Era Might Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 Are you here Brendan? In case you missed it, I would like a citation: [quote name='Era Might' date='Feb 19 2006, 11:18 PM']Who's the publisher? The editor? What year was it published? [right][snapback]892361[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironmonk Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 [quote name='Dave' date='Feb 19 2006, 09:14 PM']I was told by someone who considers himself "almost" a sedevacantist that Pope John Paul II taught and believed that man was God. For some reason my computer won't let me copy and paste any quotes, and I know we're not supposed to link to heretical sites, but I really have no other choice -- [url="http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/JP2_preached_doctrine_of_Antichrist.html"]http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/JP2...Antichrist.html[/url] [url="http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/Antipope_John_Paul_II's_first_homily.html"]http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/Ant...rst_homily.html[/url] I know that the claims put forth are false, but I don't really know how to explain the quotes that have been put forth in ways people can understand. I know that must really scare y'all, considering I'm a journalist ... you're probably wondering how I managed to become a journalist if I don't know how to explain something. [right][snapback]892164[/snapback][/right] [/quote] I cannot believe what an idiot this guy is. I'm tempted to unleash a fax bomb and email bomb, but that won't help... it'd be funny... but not help. This guy is possessed with something... pride, demon, only God knows. A simple "Your perception is not reality" and prayer will be the only way to help this guy. I doubt his mind is logical enough to reason the truth. God Bless, ironmonk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironmonk Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 [quote][quote name='Cam42' date='Feb 19 2006, 11:31 PM'] - Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. [right][snapback]892286[/snapback][/right] [/quote] [url="http://holywar.org/Ratzinger.htm"]Ripped.[/url] Word for word. Not Novus Ordo Watch, but also not quoted from a book. Too coincidental, methinks. [right][snapback]892394[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Whoa... what a nut job. One must wonder how they can understand how to use a computer to put this garbage online. Bush and Cheney are Jew Racists? LOL man... I have officially seen it all. [quote][b]HOLYWAR.ORG Registrant: [/b] Olsen, Alfred Pb. 273 SANDVIKA, 1301 NO [b]Administrative Contact : [/b] Olsen, Alfred olsen-a@online.no Pb. 273 SANDVIKA, 1301 NO Phone: 47-93671806 Fax: 999 999 9999 [/quote] God Bless, ironmonk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cam42 Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 That would be Norway folks, not New Orleans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Might Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 I took away my posts about Mario Derksen because, while I have reasonable cause to believe it's him, I don't know if it constitutes slander. So...yah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EcceNovaFacioOmni Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 [quote name='ironmonk' date='Feb 19 2006, 10:45 PM']I cannot believe what an idiot this guy is. I'm tempted to unleash a fax bomb and email bomb, but that won't help... it'd be funny... but not help. This guy is possessed with something... pride, demon, only God knows. A simple "Your perception is not reality" and prayer will be the only way to help this guy. I doubt his mind is logical enough to reason the truth. God Bless, ironmonk [right][snapback]892425[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Typical looney sedevacantist website. The tabloidish pictures and the charts comparing out-of-context statements... I agree, with you about the horrible web design. Embarrasing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thy Geekdom Come Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 I have a feeling that Fr. Ratzinger's quote (we must be careful to give him the titles he had at the time) is taken well out of context, if it even is from his actual writing. It is possible for an orthodox reading of the passage if you have the context that he was trying to state that the Eucharist does not somehow "contain" Jesus in the sense that "Jesus is here in the Eucharist and therefore can't be elsewhere." Some people do, in fact, try to teach that. In fact, with this context, the paragraph seems to me to be worthy of our applause. The paragraph is a rebuke of the notion that God is not omnipresent and of those who feel that they need to go to a tabernacle to speak with the omnipresent God. Certainly he was not denying the Real Presence or the benefits of adoration, but merely stating that the belief that Christ is present ONLY in the Eucharist and that He can't be with us otherwise is ridiculous. I'd ask you to look at two key sentences with a certain contextual emphasis: Eucharistic devotion such as is noted in the silent visit by the devout in church must not be thought of as a conversation with God. [b]This would assume that God was present there locally and in a confined way.[/b] To justify such an assertion shows a lack of understanding of the Christological mysteries of the very concept of God. This is repugnant to the serious thinking of the man who knows about the omnipresence of God. [b]To go to church on the ground that one can visit God who is present there is a senseless act which modern man rightfully rejects.[/b] First, he rejects not the Real Presence but the false assumption that God is present only in that place. This is his context: by saying that a visit to the Blessed Sacrament should not be seen as a conversation, he means that one should not go to visit the Blessed Sacrament with the intention of a conversation that could otherwise not take place. In this sense, he is affirming the omnipresence of God. The conversation, of course, could take place anywhere. Therefore, those who go to visit the Blessed Sacrament for the purpose of a conversation with God do not understand God's omnipresence. He means that visitations to the Blessed Sacrament should not be thought of as a chance to converse with God, because God is present everywhere. Therefore, in the second bolded sentence, he states that to "visit" God, which implies that we weren't in His presence before and then are in His presense, is to be rejected. This of course does not apply to the use of the word visit when we say, "I wish to visit the Blessed Sacrament" because indeed, we're not in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament and then are, but to say of adoration, "I'm going to visit God" implies that we go into His presence from being outside of it and is therefore an implicit denial of His omnipresence. This does not so much apply to our English usage of the word visit, where one can take visit in a much more broad sense. I can sit with a peson for a long time and then start "visiting" that person by speaking with him or her, even though I was already in that person's presence. Likewise, for the English usage of the word, we can "visit" God by actualizing our ability to converse with Him, without denying His omnipresence. If I'm wrong, someone shut me up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brendan1104 Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 [quote name='Era Might' date='Feb 20 2006, 12:16 AM']I took away my posts about Mario Derksen because, while I have reasonable cause to believe it's him, I don't know if it constitutes slander. So...yah. [right][snapback]892454[/snapback][/right] [/quote] It is him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 [color=red]What part of "we don't link to rad trad stupidities" don't people understand?????[/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts