Who is a Catholic?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Ask Jesus : One Thread

I do believe the following could be classified as Catholic:

These 2 Churches separated in 1054 AD. a)The Eastern, Greek, or Orthodox, or Byzantine, they are divided in 15 national autocephalous and 4 autonomousChurches. Orthodox World They recognize The Patriarch of Constantinole as first among equals. They number over 250 million.

b)The (Roman) Catholics who follow the Bishop of Rome. He is also called The Pope. They claim about 1080 million.

These separated before 500 AD as part of the Monophosyte contraversy:

The Syriac Orthodox

The Coptic Orthodox

The Armenian Church

The Nestorians: Holy Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East

The Anglicans and Episcopelians who separated from the Roman Catholics in during the Time of Henry VIII Anglican Communion

These accept the Pope but in various degrees.

The Pius X Catholics. They are traditional. Still use Latin in liturgy. The Church considers them schismatics. They consider themeselves the true Catholics still.

They pray in tongues. The Pope accepts them and they accept the Pope. Catholic Charismatics

They reject the Pope. Considered schismatics. Old Catholics

Then there are the uniate churches like Maronite Catholic Church. who made peace with Rome. They are allowed to keep their languages and rites.

Here is the rest Rest of Uniate Catholics.

....there are a few more, but these I consider Catholics.

What is your opinion on the matter?

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), October 27, 2004

Answers

Liberal Catholic Church

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), October 27, 2004.


Roman catholics in Europe by country.

Now, here is someone who is truly a A world Watcher.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), October 27, 2004.


The best way to approach this would probably be to determine the principles; i.e., what is it that makes one Catholic.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), October 27, 2004.

What Emerald says; What makes one Catgolic. Soeaking for myself I can say that in "Newchurch" (tahe V2 church), it is to see no evil, hear no evil, and especially speak no evil. What is their definition of no evil. It is to let the present pope drive the church over the cliff, but not to tap his shoulder, and tell him that is what he is doing. Sad to say this pope is a heretic of the worst kind, but he gets a free pass from his followers. I believe the word is Papolotry. Follow the man instead of Christ. Any wonder they are drinking kool aid as directed. I am a Catholic who wants to save his church, but we are so few in numbers, that it seems impossible. Please pray for us.

-- True Catholic (Treadmill234@south.com), October 30, 2004.

bump

-- True Catholic (Treadmill234@south.com), October 30, 2004.


I am a Catholic who wants to save his church, but we are so few in numbers, that it seems impossible. Please pray for us.

actually, by definition, you would be considered a schismatic... ergo not a catholic. you may choose to not like the current pope for personal reasons, but in areas of dogma and discipline you are REQUIRED to lend your assent.

FURTHER, misrepresenting the catholic church does nothing to further your arguement... Kool Aid for communion? please, that is ridiculously illicit and the priest who instigated that should be hung by his toes to dry. obviously the catholic church does not recognize such a practice so there is no reason to lie and claim that it does.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), October 30, 2004.


" what is it that makes one Catholic"

acceptance of, and submission to(as in trying one's best to adhere to), the orthodox teaching of the Church handed down over that past 2,000 years?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), October 30, 2004.


--------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------

" what is it that makes one Catholic" acceptance of, and submission to(as in trying one's best to adhere to), the orthodox teaching of the Church handed down over that past 2,000 years?

Exactly Ian; Following the teachings of the Church for 2000 years. Can you really say that this Church is following those teachings.

John Paul never met a religion that he did not like except, the religion before V2. Moslems, shintos Jews and you name it are welcome to prayat the altars oof the church at Assissi, Fatima, and the most holy places. However those who hold to the true mass and traditions, Nah! Please stay away. If Budha is on Holy tabernacle, fine. If the Koran needs kissing, the pope obliges event though popes of the past called them devils.

This is what saddens us. Heresy is too mild a word. Apostacy would be more appropriate.

--

-- True Catholic (Treadmill234@south.com), October 30, 2004.


