Book- The Devil's Final Battle

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

Has anybody read the exciting new book called "The Devil's Final Battle-would like to discuss

-- Don Pennell (dpennell@istar.ca), May 16, 2003

Answers

bump....

-- (no@spam.com), May 16, 2003.

Amazingly, the book has its own Internet site.
It appears to be just another schismatic piece of trash.
A sign that it is of no interest to genuine (orthodox) Catholics: endorsement by the "Seattle Catholic [sic]," a non-Catholic publication.

Moderator, please delete this thread. The forum shouldn't go down the schismatic/heretical quasi-traditionalist road again.

Thanks. JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 16, 2003.


This book, like a number of earlier ones, is obviously based on the perverted premise that supposed "private revelation" can be invoked as a criterion for judging the actions or teaching of the Church. This is a reversal of truth. In fact, the acceptability of such private revelation is necessarily judged by the objective criterion of the Church's teaching, and is forever subject to it. Purpoted private revelation which is in full accord with the teaching of the Church may be declared "acceptable for private belief" by the authority of the Church. Fatima has been granted such "acceptable" status. However, "acceptable" does not mean "genuine". The Church never declares any apparition or other such "private revelation" genuine. The Church only describes such events as "acceptable for private belief" or "inacceptable". An event which is found "acceptable for private belief", but which is not declared objectively genuine by the authority of the Church, can never be presented as evidence for what the Church, whose authority legitimized the event in the first place, must do or not do, teach or not teach. In fact, such purpoted events, or supposed "messages" received through them, can never be presented as evidence of anything, for evidence must be factual, and "private revelation" is never declared factual, but only approved for personal subjective belief.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), May 16, 2003.

The Synod (of Vatican II) declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person, as this dignity is known through the revealed Word of God and by reason itself. This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed. Thus it is to become a civil right. …… Therefore, the right to religious freedom has its foundation, not in the subjective disposition of the person, but in his very nature. In consequence, the right to this immunity continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it. Nor is the exercise of this right to be impeded, provided that the just requirements of public order are observed."

This is outright heresy, declared by previous dogmatic councils and popes.

-- Ari (A@whychange.com), May 17, 2003.


Jmj

Ari, please read the opening message on the "Moderator's Note" thread to learn the rules of this forum. I'm concerned that you are about to violate one or more rules. The forum does not exist for you to bash the Church, its Councils, or the current successors of the Apostles.

What is called "Vatican II" was an Ecumenical Council called and confirmed by popes. Its 16 documents teach reliably. There is not a shred of "heresy" within any of them. Catholics must give assent to everything they teach.

Arik, since you have referred to something taught in one of the documents, I can see that you are either a non-Catholic or a dissenting Catholic (who may be very close to falling into heresy).

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 18, 2003.



Ari is able to assert his own freedom of opinion (that's all he knows or says,) where it touches on his lack of faith in the Holy Spirit. But Ari condemns that freedom for the unbeliever.

Our Lord sent His apostles to teach and spread the Gospel. They were to lay down their lives, if called upon, for the truth.

Jesus clearly stated, those who believe and convert shall be saved and who do not believe shall be condemned. But implicit is the related truth. No one will be forced into His Church. Believing is an act of free will. Therefore the 2nd Vatican Council instructs the Church, as to the individual's personal dignity. It isn't heresy (first) If it proceeds from the Holy Spirit. (Second,) having been the original intent of Christ when He commissioned His apostles. I'm constantly reminded by the Ari types, of the madman Savonarola.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 18, 2003.


Since the rules of the forum state that it is acceptable to post under pseudonyms, I normally respect the privacy of people who choose to do so. However, I also believe that it is the right of Catholics on this forum to discuss their faith without constant harassment from antagonistic individuals, including members of openly anti-Catholic cults (like the SDA who has been trying to post "Pope=antichrist" messages the past few days), and Catholics who have separated themselves from true Catholicism and the authority of the Vicar of Christ, and are openly attempting to lead others into the same schismatic situation. Therefore, before getting too involved with "Ari", please know that:

Ari = Peter Palasota = Renee = Prashanth Mathew Joseph = Ray Johnson = joseph = fisherman = Louisa = Theresa Heuther = Jason Baccaro = Shemp = marie suraci = Gotananswer = cher stevens = Jenny = David Crawford = Ed Richards

I have begun deleting some of the more insidious messages posted under these names - not all those which express opposing views, but those which are most blatantly hostile against the Holy Catholic Church and the Holy Father.

