|
Post by antonio on Jul 22, 2018 6:35:01 GMT
No. It is a danger but not imminent. Shows you are not in touch with the crisis or have an agenda of your own. Given we are currently in a crisis in the Church, and the urgency of various aspects varies with the time frame of each aspect. When a man is facing imminent death, that would be an emergency. In that case, imminent could mean in the next minute, or in the next day, or in the next week, or in the next month. It depends on the circumstances. For Archbishop Lefebvre, he made a momentous decision to consecrate not one but four bishops without a papal mandate, in 1988. He did that on the basis that there was a necessity to do so. It could be said it was also a state of emergency. The emergency aspect comes not from there being an imminent danger in the next minute or day or week or month. The imminent danger was in the next year, or decade, or century. How could danger in the next century be "imminent?" The danger can be imminent and therefore an emergency when it is in the next century when it would become decisive, when an action not done now would have consequences 100 years from now. ABL could see in 1988 that Newrome was waiting for him to die, after which time he would no longer be able to consecrate a new bishop. And if he did not do the consecration, he would leave the future of the Traditional Catholic Church up for grabs, very likely putting its preservation in peril since Newrome has managed to suppress by force (even though Vat.II denounced coercion with the strongest terms) all of Catholic Tradition, especially in the Mass and sacraments, but also in doctrine.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2018 6:38:35 GMT
Society and government is a created thing God gave men allowing us to govern ourselves in the free will he gave us to hold the laws he gave us (read the Old Testament). So it is up to us to make an effort to seek him and do his will. Expecting a miracle is a protestant charismatic thing being a sin of presumption; every time. It makes man as king telling God what he wants...and pouts when they do not get it.
This crisis and any crisis can be over in two seconds by a change of will and re-governed back to God's law. Crisis over; done. The problem is ourselves mismanaging our free will leading only to ourselves instead of the Glory of God.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2018 6:52:08 GMT
Shows you are not in touch with the crisis or have an agenda of your own. Given we are currently in a crisis in the Church, and the urgency of various aspects varies with the time frame of each aspect. When a man is facing imminent death, that would be an emergency. In that case, imminent could mean in the next minute, or in the next day, or in the next week, or in the next month. It depends on the circumstances. For Archbishop Lefebvre, he made a momentous decision to consecrate not one but four bishops without a papal mandate, in 1988. He did that on the basis that there was a necessity to do so. It could be said it was also a state of emergency. The emergency aspect comes not from there being an imminent danger in the next minute or day or week or month. The imminent danger was in the next year, or decade, or century. How could danger in the next century be "imminent?" The danger can be imminent and therefore an emergency when it is in the next century when it would become decisive, when an action not done now would have consequences 100 years from now. ABL could see in 1988 that Newrome was waiting for him to die, after which time he would no longer be able to consecrate a new bishop. And if he did not do the consecration, he would leave the future of the Traditional Catholic Church up for grabs, very likely putting its preservation in peril since Newrome has managed to suppress by force (even though Vat.II denounced coercion with the strongest terms) all of Catholic Tradition, especially in the Mass and sacraments, but also in doctrine. Imminent is not how man sees it in his view, it is how the Church see it in Her view.
Placing imminent in man's time as "in the next minute" or "in a century" is not relative. Imminent is the Church's view in seeing the millions of souls every day in need of priests and graces when these bishops are in refusal and sin. So imminent is not singular in view of the Church; it is a plural imminent with souls dying every other minute in the world clock as souls are born in the world clock needing baptism, marriages, all the sacraments everyone complains about when they do not get their mass. Yet, these bishops sit on their laurels while the million of souls suffer at their feet...and still do not get their mass.
Remember, this OP disclosed Bishop Williamson and the other three bishops refusal to give conditional ordination to a ready priest. What does that priest do now? Sit around and watch people die when he could help them?
See now how it is an emergency and "imminent" is in the view of the Church?