--------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------

" what is it that makes one Catholic" acceptance of, and submission to(as in trying one's best to adhere to), the orthodox teaching of the Church handed down over that past 2,000 years?

Exactly Ian; Following the teachings of the Church for 2000 years. Can you really say that this Church is following those teachings.

John Paul never met a religion that he did not like except, the religion before V2. Moslems, shintos Jews and you name it are welcome to pray at the altars of the church at Assissi, Fatima, and the most holy places. However those who hold to the true mass and traditions, Nah! Please stay away. If Budha is on Holy tabernacle, fine. If the Koran needs kissing, the pope obliges event though popes of the past called them devils.

This is what saddens us. Heresy is too mild a word. Apostacy would be more appropriate.

--

-- True Catholic (Treadmill234@south.com), October 30, 2004.


True Catholic

I'm not the best Catholic, but I know many "true" Catholics, far better than me, who would strongly disagree with your description of Pope John Paul II. Connecting apostacy and heresy with the Holy Father is not only wrong,--- its sort of mean.

Calling your self "True Catholic" does not actually make your statements anything more than opinions. You of course are welcome to them. Your cyber name seems misleading to me.

But that aside, welcome to the forum, my apologies for sounding so harsh.

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), October 30, 2004.



Hello TC,

Are you a part of this group?

True Catholics

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), October 30, 2004.


No Jim and Emily, I am not part of any group as such, except in a loose way as I am trying to hold to tradition for my family and myself. Therefore I seek the truth wherever I find it, regardless of whose toes I have to step on. Our soul is too important to leave it in the hands of those straying from the truth. Look for yourselves how the freemasons have created a coup in theChurch. I do not judge JP2's motives, as onlyGod can do that, but I can judge the result of his actions. Here is some insight

Anyone close to this subject knows that it is not what the Council decrees say that has caused the damage; it is the use that has been made of them. The decrees have served as a charter for Revolution within the Church, just as surely as the Declaration of the Rights of man did for the Jacobins of the French Revolution. Since the Council, regardless of anything said by the decrees, no one nor nothing has been able to withstand the wrecking ball of the Revolution, always authorized by the "spirit of the Council."

What the Council did was Liberalize the Church, which means that it brushed aside the tradition of faith and discipline and prudence which once prevailed. Since the Council, no principle, no tradition, no custom, no common sense judgment, no established authority has been any defense against or deterrent to whatever lunacy or novelty the Liberals have wished to foist upon the Catholic faithful. Further more, the controlling hierarchy has made it its chief business to take the side of Liberals against all and everyone who raised their voices to object or challenge.

-- True Catholic (Treadmill234@south.com), October 30, 2004.


I think that this is a nice way to explain tradition

TRADITION Tradition drives in cars< Through country and through city,< While Bishops shift in sand< And sink with souls, a pity.< Tradition flies in planes< From ocean coast to coast< Under Mary's mantel blue,< Our solitary boast.< Tradition travels far,< Twas all in Our Lord's plan< To preserve the Holy Faith< For woman and for man.< Tradition lives and moves,< The pews, the families fill,< While Bishops sink in sand..<. Tradition takes the Hill!!!!!!<

-- True Catholic (Treadmill234@south.com), October 30, 2004.


"Therefore I seek the truth wherever I find it, regardless of whose toes I have to step on."

A: So do Protestants of other persuasions. Unfortunately, there is only one place God has identified as a source of the truth, and that is the teaching of His Church, in which we can always find the fullness of truth. Which is why the Church is described by the Word of God as "the pillar and foundation of truth".

"Our soul is too important to leave it in the hands of those straying from the truth."

A: Actually it is too important to leave in the hands of those who denigrate the Church, the source of all Christian truth.

"Look for yourselves how the freemasons have created a coup in the Church."

