of the Christian Faith.

What makes this apostasy all the more outrageous is the fact that the New Testament is filled with passages which declare that Our Lord is the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. To quote just one passage of many, in John 5 Our Lord specifically tells the Jews that what is written in the Old Testament concerning Him will convict them.

John 5:39, 45-47 – “Search the scriptures, for you think in them to have life everlasting; and the same are they that give testimony of me… the one who will accuse you is Moses, in whom you have placed your hope. For if you had believed Moses, you would have believed me, because he wrote about me.”

But, according to Benedict XVI, all of these Biblical declarations that Our Lord is the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies, including Our Lord’s own words, may be false. According to Benedict XVI, the Jewish reading that Our Lord is not the Messiah, not the Son of God, and not foretold in the Old Testament, is possible and valid. This is totally heretical, apostate and antichrist.

Benedict XVI also denies Jesus Christ in his book Milestones:

Benedict XVI, Milestones, 1998, pages 53-54: “I have ever more come to the realization that Judaism… and the Christian faith described in the New Testament are two ways of appropriating Israel’s Scriptures, two ways that, in the end, are both determined by the position one assumes with regard to the figure of Jesus of Nazareth. The Scripture we today call Old Testament is in itself open to both ways…”[7]

Benedict XVI again declares that Scripture is open to holding the Jewish view of Jesus, that Jesus is not the Son of God. This is precisely why Benedict XVI repeatedly teaches the heresy that Jews don’t need to believe in Christ for salvation.

Benedict XVI, Zenit News story, Sept. 5, 2000: “[W]e are in agreement that a Jew, and this is true for believers of other religions, does not need to know or acknowledge Christ as the Son of God in order to be saved…”[8]

Benedict XVI, God and the World, 2000, pages 150-151: “…their [the Jews] No to Christ brings the Israelites into conflict with the subsequent acts of God, but at the same time we know that they are assured of the faithfulness of God. They are not excluded from salvation…”[9]

This is a total rejection of Catholic dogma.

Benedict XVI’s Public Act of Apostasy at the German Synagogue

All of this is why on August 19, 2005 – a Friday at noon, the same day and hour that Jesus was crucified – Benedict XVI arrived at the Jewish Synagogue in Cologne, Germany and took active part in a Jewish worship service. To take active part in non-Catholic worship is a sin against the divine law and the First Commandment, as was always taught before Vatican II.

St. Ambrose, Sermo 37, The Two Ships: “The faithlessness of the Synagogue is an insult to the Savior. Therefore He chose the bark of Peter, and deserted that of Moses; that is, He rejected the faithless Synagogue, and adopts the believing Church.”[10]

Continued...

Sol Invictus
10-14-2009, 01:59 PM
http://i36.tinypic.com/24ys137.jpg

Benedict XVI in the synagogue of the Jews, taking active part in Jewish worship on Aug. 19, 2005[11]

In taking part in a Jewish worship service, Benedict XVI committed a public act of apostasy. At the synagogue, Benedict XVI was seated prominently near the front. The synagogue was packed with Jews who were there to see him. Benedict XVI was not only an integral part of the Jewish worship service, he was its main feature. This is without any doubt active participation in the Jewish religion.

Very close to Benedict XVI, the cantor of the synagogue prayed and sang Jewish prayers at the top of his lungs. Benedict made gestures, such as bowing his head and clapping his hands, to show his approval and participation in the Jewish service. He joined the Jews in the Kaddish prayer, and Yiddish music blared in the background.

When Benedict XVI rose to speak (and eventually to pray) in the synagogue, the entire synagogue rose to its feet and applauded him – applauded him for his acceptance of their religion. Everyone on earth who saw this event knows that it had one meaning: Benedict XVI has no problem with Jews who reject Jesus Christ, and (according to him) they have no obligation to accept Jesus Christ to be saved.

Benedict XVI teaches that Jews can be saved, that the Old Covenant is valid, and that Jesus Christ is not necessarily the Messiah. He is a bold heretic against the Gospel and the Catholic Faith.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives…”[12]

Benedict XVI encourages the Chief Rabbi of Rome in his “mission”


http://i37.tinypic.com/11gq90p.jpg

Benedict XVI exchanges a gift with rabbis at Castelgandolfo, Sept. 15, 2005[13]

Benedict XVI, Address to Chief Rabbi of Rome, Jan. 16, 2006: “Distinguished Chief Rabbi, you were recently entrusted with the spiritual guidance of Rome’s Jewish Community; you have taken on this responsibility enriched by your experience as a scholar and a doctor who has shared in the joys and sufferings of a great many people. I offer you my heartfelt good wishes for your mission, and I assure you of my own and my collaborators’ cordial esteem and friendship.”[14]

This is apostasy. Benedict XVI encourages the Chief Rabbi in his “mission”! He also expresses his esteem for the Rabbi and his Christ-rejecting apostolate.

