FOR LENT!

It is LENT. No more posting until after EAster!
Praise to you LORD JESUS CHRIST! HAPPY EASTER TO ALL.

Continuing bantering with the Pagan Ilona(Puffin Lady)

[QUOTE who="PuffinLady"]
Yes I forgot that you follow a Bible that was written and later revised by Mortals. More Fairy Tales and Myths.[/QUOTE]



The Myths are from your Wicca "Book of Shadows" You asked for Historical proof that Jesus had lived:
Ilona you are an Idiot, to still try to dispute what was posted. You do not dispute the arguments, but try to cover it with a stupid, simplistic, remark "I still dispute everything you say".
read it again, maybe it will sink into your rock head:

I notice Ilona(Puffin Lady) has been quiet lately.
She asked me to prove historically , that Jesus ever existed. Hwith is that proof Pagan:

"Is there historical and scientific proof of Jesus?

"Still, to put to rest the notion that there is no historic and scientific proof of Jesus outside the Bible, we may look to Jewish historian Flavius Josephus and to Roman historian Carius Cornelius Tacitus - both well known and accepted."

Josephus, in the book Jewish Antiquities" wrote:

"At that time lived Jesus, a wise man, if he may be called a man; for he performed many wonderful works. He was a teacher of such men as received the truth with pleasure....And when Pilate, at the instigation of the chief men among us, had condemned him to the cross, they who before had conceived an affection for him did not cease to adhere to him. For on the third day he appeared to them alive again, the divine prophets having foretold these and many other wonderful things concerning him. And the sect of the Christians, so called from him, subsists at this time" (Antiquities, Book 18, Chapter 3, Section 1).

Tacitus, in writing about accusations that Nero burned the city of Rome and blamed it on Christians, said the following:

"...Nero procured others to be accused, and inflicted exquisite punishment upon those people, who were in abhorrence for their crimes, and were commonly known by the name of Christians. They had their denomination from Christus (Christ, dm.), who in the reign of Tibertius was put to death as a criminal by the procurator Pontius Pilate...."(Tacitus, Annals, 15, 44).

Ilona,I would hope that you have enough brains left inside your head,to not ever mention that there is no proof that Jesus ever lived, and
these authors are recognized by scholars as historically accurate."
"probe.org" Adds Pliny the younger, Evidence from the Babylonian Talmud A.D. 70-500,Evidence from Lucian:
F. F. Bruce, Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1974), 13. : Tacitus, Annals 15.44, cited in Strobel, The Case for Christ, 82. Edwin Yamauchi, cited in Strobel, The Case for Christ:
Pliny, Epistles x. 96, cited in Bruce, Christian Origins, 25; Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 198. Habermas, The Historical Jesus
(More documentation following)

Let me know when you are willing to become a Catholic!
While on mini vacation I guess you enlisted one of your Pagan fools to try to attack me, and defend your stupidity. There is no way that anyone can help you Ilona. The only one that can is GOD almight, HE AND HIS SON JESUS, AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. I destroyed every one of your arguments. Find a rock you can love, at least you can talk to the rock, and not have to worry that the rock will think you are an imbecile.Preces meae erit tibi, ut bene via ad perditionem. Deus Miserere animae perverse ignorant.

Forgive the name callings that I have used, but this person Ilona, went to the site where I questioned MSGR's motives for attacking the good people of our Parish. the question I had posted is in Elmont.She is from Bellerose, and is a follower of Wicca,
and wanted proof that Jesus and GOD have ever existed. Anyone that does not know of he beliefs of the Wicca sect, please google it, you will probably go blind half way through, or upchuck, at anyone still in this day and age, believing such studpidity,
and worshiping Idols, and phantasy beings, ala Greek, Roman, Egyptian,Gods...etc

My answer to a Wiccan believer:

[QUOTE who="PuffinLady"]Wow - what the Hell is wrong with you, Man??
Have you completely gone insane?
[/QUOTE]

It was 24 hours ago, when I quoted the Bible, in answer to her trying to show that the tribe of Israel followed many bad things. I had at that time replied that she should only quote the new testament to me. Then looking at what she quoted,
I decided to answer her on what she had posted.



