Fight the Good Fight

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

71 Responses to Fight the Good Fight

  1. Toad says:

    Splendid stuff.
    (Didn’t know Voris was an Old Etonian, but it explains a lot.)

    Just what the world needs – more bloodthirsty military imagery of fighting, and killing, and beating the bad guys.
    Whatever became of turning the other cheek? Obsolete, like battleships, battleaxes and ‘chivalry’, I suppose.

    But, never mind that, Toad was impressed by St. Paul’s words: ”I’ve fought the good fight…. Now the victor’s crown awaits me.”
    True in his case no doubt, but surely the most blatant example of presumption imaginable?
    …Which Toad was taught was one of only two unforgivable sins?*
    But that can’t be right. can it? So,,,

    *Despair.

    Like

  2. Frere Rabit says:

    How fitting that the first response to Michael Voris’s rallying call should be Toad with his usual cynical ramblings. No “bloodthirsty military imagery” here, Toad. You imagined it.

    Any attempt by Catholics to stand firm and counter the disastrous secularism of the age will be challenged by the siren voices of dissent. Rather makes Voris’s point, doesn’t it, Toad?

    Like

  3. Toad says:

    Well, that’s we on CP&S have these friendly exchanges, isn’t it, Rabit?
    To air our respective points of view.
    If it makes Voris’s case, that’s good, isn’t it?

    Like

  4. johnhenrycn says:

    Is this video any good? No time to watch it. I’m all for “bloodthirsty military imagery” when it comes to defending the Faith. So long as it’s imagery. Onward Christian Soldiers and all that. Just this hour finished a rip roaring novel about 1812-13 naval warfare, which the good guys won – the final sentence of which reads: “The joyful Surprise, God and Mary be with her.”

    Like

  5. johnhenrycn says:

    Actually, rather than watching Mr. Voris, OE, swing his pen in circles for six minutes, I’d rather watch the Mormon Tabernacle Choir sing the The Battle Hymn for five:

    Like

  6. johnhenrycn says:

    When I refer to “Mr. Voris, OE”, I’m assuming Toad knows what he’s talking about, when he says that he (Voris, not Toad) is an “Old Etonian”. More fool me? Reflecting on that assertion, it doesn’t seem at all likely, but perhaps Toad can clarify.

    Like

  7. Toad says:

    Just an inane Toad reference to Mr, Voris’s tie, JH.
    Which, to be truthful, (and Toad never lies, except occasionally about important things like ties) is not really all that much like the Old Etonian one, which has a single pale blue stripe on a dark blue background.

    As a matter of snobbish interest though, any man seen wearing such a O.E. tie will almost certainly not have gone to ‘School’ himself.
    Because, if he had, he wouldn’t need to advertise it.
    So, they are often worn by gossip columnists. And the like.
    Off topic, big time!

    Like

  8. Toad says:

    Toad must point out to Rabit – who was clearly gazing out of the geography room window and not listening (50 lines, that boy!) – that near the end of the video, at just about the 5-minute mark, Voris asks rhetorically ”…how bloodthirsty* would a soldier guaranteed victory be ? He would rush into battle and not hesitate and he would stand victorious over the corpse of his enemy..” (Possibly whistling The Battle Hymn of the Republic as he did so.)
    That strikes Toad as a reasonable example of ‘bloodthirsty,’ imagery but then he does not teach Eng. Lit. to the Lower Third.
    So has no comparable yardstick.

    *Voris himself uses the word.

    Like

  9. Frere Rabit says:

    OK, so Voris himself uses the word “bloodthirsty” and the entire last part of his video is filled with bloodthirsty military imagery. Rabit is wrong and Toad is right, and Rabit is happy to concede that for once, Toad’s inane nonsense contained a relevant fact 🙂

    Prolly Rabit was not paying attention and missed this while puzzling over what sort of hat would suit the Blessed Virgin Mary in the role of a “twelve star general”, as Voris called her. Powerful stuff.

    Like

  10. Toad says:

    Very gracefully put, Rabit.
    More gracefully than Toad deserves.
    er,,,that’s it.

    Like

  11. kathleen says:

    Toad,

    Michael Voris was using METAPHORS to get his message across. Surely you’ve used the odd metaphor from time to time, haven’t you? Is the idea really so out-of-the-ordinary for you?
    And it is precisely this modern way of talking nowadays, all toned down to be ‘nice’, which many traditional Catholics complain has feminised the Church, and turned many of our young men away! (Btw, this has not happened in the Orthodox Church). No, let’s talk about these things as a battle, because that is exactly what they are – a battle between Good and Evil.

    Bl. Pope John Paul II is quoted as saying “row into the deep” (two metaphors there already), and naturally to do so one would need a ‘ship’ (the Catholic Church). Battle (spiritual battle, naturally) out in ‘rough waters’ (sinful, challenging situations, that abound in today’s world), ‘armed’ (with the virtues) and the ‘sword’ (the Truth: teachings of the Church) and ‘shield’ (prayer, sacraments and rosary)….. a man (or woman) is prepared to ‘fight the good fight’.

    I’m signing on! And so should you Toad! Our Blessed Lord said: “He who is not with Me, is against Me.”

    Like

  12. Frere Rabit says:

    Indeed, he who is not against me is prolly with me as well, or at best just having a laugh and not doing too much damage.

    Rabit is now fully involved in the promotional material for Michael Voris’s visit to Spain in the autumn. http://brotherlapin.wordpress.com/2013/06/27/michael-voris-promotional-video/

    Like

  13. Toad says:

    It’s just that there are metaphors and metaphors, Kathleen. (Oh really, Toad?)

    You will notice, however, if you carefully re-read my original comment, that nowhere do I raise the smallest smidgeon of objection to Voris’s bloodthirsty metaphors, indeed i suggested that it is all ‘splendid stuff,’ which it certainly is.
    When we use aggressive metaphors, we generally provoke an aggressive response, which is what we want, and expect.
    Nothing wrong with a bit of aggression. Ask any fanatical Muslim. He will agree.

    Because what this feminine, girly old world needs, as you so rightly point out – is more masculine, manly aggression.

    And also because, just like Mr. Voris , Toad is greatly in favour of getting his retaliation in first. It seldom fails

    It seems to me the early Christians went in for submission. And ended up lion fodder.
    So that clearly didn’t work. They should have got aggressive with the lions. Kicked them about a bit.

    Now what about Saint Paul’s presumed ‘presumption,’? What’s up with that?
    You will be able to answer me, and as aggressively as you please.

    Like

  14. Tiddles says:

    Mr Rabit; you say you will help with Mr Voris’s visit to Spain. He is as he says a militant. Browsing here some time ago I noticed that you mentioned your disposition towards rightwing thought and Fascism, which you discussed in a bar near you.

    Would you mind clarifying your thoughts on such political views and if you find them compatible with your faith? I offer no comment here, but simply enquire.Thank you.

    Like

  15. Tiddles says:

    Kathleen, you complain that the Church has been ‘feminised’, which suggests that you saw it as masculine and that ‘feminine’ is less agreeable than masculine.

    I am so surprised to read this, especially from a woman. You may find that there are other reasons that young men have turned away from the Church, and that you would be better to to look elsewhere for causes. I have never ever heard anyone, male or female complain that the Church is girly and that they prefer, say, Islam, which as unpleasantly masculine as one could find.

    Really, Kathleen!

    Like

  16. Frere Rabit says:

    Tiddles, I don’t know if you took the trouble to click on my video link, but if you did you will see two minutes footage of a man with a mop on his head, talking to donkeys. This could be seen by some as satire. Or it might be interpreted by others as mindless juvenile trivia. What is surprising is that anyone might see it as serious political comment. I hope this “clarifies” my views sufficiently.

    Like

  17. Tiddles says:

    Mr Rabit, I particularly referred to a previous post of yours, not this Voris stuff. I have no problem with satirical mopheaded donkey humour.Nor with juvenilia, in which I have indulged from time to time.

    The earlier post I saw of yours (6 weeks ago?)seemed to indicate that you were at home with certain political views; I dont want to jump to conclusions but simply asked if you shared the views on “falangism” etc which were discussed in a bar. I’m sorry I cant find the post now or I’d quote it.

    Thanks.

    Like

  18. Roger says:

    Tiddles
    What has happened in the Church is that unofficially it has adopted Evolution and an Earth and Universe of billions of years old. So Genesis is treated as a myth, stories.
    Now in Genesis is an Anathema placed on Man and Woman.
    Genesis 3
    [16] To the woman also he said: I will multiply thy sorrows, and thy conceptions: in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children, and thou shalt be under thy husband’ s power, and he shall have dominion over thee.
    [17] And to Adam he said: Because thou hast hearkened to the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldst not eat, cursed is the earth in thy work; with labour and toil shalt thou eat thereof all the days of thy life.
    [18] Thorns and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herbs of the earth.
    [19] In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread till thou return to the earth, out of which thou wast taken: for dust thou art, and into dust thou shalt return.

    In other words the CROSS was placed into the Laws of this world by God. Prayer and Penance.
    The Penance placed on Woman DOESN’T apply to Our Lady because she is without the Original Sin.
    Similarly a Penance was placed on MAN.
    Kathleen feminised is correct because the Church has embraced modernism and so called equality BUT we are in a Fallen World!!!! As for this worldly reference to rightwing thought and Fascism Our Lord is King of Kings and Lord of Lord, Heaven is hierachical in other words Authority descends. Authority is expressly in the 10 commandments including honour Thy Father and Mother. Holy Obedience is expressed in the Commandments of God.
    Today Satan has created a Rebellion against God using equality and human rights as the bait.

    Politics means Of the City and what is this thing called rightwing? or facism. Marx followers call anybody who opposes Socialism (which as Belloc points out is slavery under Capitalism,med which is the fruits of the Reformation) facist! In Other words a facist is one who opposes the Socialism that has spread its evils out of Russia (Fatima).

    Kathleen has pointed out the truth that the feminism that has wormed its way into the Church. This is expressly against Gods Anathema placed on Man and Woman Original Sin!

    Like

  19. Toad says:

    ”Our Blessed Lord said: “He who is not with Me, is against Me.””