Benedict XVI, General Audience, Jan. 17, 2007: “For almost 20 years now the Italian Bishops’ Conference has dedicated this Judaism Day to furthering knowledge and esteem for it and for developing the relationship of reciprocal friendship between the Christian and Jewish communities, a relationship that has developed positively since the Second Vatican Council and the historic visit of the Servant of God John Paul II to the Major Synagogue in Rome…. Today I invite you all to address an ardent prayer to the Lord that Jews and Christians may respect and esteem one another…”[15]
He speaks positively of a day dedicated to Judaism. This day, according to Benedict XVI, is to further esteem for Judaism (a false religion which rejects Christ). This is an utter rejection of the Catholic Faith and Jesus Christ.

BENEDICT XVI TEACHES THAT PROTESTANTS AND SCHISMATICS DON’T NEED TO BE CONVERTED

Heretics and schismatics, such as Protestants and the Eastern Orthodox, are outside the Catholic Church and must be converted to the Catholic Faith for unity and salvation. It’s necessary for them to accept all the Catholic dogmas and councils, including the dogmatic definitions at Vatican I in 1870. This is infallible Catholic teaching.

However, Benedict XVI teaches that Protestants and Eastern Schismatics don’t need to be converted, and don’t need to accept Vatican Council I. We are providing extra context for this quotation, despite its length, since it’s such a significant heresy.

Benedict XVI, Principles of Catholic Theology, 1982, pp. 197-198: “Against this background we can now weigh the possibilities that are open to Christian ecumenism. The maximum demands on which the search for unity must certainly founder are immediately clear. On the part of the West, the maximum demand would be that the East recognize the primacy of the bishop of Rome in the full scope of the definition of 1870 and in so doing submit in practice, to a primacy such as has been accepted by the Uniate churches. On the part of the East, the maximum demand would be that the West declare the 1870 doctrine of primacy erroneous and in so doing submit, in practice, to a primacy such as has been accepted with the removal of the Filioque from the Creed and including the Marian dogmas of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. As regards Protestantism, the maximum demand of the Catholic Church would be that the Protestant ecclesiological ministers be regarded as totally invalid and that Protestants be converted to Catholicism; the maximum demand of Protestants, on the other hand, would be that the Catholic Church accept, along with the unconditional acknowledgement of all Protestant ministries, the Protestant concept of ministry and their understanding of the Church and thus, in practice, renounce the apostolic and sacramental structure of the Church, which would mean, in practice, the conversion of Catholics to Protestantism and their acceptance of a multiplicity of distinct community structures as the historical form of the Church. While the first three maximum demands are today rather unanimously rejected by Christian consciousness, the fourth exercises a kind of fascination for it – as it were, a certain conclusiveness that makes it appear to be the real solution to the problem. This is all the more true since there is joined to it the expectation that a Parliament of Churches, a ‘truly ecumenical council’, could then harmonize this pluralism and promote a Christian unity of action. That no real union would result from this, but that its very impossibility would become a single common dogma, should convince anyone who examines the suggestion closely that such a way would not bring Church unity but only a final renunciation of it. As a result, none of the maximum solutions offers any real hope of unity.” [16]
Notice that Benedict XVI specifically mentions, and then bluntly rejects, the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church that the Protestants and Eastern Schismatics must be converted to the Catholic Faith. He says that their conversion and acceptance of Vatican I and the Papacy is NOT the way for unity. This is a total rejection of the Catholic Faith.

He repeats the same heresy on the next page of his book, where he says that non-Catholics are not required to accept the Papal Primacy:

Benedict XVI, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 198: “Nor is it possible, on the other hand, for him to regard as the only possible form and, consequently, as binding on all Christians the form this primacy has taken in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The symbolic gestures of Pope Paul VI and, in particular, his kneeling before the representative of the Ecumenical Patriarch [the schismatic Patriarch Athenagoras] were an attempt to express precisely this…”[17]