24 hours and no reply. I guess you agree that Paganism and Heretics have no logical reasoning, for their beliefs, as it is a faithless idea, founded on Myths. So that if you can feel a tree, then you can worship that tree, and not its creator, Almighty God.
Also you can prove that the moon exists, and yet you can not touch it, but you can worship it, and not the creator , Almighty GOD, that made all matter and beings. You can worship ISIS, with an image of a Black Headed Dog, and a human Body, and not worship the King of Kings, Prince of Peace, Jesus Christ the Messiah, who was
Prophesied 1400 years before his birth, where and when, by prophets
of the Old Testament(that you love quoting). Who's prophecy predicted exactly when and how he was going to be put to death.
Isaiah a prophet,had made prophecy regarding the capture of Israel,which historians have attested to regarding Babylonians,
capturing the King of Israel, and taking away his sons to be eunuchs. He also attested to the Lord God saying, "All who make idols are nothing, and the things they treasure are worthless.
Those who would speak up for them, are blind! They are ignorant, to their own shame. Who shapes a God and casts an idol, which can profit him nothing......" You love to quote the Old Testament Ilona,then read all of it. You will have the Evil thoughts of your mind, driven away. I read many accounts of Rabi's throwing the New Testament into the corner, until one day they decided to open it up and read it. That was the beginning of their conversion to becoming a believer in Jesus Christ, the Son of GOD. And if you read it with an open mind, you will come upon the Prophet Jeremiah,and Chapter 31 verses 31-34, "Behold days are coming" Declares the Lord. "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah. NOT LIKE THE COVENANT I MADE WITH THEIR FATHERS IN THE DAY I TOOK THEM BY THE HAND TO BRING THEM OUT OF EGYPT. MY COVENANT WHICH THEY BROKE, ALTHOUGH I WAS A HUSBAND TO THEM" declares the Lord. "BUT THIS COVENANT WHICH I WILL MAKE WITH THE HOUSE IF ISRAEL AFTER THOSE DAYS" DECLARES THE LORD."I WILL PUT MY LAW WITHIN THEM, AND ON THEIR HEARTS I WILL WRITE IT: AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD, AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE. "I WILL FORGIVE THEIR INEQUITIES, AND THEIR SIN I WILL REMEMBER NO MORE."
Just as the old Covenant was ratified with blood, so to was the new Covenant instituted, and ratified with the blood of the innocent lamb, JESUS CHRIST. Please do read the Bible Ilona, both you and your Husband. And if you have any redeeming qualities left in your soul, you will be lead to salvation, through the Son of GOD,Jesus Christ.
Deus autem misericordiam perducat te Jesus, et salutem animarum. Dominus Vobiscum

Pope Benedict XVI, trying to correct mis-conceptions of VC

"Let your Yes, be Yes, and your No, be No, anything
other than this is from the Evil one"

Benedict XVI's pontificate has been marked by
a few defining moments that have provoked some
neither entirely foreseeable nor easily controlled
reactions: one need only think of the polemics
that ensued after the release of the motu proprio
Summorum Pontificum. This act, which occasioned
an openly hostile, widespread reaction, was also
an opportunity for some to discover the Church's
genuine liturgical patrimony and, through it, they
were spurred on to discover an ecclesiology and
theological system not only different from, but also incompatible with, that forged. over the Last 50 YEARS _ and peremptorily imposed on "the People of God."

Among the choices characterizing Benedict
XVI's pontificate it seems to me that we can include the principle of the "hermeneutic of continuity,"! which was articulated in his famous speech to the Roman Curia of December 22, 2005. The speech was not followed by the explosive reactions that have occurred in other instances, but it did give rise to a current of thought, and to its opposition, that is still with us and merits our attention.
In the following reflections we intend to scrutinize what the principle of the hermeneutic of continuity asserts, and we shall try to situate it in the historical context of the Church today so as to deduce all of its implications.

A True Principle and an
Unproven Presupposition

Forty years after the close of the Second Vatican
Council, Benedict XVI recognizes the fact that
situations creating a deep malaise arose after this historic event. He immediately frames the difficulty as a problem in the acceptance of the Council linked to a problem of the interpretation(hermeneutic) of the texts of the Council itself: too often, the Council was interpreted and thus applied in discontinuity with the perennial teaching of the Church, contrary to the objective meaning of its texts and contrary to the intentions of the Council Fathers themselves.
The hermeneutic of continuity thus is presented as
the proper approach to interpreting the Council
authentically, according to its true intention and
especially in perfect harmony with Tradition.
Benedict XVI's intervention has the merit of
highlighting a basic principle,namely,that in the
Church's magisterial teaching," there cannot be a break with previous teaching, but only continuity: what the Church has always taught can neither be surpassed, nor set aside; rather, it constitutes the Church's patrimony, which can neither be repudiated, nor substantially altered.

We should remark that this truth recalled by
Benedict XVI is in one sense quite simple; it pertains to the rudiments of the Faith and to the foundational principles that define the very nature of the Church. Consequently, the fact that he deemed it necessary to outline his papal program in light of this truth constitutes a first significant acknowledgement of the doctrinal crisis in which the Church finds itself. By
solemnly reiterating such a simple, elementary truth, which had been set aside in practice and in common teaching, the Pope inevitably provided an objective indicator of the gravity of the current situation. The usual commemorative orations about
the council were replaced in this speech by a
reminder of elementary principles: it constituted
an initial acknowledgment that something has not
worked. Moreover, it should be recognized that the
fact of recalling that there can be no break in the Church's teaching prompted in some individuals
especially priests, a desire to valorize things past and the Tradition of the Church. In many cases this re-evaluation led to the progressive discovery of an absolutely new patrimony, which these priests felt had been denied them. This is certainly the most positive effect of the hermeneutic of continuity. However, the hermeneutic of continuity stands out, not so much for its intrinsic, abstract value as in the concrete application made of it, as a two-edged sword: it affirms, in effect, that the documents
of the Council are in perfect continuity with the
Church's perennial Tradition, and when it brings
to light an .objectively serious problem of a break, it systematically reduces it to a question of the interpretation of the Council itself, to a deviation that occurred in the post-conciliar period. The absolute fidelity of the Council to the previous authoritative teaching of the Church seems to remain as an indisputable postulate. In this way, the "blame" falls upon a heterodox current of thought incompatible with Catholic doctrine and foreign to the Council, but
which paradoxically succeeded in steering in large
part the application and the concrete results."
As we now get to the crux of our considerations,
we plan to situate the hermeneutic of continuity
historically by seeking to grasp every aspect without entering in detail into specific conciliar teachings, which have been discussed over and over, we realize that it postulates a series of elements which, instead of saving the Council, indirectly demonstrate its failure.

(I would say then, based on the above, that the VCII created this failure without intending to break with the traditions, that have been followed for over 2000 years. The corrective measures that Pope Benedict VXI
is attempting to do, is just, and needed then, but is being opposed by those in the Catholic church,who have read in to the VCII actions, those changes ,that were not the intention of the Council, and should then be extracted, as having no validity. JMHO)

SI SI NO NO

The following is excerpted from the SI SI NO NO article:
Benedict XVI's pontificate has been marked by
a few defining moments that have provoked some
neither entirely foreseeable nor easily controlled
reactions: one need only think of the polemics

that ensued after the release of the motu proprio
Summorum Pontificum. This act, which occasioned
an openly hostile, widespread reaction, was also
an opportunity for some to discover the Church's
genuine liturgical patrimony and, through it, they
were spurred on to discover an ecclesiology and
theological system not only different from, but also
incompatible with, that forged. over the Last 50 YEARS _
and peremptorily imposed on "the People of God."

Among the choices characterizing Benedict
XVI's pontificate it seems to me that we can include
the principle of the "hermeneutic of continuity,"!
which was articulated in his famous speech to the
Roman Curia of December 22, 2005. The speech
was not followed by the explosive reactions that have
occurred in other instances, but it did give rise to a
current of thought, and to its opposition, that is still
with us and merits our attention.
In the following reflections we intend to scrutinize
what the principle of the hermeneutic of continuity
asserts, and we shall try to situate it in the historical
context of the Church today so as to deduce all of its
implications.