    …and he wasn’t the only one:

    Lenin, in a speech discussing the Chief Committee for Political Education, told the assembled delegates that “It is with absolute frankness that we speak of this struggle of the proletariat; each man must choose between joining our side or the other side. Any attempt to avoid taking sides in this issue must end in fiasco.”
    Mussolini declared in speeches across fascist Italy: “O con noi o contro di noi”—You’re either with us or against us.
    (Source, Wikki,)

    …And I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that Robespierre, Franco, Hitler, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Tony Blair and heaven knows who all else, has said it, too.
    Usually to justify intimidation and murder.
    (Though clearly not in Christ’s case. This to avoid undue aggression.)

    Like

  20. Tiddles says:

    Yes Bush said that – and unleashed hell on many people.

    I dont think you’ll find that ole Hugo said that, though. Just to be accurate.

    Like

  21. Tiddles says:

    Roger….I’m afraid you lost me PDQ.
    .The fragments I think I understood I can’t agree with.

    Other bits are a worry.

    Like

  22. Brother Burrito says:

    Government is like fire, too close and it burns, too distant and it is ineffective.

    We only gather around a fire so that our inner fire is not extinguished by the cold.

    A corpse gains no benefit from from the fire, in fact it just rots quicker.

    The inner fire is the more important, and is what is addressed by the Ten Commandments and morality.

    “If man will not be governed by the ten commandments, he will have to be governed by the ten thousand laws.” (I read that somewhere recently, but cannot remember where. It is by GKC, I think).

    Like

  23. Frere Rabit says:

    Tiddles, when you finally locate whatever comment it was from six weeks ago that you are talking about, perhaps you could pose your question on that thread, as I haven’t got a clue what you are going on about.

    Like

  24. Tiddles says:

    Fair point Rabit.

    I think you said you were in a bar discussing Falangist politics with three others and said to someone here that he’d have to get up early in the morning to catch you out on rightwingery. I’ve had a look for it -i’ll look again.

    Like

  25. Tiddles says:

    “the Church has embraced modernism” says Roger.

    Roger, can you explain what you mean by modernism?

    I find it to be loose phrase which can mean absolutely anything that someone doesn’t like.

    Like

  26. Roger says:

    Moderism a set out by St Pope Pius X
    “..
    THE OATH AGAINST MODERNISM
    Given by His Holiness St. Pius X September 1, 1910.

    To be sworn to by all clergy, pastors, confessors, preachers, religious superiors, and professors in philosophical-theological seminaries.

    I . . . . firmly embrace and accept each and every definition that has been set forth and declared by the unerring teaching authority of the Church, especially those principal truths which are directly opposed to the errors of this day. And first of all, I profess that God, the origin and end of all things, can be known with certainty by the natural light of reason from the created world (see Rom. 1:90), that is, from the visible works of creation, as a cause from its effects, and that, therefore, his existence can also be demonstrated: Secondly, I accept and acknowledge the external proofs of revelation, that is, divine acts and especially miracles and prophecies as the surest signs of the divine origin of the Christian religion and I hold that these same proofs are well adapted to the understanding of all eras and all men, even of this time. Thirdly, I believe with equally firm faith that the Church, the guardian and teacher of the revealed word, was personally instituted by the real and historical Christ when he lived among us, and that the Church was built upon Peter, the prince of the apostolic hierarchy, and his successors for the duration of time. Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical’ misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. I also condemn every error according to which, in place of the divine deposit which has been given to the spouse of Christ to be carefully guarded by her, there is put a philosophical figment or product of a human conscience that has gradually been developed by human effort and will continue to develop indefinitely. Fifthly, I hold with certainty and sincerely confess that faith is not a blind sentiment of religion welling up from the depths of the subconscious under the impulse of the heart and the motion of a will trained to morality; but faith is a genuine assent of the intellect to truth received by hearing from an external source. By this assent, because of the authority of the supremely truthful God, we believe to be true that which has been revealed and attested to by a personal God, our creator and lord.

    Furthermore, with due reverence, I submit and adhere with my whole heart to the condemnations, declarations, and all the prescripts contained in the encyclical Pascendi and in the decree Lamentabili, especially those concerning what is known as the history of dogmas. I also reject the error of those who say that the faith held by the Church can contradict history, and that Catholic dogmas, in the sense in which they are now understood, are irreconcilable with a more realistic view of the origins of the Christian religion. I also condemn and reject the opinion of those who say that a well-educated Christian assumes a dual personality-that of a believer and at the same time of a historian, as if it were permissible for a historian to hold things that contradict the faith of the believer, or to establish premises which, provided there be no direct denial of dogmas, would lead to the conclusion that dogmas are either false or doubtful. Likewise, I reject that method of judging and interpreting Sacred Scripture which, departing from the tradition of the Church, the analogy of faith, and the norms of the Apostolic See, embraces the misrepresentations of the rationalists and with no prudence or restraint adopts textual criticism as the one and supreme norm. Furthermore, I reject the opinion of those who hold that a professor lecturing or writing on a historico-theological subject should first put aside any preconceived opinion about the supernatural origin of Catholic tradition or about the divine promise of help to preserve all revealed truth forever; and that they should then interpret the writings of each of the Fathers solely by scientific principles, excluding all sacred authority, and with the same liberty of judgment that is common in the investigation of all ordinary historical documents.