Benedict XVI is referring to the Papal Primacy here, and he says that all Christians are not bound to believe in the Papal Primacy as defined by Vatican I in 1870! This means that Benedict XVI claims to be a Catholic and the pope while he holds that heretics and schismatics are not bound to believe in the Papacy! This is one of the greatest frauds in human history. Further, notice that Benedict XVI even admits that Paul VI’s ecumenical gestures with the schismatics were meant to show precisely that the schismatics don’t have to accept the Papal Primacy. This is a blatant denial of Vatican Council I.
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, ex cathedra: "… all the faithful of Christ must believe that the Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold primacy over the whole world… This is the doctrine of Catholic truth from which no one can deviate and keep his faith and salvation."[18]
The Church itself was founded by Our Lord upon the Papal Primacy, as the Gospel declares (Matthew 16:18-20) and as Catholic dogma defines:
Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra:
“…we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff..”[19]
People need to seriously meditate on how bad this is that Benedict XVI holds that all Christians are not required to accept the primacy of the popes. It alone proves that he is a manifest heretic. But it gets even worse…

Benedict XVI not only denies the dogma that non-Catholics need to believe in the Papacy, but questions whether popes have supreme jurisdiction in the Church at all!

For long sections of his book, Principles of Catholic Theology, Benedict XVI engages in detailed discussions of issues dealing with the Eastern “Orthodox” (the schismatics), as well as Luther, the Protestants, etc. These discussions are fascinating for our purposes, since they constitute a veritable position paper of Benedict XVI on these topics. In his discussion concerning the “Orthodox,” one discovers that Benedict XVI doesn’t even believe in the dogma of the Papacy. It is important to remember that the Eastern Schismatics (the so-called “Orthodox”) often readily admit that the popes are the successors of St. Peter as Bishops of Rome. Many of the “Orthodox” also say that the pope, as the Bishop of Rome, is “the first among equals” with a “primacy of honor”; but they deny – and in this consists their chief heresy and schism – that the popes have a primacy of supreme jurisdiction from Christ to rule the entire Church.

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 7), Jan. 6, 1928, speaking of heretics and schismatics: “Among them there indeed are some, though few, who grant to the Roman Pontiff a primacy of honor or even a certain jurisdiction or power, but this, however, they consider not to arise from the divine law but from the consent of the faithful.”[20]

Benedict XVI discusses the position of these schismatics, which rejects the primacy of supreme jurisdiction of the popes, and here’s what he says:

Benedict XVI, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), pp. 216-217: “Patriarch Athenagoras [the non-Catholic, schismatic Patriarch] spoke even more strongly when he greeted the Pope [Paul VI] in Phanar: ‘Against all expectation, the bishop of Rome is among us, the first among us in honor, ‘he who presides in love’.’ It is clear that, in saying this, the Patriarch [the non-Catholic, schismatic Patriarch] did not abandon the claims of the Eastern Churches or acknowledge the primacy of the west. Rather, he stated plainly what the East understood as the order, the rank and title, of the equal bishops in the Church – and it would be worth our while to consider whether this archaic confession, which has nothing to do with the ‘primacy of jurisdiction’ but confesses a primacy of ‘honor’ and agape, might not be recognized as a formula that adequately reflects the position that Rome occupies in the Church – ‘holy courage’ requires that prudence be combined with ‘audacity’: ‘The kingdom of God suffers violence.’”[21]

The above is an astounding and explicit denial of the dogma of the Papacy and the infallible canon below! Benedict XVI announces the position of the schismatic patriarch, which acknowledges no primacy of supreme jurisdiction of the popes, and he not only tells us that the position of the schismatic is acceptable (as we saw already), but that the schismatic position may in fact be the true position on the Bishop of Rome! In other words, the Papacy (the supreme jurisdiction of the popes over the universal Church by the institution of Christ as successors of St. Peter) may not exist at all! This is an astounding, incredible and huge heresy!


The fact that this man now claims to be the pope when he doesn’t even believe in the Papacy is surely one of the greatest frauds in human history. Those who obstinately hold that this non-Catholic is the pope assist in perpetuating that monumental fraud.

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Sess. 4, Chap. 3, Canon, ex cathedra: “If anyone thus speaks, that the Roman Pontiff has only the office of inspection or direction, but not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in things which pertain to faith and morals, but also in those which pertain to the discipline and government of the Church spread over the whole world; or, that he possesses only the more important parts, but not the whole plenitude of this supreme power… let him be anathema.”[22]

Benedict XVI also denies that the Papacy was even held in the first millennium and tells us that this is why we cannot bind the schismatics to believe in it!

Benedict XVI, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), pp. 198-199: “… In other words, Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of the primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium. When the Patriarch Athenagoras [the non-Catholic, schismatic Patriarch], on July 25, 1967, on the occasion of the Pope’s visit to Phanar, designated him as the successor of St. Peter, as the most esteemed among us, as one who presides in charity, this great Church leader was expressing the ecclesial content of the doctrine of the primacy as it was known in the first millennium. Rome need not ask for more.”[23]
This is another astounding major heresy against the Papacy and Vatican I. Benedict XVI again says that the schismatic position of the non-Catholic Patriarch Athenagoras, which rejects the Papacy and merely acknowledges the Bishop of Rome as the successor of St. Peter with a primacy of honor BUT NOT OF SUPREME JURISDICTION, is sufficient. Further, Benedict XVI says that the reason we cannot expect the “Orthodox” to believe in the Papacy (the primacy of supreme jurisdiction of the popes, not just a primacy of honor) is because it wasn’t even held in the first millennium (according to him)! Therefore, Benedict XVI holds that the primacy of supreme jurisdiction conferred by Jesus Christ upon St. Peter and his successors is just a fiction, an invention of later ages, not held in the early Church. He says that the schismatic position of Athenagoras – holding that the successor of St. Peter possesses a mere primacy of honor – is “the doctrine of the primacy as it was known in the first millennium” and that “Rome need not ask for more”! Notice how directly Benedict XVI denies Vatican I, which defined that in all ages the primacy of jurisdiction was recognized:

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Sess. 4, Chap. 2, ex cathedra: “Surely no one has doubt, rather all ages have known that the holy and most blessed Peter, chief and head of the apostles and pillar of faith and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race; and he up to this time and always lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors, the bishops of the holy See of Rome, which was founded by him and consecrated by his blood. Therefore, whoever succeeds Peter in this chair, he according to the institution of Christ Himself, holds the primacy of Peter over the whole Church.”[24]
Ratzinger (now Benedict XVI) totally rejects this dogma and the entire Catholic Faith.

Moving back to Benedict XVI’s heretical teaching that non-Catholics are not bound to believe in the Papacy, this has also been taught by Benedict XVI’s Prefect for Promoting Christian Unity, “Cardinal” Walter Kasper.

“Cardinal” Walter Kasper: “… today we no longer understand ecumenism in the sense of a return, by which the others would ‘be converted’ and return to being Catholics. This was expressly abandoned by Vatican II.”[25]

Kasper’s statement is so heretical that even many of the defenders of Benedict XVI have labeled Kasper a heretic. But as we’ve seen, Benedict XVI believes the exact same thing. In the following quote, we see that Benedict XVI uses basically the exact same words as Kasper in rejecting Catholic dogma!
Benedict XVI, Address to Protestants at World Youth Day, August 19, 2005: “And we now ask: What does it mean to restore the unity of all Christians?... this unity does not mean what could be called ecumenism of the return: that is, to deny and to reject one’s own faith history. Absolutely not!”[26]

More @ http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/BenedictXVI_mainpage.php

Lutiferre
10-14-2009, 02:17 PM
It's not a heresy in any way since it is not a matter of teaching of faith or morals to begin with. It's a matter of acts which are not dogmatic teachings, but personal acts that are subject to those teachings.

Apostasy and heresy have nothing to do with each other. And it is not apostasy either (how stupid can you be?), even if it is potentially inappropriate.

Much of what the article says about what Benedict teaches are simply lies and distortions that I can personally discount based on what Benedict has personally written.


At Vatican II, Ratzinger hung around with notorious heretics such as Karl Rahner. And even though he was a priest, Joseph Ratzinger showed up at Vatican II not in clerical garb, but in a suit and tie.

Hahaha. Oh my God. "notorious heretics"? Karl Rahner is not a notorious heretic at all.

Sol Invictus
10-14-2009, 02:20 PM
I will be posting the articles individually so that you can educate me, since you've done nothing but throw ad hominems, misnomers etc.

I'll leave it to you. Continue.

Loki
10-14-2009, 02:22 PM
Useful information, thank you Agent Smith.

Lutiferre
10-14-2009, 02:30 PM
I will be posting the articles individually so that you can educate me, since you've done nothing but throw ad hominems, misnomers etc.

I'll leave it to you. Continue.
The article simply distorts what he says. He says that it is possible to not see Christ as the messiah - which is obvious, because the Jews do not see him as the Messiah, and hence, it is demonstratively the case that it is possible not to see Christ as the Messiah, from the same scriptures that we Christians see as doing it. Muslims who do see him as Messiah even use Christian scriptures to prove he is not God. It does not mean he believes it is correct and true, and yet that is what the article distorted it to be.

