Registered: 1225682045 Posts: 585
Reply with quote #61
My apologies, its just that you do not seem quite specific in your meaning. Is it that the Church is not monarchial in it's trappings, or in terms of power, or in the perception of modern society?
Originally Posted by
DeMaistre I thought that Hans Kung was officially a heretic. My point is not the Pope himself, but the whole hierarchy of the Church in general. Can anyone deny that the Catholic Church is no longer perceived by the majority of the populace to be the towering power that it used to be, but rather a feel-good institution that promotes "peace" and "justice" and supports the New World Order (i.e., UN)? More later, I apologise if I seem to be avoiding the question. The Church was going the way you describe long before the 1960s. To the outside world it still tends to be this tyrannical institution whose aims are to oppress women, gays and ban condoms. Within, it is true many in the hierarchy wish to make the Church out to be just the sort of thing you describe- a glorified charity- but thankfully it is clear that this is dying out with the hippies themselves. But that is niether here or there when it comes to your question. Being a "towering power" doesnt make something a monarchy either. I suppose what I should be asking is, what made the Church a monarchy then and what makes it a republic now?
Registered: 1238813128 Posts: 165
Reply with quote #62
Very interesting, my apologies, I have no more time tonight. I shall see you gentlemen another day. Good night and good luck.
__________________ Benedict XV - Benedict XVI - Pretenders to the Papal Throne
St. Pius V - Greatest monarch to ever grace this earth
Registered: 1500323895 Posts: 3
Reply with quote #63
Originally Posted by
BaronVonServers I think you've got the filter in backwards. Rome declares me bound for hell because I don't accept everything they require. I don't return the favour. I have never said nor implied that being in Communion with (or faithful to) the Bishop of Rome "necessitates rebellion against anything of God". I don't buy the 'papal supremacy' line. I don't buy the 'sinless Mary' line. I don't but the 'my way is The Way (and communion with me is necessary for salvation' line. The things about which I disagree are to my mind minor errors, the touch not the core of the faith. In the view of Rome, they must be accepted to gain salvation, but in my view it is not necessary for them to be denied to be saved. Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the Second Person of the Most Holy and Blessed Trinity?
Registered: 1217151204 Posts: 6,865
Reply with quote #64
Sadly, the good Baron has not been around here for quite a while, and I think it unlikely that he will return to answer your question. I can though answer for him with entire confidence: yes, he does so believe.
Registered: 1520974156 Posts: 2
Reply with quote #65
I agree 100%, but the modern Church in Rome today is not the actual Catholic Church. Instead, it is a counter Church that purports to be Catholic but is actually not. Just as our Lady said at La Sallet in 1846 Rome has lost the faith and become the seat of the antichrist. "Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the anti-christ." More information on this can be found here http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/vatican-ii-exposed/#.WqhCBmhKu00