    Finally, I declare that I am completely opposed to the error of the modernists who hold that there is nothing divine in sacred tradition; or what is far worse, say that there is, but in a pantheistic sense, with the result that there would remain nothing but this plain simple fact-one to be put on a par with the ordinary facts of history-the fact, namely, that a group of men by their own labor, skill, and talent have continued through subsequent ages a school begun by Christ and his apostles. I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the belief of the Fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the apostles. The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way.

    I promise that I shall keep all these articles faithfully, entirely, and sincerely, and guard them inviolate, in no way deviating from them in teaching or in any way in word or in writing. Thus I promise, this I swear, so help me God. .

    Like

  27. Frere Rabit says:

    Keep up the good work, Tiddler. I’m sure somebody will give you a good argument sooner or later if you keep on pressing the right buttons. Modernism is a well defined philosophical problem, dealt with by successive popes. Do some reading and then revise your idea that it is a “loose phrase” (sic).

    Like

  28. Brother Burrito says:

    Put simply, modernism is the heresy that makes of Christ whatever one wants to make of Him.

    There is only one good attribute of heresy: It makes great teaching material.

    Christ saves, and He reigns. That’s it.

    Like

  29. Tiddles says:

    Dear Rubbit

    Attributing your characteristics to others says much about you and nothing about me, if I may say so.

    If your response to a question is ‘go and look it up’, we will have a great time will we not? We will learn as much as you, perhaps.

    It seems that B Burrito kind of agrees with the “loose phrase” (sic) definition.

    Like

  30. Toad says:

    “Modernism” means exactly whatever each of us wants it to mean – no more, no less.
    As does “Traditionalism.”
    There.
    That’s that sorted.

    Like

  31. kathleen says:

    No Tiddles, you completely misunderstand me.

    True feminine qualities are every bit as laudable as masculine ones; they each have their place and complement each other. (Roger quite rightly quotes the book of Genesis on this.)

    However militant feminism is anything but feminine! In fact it is an aggressive attack on femininity, perpetrated by women with chips on their shoulder who are, on the whole, haters of the male sex! It is indeed closely linked to Modernism within the Church, in that it tries to impose its own mindset over the Mind and Heart of Jesus Christ in the teachings of the Catholic Church.

    The admirable masculine qualities I was referring to could include: chivalry, courage, steadfastness, strong sense of duty and purpose, and loyalty.
    Aggression is a negative quality.

    Like

  32. Toad says:

    “…(in) Other words a fascist is one who opposes the Socialism that has spread its evils out of Russia (Fatima).”

    We can take it then, Roger, that that would be you – can we not?

    A Fundamentalist, Pyramidologist, Fascist.

    There are some extraordinary marvellous characters on CP&S.
    (Which is why Toad is such a devoted fan.)

    Like

  33. Toad says:

    …And what about St. Paul and “presumption” anyone? An eerie silence here.

    (Can we be “Militant” without being aggressive? If so, how?)

    Like

  34. Tiddles says:

    “However militant feminism is anything but feminine!” Ta! Kathleen, but you didnt mention the militant bit in your post. So I am better advised now.

    I have known feminists who have educated me somewhat in the reflex attitudes which I once carried without knowing. I thank them for this. They were not militant, as Mr Vortex says he is. I worry when I see that word.

    Like

  35. Tiddles says:

    Permit me a postscript on aggression, Kathleen. If it were not for what is called aggression, we would not have had Beethoven’s magnificent work. For example. But he would not wish to be known as militant, I think.

    Christ would not have bunged the bankers out of the temple either.

    Like

  36. Roger says:

    Zeal and Passion aren’t agression. Militant for the Church is those on Earth, then comes the Suffering (Purgatory) and the Blessed (Heaven) so the Church Militant has an express meaning.
    The Money changers in the Temple has huge significance because the Temple was acting as a banker (in our days the Vatican has also been acting in this way.
    http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0014_0_14119.html

    Facism this is what Marx said it is the opposite of Communism
    Fascism in power is the open, terroristic dictatorship of the most reactionary, the most chauvinistic, the most imperialistic elements of finance capitalism.
    Karl Marx (1818 – 1883)
    Pyramidologist not at all the Pyramid at Giza stands on its own competance doesn’t need me. It does however include the radius of the earth, the radius sun.
    “..The Great Pyramid is the most remarkable building in existence on the face of our planet today. It was built with such precision that our current technology cannot replicate it. This pyramid is so precisely constructed that until recently (with the advent of laser measuring equipment) scientists were not able to discover some of its subtle symmetries (not to mention duplicate them). Among other aspects, there are also very exact geometric relationships between all the structures in the pyramid complex at Giza. ..”
    But were not men supposed to have been living in caves and stone age axes when it was built?

    Catholic means “..universal; relating to all men; all-inclusive ..”
    Apostolic means “..Of, relating to, or derived from the teaching or practice of the 12 Apostles ..”
    “..I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth. ..” We are bound to believe in Public

    So I don’t understand the relevance of Fundamental?