Moderator

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), May 18, 2003.


Wonderful Paul, thank you!

-- Sara (sara_catholic_forum@yahoo.co.uk), May 18, 2003.

Dear Forum,

It is sad indeed that people find the need to misrepresent themselves, duplicitously, and believe that such behavior is not wrong. They certainly are not behaving as christians if that is what they believe they are.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), May 18, 2003.


Contrary to the teaching of Sacred Scripture, of the Church, of the most holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert "that the best condition of society is the one in which there is no acknowledgment by government of the duty of restraining, by established penalties, offenders of the Catholic religion, except insofar as the public peace demands …… And, from this false idea of social organization they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, especially fatal to the Catholic Church and to the salvation of souls, called, by Our predecessor of recent memory, Gregory XVI, insanity; namely, that "liberty of conscience and of worship is the law in every correctly established society; that the right to all manner of liberty rests in the citizens, not to be restrained by either ecclesiastical or civil authority; and that by this right they can manifest openly and publicly and declare their own concepts, whatever they may be, by voice, by print, or in any other way." While, in truth, they rashly affirm this, they do not understand and note they are preaching a "liberty of perdition," and that "if human opinions always have freedom for discussion, there could never be wanting those who will dare to resist truth, and to trust in the eloquence of human (al. mundane) wisdom, when faith and Christian wisdom know from the very teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ how much it should avoid such harmful vanity." Over and over

This is an official,dogmatic, and binding, teaching of the popes and councils off the Catholic church. If you do not heed it, the problem will be that you are against the dogmas of the Church, and not those who obey the adherence to it. It is plain and unambiguous.

-- Ari (A@whychange.com), May 18, 2003.



You aren't plain. Ari, you are transparent. You dismiss the work of the Holy Spirit as inconsequential. Remember Him, Our Advocate of recent memory?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 18, 2003.

So be it. You have made your choice.

-- Ari (A@whychange.com), May 18, 2003.

There is one curious fact to which I can not refrain from calling attention. No Christian historian, whether Mosheim, Milman, Schaff, or any other, has ever perceived, apparently, the grotesque absurdity of an assembly attempting to decide by vote a fact in the past. Men vote on questions which have yet to be decided, and thus make them facts; as whether this man or that man shall be president, or this law or that shall be in force; but not on those which are already decided. The reader needs to understand that this is just a small representation of the character of the Church councils. If one is honest with oneself then it is almost impossible to read these proceedings and pretend that the Holy Spirit had anything to do the the results of such violent proceedings let alone believe the decisions made as to what was "inspired" have any credibility whatsoever!

-- Ari (A@whychange.com), May 18, 2003.

So, the Bishops of the Holy Catholic Church, meeting in Council at the end of the 4th century, for the purpose of discerning which writings of the first century were truly divinely inspired, was merely a sham?

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), May 18, 2003.

Ari has a strange way of defining heresy, hasn't he/she?

Not heresy, to deny the Holy Spirit acting in and through the legitimate successors to the apostles. Heretical to take a Church Council's reforms as binding on his/her faith. Just a curious fact which Ari could not refrain from calling to attention; his own heresy. Or, hers. Can't tell which.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 18, 2003.



Tradition is alive and well in the Church of our day, Terri. You've fallen for the alarmists. Yes, a Mass in the Tridentine Rite has infinite merit. We have not rejected it. It's the elitist Catholics who reject us. Our love for the Son of God is just as militant as your jealousy for a loving & devout Mass. Today my wife & I assisted at Holy Mass in the vernacular; as you call it, Neo--

We adored Him in His infinite holiness; and received Him in the Holy Eucharist. My neighbors worshipped Our Amighty Father with great devotion and joy. Through Jesus Christ. We prayed the saints and our Holy Mother in heaven's intercession; we recited the Creed with wholehearted faith. We agthered under that roof as one communion. We are all his Church; the flock He loves. We reject no other Catholic assembly.

Can you say you accept me? Did you just say that, in your prior post?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 18, 2003.