This is not a political answer some would like it to be. Go tell all those souls who died without the graces when these bishops could provide more priests and WONT. And they claim they are of a "priestly order"? Shame!
|
|
|
Post by antonio on Jul 22, 2018 7:10:38 GMT
I understand machbees is trying to say two things. 1 the sacraments come from the church not the priests or the bishops. 2 there is a sspx or feminate traditional cult in peoples mind and the church does not exist outside of it and God cant provide outside those betrayers. so your stuck. Church cant grow. Its done. So is that an emergancy? Do you look outside that cult for God's answer or stay stupid and compliant? It doesnt matter if it is +ambrose or some other valid bishop. Your contention overall is it must be from the sspx cult betrayers. Objectivity means nothing. Would it be too much to ask, jonathan, for you to use apostrophes appropriately? Do you know how to use them, or are you simply too dense to learn? Because your penchant for omitting them makes your posts really look like you are of a lower intelligence. It takes away from your credibility, FYI. Examples: Incorrect: there is a sspx or feminate traditional cult in peoples mind and the church does not exist outside of it and God cant provide outside those betrayers. Correct: There is an SSPX or an effeminate traditional cult in people's minds, and the Church does not exist outside of it; and God can't provide outside those betrayers. So if that is what you were trying to say, okay, but even in the second version, I'm not quite sure I know what you mean to say. It would seem that you think that an SSPX or an effeminate traditional cult (?) in people's minds constitutes "betrayers." Is that accurate? Then you have, "so your stuck." By which I must presume that you meant to write, "So, you're stuck." Because the former is meaningless, and the latter is not. When you write "your stuck" you are saying that "stuck" is something that belongs to "you." Like your car, your money, your reputation, your stuck. Get it? Then you have, "Church cant grow." Which is nonsense, unless you meant to write, "The Church can't grow." Which makes sense. Spot the difference? FYI cant is a kind of gradient-inducing device used in roofing to help water drain more reliably. So Church cant grow would mean, well, never mind. Then you have, "Its done." More nonsense, unless you simply left out the apostrophe: "It's done" which now has meaning while "Its done" has no meaning. The word "Its" is the possessive case of "It." That is, something belongs to "It." And that something is given by the next word. Such as "Its color" or "Its size" or "Its frequency" or "Its usefulness." But "done" is not such an object. That is, if what you wrote here had a meaning, it would be, "done" is some object that belongs to "It," like, "Its conclusion" or "Its progress" or "Its relevance" or "Its done." Get it?
|
|
|
Post by antonio on Jul 22, 2018 7:15:37 GMT
Given we are currently in a crisis in the Church, and the urgency of various aspects varies with the time frame of each aspect. When a man is facing imminent death, that would be an emergency. In that case, imminent could mean in the next minute, or in the next day, or in the next week, or in the next month. It depends on the circumstances. For Archbishop Lefebvre, he made a momentous decision to consecrate not one but four bishops without a papal mandate, in 1988. He did that on the basis that there was a necessity to do so. It could be said it was also a state of emergency. The emergency aspect comes not from there being an imminent danger in the next minute or day or week or month. The imminent danger was in the next year, or decade, or century. How could danger in the next century be "imminent?" The danger can be imminent and therefore an emergency when it is in the next century when it would become decisive, when an action not done now would have consequences 100 years from now. ABL could see in 1988 that Newrome was waiting for him to die, after which time he would no longer be able to consecrate a new bishop. And if he did not do the consecration, he would leave the future of the Traditional Catholic Church up for grabs, very likely putting its preservation in peril since Newrome has managed to suppress by force (even though Vat.II denounced coercion with the strongest terms) all of Catholic Tradition, especially in the Mass and sacraments, but also in doctrine. Imminent is not how man sees it in his view, it is how the Church see it in Her view.