    Like

  37. Toad says:

    “But were not men supposed to have been living in caves and stone age axes when it (The Great Pyramid) was built?”

    No, Roger, Nobody with half a brain “supposes” that. Because the Egyptians of that time were clearly sophisticated enough to build pyramids. Hundreds of them.
    So they must have been sophisticated enough to build houses as well.
    And palaces.
    And lunatic asylums, no doubt.

    Like

  38. Toad says:

    …As to your ‘pyramidology,’ I suppose you are suggesting things like: “Can it simply be a coincidence that the square root of the footage of the base of The Great Pyramid, when multiplied by the number of days in a leap year, almost exactly equals the distance between Hyde Park Corner and Stonehenge??? I think not!!!”

    “Among other aspects, there are also very exact geometric relationships between all the structures in the pyramid complex at Giza. ..” You might as well say there are exact geometric relationships between all the buildings in Birmingham.
    Because there are.

    Like

  39. Frere Rabit says:

    Toad I did not know that the square root of the footage of the base of The Great Pyramid, when multiplied by the number of days in a leap year, almost exactly equals the distance between Hyde Park Corner and Stonehenge, but we should not be surprised. Crafty people the Egyptians.

    Like

  40. Roger says:

    What nobody wants to believe of course is that Man has degenerated, that in the Past he knew more than today. The reason of course is this runs against the sciences of the Enlightenment.
    I say the Enlightenment because this gave rise to the secular and Republican political State Church separation that is actually a modern phenomenon.
    This runs against the propaganda of the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment is responsible for the rise of globalists and the horrific World Wars. Modern Science including fashions and culture is a child of the Reformation.
    There is nothing new in Propaganda but that Catholics should be blindly swallowing this and yes actually treating the Truths of the Faith as if they were myths is a sad reflection of the true spiritual well being of mankind. The Virgin Birth is discretely played down, the Resurrection denied and the Faith dumped with heresy and paganism under the Enlightenments false Philosophy called Comparative Religion. Myths and Fables compared!!!!

    But then we come to
    Jeremias 32
    [20] Who hast set signs and wonders in the land of Egypt even until this day, and in Israel, and amongst men, and hast made thee a name as at this day.

    Isias 19
    [19] In that day there shall be an altar of the Lord in the midst of the land of Egypt, and a monument of the Lord at the borders thereof:
    [20] It shall be for a sign, and for a testimony to the Lord of hosts in the land of Egypt. For they shall cry to the Lord because of the oppressor, and he shall send them a Saviour and a defender to deliver them.

    The Pyramid of Giza has knowledge (mathmatical knowledge within it!) that is certainly not flat world! I couldn’t care whether this runs against the interests of modern science and opinion. This modern science and opinion kills its infants in their mothers wombs. This modern science created problems yesterday that we live with today such as the biggest global Debt Bubble ever! Weapons of war beyond imagination and the use of Austerity to create a serfdom that makes Pharoah in Moses Day a child by comparison.

    Fight the good fight yes the greatest weapon the Rosary and this with the Scapular are the weapons of Love in a world of increasing hatred. Thats militant Catholicism. But denying the Faith? That is denying what the Holy Saints and Martys fought and gave their lives for. Rise up Catholics in the defence of Jesus and Mary!

    Like

  41. Tiddles says:

    “What nobody wants to believe of course is that Man has degenerated, that in the Past he knew more than today”. That must be why they died in millions of bubonic plague, burned women as witches, had no anaesthetics and bled you if you were sick. They knew a lot then, much of which we have forgotten in our degenerate state.

    Yet, cheeringly, I have heard on good authority that the Pyramid of Giza is the world source of exclamation marks.

    Like

  42. Roger says:

    But Tiddles what is this place called Earth? What does your Faith tell you about this place? Why was the Passioed to n necessary? Because your thoughts are earthy.
    Original Sin explains that this Earth is a place of Prayer and Penance.
    Our Lord pointed out again and again that His Kingdom wasn’t of this Earth meaning that He knew this wasn’t Man’s intended Home.
    Now right now do the maths. The 20th century was the MOST bloodiest century known to Man! it was also marked by human science progress. Your examples are a drop in the Ocean compared to the Daily massacre of human lives right now!
    Our Lord in various places has defended advances in Science and quite rightly so if we work hard and we assist the sick, the poor, the starving that is Love of Neighbour!
    You misunderstand ME I do not advocate a return to the Middle Ages. The Past has been judged Tiddles we were Created to live in these times! But you are presuming that the advances wouldn’t have happened if the Free Thinkers had not thrown off the yoke of Christ.

    Mark 8
    [36] For what shall it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his soul?
    Matthew 16
    [26] For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul?
    Mark 8
    [37] Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

    Now this is why the Children at Fatima were shown Hell so that MAN should understand that His sciences and learning towards the world AND the destruction of His Soul.
    Think about what you are saying and follow through its imprecations! The world today murders and kills and starves more thousand fold than the plague ever did! Think science and advances have be used to kill firts the Body and Now the Soul.

    Like

  43. Tiddles says:

    Sorry Roger, much of this is on the far side, and beyond me,

    Yet as was once famously said, “I salute your indefatigability.”

