03:46

Priest defends removing ‘pagan’ statues from Rome church

Amazon Synod Statues thrown into Tiber River - Fr. Mark Goring, CC
@mattsixteen24 "Did not St. Paul rebuke Pope St. Peter?"

Sure, but the Church has vastly expanded its traditions and its management practices since then. Such vows did not exist in St. Paul's time and now they do. Which is kind of ironic since as one of your articles itself says, "Catholic Obedience Is Always Obedience Within Tradition". Traditionally those vows have been honoured both to the …More
@mattsixteen24 "Did not St. Paul rebuke Pope St. Peter?"

Sure, but the Church has vastly expanded its traditions and its management practices since then. Such vows did not exist in St. Paul's time and now they do. Which is kind of ironic since as one of your articles itself says, "Catholic Obedience Is Always Obedience Within Tradition". Traditionally those vows have been honoured both to the letter and the spirit by which they were made.

"BXVI is a modernist heretic."
Sheesh, there's no pleasing you. Ratzinger should be right up your alley as a Pope. He was in the Hitlerjugend as a kid. Probably even threw bricks at Jewish shop windows, though he'd never admit it now.
@Ultraviolet I see you're still with your weak ad hominem attacks. That's very charitable of you. "The Church vastly expanded it's tradition and management practices" to where you are obedient to not only error but to a manifest apostate heretic?? When was that "letter and spirit" put in place? "Traditionally those vows have been honoured both to the letter and the spirit by which they were made.…More
@Ultraviolet I see you're still with your weak ad hominem attacks. That's very charitable of you. "The Church vastly expanded it's tradition and management practices" to where you are obedient to not only error but to a manifest apostate heretic?? When was that "letter and spirit" put in place? "Traditionally those vows have been honoured both to the letter and the spirit by which they were made." So St. Paul is not within tradition anymore? Who else is not in tradition anymore from the bible?

You need to worry less about pleasing people and start worrying more about pleasing God.
@mattsixteen24 No, that isn't "ad hominem", Matty. Don't use debating terms you don't fully understand. Technically my comments would be a non sequitur if I was, in fact, actually arguing whether or not "BXVI is a modernist heretic". I wasn't. I was simply expressing surprise that an anti-semite would criticize a Pope who joined the Nazi party in his youth.

As for Paul's rebuke of Peter, you'…More
@mattsixteen24 No, that isn't "ad hominem", Matty. Don't use debating terms you don't fully understand. Technically my comments would be a non sequitur if I was, in fact, actually arguing whether or not "BXVI is a modernist heretic". I wasn't. I was simply expressing surprise that an anti-semite would criticize a Pope who joined the Nazi party in his youth.

As for Paul's rebuke of Peter, you're choosing interpret "tradition" in a way that is, ironically enough, anything but traditional. Nowhere did I posit being obedient "to not only error but to a manifest apostate heretic?" That's a strawman fallacy on your part. Considering we're discussing the refusal of certain priests to openly criticize the Pope that's a slippery slope fallacy as well. Refusing to do something as a way of honoring ones vows of obedience to one's organizational superiors is very different from openly defying them.

This is, in fact, precisely the reasoning certain traditionalist religious groups use to stay in communion with The Church.

"So St. Paul is not within tradition anymore?"
Faulty reasoning on your part, St. Paul did not take vows of Holy Orders as they are worded today. Technically, that's also a fallacious appeal to antiquity. To provide some context of the mistake you're making, people have misused Jesus' attack on the money-lenders to similarly justify whatever violence they're planning.

"You need to worry less about pleasing people and start worrying more about pleasing God."

Advice you'd do well to follow yourself. Will The Almighty truly find all your many hates and spites pleasing unto Him? The fact you're trying to use a Paul, a Jewish-born writer to justify your position is downright amusing. Paul also wrote, "And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity."
@Ultraviolet See definition below and read your last reply again.

The Definition of ad hominem
adj.Attacking a person's character or motivations rather than a position or argument.
adj.Appealing to the emotions rather than to logic or reason.
n.To the man; to the interests or passions of the person.