A: Where? This ridiculous fantasy is parroted repeatedly by a small handful of self-styled "traditionalists", but no such process has been documented in any authoritative source. Why? Why is it that a handful of schismatics can see this overwhelming conspiracy so clearly, but the divinely ordained leaders of His Church, who alone hold a divine guarantee of truth, haven't noticed it??

"Anyone close to this subject knows that it is not what the Council decrees say that has caused the damage; it is the use that has been made of them."

A: Exactly! What damage has been done is a direct result of NOT implementing the teaching of the Holy Council. Of NOT following direct mandates from His Holiness and the Magisterium. So what possible reason is there to blame the Council, the Pope, or the Magisterium for the works of people who have rejected their guidance, and thereby rejected God's will?

"Since the Council, no principle, no tradition, no custom, no common sense judgment, no established authority has been any defense against or deterrent to whatever lunacy or novelty the Liberals have wished to foist upon the Catholic faithful."

A: That's right. Their disobedience has caused some considerable damage within the Church. Fortunately they remain a small minority. The damage this movement has caused within God's Church exceeds, so far, the damage caused by another small minority, the inevitable countermovement by so-called "traditionalists" and sedevacantists, who continue to demonstrate that extremists can draw people away from truth and into schism whether they entrench themselves on the right or on the left.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 30, 2004.


"Where? This ridiculous fantasy is parroted repeatedly by a small handful of self-styled "traditionalists", but no such process has been documented in any authoritative source ... Why? Why is it that a handful of schismatics can see this overwhelming conspiracy so clearly, but the divinely ordained leaders of His Church, who alone hold a divine guarantee of truth, haven't noticed it??"

They have.

The pope warns against the dangers of Freemasonry

And again here

And here

And here

Both Pius IX and Leo XIII asked for The Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita to be published in order to expose the aims of Freemasonry against the Catholic Church, and specifically their aims against the Holy Roman Pontiff. The Alta Vendita is an actual document written by the Freemasons which happened to fall into the hands of Pope Gregory XVI.

From the papers of the Alta Vendita (yeah, it's long. Read it anyway):

"Our ultimate end is that of Voltaire and of the French Revolution: the final destruction of Catholicism, and even of the Christian idea. The Pope, whoever he is, will never come to the secret societies; it is up to the secret societies to take the first step toward the Church, with the aim of conquering both of them. The task that we are going to undertake is not the work of a day, or of a month, or of a year; it may last several years, perhaps a century; but in our ranks the soldier dies and the struggle goes on."

"We do not intend to win the Popes to our cause, to make them neophytes of our principles, propagators of our ideas. That would be a ridiculous dream; and if events turn out in some way, if Cardinals or prelates, for example, of their own free will or by surprise, should enter into a part of our secrets this is not at all an incentive for desiring their elevation to the See of Peter. That elevation would ruin us. Ambition alone would have led them to apostasy, the requirements of power would force them to sacrifice us. What we must ask for, what we should look for and wait for, as the Jews wait for the Messiah, is a Pope according to our needs."

"With that we shall march more securely towards the assault on the Church than with the pamphlets of our brethren in France and even the gold of England. Do you want to know the reason for this? It is that with this, in order to shatter the high rock on which God has built His Church, we no longer need Hannibalian vinegar, or need gunpowder, or even need our arms. We have the little finger of the successor of Peter engaged in the ploy, and this little finger is as good, for this crusade, as all the Urban II's and all the Saint Bernards in Christendom."

"We have no doubt that we will arrive at the supreme end of our efforts. But when? But how? The unknown is not yet revealed. Nevertheless, as nothing should turn us aside from the plan drawn up, and on the contrary everything should tend to this, as if as early as tomorrow success were going to crown the work that is barely sketched, we wish, in this instruction, which will remain secret for the mere initiates, to give the officials in charge of the supreme lodge some advice that they should instill in all the brethren, in the form of instruction or of a memorandum."