Sol Invictus
10-14-2009, 02:31 PM
Useful information, thank you Agent Smith.

No problem Mr. Anderson.

Once this young man has debunked the article in it's entirety. I will then move on to the next one, when I feel that I have been thoroughly educated in the matters of Vatican II and how it is wonderful for this world.

Lutiferre
10-14-2009, 02:33 PM
No problem Mr. Anderson.

Once this young man has debunked the article in it's entirety. I will then move on to the next one, when I feel that I have been thoroughly educated in the matters of Vatican II and how it is wonderful for this world.
The article is full of distortions. I obviously don't have time to go through it all. I hardly know where to begin. It's packed with errors.

If you want to believe it's interpretations are correct, then you are welcome to do that.

Lutiferre
10-14-2009, 02:37 PM
I can only recommend you to read the Catechism of the Catholic Church (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM), which categorically rejects and refutes many of the accusations it comes with.

Sol Invictus
10-14-2009, 02:39 PM
The article is full of distortions.

Then I ask you to please look at the article, and refute them with evidence.

Thank you.

Lutiferre
10-14-2009, 02:46 PM
Then I ask you to please look at the article, and refute them with evidence.

Thank you.
You just posted an article. I posted the catechism, which refutes the falsities and errors of the article by expositing on the true dogma and doctrinal commitments of the Catholic Faith, as authoritated by Benedict himself, rather than the distortions (I gave one example of a distortion already) of others. The catechism, furthermore, is official, whereas private opinions carry no doctrinal weight (yes, even of a pope) outside the magisterial teaching. There are many popes who disagreed on different subjects without dogmatizing their opinions, only consensus is dogmatized.

Murphy
10-14-2009, 03:10 PM
Why not debate us on your own, Agent, instead of hiding behind article after article? If we refute one article you said you'll post another, and no doubt another. It will get us no where because no doubt you will just ignore what we say.

So rather, let's simply talk amongst ourselves. Bring up your points on at a time and we will defend the Church and His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI and the other Supreme Pontiffs of Christ's Church.

Regards,
Eóin.

Amapola
10-14-2009, 03:12 PM
LoL..
He is a cool Pope, the best we could have now, in my opinion. Intelligent and very well educated. I like him.

Murphy
10-14-2009, 03:15 PM
LoL..
He is a cool Pope, the best we could have now, in my opinion. Intelligent and very well educated. I like him.

Of course he is. What is more, in his youth he flirted with liberal theology and heretical ideas. But these views of his he has publicly renounced and shown great remorse for. He has shown regret for his involvment with Vatican II Council and it is due to His Holiness Pope Bendict XVI that the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite is free from its bondage for example.

This is a man who has been there and faced Satan and has returned to lead the Church away from the errors of the modern world. I will stand behind this man 100%.

Regards,
Eóin.

Sol Invictus
10-14-2009, 03:18 PM
Why not debate us on your own, Agent, instead of hiding behind article after article? If we refute one article you said you'll post another,

I am not the one hiding behind anything. I am not asking for debate. I am asking for education. Refute the points in these articles and set me straight. That is all I ask.

Take however long you need.

I will be waiting.

Murphy
10-14-2009, 03:24 PM
I am not the one hiding behind anything. I am not asking for debate. I am asking for education. Refute the points in these articles and set me straight. That is all I ask.

Why waste of time reufting it point by point for it all to be ignored? I wont waste my time with it. Bring up the points you wanted refuted by your self and I will address them.

What points does this article bring up that makes you reject His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI as a heretic?

Regards,
Eóin.

Jamt
10-14-2009, 03:27 PM
It would be good for the coming Christian Portal to have a Debate department where all enter at own risk and thereby keeping the rest of the portal more interesting for Christians and those interested in Christianity.

Poltergeist
10-14-2009, 03:28 PM
He should bring back the Tridentine Mass into the Latin rite.

Murphy
10-14-2009, 03:32 PM
He should bring back the Tridentine Mass into the Latin rite.

Summorum Pontificum issued motu proprio. This clarifys the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite's posistion within the Latin-Rite Church. His Holiness could not make the Tridentine Mass the Ordinary Form so easily, but one day...

Regards,
Eóin.

Sol Invictus
10-14-2009, 03:33 PM
Let's get this started then:

-Is it heretical to partake in the practise of another's religion?

-Is the Third Secret of Fatima a construct of the pope himself?