In response to your second paragraph:
Pope St. Martin I - If anyone does not with mind and lips …More
@Ultraviolet See definition below and read your last reply again.

The Definition of ad hominem
adj.Attacking a person's character or motivations rather than a position or argument.
adj.Appealing to the emotions rather than to logic or reason.
n.To the man; to the interests or passions of the person.

In response to your second paragraph:
Pope St. Martin I - If anyone does not with mind and lips reject and anathematize all abominable heretics together with their impious writings, even to the single least portion, let such a person be condemned. (Canon 18, Lateran Council, DNZ: 271-272)

"fallacious appeal to antiquity"?
It is an error to believe that Christ did not teach a determined body of doctrine applicable to all times and to all men, but rather that He inaugurated a religious movement adapted, or to be adapted, to different times and different places. -Pope St. Pius X

St. Thomas Aquinas
It must be observed, however, that if the faith were endangered, a subject ought to rebuke his prelate even publicly. Hence Paul, who was Peter's subject, rebuked him in public, on account of the imminent danger of scandal concerning faith, and, as the gloss of Augustine says on Galatians 2:11, "Peter gave an example to superiors, that if at any time they should happen to stray from the straight path, they should not disdain to be reproved by their subjects."
www.newadvent.org/summa/3033.htm
@mattsixteen24 ..Your position was (quote) "BXVI is a modernist heretic". I expressed personal surprise that you would take that position because of your repeated anti-Semitism on GTV. No criticism was made of your position on BXVI or your anti-Semitism or of you personally. So, no, ad hominem simply doesn't apply. Try again. ;-)

I do understand the mistake you're making. but I'm going to …More
@mattsixteen24 ..Your position was (quote) "BXVI is a modernist heretic". I expressed personal surprise that you would take that position because of your repeated anti-Semitism on GTV. No criticism was made of your position on BXVI or your anti-Semitism or of you personally. So, no, ad hominem simply doesn't apply. Try again. ;-)

I do understand the mistake you're making. but I'm going to wait until you manage to piece it together for yourself. Or, having realized it, force yourself to publicly admit it simply to continue debating this point. The lesson will be more lasting that way. Don't worry... we'll get there, amigo. I'm just waiting for you to catch up. Meanwhile...

Christ taught us to love our neighbors as our selves and to forgive our enemies seventy times seventy, yes? Fairly safe to say Jesus taught more authoritatively what Christians should do than even a Pope. ...which wonderfully ironic since you then quote another Pope who supports that view.

"It is an error to believe that Christ did not teach a determined body of doctrine applicable to all times and to all men..."

However, nowhere in Christ's teachings did He endorse using violence as a means of persuasion or reproof. --something that sits very badly in your personal theology, I suspect.

"...but rather that He inaugurated a religious movement adapted, or to be adapted, to different times and different places." -Pope St. Pius X

Adapted? By whom, exactly? Vatican Council II? The Amazonian Synod? Pope Francis? Adaptation "to different times and different places" is exactly what's been happening for the past fifty years. We've all seen how that's working for the Church. You really should choose your authoritative quotes more carefully. You're making this too easy tonight. :D

St. Thomas Acquinas was opining at a time prior to the vows taken by modern priests. Even if he were writing in the modern age. Such vows are a condition of priesthood and it's really a matter of honouring what they've sworn on their souls to uphold.

Their vows concerning their personal conduct as priests take precedence over Aquinas' opinion.
@Ultraviolet “The Jews, who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and have persecuted us, do not please God, and they are adversaries to all men, prohibiting us from speaking to the Gentiles that they may be saved, to fill up their sin always: for the wrath of God has come upon them to the end.”
— St. Paul, I Thessalonians 2:14-16

“It would be licit, according to custom, to hold the Jews…More
@Ultraviolet “The Jews, who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and have persecuted us, do not please God, and they are adversaries to all men, prohibiting us from speaking to the Gentiles that they may be saved, to fill up their sin always: for the wrath of God has come upon them to the end.”
— St. Paul, I Thessalonians 2:14-16

“It would be licit, according to custom, to hold the Jews in perpetual servitude because of their crime.”
— St. Thomas Aquinas

"St. Thomas Acquinas was opining at a time prior to the vows taken by modern priests"

SYLLABUS CONDEMNING THE ERRORS OF THE MODERNISTS
59. Christ did not teach a determined body of doctrine applicable to all times and all men, but rather inaugurated a religious movement adapted or to be adapted to different times and places.
CONDEMNED
www.papalencyclicals.net/pius10/p10lamen.htm

@mattsixteen24 Ah, it never takes too much nudging for your mask to fall off, does it? :D Well! If I call you an anti-Semite and you then attempt to defend your anti-Semitism, then no attack has been made. By trying to justify your beliefs, you've admitted to them. Ergo, it wasn't an ad hominem fallacy. It was, if nothing else a factual observation, one you've just corroborated. Again.

More
@mattsixteen24 Ah, it never takes too much nudging for your mask to fall off, does it? :D Well! If I call you an anti-Semite and you then attempt to defend your anti-Semitism, then no attack has been made. By trying to justify your beliefs, you've admitted to them. Ergo, it wasn't an ad hominem fallacy. It was, if nothing else a factual observation, one you've just corroborated. Again.

The justification, of course, fails for an elementary reason. Jesus knows more about being a Christian than Paul. You quote Paul because the Son Of God didn't give you the kind of material that justifies your hate. Funny thing about that. Paul, of course, was writing about the Jews of a particular time and place back in his era.

...and those writings have been gleefully seized upon by every "Christian" anti-Semite ever since. It's like over the centuries your kind have created your own little sect of Christianity that ends up being diametrically opposite to the one that Jew called Jesus originally taught. Jesus kept preaching all that stuff about love and forgiving? Naaaah... Let's just skip that. Look what Paul said! Yeah, that's more like it!

Even Jungerheld was aghast at how un-Christian you actually can get. If he only knew that's just the tip of the iceberg, eh?

The real irony is Saint Paul was born Saul of Tarsus and was, himself, Jewish. Talk about over-compensating. :p

That unhappy little pukey emoji is the closest someone like you can come to conceding a point. Hey, Church's rules... if people can't abide by them, then they shouldn't become priests. Fact is, many devout men can, and do, and stay priests because their theological worldview is just a wee bit more advanced than yours.

You need to get your stories straight. You previously cited the contents of Article 59 in defense of your position -attributing it to a quote from Pope St. Pius X. Now you complain that same statement has been condemned as an error. Don't bother editing your earlier post. I screen capped it for lulz.

Either way, Jesus didn't preach violence and He certainly didn't urge His followers to condemn Jews as "adversaries of all men". Seriously, Matty.. think about this for a second. When it comes to knowing what truly pleases God, who's the real expert, Jesus or Paul? ;-)
@Ultraviolet Christ whipped the jews out of the temple. He called them vipersbroods, thieves, and hypocrites. The jews crucified Christ and they said that Christ's blood be on their children. To be a "jew" is to be antichrist. The talmud mafia's most holy book blasphemes Christ and the BVM. The Fathers, Doctors, Saints, Popes, the Church have been very clear on these enemies of Christ for …More
@Ultraviolet Christ whipped the jews out of the temple. He called them vipersbroods, thieves, and hypocrites. The jews crucified Christ and they said that Christ's blood be on their children. To be a "jew" is to be antichrist. The talmud mafia's most holy book blasphemes Christ and the BVM. The Fathers, Doctors, Saints, Popes, the Church have been very clear on these enemies of Christ for centuries. Yet, modernist beliefs, cowardice, pride, and willful ignorance are displayed with your effeminate inflammatory rhetoric with a faggy wink and a smile. Now, you falsely accuse me of preaching violence. The truth is violent to those who hate it. Screenshot? Do you even read sentences or you do you just jump into a spiteful modernist rant when you see my replies? Those are all condemned propositions. smh. Don't waste my time anymore.
"Christ whipped the jews out of the temple."

Wrong. He whipped the money-lenders out of the temple. Christ didn't whip them for being Jewish. It's also worth remembering it was a Jewish temple and He Himself was a practicing Jew.

Christ was blunt and critical towards the Pharisees because they were constantly trying to trap Him. He wasn't attacking them for their Jewish ancestry or their …More
"Christ whipped the jews out of the temple."

Wrong. He whipped the money-lenders out of the temple. Christ didn't whip them for being Jewish. It's also worth remembering it was a Jewish temple and He Himself was a practicing Jew.

Christ was blunt and critical towards the Pharisees because they were constantly trying to trap Him. He wasn't attacking them for their Jewish ancestry or their beliefs. He preached to untold thousands of Jews and undoubtedly many of them ignored His message and Christ let that slide. He didn't lash out at every Jew who didn't convert on the spot, the way you seem to think.

See? This is what I'm talking about... there's the Gospels and then there's the Anti-Semite's Revised Edition.

"The Fathers, Doctors, Saints, Popes, the Church have been very clear on these enemies of Christ for centuries."

Indeed. Just not the way you'd have everyone believe. Maybe you should review Pope Callixtus II Papal Bull Sicut Judaeis and the doctrine set forth. It was further reaffirmed an reiterated by over a dozen subsequent Popes. But that Church doctrine doesn't fit your version of Catholicism so you do what you always do: remain silent, ignore it.. It's possible to lie by omission, Matty.

Incidentally, slavery has been widely accepted by such authorities, as well. Doesn't mean it's, ipso facto, a good thing. The Church has also apologized for its previous stance towards Judaism. Better check your Catechism on the current official Church position on Judaism, too.

I suppose your slander about homosexuality is a positive sign.

It means we've reached the limits of your theological expertise. It also shows how eager you are to mindlessly repeat the same slander started by the "Latin" GTV crowd. No surprises there. Repeating slander comes naturally to someone like you, doesn't it? It's a reflection of your character or, more precisely, your lack of it.

How does that square with your previous outraged bleating about "weak ad hominem attacks", mattsixteen24 ?? Typical double standards of a moral hypocrite.

"Now, you falsely accuse me of preaching violence."

Wrong. I left a great big banana peel in front of you and you slipped right on it :D :D I was wondering if you'd avoid it, but that's giving you too much credit. Let's recap I originally said, "people have misused Jesus' attack on the money-lenders to similarly justify whatever violence they're planning."

I presented a general example of how the Gospels are misused. Nothing more. No reference was made to what sort of people just love using Christ's single recorded outburst to justify their own violent propensities. You, of course, took it personal and jumped at the chance to defend Christ's attack on "the Jews". Big surprise. It's no secret what modern anti-Semites truly want to do to the Jewish people, even if most of them have learned not to openly admit it.

I even gave you a gentle hint, just to see if you'd recognize the mistake you were going to make. "By trying to justify your beliefs, you've admitted to them." And that still wasn't good enough. Trying to justify violence against Jews is a tacit endorsement of it. Well done, Matty.

"The truth is violent to those who hate it."

Your notion of "truth" is essentially the same as every other bigot's. You filter whatever supports your hate, "re-interpret" whatever doesn't -if you can, and ignore all the rest. That's why you can quote every Hebrew-hating Christian writer from memory but those Church authorities who disagreed never get a mention. Likewise, Christ's repeated exhortations to love others, to forgive them, to do unto others... all that goes right over your head. It doesn't fit with the Gospel of Goebbels taught at the Parish Of The Final Solution.

Wasting your time?

You should be grateful I choose to spend mine trying to help you recognize the sheer enormity of your malignant faux-theology. For me, it's time well spent.

If I succeed, I'll have the satisfaction of winning a soul back to Christ. If I fail, then I can honestly say I tried. Being totally honest, everything that follows couldn't happen to a nicer guy. Best of all, you're going to find your eternal afterlife swarming with the very Jews you despise.
@Ultraviolet Okay judas.... Just remember, your religion is the same as bergoglio, james martins, cupich, and all these other leftist heretical idiots. So stop criticizing them, Hypocrite. "He whipped the money-lenders out of the temple." Who do you think the "money-lenders" are? Antichrist.
@mattsixteen24 So. I see you just reviewed Sicut Judaeis. ;-) Oh dear. That's gotta sting. So now you're down to all you've got left... "Judas", "yer religion is like bergogli," "spiteful modernist rant". All from the dude who sniffed so disdainfully about "weak ad hominem attacks". :P

No, that isn't a "faggy wink and a smile," either. It's hearty guffaw because you just got BTFO.