"Now, then to assure ourselves a Pope of the required dimensions, it is a question first of shaping for this Pope a generation worthy of the reign we are dreaming of. Leave old people and those of a mature age aside; go to the youth, and if it is possible, even to the children. You will contrive for yourselves, at little cost, a reputation as good Catholics and pure patriots."

"This reputation will put access to our doctrines into the midst of the young clergy, as well as deeply into the monasteries. In a few years, by the force of things, this young clergy will have overrun all the functions; they will form the sovereign's council they will be called to choose a Pontiff who should reign. And this Pontiff, like most of his contemporaries, will be necessarily more or less imbued with the (revolutionary) Italian and humanitarian principles that we are going to begin to put into circulation. It is a small grain of black mustard that we are entrusting to the ground; but the sunshine of justice will develop it up to the highest power, and you will see one day what a rich harvest this small seed will produce."

+In the path that we are laying out for our brethren there are found great obstacles to conquer, difficulties of more than one kind to master. They will triumph over them by experience and by clearsightedness; but the goal is so splendid that it is important to put all the sails to the wind in order to reach it. Your want to revolutionize Italy; look for the Pope whose portrait we have just drawn. You wish to establish the reign of the chosen ones on the throne of the prostitute of Babylon; let the clergy march under your standard, always believing that they are marching under the banner of the Apostolic keys. You intend to make the last vestige of tyrants and oppressors disappear; lay your snares like Simon Bar-Jona; lay them in the sacristies, the seminaries and the monasteries rather than at the bottom of the sea; and if you do not hurry, we promise you a catch more miraculous than his. The fisher of fish became the fisher of men; your will bring friends around the Apostolic Chair. You will have preached a revolution in tiara and cope, marching with the cross and the banner, a revolution that will need to be only a little bit urged on to set fire to the four corners of the world"

(end)

"but no such process has been documented in any authoritative source ... Why?"

It has; in fact, by pontiffs.

"Why is it that a handful of schismatics can see this overwhelming conspiracy so clearly, but the divinely ordained leaders of His Church, who alone hold a divine guarantee of truth, haven't noticed it?"

But they did notice it.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), October 31, 2004.



"Why is it that a handful of schismatics can see this overwhelming conspiracy so clearly, but the divinely ordained leaders of His Church, who alone hold a divine guarantee of truth, haven't noticed it?"

Maybe it is because this current group are not divinelly ordained.

You give an awful lot of credit to one percent of the people for making so much trouble.....Maybe it is because they have something worthwhile to offer.

-- True Catholic (Treadmill234@south.com), October 31, 2004.


Maybe it is because this current group are not divinelly ordained.

now, if you claim you are catholic, you are stepping into the realm of heresy. The bible tells us that ALL official popes of the catholic church are divinely ordained and cannot teach fallable doctrine. That the gates of hell shall not prevail against the church. You forsake this simple biblically declared information and you might as well start your own protestant sect. You're close enough as it is anyway.

You give an awful lot of credit to one percent of the people for making so much trouble.....Maybe it is because they have something worthwhile to offer.

So-called trads don't make up even one percent of the church. True traditional catholics being added to that number dont even make up one percent of the church. What is being said by the schismatic so- called trad movement is not worth hearing, much less considering. Why? because it is the utter denial of nearly 2000 years of dogma, definition, and discipline which demands continued adherance to the church that Christ started. You are no differant than any other protestant sect which spins away in order to further its own personal interpretations and opinions rather than adhering to that servant of the servants of God who was appointed over you. Let go your pride and return to the church.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), October 31, 2004.


"Maybe it is because this current group are not divinelly ordained."

I think they are, obviously so long as the form and other prerequisites remain intact. It's not going to turn out to be the answer to questions.

That being said, I'm not sure what the heck paulh is on about.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), October 31, 2004.


i'd like to know the difference between:

"So-called trads"; AND

"True traditional catholics"

does anyone have a Catechism reference that might help me?

are there other types of "trads"?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), October 31, 2004.


It's back to that question what is it that makes one a Catholic.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), October 31, 2004.