Placing imminent in man's time as "in the next minute" or "in a century" is not relative. Imminent is the Church's view in seeing the millions of souls every day in need of priests and graces when these bishops are in refusal and sin. So imminent is not singular in view of the Church; it is a plural imminent with souls dying every other minute in the world clock as souls are born in the world clock needing baptism, marriages, all the sacraments everyone complains about when they do not get their mass. Yet, these bishops sit on their laurels while the million of souls suffer at their feet...and still do not get their mass.
Remember, this OP disclosed Bishop Williamson and the other three bishops refusal to give conditional ordination to a ready priest. What does that priest do now? Sit around and watch people die when he could help them?
See now how it is an emergency and "imminent" is in the view of the Church?
This is not a political answer some would like it to be. Go tell all those souls who died without the graces when these bishops could provide more priests and WONT. And they claim they are of a "priestly order"? Shame! They WONT as in they are wont to provide? They are wont to refrain? Or did you neglect the apostrophe, again, like +W neglected to conditionally ordain a ready priest? Or did you mean to write, "...could provide more priests and WON'T." . . . No? Maybe "all those souls" had Confession of desire, and Eucharist of desire, and Extreme Unction of desire, so what's the problem? How could there be any "emergency" when all the soul needs, really, is perfect contrition, which is a dime a dozen apparently, and all's good?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2018 7:20:14 GMT
Imminent is not how man sees it in his view, it is how the Church see it in Her view.
Placing imminent in man's time as "in the next minute" or "in a century" is not relative. Imminent is the Church's view in seeing the millions of souls every day in need of priests and graces when these bishops are in refusal and sin. So imminent is not singular in view of the Church; it is a plural imminent with souls dying every other minute in the world clock as souls are born in the world clock needing baptism, marriages, all the sacraments everyone complains about when they do not get their mass. Yet, these bishops sit on their laurels while the million of souls suffer at their feet...and still do not get their mass.
Remember, this OP disclosed Bishop Williamson and the other three bishops refusal to give conditional ordination to a ready priest. What does that priest do now? Sit around and watch people die when he could help them?
See now how it is an emergency and "imminent" is in the view of the Church?
This is not a political answer some would like it to be. Go tell all those souls who died without the graces when these bishops could provide more priests and WONT. And they claim they are of a "priestly order"? Shame! Maybe "all those souls" had Confession of desire, and Eucharist of desire, and Extreme Unction of desire, so what's the problem? How could there be any "emergency" when all the soul needs, really, is perfect contrition, which is a dime a dozen apparently, and all's good? That would be a sin of presumption.
|
|
|
Post by antonio on Jul 22, 2018 7:22:32 GMT
Maybe "all those souls" had Confession of desire, and Eucharist of desire, and Extreme Unction of desire, so what's the problem? How could there be any "emergency" when all the soul needs, really, is perfect contrition, which is a dime a dozen apparently, and all's good? That would be a sin of presumption. A dying person having perfect contrition is the sin of presumption? Are you making this up? Who's teaching is this?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2018 7:26:40 GMT
I understand machbees is trying to say two things. 1 the sacraments come from the church not the priests or the bishops. 2 there is a sspx or feminate traditional cult in peoples mind and the church does not exist outside of it and God cant provide outside those betrayers. so your stuck. Church cant grow. Its done. So is that an emergancy? Do you look outside that cult for God's answer or stay stupid and compliant? It doesnt matter if it is +ambrose or some other valid bishop. Your contention overall is it must be from the sspx cult betrayers. Objectivity means nothing. Would it be too much to ask, jonathan, for you to use apostrophes appropriately? Do you know how to use them, or are you simply too dense to learn? Because your penchant for omitting them makes your posts really look like you are of a lower intelligence. It takes away from your credibility, FYI. Examples: Incorrect: there is a sspx or feminate traditional cult in peoples mind and the church does not exist outside of it and God cant provide outside those betrayers. Correct: There is an SSPX or an effeminate traditional cult in people's minds, and the Church does not exist outside of it; and God can't provide outside those betrayers. So if that is what you were trying to say, okay, but even in the second version, I'm not quite sure I know what you mean to say. It would seem that you think that an SSPX or an effeminate traditional cult (?) in people's minds constitutes "betrayers." Is that accurate? Then you have, "so your stuck." By which I must presume that you meant to write, "So, you're stuck." Because the former is meaningless, and the latter is not. When you write "your stuck" you are saying that "stuck" is something that belongs to "you." Like your car, your money, your reputation, your stuck. Get it? Then you have, "Church cant grow." Which is nonsense, unless you meant to write, "The Church can't grow." Which makes sense. Spot the difference? FYI cant is a kind of gradient-inducing device used in roofing to help water drain more reliably. So Church cant grow would mean, well, never mind. Then you have, "Its done." More nonsense, unless you simply left out the apostrophe: "It's done" which now has meaning while "Its done" has no meaning. The word "Its" is the possessive case of "It." That is, something belongs to "It." And that something is given by the next word. Such as "Its color" or "Its size" or "Its frequency" or "Its usefulness." But "done" is not such an object. That is, if what you wrote here had a meaning, it would be, "done" is some object that belongs to "It," like, "Its conclusion" or "Its progress" or "Its relevance" or "Its done." Get it? Are you Neil Obstat from cathinfo?