-Is it not true that Based on Scripture and Tradition, the Catholic Church
teaches infallibly that it is necessary for salvation to believe in Jesus Christ and the Catholic Faith?

-Is it true the Jews’ wait for the Coming of the Messiah is also still valid and that “Jewish messianic expectation is not in vain...”?

-Is it true Benedict XVI teaches that Jesus doesn’t have to be seen as the Messiah?

Amapola
10-14-2009, 03:54 PM
He should bring back the Tridentine Mass into the Latin rite.

I think he has done something about it ALREADY. Actually there are some Tridentine masses celebrated according to certain established timetables in some churches.

Murphy
10-14-2009, 04:03 PM
I should point out something first, by the way. This source of yours is run by the Diamond brothers. These brothers are sedevacantists who believe that every pope from Bl. John XIII to Benedict XVI are anti-popes. The problem with their logic is that it is too much of a coincidence to have five anti-popes in a row. Second, canon law and theology clearly say that even if the pope is a heretic, he remains the pope. Being a heretic does not disqualify him as pope. For a pope to lose his right to the Chair of Peter he has to be excommunicated by a council of bishops. None of the popes named on their list was ever excommunicated and John XXIII was beatified. A beatification is an infallible act. Only a real pope can make an infallible declaration.

These men are heretics and witches. They are not authority on the Catholic Church.


-Is it heretical to partake in the practise of another's religion?

Do you refer to His Holiness Pope Benedict facing East whilst he was praying with the Mohammedans. Reportedly facing Mecca? Not at all. It's traditional in Christianity to celebrate Mass whilst facing East, praying whilst facing East.. hell, the majority of the Christian buildings (Catholic and Byzantine) are built facing East.

The only evidence that His Holiness Pope Benedict was praying towards Mecca is the world of Mohammedans who are hell bent of warping the truth.


-Is the Third Secret of Fatima a construct of the pope himself?

I'll address the Third Secret in another post.


-Is it not true that Based on Scripture and Tradition, the Catholic Church
teaches infallibly that it is necessary for salvation to believe in Jesus Christ and the Catholic Faith?

Of course.


-Is it true the Jews’ wait for the Coming of the Messiah is also still valid and that “Jewish messianic expectation is not in vain...”?

No, this is not true. Where as His Holiness Pope Benedict said this is so?


-Is it true Benedict XVI teaches that Jesus doesn’t have to be seen as the Messiah?

Not at all.

Regards,
Eóin.

Sol Invictus
10-14-2009, 04:18 PM
Benedict XVI “Hailed for Praying like Muslims Toward Mecca,” Dec 1, 2006 — ISTANBUL (Reuters) – “Pope Benedict ended a sensitive, fence-mending visit to Turkey on Friday amid praise for visiting Istanbul's famed Blue Mosque and praying there facing toward Mecca ‘like Muslims.’… ‘The Pope's dreaded visit was concluded with a wonderful surprise,’ wrote daily Aksam on its front page. ‘In Sultan Ahmet Mosque, he turned toward Mecca and prayed like Muslims,’...’”

Your response to this: "It's traditional in Christianity to celebrate Mass whilst facing East, praying whilst facing East"

Yet..


Benedict XVI [was] praying like Muslims toward Mecca in a mosque, with arms crossed in the Muslim prayer gesture called “the gesture of tranquility,” on Nov. 30, 2006


Many Catholics are familiar with the fact that in the year 2000 the Vatican allegedly revealed the Third Secret of Fatima. Most traditionalists immediately recognized that the so-called “Third Secret” which the Vatican released was not the real Third Secret of Fatima, but rather that a massive fraud had been perpetrated on the world. The primary author of the document which attempted to convince the world of this fraud against Our Lady’s message at Fatima was Joseph Ratzinger, Benedict XVI.

The document on the so-called “Third Secret,” entitled The Message of Fatima, was authored by Ratzinger and “Cardinal” Bertone. It was an attempt to “debunk” the Message of Fatima, as the Los Angeles Times was forced to admit. In the document, Ratzinger referred to only one Fatima scholar, Fr. Edouard Dhanis. Fr. Dhanis held that large portions of the Message of Fatima were fabrications of Lucy. By referring to Dhanis as his Fatima “expert,” Ratzinger showed that he also holds that the Message of Fatima is a fabrication.

Is this true or false?

I asked you: Is it not true that Based on Scripture and Tradition, the Catholic Church teaches infallibly that it is necessary for salvation to believe in Jesus Christ and the Catholic Faith?

You said yes.

Yet...