Ian, I think the difference lies in whether they remain in communion with the Pope or become schismatic.

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), October 31, 2004.

Short answer; If one remains in communion with this "pope" and his antics, he is surely a schismatic.

I would rather kiss a hyena than kiss that abominable Koran.

John Paul has done a pretty good job in 25 years! Convents closing, priests leaving and none joining up. Churches closing by the hundreds. recruiting candidates for the "pink palace" by the hundreds, with lawsuits following. JP not wanting to insult anyon by (God forbid) procelytizing. Quite a itany, and that is only for starters.

Sure stay in communion with him and surely lose what little faith is left. Try going to a traditional church for one sunday and see how the faith is lived.

No concern about Kerry geting 53 percent of the Catholic vote.

-- True Catholic (Treadmill234@South.com), October 31, 2004.


The idea that the true Pope will be overthrown and replaced by an impostor, even the Antichrist himself. Therefore, the purported part of Melanie's secret that says "Rome will lose the Faith and become the Seat of the Antichrist" is not contrary to permissible Catholic doctrinal speculation. Note that the secret allegedly says that Rome will lose the Faith, not that the Church will, for this is impossible. If Rome is staffed by apostate usurpers and illegitimate "shepherds," then Rome does not have the Faith; but it does not thereby follow that the Holy See, which can only legitimately be occupied by rightful shepherds, has lost the Faith - and a non-Catholic is not a rightful shepherd.

-- True Catholic (Treadmill234@South.com), October 31, 2004.

"Note that the secret allegedly says that Rome will lose the Faith, not that the Church will, for this is impossible."

A: How ridiculous! If the shepherds are lost, then obviously so are the sheep. However, this is not a concern for any real Catholic, for Christ Himself told the shepherds of the flock, NOT the flock itself, "whatsoever you bind upon earth is bound in heaven". He told them, and no-one else, "he who hears you hears Me, and he who rejects you rejects Me". Calling Christ's divinely appointed vicar "apostate" therefore means rejecting Christ. He said so. Do you suppose He didn't mean it? He also said "whoever denies Me before men, I will deny him before My Father who is in heaven" (Matthew 10:33). I would not want to stand before Him in judgement, knowing I had rejected the one man on earth who was entrusted with the authority of Christ Himself.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 31, 2004.


TC

Just curious as I'm simply trying to "be a Catholic." I grew up in the 60's left the Church in the 80's and 90's and now I'm back. I'm following the teachings as I learned them from Catholic school and my family as well as my investigations that continue today.

Are you going it alone? Do you have a group of Catholics that are operating in your sphere? Schizmatic or not,--- I'm truley impressed with those who have a true zeal for their faith. I don't get my dander up about "schizmatics" and can't cast any stones from my position. I do find it difficult to swallow what seems to me to be "venom" about our Pope. Your proclamations about him still seems to exist in the realm of opinion as far as I'm concerned.

How do you practice your Catholicism? I believe its ok to disagree with certain actions, and directions a Pope takes. Still to be Catholic, you have to be in communion with the Holy Father whether you agree or not. I have difficulties with certain ways the Church handles things, I don't agree with every position the Pope holds but I can only see my difficulties with certain Church teachings as "my" problem.

I realize that my view is much more simplistic than yours, I admire your passion, but I still can't see how you can be a "True Catholic" based on your posts. I recognise tremendous understanding about the Church on your part but you seem out of step with a basic tennant that involves obediance.

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), October 31, 2004.


"How ridiculous! If the shepherds are lost, then obviously so are the sheep. However, this is not a concern for any real Catholic..."

On the contrary; it was a very real concern for Pope Leo XIII. He wrote this in reference to the enemies of Holy Mother Church in his original prayer to St. Michael the Archangel:

"In the holy Place itself, where has been set up the See of the most holy Peter and the Chair of Truth for the light of the world, they have raised the throne of their abominable impiety, with the iniquitous design that when the Pastor has been struck, the sheep may be scattered."