To Paul--I believe you are mistaken when it comes to the message and apparition of Fatima. The church has approved of this apparition as it has Lourdes and La Salette. The message is genuine, otherwise how do you explain away the miracle of the sun, seen by over 70,000 people? How do you explain the dancing sun as seen by these people? How do you explain the fact that the ground dried up and all the peoples clothes became dry at the same time, even after raining for some time? Don

-- Don Pennell (dpennell@istar.ca), May 30, 2003.

Dear Don,

I can't really be "mistaken" about the authenticity of the purpoted apparitions at Fatima, since I don't take any firm stance on them one way or the other. Personally I lean in the direction of considering them genuine. However, my point was simply that "approval" of such an event by the Church is merely permission to believe in it, not obligation to do so. Unlike dogmas of the faith, which the Church solemnly declares true and binding on the faithful, no such declaration is ever given concerning a purpoted apparition, or any message reportedly received through such an event. This is "private revelation", and nothing received by way of private revelation is ever binding on the faithful.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), May 30, 2003.


Paul.

"..nothing ever received by way of private revalation is ever binding on the faithful..."

Very well said. Thats why I think when certain well respected forum formites are posting about having over 50 private revalations from Jesus, that they should be confronted about this.(Like Chris Butler has posted about his over 50 private revations a day).

Because if they arn't confronted about these fabrications, than they feed on it and the "fabrications get crazier. Next thing you know they will start posting that they have the stigmatta,(Like Chris Butler has posted)

Do Catholics have a right to question Chris Butler about his "so called" private revalation, or his so called,"stigmatta"? The man has even posted that, "further along in his spritual journey he might get the "visable" wounds, insted of the "invisable wounds" that he now has.

The fact is Paul, that Chrisopher Butler doeesn't have private revaltions fron Jesus,and he doesn't have the stigmatta!

If you arn't a 100 percent believer in Fatima, than you must surely don't believe what Butler has posted about his ,"private revalations", and his "stigmatta".

Chris Butler is a very intelligent man, but he is a sick pup to expect common sense Catholics to believe in his fabrications about a so called "stigmatta", and having over 50 so called "private revalations" a day.

Maybe the devil would like us to believe Chris butler? If we believe in his fabricated nonsense, than whats next?

-- - (.@.....), May 30, 2003.


Oh no, another session of "Chris Butler Bashing." Jump in, with all your multiple personalities.

-- Catherine Ann (catfishbird@yahoo.ca), June 02, 2003.

actually, ive only ever posted under this one name, as any moderator can tell you. the thing is, Butler is a fanatic, taking religious teaching to such an extreme that he would be dangerous in a position of relative power. but hes to rash to gain that authority, the moment anyone criticizes them he personally attacks them.

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), June 02, 2003.

Really? I'm the first to admit that I'm new to this forum, but I've skimmed through a lot of the stuff and I've noticed a pattern:

1. A question is asked. 2. Chris Butler gives a lucid and intelligent explanation of the Church's stand on the issue. 3. Several people come up with their own explanations, condemning Chris's. 4. Chris restates and clarifies his position. 5. The offended people revert to bullying tactics, often coming up with wacko (see above claim) accusations and childish attempts to humiliate him. 6. Someone who agrees with Chris answers the attackers sarcastically. 7. The offended people (usually aliases for a single person) get upset and agree to "leave."

I have yet to see Chris Butler make a serious mistake, attack opposition, or make wild and irrelevant (not to mention irreverant) claims. There is a difference between correction and attack.

The post I was referring to, however, was that posted by "-" (.@...) on May 30. The least they could do would be to back up their claims.

-- Catherine Ann (catfishbird@yahoo.ca), June 03, 2003.


Catherine, That would be David Sullivan. No one knows what motivates him, but it's a free country. Opinions are like black holes in space. Every galaxy has one. Chris has one about his stigmata. David has one every day, about Chris. Very discouraging to witness feeble attempts by one guy to hurt another guy. Like a school playground.

Pray; for the grace of Jesus Christ in our forum.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 03, 2003.


catherine,

perhaps you have not read chris' constitution for the catholic monarchy? he falls far from church teaching and into bigotry in that document. dont try to tell him that though, he'll call you unholy because you dont think that women should be allowed to wear anything but dresses and skirts (which come down nine inches past their knees of course)

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), June 03, 2003.


9 inches? That's an objective standard taught by the Church? I've got to find the link to his site- that's exactly what I'm looking for. Hey, you should have posted this under my question re: modesty.

-- Catherine Ann (catfishbird@yahoo.ca), June 03, 2003.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