Truth …More
@mattsixteen24 So. I see you just reviewed Sicut Judaeis. ;-) Oh dear. That's gotta sting. So now you're down to all you've got left... "Judas", "yer religion is like bergogli," "spiteful modernist rant". All from the dude who sniffed so disdainfully about "weak ad hominem attacks". :P

No, that isn't a "faggy wink and a smile," either. It's hearty guffaw because you just got BTFO.

Truth is, pity and fair dealings for the Jews is a very old idea. Popes were promoting it before the Rosary existed as we know it today. Your particular approach is, by contrast, truly quite modern and gained ground only since the 1930s. Who's really the "modernist" here, Matty?

As for you throwing "heresy" at anyone, wow. Check your beliefs against those actually taught by the Catholic Church, why don't you? Don't take my word for it. You want a traditionalist expert opinion? Cool beans. E-mail the theologians at the SSPX or FSSP about the Church's formal position on Judaism. Ask them how devout, traditionally-minded Catholics should treat the Jews. Fair warning, you won't get the Seig-Heil echo chamber you're looking for.

That's the curious thing about "Christian" bigots, Matty. You'll sit here sneering at Pope Francis for being an idiot when your own brand of idiocy is no less extreme. It's just on the other end of the political spectrum. Pope Francis would have the world run by Karl Marx while you'd see it run by the likes of Kevin Alfred Strom and William Luther Pierce. Our current Pontiff's dream has been tried and ended up killing billions. Your own has been tried as well and caused a world war along with a credible seven figure genocide.

What grates on me no end is you're okay with that. That's what galls me about that entire ideology. So long as the people getting wiped out are... gee, who don't you want dead, really? Every time you get going on GTV, your hate-list runs to pretty much everyone who doesn't agree exactly with you on all points. Secondary, of course, to your pet bogeyman, the same bogeyman guys like you always fixate on. It's one of the clearest symptoms of that particular illness.

Yes, the Jews have denied Christ and Christ was explicit about the penalties for denying Him..

And?

So have the Buddhists, and the Sikhs, and the Jains, and those silly neo-pagans who wear Thor's hammers and listen to metal music from Norway. But they don't merit that same particular molar-grinding fixation of yours, do they? Funny thing about that. ;-)

Edit/ Postscript: In the future, please don't send me whiney little messages when you "don't wish to be contacted". To answer the point you raised, none of those are my friends. My "friends" are reason, history, google, yandex and the four of them just got through curb-stomping the ever-loving stuffing out of your position. Again. .
@Ultraviolet XD In your mind you think you're right, which is very sad. Gross exagerations about violence against the jews. The only violence against the jews is when they go to hell like yourself for being a judaizer. Are you a male or female? Seriously? You lost in the beginning because ,uh insults are not arguments and you're obviously motivated by hatred of me. What is really sad and …More
@Ultraviolet XD In your mind you think you're right, which is very sad. Gross exagerations about violence against the jews. The only violence against the jews is when they go to hell like yourself for being a judaizer. Are you a male or female? Seriously? You lost in the beginning because ,uh insults are not arguments and you're obviously motivated by hatred of me. What is really sad and sickening is that you get a rise out of insulting people.
Seriously? Why should you care, mattsixteen24. You "don't wish to be contacted" remember?

We've already discussed "insults are not arguments" you blew that one already and now it's just argumentum ad nauseam.

And, no, I'm not motivated by hatred.

That's your bag. You're all about hating somebody, everybody who isn't goose-stepping a stiff-armed salute past your reviewing stand with …More
Seriously? Why should you care, mattsixteen24. You "don't wish to be contacted" remember?

We've already discussed "insults are not arguments" you blew that one already and now it's just argumentum ad nauseam.

And, no, I'm not motivated by hatred.

That's your bag. You're all about hating somebody, everybody who isn't goose-stepping a stiff-armed salute past your reviewing stand with the crematoria chimneys smoking in the background.