The shepherds of the Church can most certainly lose the Faith, and even a pope can lose the Faith. This is not at all equivalent to saying that the gates of Hell will prevail against the Church.

Even the Freemasons know this, as indicated in the Alta Vendita. See upthread where, in reference to the papacy, they make this statement:

"We do not intend to win the Popes to our cause, to make them neophytes of our principles, propagators of our ideas. That would be a ridiculous dream..."

Pope John Paul II is my pontiff. However, they do have what they wished for... "a Pope according to our needs".

Theologically, the protection of the Holy Ghost over the Church and the pontificate safeguards at rock minimum against this: that the pope will never define or declare ex cathedra any infallible which is contrary to the Deposit of Faith. That's it. It does not mean that all the pope writes, speaks or endorses is infallible. Not a chance... never did mean that, doesn't mean that now, never will mean that.

In regards to matters of Sedevacantism, the dogmatic council Vatican I (one) rules it out.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), October 31, 2004.


If the following is not straying from Church teaching, nothing is.

I do not think that the cop out that it is not "official teaching" is a good arument.

Ask catholics about the death penalty. They bought John Paul on that hook, line and sinker. He does not have to make it official. His word is law, official or not.

John Paul II's Teachings

To the foregoing we should add some of the teachings of John Paul II, forever falsely portrayed as a doctrinal 'conservative'. An examination of his pronouncements reveals a pervasive theological problem which goes far beyond the issue of traditional Mass vs. New Mass. Among John Paul II's teachings are the following:

All men are united to Christ solely by virtue of the Incarnation. (Redemptor Hominis 13.3) All men are saved. (Osservatore Romano, 6 May 1980) Christ's Mystical Body is not exclusively identified with the Catholic Church. (Osservatore Romano, 8 July 1980) The one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church is present, in all its essential elements in non-Catholic sects. (Letter to the Bishops on "Communion," 1992) The Catholic Church is in communion with non-Catholic sects. (Ibid.) The Catholic Church is incapable of giving credibility to the Gospel unless there is a "reunion of Christians". (Osservatore Romano, 20 May 1980) The Catholic Church shares a common apostolic faith with non- Catholic sects. (Ibid.) Non-Catholic sects have an apostolic mission. (Osservatore Romano, 10 June 1980) The Holy Ghost uses non-Catholic sects as means of salvation. (Catechesi Tradendae, 16 October 1979) It is divinely revealed that men have a right to religious freedom and freedom of conscience. (Redemptor Hominis 12.2, Dives in Misericordia, and passim) The miracles of Christ do not prove his messianic dignity. (Speech to Lutherans, 11 December 1983) The article in the Apostles' Creed, 'He descended into hell', simply means that Christ's body was in the earth for three days. (Osservatore Romano, 16 January 1989)

-- True Catholic (Treadmill@234.com), October 31, 2004.


It is true that those things are false.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), October 31, 2004.

So, I say "If the shepherds are lost, then obviously so are the sheep." Pope Leo XIII says "when the Pastor has been struck, the sheep may be scattered." Glad to hear we agree.

You say, "Theologically, the protection of the Holy Ghost over the Church and the pontificate safeguards at rock minimum against this: that the pope will never define or declare ex cathedra any infallible which is contrary to the Deposit of Faith." And you are right! Therefore, you must realize that nothing that has been changed is infallible or immutable. Therefore why the big stink over changes the Church has made, which it had every right to make?

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 31, 2004.


Emily

"Ian, I think the difference lies in whether they remain in communion with the Pope or become schismatic."

i've told Paul before about the priest that does the vernacular Mass that i attend when there is no Pius V Mass going on. he baptises without water. yesterday - and, no, i amnot making this up - he baptised quadruplets -- without using water. i am now sure that he does not perform any other type of ceremony that might involve water. i know also that there are never any sponsors/ godparents present.

now, he is in Communion with the Holy Father, as i understand that expression.

but is he Catholic? (and are the 4 babies baptised? and should they have to rely upon baptism by desire, asuming that that is available in the circumstances?) should he not baptise according to Catholic teaching?

i really struggle with all of this. and i do not know what to do about it. so, thusfar, i have done absolutely nothing.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), November 01, 2004.