In 2001, however, the Pontifical Biblical Commission released a book entitled The Jewish People and Their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible. This book rejects the dogma that the Old Covenant has ceased. It teaches that the Old Covenant is still valid, and that the Jews’ wait for the Coming of the Messiah (which was part of the Old Covenant) is also still valid. It teaches that Jesus doesn’t have to be seen as the prophesied Messiah; it is possible to see Him, as the Jews do, as not the Messiah and not the Son of God.

In section II, A, 5, The Jewish People and their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible states:

“Jewish messianic expectation is not in vain...”


I asked: -Is it true Benedict XVI teaches that Jesus doesn’t have to be seen as the Messiah?

You said: No.

Yet..


In section II, A, 7, The Jewish People and their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible states:

“…to read the Bible as Judaism does necessarily involves an implicit acceptance of all its presuppositions, that is, the full acceptance of what Judaism is, in particular, the authority of its writings and rabbinic traditions, which exclude faith in Jesus as Messiah and Son of God… Christians can and ought to admit that the Jewish reading of the Bible is a possible one…

Sol Invictus
10-14-2009, 04:33 PM
<Deleted>

I am sorry, I take back what I said.

I just want clarification, that's all. Can these points be addressed please?

Anthropos
10-14-2009, 04:41 PM
I think that many Christians make fools out of themselves when they defend all the nonsense and the shadowboxing shows that emanate from the Vatican. Constantly repeating absurdities does not make them less but more absurd. The Vatican does often contradict Christian tradition on such simple and fundamental points that it cannot be a mistake, and usually one is able to take a qualified guess that all they really care about is to make some noise, to prove how morally perfect and tidy they are, and other such vain things. How about the alleged validity of the Old Covenant and all the sucking up to those who cling to it? Many of the reactions against the Romancatholic Church are all too well founded. Those that were posted in this thread have an annoying tone and I have no sympathies with the source, but I am speaking generally.

Sol Invictus
10-14-2009, 04:47 PM
The Vatican does often contradict Christian tradition on such simple and fundamental points that it cannot be a mistake

Yes.

Poltergeist
10-14-2009, 05:58 PM
I think that many Christians make fools out of themselves when they defend all the nonsense and the shadowboxing shows that emanate from the Vatican. Constantly repeating absurdities does not make them less but more absurd. The Vatican does often contradict Christian tradition on such simple and fundamental points that it cannot be a mistake, and usually one is able to take a qualified guess that all they really care about is to make some noise, to prove how morally perfect and tidy they are, and other such vain things. How about the alleged validity of the Old Covenant and all the sucking up to those who cling to it? Many of the reactions against the Romancatholic Church are all too well founded. Those that were posted in this thread have an annoying tone and I have no sympathies with the source, but I am speaking generally.

In a way, you are right.

But the thing is that some Catholics confuse Catholicism with Vaticanism Vatican's role increased with Church's alienation from the respective nations/countries and societies, as a by-product of the separation of Church and state and general secularization. Some started to confuse Church with the State of Vatican. There are many illiterates in faith, who think wrongly that they should agree with everything Pope ever says or does, or even what Vatican says or does, even if it is purely about worldly matters, thinking that it's an article of the Catholic faith (which it isn't).

Thence so much attention to many issues regarding vatican, heated debates etc.

But you must include the other side of the coin into this equation too.
Bashers of the Catholic Church also tend to identify Catholic Church with the Vatican and deduce many things about the Church based on Vatican only, in the function of their critique. Then Catholics defend Vatican and an entire vicious circles comes into place. Much shadow boxing, as you say. Usually very boring (Jews, Dan Brown, blah blah blah). I don't really care about these matters, it's pretty irrelevant.

It is also true that sometimes some people from the highest ranks of Catholic hierarchy like such attacks, so that they can respond to them, thus reasserting themselves in a way.

As for the Old/New Covenant issue, it is true that some Cardinals (and even the late Pope John Paul II) made ceratin disturbing comments on the issue, however, nothing has been changed in the doctrinary sense.

Lutiferre
10-14-2009, 06:50 PM
Your response to this: "It's traditional in Christianity to celebrate Mass whilst facing East, praying whilst facing East"

Yet..
He is crossing his arms and praying facing east like Christians have done always. There is nothing heretical in this.


Is this true or false?

I asked you: Is it not true that Based on Scripture and Tradition, the Catholic Church teaches infallibly that it is necessary for salvation to believe in Jesus Christ and the Catholic Faith?

You said yes.

Yet...