A True Principle and an
Unproven Presupposition

Forty years after the close of the Second Vatican
Council, Benedict XVI recognizes the fact that
situations creating a deep malaise arose after this
historic event. He immediately frames the difficulty
as a problem in the acceptance of the Council linked
to a problem of the interpretation(hermeneutic) of
the texts of the Council itself: too often, the Council
was interpreted and thus applied in discontinuity
with the perennial teaching of the Church, contrary
to the objective meaning of its texts and contrary
to the intentions of the Council Fathers themselves.
The hermeneutic of continuity thus is presented as
the proper approach to interpreting the Council
authentically, according to its true intention and
especially in perfect harmony with Tradition.
Benedict XVI's intervention has the merit of
highlighting a basic principle, namely, that in the
Church's magisterial teaching," there cannot be a break
with previous teaching, but only continuity: what the
Church has always taught can neither be surpassed
nor set aside; rather, it constitutes the Church's
patrimony, which can neither be repudiated nor
substantially altered.
We should remark that this truth recalled by
Benedict XVI is in one sense quite simple; it pertains
to the rudiments of the Faith and to the foundational
principles that define the very nature of the Church.
Consequently, the fact that he deemed it necessary
to outline his papal program in light of this truth
constitutes a first significant acknowledgement of the
doctrinal crisis in which the Church finds itself. By
solemnly reiterating such a simple, elementary truth,
which had been set aside in practice and in common
teaching, the Pope inevitably provided an objective
indicator of the gravity of the current situation.
The usual commemorative orations about

the council were replaced in this speech by a
reminder of elementary principles: it constituted
an initial acknowledgment that something has not
worked. Moreover, it should be recognized that the
fact of recalling that there can be no break in the
Church's teaching prompted in some individuals
especially priests, a desire to valorize things past'
and the Tradition of the Church. In many cases this
re-evaluation led to the progressive discovery of an
absolutely new patrimony, which these priests felt had
been denied them. This is certainly the most positive
effect of the hermeneutic of continuity.
However, the hermeneutic of continuity stands
out, not so much for its intrinsic, abstract value as
in the concrete application made of it, as a two-
edged sword: it affirms, in effect, that the documents
of the Council are in perfect continuity with the
Church's perennial Tradition, and when it brings
to light an .objectively serious problem of a break,
It systematically reduces it to a question of the
interpretation of the Council itself, to a deviation that
occurred in the post-conciliar period. The absolute
fidelity of the Council to the previous authoritative
teaching of the Church seems to remain as an
indisputable postulate. In this way, the "blame" falls
upon a heterodox current of thought incompatible
with Catholic doctrine and foreign to the Council, but
which paradoxically succeeded in steering in large
part the application and the concrete results."
As we now get to the crux of our considerations,
we plan to situate the hermeneutic of continuity
historically by seeking to grasp every aspect: without
entering in detail into specific conciliar teachings,
which have been discussed over and over, we realize
that it postulates a series of elements which, instead of
saving the Council, indirectly demonstrate its failure.

From what I have read from this, the VTII council was not explicit in its determination, and leeway given to the Priests. It had no intention of changing what has been the tradition of the Church for over 2000 years. What has happened, Bishops,
Pastors, and Priests have read into what was determined, to mean what they wanted it to mean. That was not the intent of the VTII Council. Therefore Pope
Benedict XVI must give an interpretation, whereby, none of the traditions of the Church have been supplanted, nor to have changed. And any conflict with the traditional teachings, should automatically, negate those changes to the traditional teachings of the church from 1962 on.
It is my sincere hope, that the Pope will return our church to the prior teachings, and traditions that were practiced prior to VTII.
I am in no way an expert, but only go with the direction of what my spirit leads me to go, and Just my Humble Opinions.

Time to set everything straight

Very few points of the current draft of the Instruction for the Application of Summorum Pontificum seem to be available to us. The first we mentioned, on blocking the application of the liberality of the motu proprio to all non-Roman Western rites and uses may seem minor - yet it is quite significant in what it reveals: an interpretation of the rights recognized by Summorum as privileges or "indults" that can be curtailed.


Our revelation today, made jointly with Messa in Latino, could seem even more limited in its extension - but it certainly is much, much, more serious and insidious in the extent it shows that the anti-Summorum field has infiltrated the composition of the Instruction. In short, the Instruction, in its current draft, will explicitly prevent Bishops from using the Traditional Rite of Holy Orders.