Truly, what I feel for you is a kind of amused contempt. It's tempered by pity because you're not an effective debator and you're arguing from a position of both logical and factual, weakness. That's a losing combination even on a good day.
@Ultraviolet You keep contacting me remember? Now what are you? Are you a male or female?
@mattsixteen24 I've never once contacted you. Privately? Through the messaging system the way you did earlier? Nope. Likewise, I've never blocked you (or anyone else for that matter.) I don't need to and I never will. ;-)

As for anything else, well, it's clear you don't have anything worth discussing on Paul rebuking Peter, keeping the vows of Holy Orders, the Church's teachings on charity, …More
@mattsixteen24 I've never once contacted you. Privately? Through the messaging system the way you did earlier? Nope. Likewise, I've never blocked you (or anyone else for that matter.) I don't need to and I never will. ;-)

As for anything else, well, it's clear you don't have anything worth discussing on Paul rebuking Peter, keeping the vows of Holy Orders, the Church's teachings on charity, the Church's teachings regarding Judaism, or anything else intellectually productive. Seems now you've lapsed back to a literally "ad hominem" fixation on little ole' me.

Again, why should you care? Besides, my ego is already large enough that it affects the rotation of the planet. NASA has been factoring in its mass when planning space launches for almost a decade now. You're not helping here. :D
I'd sure like to know who wanted them there in the first place. Who brought them, who thought it was appropriate, a good idea? I'm sure acceptance goes "way back" in the time that representatives of the Catholic Church have been in this Amazonian region.
Susi 47 likes this.
Susi 47
I acuse bischop kräutler cleaned out his garbage
And thought
Where could i recycle this woodblocks only?
And then the amazonas synode came
Its a lie btw
To name this synode amazonas
If its in roma
Maybe rename it tibersynode?
@Ultraviolet Did not St. Paul rebuke Pope St. Peter?

Read: Article 4. Whether a man is bound to correct his prelate?
www.newadvent.org/summa/3033.htm

There is obedience and there is False obedience.
www.catholicapologetics.info/…/obediance.htm

BXVI is a modernist heretic.
www.traditioninaction.org/religious/i043_Hyprocrisy.htm
www.traditioninaction.org/…/A272rcBlessedRa…
www.traditioninac…More
advoluntas@aol.com likes this.
"Where is the rebuke of Francis?" - @mattsixteen24

Silence is, as Umberto Eco famously wrote, "both pious and prudent" Same reason the crticism from the FSSP is so deafeningly absent . Priests are sworn to poverty chastity and obedience. He can't openly mouth off against the Pope.

"Charismatics are not Catholic."

Last umpteen Popes disagree, Benedict XVI included.

Always nice to see your …More
"Where is the rebuke of Francis?" - @mattsixteen24

Silence is, as Umberto Eco famously wrote, "both pious and prudent" Same reason the crticism from the FSSP is so deafeningly absent . Priests are sworn to poverty chastity and obedience. He can't openly mouth off against the Pope.

"Charismatics are not Catholic."

Last umpteen Popes disagree, Benedict XVI included.

Always nice to see your Christian sense of charity in action, though. Flippancy aside, you do have your good points, Matty.

Every time I see one of those silly self-promoting "Unite The Clans" guys prattling how we can all just casually put aside our minor theological differences and focus on the big picture, all I have to do is think of you.
advoluntas@aol.com likes this.
Where are the other brave Catholic priests? None?
God bless Fr Goring!
St Michael the Archangel defend us in battle
Hugh N. Cry likes this.
advoluntas@aol.com and one more user like this.
advoluntas@aol.com likes this.
kobotom likes this.
aderito
Mattsixteen24 ,Why are you calling this priest a heretic ,?are you catholic ?
hitherto likes this.
@aderito Charismatics are not Catholic. Have you ever seen a Charismatic "mass"? It is basically Pentacostalism that is allowed in the Church, a product of Vatican II. It's heretical garbage and this man was the director at a Charismatic center. Hence why he sounds like a protestant. "Catholic" Charismatic Movement is not Catholic
aderito likes this.
Where is the rebuke of Francis? And this man is a charismatic (Heretic).