    Like

  44. Roger says:

    I think the following extract is useful
    Darwin’s theory(evolution)
    “.. In order not to admit God, who, in His power, was able to have created the universe from nothing and man from the already created mud, you take the paternity of a beast as your own…”
    “..you feel no remorse or horror over degrading a man to the level of a beast to maintain a thesis of yours. You are capbable of this and of much more. You are already beasts because you deny God and kill the spirit, which distinguishes you from the beasts. ..”

    Like

  45. Tiddles says:

    “because your thoughts are earthy.” sez Roga.

    Yes Roger you are right for once; I am earthy for several reasons but also because, like you, I am of earth and into earth I will return. Memento mori, innit?

    By preaching that I am “earthy” you award yourself an elevated and airy position above me and I reject your hubris. But hey ho, your opinion doesn’t matter, nor does mine.

    I hope you find some peace on your travels near the Andromeda Galaxy.

    Like

  46. Roger says:

    No Tiddles this is not personal. Its not about me. Its the Faith as handed to the Apostles, the Catholic Faith. If you examine this Faith you will see it has always been about the Life of the Spirit. The only power Our Lord gave his Church was Spiritual Power.

    “..I do not condemn Knowledge. Rather, I am pleased that man should deepen the insights he has gradually been building up by knowledge, so as to be able to comprehend increasingly and admire Me in my works. I have given you intelligence for this. But you must use it to see God in the law of the star, in the formation of the flower, in the conception of a being, and not use intelligence to violate life or deny the Creator…”

    “..Rationalism, Humanism, Philosophism, Theosophism, Naturism, Classicism, Darwinism–you have schools and doctrines of all kinds and are concerned about them all, no matter how much Truth is distorted or suppressed in them. You do not want to follow and deepen knowledge of the school of Christianity alone…”

    What has happened is that the Truth has been distorted and even suppressed and this is the Enlightened Science that I am pointing towards. Denying Creation and Adam and Eve and their lineage which inevitable clashes with frankly atheist theories. Without the Fall of Adam and Eve then Our Lord , the Saints, the Church would be built on a myth!

    Like

  47. Toad says:

    <i?"Without the Fall of Adam and Eve then Our Lord, the Saints, the Church would be built on a myth!"

    …As a matter of fact, Roger – oh, never mind.

    Like

  48. johnhenrycn says:

    Neither of you understands – or whilst understanding, appreciates – the concept of mythical truth. Some ‘historical’ accounts in the Bible are imaginary, but nonetheless true. God created the universe and everything contained therein. THAT is the essential truth and essential cause of our existence; whether He did so in six days or six eons is, from a faith perspective, or even from an intellectual perspective, a question having no more consequence than asking how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Many stories in the Bible, are just that – stories – but stories that impart a deeper reality than either of you seem willing to investigate.

    “Roger, the fundamentalist, meets Toad, the funnymentalist!” Read all about it on CP&S 😉

    Like

  49. Brother Burrito says:

    LOL!

    Like

  50. Tiddles says:

    Myth
    an imaginary or fictitious thing or person.
    an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.

    Sorry JH. A mythical truth just won’t do, nor will historical accounts which are imaginary yet true.

    Like

  51. johnhenrycn says:

    Sorry, Mr. T, but one of the wisest men of our age, Thomas Mann, would disagree vehemently with your flippant dismissal of mythical truth. His classic tetralogy Joseph und seine Brüder – Joseph and His Brothers – the work he considered his masterpiece, is an exposition of how the myths of the Late Bronze Age are inextricably tied to and part of the emergence and development of monotheism, which doesn’t make, imo, belief in God any less credible.

    Like

  52. Tiddles says:

    Herr Mann is entitled to his view and we are entitled to dismiss it. The Bronze Age myths may indeed connect to monotheism, but that does not justify ‘mythical truths’ or imaginary history which is ‘true’. That way leads to tears.

    Oxymorons are fun, but no more than that.

    Like

  53. Tiddles says:

    Jh , I note that Herr Mann did NOT make your oxymoronic assertions. So he is in the clear, as you are not.

    Like

  54. Toad says:

    “God created the universe and everything contained therein. THAT is the essential truth an essential cause of our existence; whether He did so in six days or six aeons is, from a faith perspective, or even from an intellectual perspective, a question having no more consequence than asking how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.”

    And there you have put lt very neatly and compactly in a ‘nutshell,’ JH. And in a nutshell is where it clearly belongs. and ought to stay.
    As far as Toad, at least, is concerned. It is – as you shrewdly point out – no more important than pinheads dancing on an angel. Or contrariwise.
    But no less, either, I suggest.
    Both are meaningless and futile concepts, as we clearly agree..

    There is, at present – for reasons as yet unrevealed to us – insufficient evidence to conclude that God created the universe.
    Insufficient for some of us, that is, but for far from all of us.
    And He might have done.
    Time will tell.
    But then, it might not.

    “Roger, the fundamentalist, meets Toad, the funnymentalist!” Read all about it on CP&S. ”

    Impeccably and elegantly put, JH! Toad could not have expressed it any better himself!
    Well, he could have of course – but he didn’t.
    Didn’t need to, after that!