If you look at the delivery of jonathan's posts, it shows it was done via mobile. Please give others a break. We are here for the honor of God and provide information not a college test.
|
|
|
Post by antonio on Jul 22, 2018 7:26:41 GMT
Given we are currently in a crisis in the Church, and the urgency of various aspects varies with the time frame of each aspect. When a man is facing imminent death, that would be an emergency. In that case, imminent could mean in the next minute, or in the next day, or in the next week, or in the next month. It depends on the circumstances. For Archbishop Lefebvre, he made a momentous decision to consecrate not one but four bishops without a papal mandate, in 1988. He did that on the basis that there was a necessity to do so. It could be said it was also a state of emergency. The emergency aspect comes not from there being an imminent danger in the next minute or day or week or month. The imminent danger was in the next year, or decade, or century. How could danger in the next century be "imminent?" The danger can be imminent and therefore an emergency when it is in the next century when it would become decisive, when an action not done now would have consequences 100 years from now. ABL could see in 1988 that Newrome was waiting for him to die, after which time he would no longer be able to consecrate a new bishop. And if he did not do the consecration, he would leave the future of the Traditional Catholic Church up for grabs, very likely putting its preservation in peril since Newrome has managed to suppress by force (even though Vat.II denounced coercion with the strongest terms) all of Catholic Tradition, especially in the Mass and sacraments, but also in doctrine. Imminent is not how man sees it in his view, it is how the Church see it in Her view.
When did you become the authority on how the Church sees things in Her view?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2018 7:31:14 GMT
That would be a sin of presumption. A dying person having perfect contrition is the sin of presumption? Are you making this up? Who's teaching is this? YOU are making a sin of presumption. Please have consideration on this forum in what you say than the jansenism of others having a [sin] of grammatical error. Grammatical error doesn't matter. We are Catholic and forgiving. It is the message that is important.