Complete the sentence. It says Jewish messianic expectation is not in vain and then goes on to explain why - it refers to the eschatology of Christianity in its waiting for the Second Coming of Christ.

Jewish messianic expectation is not in vain. It can become for us Christians a powerful stimulant to keep alive the eschatological dimension of our faith. Like them, we too live in expectation. The difference is that for us the One who is to come will have the traits of the Jesus who has already come and is already present and active among us.

Further, it only mentions the Old Covenant one time, and when it does, it says it has never been abrogated, which is true. Christianity does not have a doctrine or concept of abrogation (like Islam); that is heresy to suggest (Rm. 11:29: for God's gifts and his call are irrevocable.). Instead, the Old Covenant has been fulfilled in Jesus Christ, which the Jews live in ignorance of.



I asked: -Is it true Benedict XVI teaches that Jesus doesn’t have to be seen as the Messiah?

You said: No.

Yet..
He says the Jewish reading of the Torah is a possible one, which is obviously the case. It is a possible one, and also an actual one before Jesus came and revealed and fulfilled it's full meaning. It does not say that it's the correct, the total, fulfilled and fully revealed reading.

Anthropos
10-14-2009, 06:50 PM
Saparmurat, I agree a whole lot, but I don't see a reason for any part of the Romancatholic Church, Vatican included, to maintain relations with people and organisations so irrelevant to Church matters that it would seem much better to ignore them.

Poltergeist
10-14-2009, 06:52 PM
Saparmurat, I agree a whole lot, but I don't see a reason for any part of the Romancatholic Church, Vatican included, to maintain relations with people and organisations so irrelevant to Church matters that it would seem much better to ignore them.

I don't understand it either.

Lutiferre
10-14-2009, 06:59 PM
(stuff about Fatima) Is this true or false?
Whether he has ever said anything to that effect, I can't say. I'd have to see the evidence first. But I know Ratzinger has changed his opinions about many subjects, and perhaps this one included. But I haven't seen any evidence to suggest the point being made, it seems like speculation to me.

Besides, this is not a matter of heresy. The whole Fatima thing is not something which the faithful must believe either way. It's not a dogma or article of faith. It's simply pious tradition. So heresy does not come into it to begin with, and therefore it's useless for your attempt to prove Benedict a heretic.

Poltergeist
10-14-2009, 07:06 PM
Whether he has ever said anything to that effect, I can't say. I'd have to see the evidence first. But I know Ratzinger has changed his opinions about many subjects, and perhaps this one included. But I haven't seen any evidence to suggest the point being made, it seems like speculation to me.

Besides, this is not a matter of heresy. The whole Fatima thing is not something which the faithful must believe either way. It's not a dogma or article of faith. It's simply pious tradition. So heresy does not come into it to begin with, and therefore it's useless for your attempt to prove Benedict a heretic.

Right. Silly stories about Fatima and its (third? fourth? twenty fourth?) "secret" or whatever tire me and bore me to death. It is unrelated to the true faith, to doctrine, to nothing whatsoever. Just stuff for idlers.

Óttar
10-14-2009, 07:08 PM
A friend told me once, "the Pope is merely the greatest politician in the Church." In praying toward Mecca with Muftis and Imams, he is only being a courteous diplomat.

In a recent service, he brought back the old prayer that asks God that Jews move away from "error" and accept Catholicism.

See Constantine's Sword. Agent Smith, look out. You might be being brainwashed by those lord leapers in Colorado.

Lutiferre
10-14-2009, 07:13 PM
Right. Silly stories about Fatima and its (third? fourth? twenty fourth?) "secret" or whatever tire me and bore me to death. It is unrelated to the true faith, to doctrine, to nothing whatsoever. Just for idlers.Catechism of the Catholic Church on private revelations:

66 "The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ." Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.

67 Throughout the ages, there have been so-called "private" revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ's definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.

Christian faith cannot accept "revelations" that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such "revelations."

Lysander
10-14-2009, 07:26 PM
Just to make sure, holding the arms as the pope does is how Christians of old prayed, it's not Muslim at all. So that point fails.

Poltergeist
10-14-2009, 07:27 PM
Some Christians still pray this way, in certain occasions.

Fortis in Arduis
10-15-2009, 02:58 AM
The Church, in what ever form, is a political entity, and should be treated as such, and tolerated in so far as it is beneficial to the national cause.

Call me protestant, but if they politicise knowledge of the soul, they are political and dangerously totalitarian, and their institutions should be localised and made separate from the moneyed interest for the benefit of everyone.