    And it sums up Toad’s “philosophical” position to, well, to a “T!”
    Laughter is the best medicine!

    Like

  55. Toad says:

    ”(Mann’s) classic tetralogy Joseph und seine Brüder – Joseph and His Brothers – the work he considered his masterpiece, is an exposition of how the myths of the Late Bronze Age are inextricably tied to and part of the emergence and development of monotheism.”

    Again, Toad could have scarcely put it better himself. JH.
    And, it seems to him that what Mann was, quite successfully actually, explaining just how The Myth of Monotheism came about.
    Not something a believing Christian, let alone Catholic, would care to dwell on at much length, one might think? And, no it doesn’t mean Mann was right.
    But who knows?

    Like

  56. Tiddles says:

    JH; you might care to slip a book down your trousers next time, in anticipation of another slippering.

    Like

  57. johnhenrycn says:

    True dat, Tiddlywink, oxymorons can be fun; but I question whether you know what oxymorons are? To say a phrase is oxymoronic is not the same as saying it’s untrue, which is what you have implied, intentionally or not. So yes, a mythical truth may be oxymoronic, but so is a jumbo shrimp, and so is a civil war. Your unbiased opinion is another example, as Mr. Toad, our wise fool will tell you. It may be pretty ugly of me to say this, but views like yours (and Danny Boy’s) provoke silent screams from most readers here.
    ___
    btw: I’ve taken the slight (and not-to-be-repeated-unless-provoked) liberty of calling you a ‘Tiddlywink’ because I find your reference to my “oxymoronic assertions” dysphemistic, if not downright maledictive, and hardly worthy of an idiot savant. Do you find yourself growing smaller reading these, my words of cruel kindness?

    Like

  58. johnhenrycn says:

    Mine at 17:56 responds to Tiddles at 14:46-52. I will treat his latest missive at 17:41 with the contempt it deserves by studiously ignoring it with eloquent silence.

    Like

  59. johnhenrycn says:

    “funnymentalist”
    Toad, in case you misinterpreted that, I was referring to a comic who ascribes to the philosophical school called Mentalism, as I suspect you might, not to a comic who is “mental.”
    ___
    I thought I’d coined a new word when I used it, but alas, there doesn’t seem to be any such thing as a real googlenope, does there?

    Like

  60. Brother Burrito says:

    JH,

    I am sick of these endless cynical and rude comments that you find yourself having to fend off. I believe they detract from this blog, and scare off others who might wish to comment, but who don’t want to be insulted in return.

    There is a new sheriff in town who knows how to terminate with extreme prejudice: Moi.

    As of just now, Toad, Tiddles and Dan have been put in the pre-moderation tank, where they can party along with stbosco if they wish, but it is cold dark and there are no drinks in there.

    The audience will only get to see their comments if one of us feels merciful and the comment is worthy of display.

    Onwards and upwards for CP&S!

    Like

  61. johnhenrycn says:

    Oh, I really am sorry to read that about Toady, who – and I say this with respect for your judgement because you’ve been around these parts a lot longer than me – strikes me as an amiable old coot with a self-deprecating sense of humour, humour often accompanied by that doctrinal weakness known as “vincible [sic] ignorance” to be sure; but I beg to appeal the injunction made against him, M’lud, especially seeing as I am partly to blame for provoking him 😉

    As for Tiddles and Dan, I suspect they’re actually lawyers (I can spot one quicker than you can say “ambulance chaser”) in partnership, but I not sure which is which.

    Like

  62. Brother Burrito says:

    In Toad’s case, it is partly for his own spiritual health. He spends far too long here mouthing off, when he might benefit more from being quiet.

    Your speech for the defence is duly noted by the court, counselor.

    Like

  63. kathleen says:

    Trying to catch up with all the comments on CP&S, I would like to revert to earlier ones, and say a word to Roger:

    Thanks Roger for all your great comments and for being an unfailing and staunch supporter of solid traditional Catholicism. In spite of being teased (not maliciously though) by other commenters, you have stood firm in your beliefs and in communicating the Truth. God Bless you for it.

    The subject of this post is one that those outside the Church (and even some baptised Catholics themselves, who have sold into this liberal, airy-fairy, non-committal type of modern mindset) is one that is just simply not understood. Talk of the Cross, the dire consequences for those who continue in unrepentant sin, the importance of obedience to Church teaching, and the total self-abandonment to the Divine Will, is incomprehensible to them. Any talk of “fighting the good fight” is anathema to them.

    But all around us the ‘battle’ continues, and we are called to take part in this fight against Satan and his minions and in proclaiming the Truth. It is our duty; this is why we were called to life and bestowed with the great grace of being baptised members of the One True Church, the Bride of Christ. May our courage never falter, and may we never give in to compromises.

    Like

  64. Tiddles says:

    No JH, I am no lawyer I’m pleased to say, nor am I in partnership with your Dan fellow whose evasive comments don’t interest me. So your ‘lawyer spotting’ abilty is a …myth and untrue.

    What is a bit disappointing here is that I have had mildly unpleasant remarks from JH and Rabit when I had never even addressed them. That was no problem but it seems that I am only to be the recipient of such remarks and am not allowed to even joke in return.