|
|
|
Post by antonio on Jul 22, 2018 7:32:50 GMT
Would it be too much to ask, jonathan, for you to use apostrophes appropriately? Do you know how to use them, or are you simply too dense to learn? Because your penchant for omitting them makes your posts really look like you are of a lower intelligence. It takes away from your credibility, FYI. Examples: Incorrect: there is a sspx or feminate traditional cult in peoples mind and the church does not exist outside of it and God cant provide outside those betrayers. Correct: There is an SSPX or an effeminate traditional cult in people's minds, and the Church does not exist outside of it; and God can't provide outside those betrayers. So if that is what you were trying to say, okay, but even in the second version, I'm not quite sure I know what you mean to say. It would seem that you think that an SSPX or an effeminate traditional cult (?) in people's minds constitutes "betrayers." Is that accurate? Then you have, "so your stuck." By which I must presume that you meant to write, "So, you're stuck." Because the former is meaningless, and the latter is not. When you write "your stuck" you are saying that "stuck" is something that belongs to "you." Like your car, your money, your reputation, your stuck. Get it? Then you have, "Church cant grow." Which is nonsense, unless you meant to write, "The Church can't grow." Which makes sense. Spot the difference? FYI cant is a kind of gradient-inducing device used in roofing to help water drain more reliably. So Church cant grow would mean, well, never mind. Then you have, "Its done." More nonsense, unless you simply left out the apostrophe: "It's done" which now has meaning while "Its done" has no meaning. The word "Its" is the possessive case of "It." That is, something belongs to "It." And that something is given by the next word. Such as "Its color" or "Its size" or "Its frequency" or "Its usefulness." But "done" is not such an object. That is, if what you wrote here had a meaning, it would be, "done" is some object that belongs to "It," like, "Its conclusion" or "Its progress" or "Its relevance" or "Its done." Get it? Are you Neil Obstat from cathinfo?
If you look at the delivery of jonathan's posts, it shows it was done via mobile. Please give others a break. We are here for the honor of God and provide information not a college test.
What's cathinfo? I don't use a mobile so I wouldn't have any idea what's involved. Is it too much trouble to insert an apostrophe with a mobile? Or is it just not important to some, like using "u" instead of spelling out "you" or "ur" instead of spelling out "your?" I see a lot of corruption creeping into language because of texting, and maybe I'm just going to have to eat it, I don't know. But it's not any improvement, that's for sure.
|
|
|
Post by antonio on Jul 22, 2018 7:34:43 GMT
A dying person having perfect contrition is the sin of presumption? Are you making this up? Who's teaching is this? YOU are making a sin of presumption. Please have consideration on this forum in what you say than the jansenism of others having a [sin] of grammatical error. Grammatical error doesn't matter. We are Catholic and forgiving. It is the message that is important. Now you have become the expert on what my sins are? Where did I even vaguely IMPLY that leaving out apostrophes is a "sin?" Read what I said -- it makes the post look stupid -- it makes the post difficult to understand. Is that what is "a sin" to you? Can you explain please, Most Authoritative One, how baptism of desire is then not a "sin of presumption?"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2018 7:35:51 GMT
Imminent is not how man sees it in his view, it is how the Church see it in Her view.
When did you become the authority on how the Church sees things in Her view? Seriously? You didn't get the context? Did the grammar through you off?
Antonio, please take a break. This is not a forum like the pits of cathinfo for this kind of rat-tag. Do it elsewhere. We are about Catholic information and the spirit of the Church not this spirit of animosity you are importing.
|
|
|
Post by antonio on Jul 22, 2018 7:38:27 GMT
When did you become the authority on how the Church sees things in Her view? Seriously? You didn't get the context? Did the grammar through you off?
Antonio, please take a break. This is not a forum like the pits of cathinfo for this kind of rat-tag. Do it elsewhere. We are about Catholic information and the spirit of the Church not this spirit of animosity you are importing.
What is this cathinfo you keep harping about? Sounds like something that might be interesting. How does grammar through off anything? It would seem you have nothing to do but render instant responses like instagram or something. Are you addicted to social media like that? Maybe that's YOUR sin!!
|
|
|
Post by antonio on Jul 22, 2018 7:46:13 GMT
A dying person having perfect contrition is the sin of presumption? Are you making this up? Who's teaching is this? YOU are making a sin of presumption. Please have consideration on this forum in what you say than the jansenism of others having a [sin] of grammatical error. Grammatical error doesn't matter. We are Catholic and forgiving. It is the message that is important. Okay, so grammatical and punctuation errors have no place in REAL Catholicism. It's far better for your posts to remain infallibly incomprehensible. Fine. You have to be an ESL dropout to qualify as a REAL Catholic, and the other guys are "betrayers" apparently, as seen above. Got it. Can I quote you on that? ESL means English as a Second Language, in case you didn't know.
|
|