Emily

here's another one to test yr definition.

the other vernacular priest here is very old, but not yet retired as he has lasted very well.

he does hospital visits. and he told me that one elderly patient refused the Eucharist because he (the patient) had been "living in sin" for the past goodness know how long. but the priest told him it was OK to receive the Eucharist and gave it to him.

now, there was some good to come out of this. the patient was made to feel a whole lot better. it would seem very harsh to say he did something wrong as it was an extremely experienced priest that told him it was OK.

furthermore, i accept that, to the man in the street, who might think its all Gobble-de-Gook anyway, it could appear very uncharitable to deny this man the Eucharist on his deathbed.

and to be clear, th man made it clear that he did not regret his life.

however, would you consider the priest to have acted in a Catholic manner? he is not in schism, is he?

do we have the right to self-regulate? do we each have our own private Catechism? surely not.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), November 01, 2004.


Ian,

You do bring up quite a dilemma. Have you gone to the bishop yet?

I don't know if this is helpful or not, but if you find Ludwig Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma to be a trustworthy source, he describes two parts to the unity of the Church:

1. Unity of faith - all members of the Church inwardly believe the truths of the faith proposed by the teaching office of the Church, at least implicitly, and outwardly confess them. Incompatible with this is the Protestant doctrine of the Fundamental Articles. Heresy cuts one off from the unity of faith. (pg 303, 1. Unity of Faith) c.f. Romans 10:10

2. Unity of communion - consists of subjection of members of the Church to the authority of the Pope and bishops (unity of government). It also ocnsists of the binding of the members of the Church to a social unity by participation in the same means of grace (liturgical unity). Schism cuts one off from the unity of communion. (pg 303, 2. Unity of Communion)

- Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, by Dr. Ludwig Ott, 4th ed., 1960, Tan Books and Publishers, Inc.

I know Ott isn't infallible, but I've found him to be a good source for orthodox theology and well referenced to Scripture, the Church Fathers, and Church documents such as Papal Encycicals.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), November 01, 2004.


In that regard, I believe Emily has described a requirement for the "unity of communion."

-- Andy S ("ask332004@yahoo.com"), November 01, 2004.

you must realize that nothing that has been changed is infallible or immutable.

or binding.

Therefore why the big stink over changes the Church has made, which it had every right to make?

It's a question of fruits that it has all borne. The "stink" is over the fact that people like you argue that the new theology has been a New Springtime, a good thing. People like us say that the effect on the Faith has been disastrous.

-- jake (j@k.e), November 01, 2004.

Andy

useful info, indeed, but i suspect you'd need to consider the applicability of these definitions in **emergency circumstances**.

T-C's point is that we are not in **normal circumstances**. definitely possible, remember, because previous Popes have warned us that future Popes can err - and have also pointed to those prior Popes that have erred. we are advised not to follow such people. to resist.

this is the disaster recovery plan, if you like.

i think that the "guarantee", mentioned by Emerald, is that the infallible statements are that: infallible. we know therefore that no such Pope would, or could, ever make an infallible pronouncement.

but that does not mean that a Pope is guaranteed always to hold the true Faith or to live a good life.

therefore, IF you assume for the time being that T-C is correct (whether or not that is your true take), what should we all do? the Popes have told us to resist, not to follow.

"Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ." St. Athanasius, defender of the Church against the heresy of Arius.

this takes us back to Emerald's point. and St Athanasius seems to that that "the Catholics" are those that are faithful to Tradition.

can you reconcile ecumenism with Tradition, Andy? i can't. doesn't mean you can't. but i can't. if i'm honest, i wish i could because it seems "nicer" amd "more charitable"; i just can't.