    ALLOWED BY BB

    Like

  65. johnhenrycn says:

    “Thanks Roger for all your great comments…In spite of being teased (not maliciously though)…”

    I appreciate that bracketed qualification, Kathleen, which is the plain truth.

    And Roger, I must tell you, when I read your comments, time just flies!

    Like

  66. Roger says:

    Read Philo.
    The Bible works in a number of different ways but is a complete and integrated work There is the allegorical , the parables etc.. But the first port of call is the literal.What can’t be done is cherry pick what or what not you chose to believe of not.

    “..Truly I say to you that I will clasp to My Heart the unfortunate man who has committed a human crime and repented of it, provided he has always admitted that I can do all. But I will turn the face of a Judge to those who, on the basis of a doctrinaire human science, deny the supernatural in the manifestations which the Father might want Me to give…”
    ..”

    Lets start with that word a Day.
    2 Peter 3
    [8] But of this one thing be not ignorant, my beloved, that one day with the Lord is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

    Just as there is no genealogy to the evolutionst so there isn’t a standard Day or Year to modern science.
    Right this in 2012
    “..The faint young sun presents us with a paradox, because the predicted temperatures on Earth and Mars would have been too cold for liquid water,” said Steinn Sigurdsson of Penn State University. ..”
    “..Standard models predict that our sun was much dimmer in its youth, but devising a way to keep the early Earth from freezing over has not been easy for climate modelers. An alternative solution — currently being reexamined by a group of researchers — is to assume our sun started out a bit heftier (and therefore brighter) than expected…”

    Now think what this means for the eons required for the blind watchmaker! Where would the orbit, and length of year of the Earth have been under this theory? How long would a Day have been?
    Understand that science doesn’t have a history of the solar system. Can science prove that the Shumaker Comet ever existed? Science has theories and postulates. James Lovelock was an atheist BUT he proposed and evidenced “.. that organisms interact with their inorganic surroundings on Earth to form a self-regulating, complex system that contributes to maintaining the conditions for life on the planet. ..”
    Understand that to support complex Life there is a interaction of systems that is self regulating. The Scientific community shunned this for years because it doesn’t like God! They would have it that this complexity evolved! But evolution collapses with the Resurrection because Man is a spiritual being within a material body. Science doesn’t accept spiritual!
    Why is this important?
    Luke 18
    [8] I say to you, that he will quickly revenge them. But yet the Son of man, when he cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on earth?

    What does the word Faith Mean? Faith!!! Because Rational is restricted to the world and the flesh and excludes spirit.

    Like

  67. johnhenrycn says:

    “I have had mildly unpleasant remarks from JH and Rabit when I had never even addressed them.”
    Good afternoon, Tiddles, but no: to the best of my recollection, I’ve never talked with you before today, unless you’re into sockpuppetry, in which case, I may have done so unknowingly. Whatever, we – meaning you and I – must respect the parameters of this blog, which asks we maintain civil tongues in our heads, when speaking to each other, and diplomatic politeness when speaking of the Faith and of the Church. Thinking of the Eighth Commandment and ¶2481 of the CCC, I confess to walking too close to the line sometimes.

    Like

  68. johnhenrycn says:

    …when addressing my fellow commenters.

    Like

  69. Toad says:

    True, as Brother Burrissimo ominously fingerwags, Toad comments too often on CP&S.
    But that is surely a compliment to the blog’s thought-provoking and stimulating quality?
    Toad is able to comment often, because his “work” is all in and around “The Peaceable Kingdom” where he lives in eponymously peaceful tranquillity.
    So he can potter back to his computer whenever the fancy takes him.
    Peace and love to all

    Better stop now, before Dr. B’s axe falls.

    Like

  70. Frere Rabit says:

    Tiddles, that remark should not be allowed to go unchallenged. I have rarely responded to you, in the shoirt time you have been commenting here. When you directly addressed me with comments about some other thread that you could not even remember, your innuendo was quite unpleasant. I merely shrugged it off. It is unsurprising you have been moderated and I hope you learn from it.

    Like

  71. Roger says:

    One of the frustrations is the feeling of going backwards rather than forwards. Especially over Genesis and Creation.
    The 7 days take us straight to the Passover and this to Holy week. Holy week is something that should be our constant study. Holy Week was over 7 days. It starts with the entry into Jerusalem and ends with the Passion (which is a direct rerun of Adam and Eve expulsion from the Garden) to the Triumph of the Resurrection. These seven days are matched by the years since Adam and we have entered now the seventh day ( to God a 1000 years are as one day) . The Apocalpyse has one more Day 1000 years then comes the end of this world (because it will cease to be needed). The Triumph Of the Immaculate announced at Fatima is this coming period when the Church will Triumph and there will be One Faith on the world. How do we know? well because of the announced Miracle at Fatima which was a Public miracle at the level of the Exodus.
    We should now be looking forward not backwards. Question the Faith handed from Our Lord to the Apostles worse a disbelief in the Virgin Birth! That Man wasn’t Created?
    That Our Lord didn’t resurrect?

    Like

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s