There will be two exceptions. One, dedicated to the those institutes (the 'Ecclesia Dei' institutes) and particular Churches dedicated exclusively to the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite. The other exception is that the Bishop that desires to ordain a certain seminarian in the ancient Rite will have to ask prior permission to Rome (to the Pontifical Commission 'Ecclesia Dei'), which will then evaluate if said permission should be granted or not.


While the motu proprio is unclear on the use of the Traditional liturgical rites of the Roman Pontifical for Holy Orders (Baptism, Matrimony, Penance, Extreme Unction, and Confirmation are expressly mentioned in art. 9, and the Holy Eucharist throughout the text), this is no loophole. While it might make sense to clarify some points regarding other Sacraments, as directed by the "Pastor" (art. 9 § 1), it would obviously be unnecessary to "allow" these same Pastors to do what they can always do: ordain priests of the Roman Rite using the books of the Roman Rite, including the rite of Holy Orders that was used in the Latin Church for well over a millennium.

What is to be achieved by this odious restrictive interpretation? Why should Bishops be forbidden to choose with which Rite to ordain their own deacons and priests? Since the advent of Summorum, in a few privileged places, Bishops have furthered the establishment of a biritual mentality in their seminaries, and have indeed celebrated Holy Orders in the Extraordinary Form; it seems clear that, if a Bishop so desires, for an unlimited number of pastoral and spiritual reasons, he should be able to do so freely.


The intention is, among others, to ghettoize the Traditional Rite of this most pivotal of all Sacraments, Holy Orders; and, further, to identify "problematic" Bishops and future priests, with all consequences that could entail (including for their careers). It is an alarming sign that the thrust of the Instruction is once again to make, even in law, all Catholics attached to the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite or those who merely appreciate it (and, in this case, even Bishops and poor hopeful seminarians) second-class Catholics.

Rorate Caeli

Urgent appeal for the Pope's clarification of Motu Proprio

All of you Conservatives, please go to this site to appeal to our Pope Benedict XVI
to continue with his clarification of Motu Proprio, in which he grants the permission of priests to say the Latin Masses without the permission of their PASTOR, OR BISHOP, plus to futher explain that VTII did not do away with the former liturgy. There has been mounted an opposition to this by the Liberals, and Progressives in the Catholic Church, and your signatures are urgently needed at this time. Thank you and GOD's Bleesing on you and your families.


http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/motuproprioappeal/



An Appeal to the Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, Pertaining to the Instruction/Clarification of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum

Email friends
Most Holy Father, we the undersigned:

1. Express our profound gratitude to Your Holiness for your personal liturgical example to the Universal Church. You are a true homo liturgicus whose love for the sacred liturgy is an inspiration; it teaches more clearly than words the centrality of the liturgy in the life of the Church.

2. Thank Your Holiness for your gift to the Church of your 2007 Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum. Since 2007 it has brought forth many fruits, including greater unity in the Church of Christ and a widespread enrichment of the liturgical life of the Church.

3. Note with sadness the continuing and real opposition to the implementation of Summorum Pontificum in many dioceses and on the part of many members of the hierarchy, the suffering and distress this continues to cause many of Christ’s faithful and the obstacle this opposition is to an effective reconciliation within the Church.

4. Note with anxiety the apparent signs that a forthcoming Instruction on Summorum Pontificum will, in some way, take away from what you have legally established in that Motu Proprio and from its wide application in the generous spirit so eloquently explained by Your Holiness in the letter accompanying it: “Let us generously open our hearts and make room for everything that the faith itself allows.”

5. Express our grave concern that any restrictive measures would cause scandal, disunity and suffering in the Church and would frustrate the reconciliation you so earnestly desire, as well as impede further liturgical renewal and development in continuity with Tradition, which is already so great a fruit of your pontificate.

6. Express our hope, our desire and our urgent appeal that the good Your Holiness personally initiated through Summorum Pontificum not be allowed to be hindered by such restrictions.

7. Turn to you with filial trust and as obedient sons and daughters, Most Holy Father, and ask that you urgently consider our concerns and intervene if you judge it necessary.
8. Assure Your Holiness of our continuing prayers, of our deep affection and of our loyalty.