Info about info

2005-11-07T15:31:00.000-08:00

Adam Miller's case defending the validity of the Novus Ordo employs the best argument in defense of the Novus Ordo that exists. "All men" can mean all of the elect. The fact that this argument is almost unheard of is quite surprising. It is extremely obvious. Of course Miller is right that All could be referring to all of the many. Where his argument fails falls after the words "for all".

In order to buy the argument that "For all" is speaking of "all of the elect" you have to say that the words immediately proceeding "so that sins may be forgiven" can be speaking of the elect. But this is impossible. The word may necessitates that something may not happen. You cannot say that the elect may not have their sins remitted. Therefore the "for all" in the Novus Ordo cannot be referring to the elect but must be referring to some who may not have their sins remitted. This means that the "new form" is necessarily referring to sufficiency and not efficacy.

To quote Omlor
71. A first observation is that the word unto - (which in Latin is the preposition "in" followed by a noun in the accusative case) - means to, towards, or leading up to; and thus this word unto in itself conveys the sense of effectiveness or efficacy.

Quote:
by Adam S Miller

# 70-71, p. 32 (�unto� and the sense of efficacy):

He says that �unto� means to, towards, or leading up to, thus �unto� conveys the sense of effectiveness. This is incorrect. The word �unto� does not necessarily convey a sense of effectiveness; for I may be walking towards my home, but this does not mean that I will end up there. Passing a football to a wide receiver does not mean that it will get there. Only when supplying a Catholic understanding to the word �unto� does it take on the meaning which Mr. Omlor here states. But then, this only supports my defense (Point II above), and refutes his position (Point III above). Once again, Omlor lacks necessity to prove his point. Mr. Omlor appears to be looking for anything to argue against the new form, whether there is a basis or not.

Of course unto means towards. But it is very obvious that Miller does not understand who THE ELECT, who must be spoken of in order to properly signify efficacy, are. They are the ones who Will be in heaven. Besides that fact, there is no other way to understand the old canon other than saying "leading to the forgiveness of sin".

Quote: Omlor again

81. The very words, "so that sins may be forgiven," denote only the notion of possibility, for the verb "may" is the permissive form. To describe sufficiency, St. Thomas uses the words, "from which cause all sins . . . could be forgiven." The word "may" is akin to "could", except that "could" is even stronger in that it denotes power, capability, or ability, and not mere possibility.

Quote:
by Adam S Miller

# 81, p. 34 (�may� denotes only possibility):

No, his conclusion does not follow. The use of �may� is valid for the reason that not ALL of the Elect have yet had all of their (ours, hopefully!) sins remitted. (There are probably some not born yet, others have not converted to the true Church yet.)

Nonsense. You can not say that the use of the word "may" does not necessitate that the words before it are referring to sufficiency. "May" cannot mean WILL DEFINITELY HAPPEN. Whenever the word may is used there must always be some possibility that it also "may not" happen. Time does not play into it. That there are those who are members of the elect who have not "yet" had their sins remitted (an assumption) does not matter. When speaking of the elect you are speaking of those who will have their sins remitted. No member of the elect may not have his sins remitted.

Secondly, even if you granted that may could be understood as never permitting "may not" (which you cannot do), the new english canon understood in this way necessitates that there are some who will at a later date have their sins remitted. This is a type of haphazard canonization of clairvoyance. Even if all that it requires is that their will be baptized infants who will die after the utterance of the new canon, it is still only a probability and not a fact.

The Transparency of the NWO freaks

2005-04-21T10:19:00.000-07:00

So in this artical"Reports reveal Zarqawi nuclear threat" we are told by CIA Director Porter J. Goss that Zarqawi attacking us is "only a matter of time."

So why isnt this front page news? Obviously that is becuase of the timing of this report.

Bushs' responce to The MinuteMen as "vigilantes" along with Schwarzeneggers recent faliure to follow orders would make them look utterly transparent if it was highly publicized that the CIA is saying there is an extream nucular threat.

If Bush is so worried about national security that he has to set up things like warrentless search powers in the Patriot Act, then why is he so opposed to actually securing the border?

Bush knows that Al-CIA-da will not strike us unless he orders them to do so. They work for the US. Thats why hes not scared. He wont secure the border becuase it is their plan to set up a Pan-American Union and put in The Amero as our currency.

The think tanks really screwed up this one again. You'd think they would know better.
Had they just had Bush offer no comment on the minutemen project, and told the news agencies to ignore it, it would have never become that big of a story. Perhaps their thought was that if Bush says something small right away, and then nothing more, it will be forgotten by the masses in a very short period of time. Bushes statement, in concert with Schwarzeneggers screw-up, would blow up in their faces if this "nucular threat" were to become a big story now.

How long will it take to forget?

2005-04-21T03:27:00.000-07:00

Soon all will forget about the Prophcies of Malachy. Read someone describe it as "the new peak oil"...

What I wonder is about the authenticity of these claims that there were only 111 popes in Malachy's orignal writting, and it was only after an "1820 publication" that the 112th, Peter the Roman, was added. Type malachy "1820 publication" into google and you'll see an almost perfectly parroted report on many forums stating this claim.
I've been unable to find any reliable source for this claim. Did someone just want to start a rumor?

Paranoid delusional fantasies...

2005-04-20T09:40:00.000-07:00

I guess I just thought that being as I've just started posting on here, it would be a good idea to post something so at least to government would be aware of me. Then At least I'll have some readers.

So here are some govenment/social groups you should be aware of.

PNAC

Trilateral Commission

Bilderberg group 2

Bohemian Club 2

What are the Masons upto

Patriots

Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt (Former Head of Dept. of Education

Former Special Agent Supervisor FBI, Ted Gunderson

Senator John Decamp

US Representative Ron Paul