PS as regards my personal circumstances, i suspect that the bishop is just as bad. you would just not believe his pastoral messages. i don't even want to go into that bit. you would then really start to think that i *was* making it up.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), November 01, 2004.


Ian, something needs to be done about that priest. It's unsettling to hear that I'm sure because nobody likes to be in an uncomfortable position like that, but still. If you need help, ask.

Hey jake, I must be in communion with Rome because I served Pontifical Vespers and Benediction for the bishop of San Diego last night on All Hallows/Christus Rex. Of course, I blew my own candle out by accident.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), November 01, 2004.


I would like to thank the moderator for allowing Catholics to discuss this at this length, as it could not be openly discussed on the Catholic forum. Also I certainly believe Ian, as I had to go through this myself. Wha happens when a priest doing the consecration, instead of saying "This is My Body". says "This is Jesus". Valid, no indeed. Do we have to play Russian roulette when we go to a novus ordo mass. I don't. Forget about the bishop doing anything. He is just happy that he had a body to cover the mass.

-- True Catholic (Treadmill234@South.com), November 01, 2004.

Ian,

The *emergency circumstances* you describe sound like what Catholics during the time just prior to and including the Protestant Reformation faced. I'm thinking about some of the Rennaisance popes and the state of the priesthood during that time. God raised saints like Catherine of Siena and Francis of Assisi as the conscience of the Church during those times. Maybe we can learn something from their example. How did they deal with the scandal around them?

I wonder what I would have done in that period of history. What would have been the proper course of action for Catholics during those times?

You said,

can you reconcile ecumenism with Tradition, Andy? i can't. doesn't mean you can't. but i can't. if i'm honest, i wish i could because it seems "nicer" amd "more charitable"; i just can't.

I guess it depends on what you mean by "ecumenism." If it means changing or denying infallible truths, I would agree that there can be no reconciliation between ecumenism and Tradition. But if it means dialogue with other faiths and finding common ground, then I believe that there can be reconciliation in some cases.

For example, are the circumstances the same that caused the Anglican division? Might there be a possibility of reconciliation there? I'm not sure, but it's worth dialoguing at least.

In some cases what divides is definition of terms. In other cases, it's much more.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), November 01, 2004.


Yes, thank you moderator(s).

Especially since (to my understanding) this forum was started for Protestants to discuss theological issues. Please, one of the "old- timers" correct me if I'm wrong.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), November 01, 2004.


andy, actually, when first i checked in, this forum was more or less a joke, with a guy posting as the name Jesus and people asking him all sorts of questions which he answered, in my opinion, with all sorts of heresies. i dont know when it became a protestant forum, but its certainly less disturbing than before

putting together a tradition arguement response soon as i have time...

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), November 01, 2004.


Hey jake, I must be in communion with Rome because I served Pontifical Vespers and Benediction for the bishop of San Diego last night on All Hallows/Christus Rex.

At Holy Cross? I hope there are photographs.

Of course, I blew my own candle out by accident.

Probably a puff of nose breath brought on by a pharisical chortle. Eith that or your wife & kids were making faces at you from the pews. Either way, you're a schismatic.

-- jake (j@k.e), November 01, 2004.

"Probably a puff of nose breath brought on by a pharisical chortle. Eith that or your wife & kids were making faces at you from the pews. Either way, you're a schismatic."

ha! I'll tell you the actual truth. I process off to my symmetrical position to the right, kneel, and find myself right in front of the bishop such that he can't move. So I get up move further over, and find myself off to the far right and out of symmetry with the group. So I'm thinking I look like a real idiot, and let out a sigh. Onto my candle.

It wasn't Holy Cross, actually, but another old parish with much of its orginal look and layout intact. The damage was pretty much limited to the usual deconstruction of the sanctuary. Th ere's a piece written about this parish by one of my friends earlier this year. Of course he carefully knits into the last paragraph the facts necessary to draw out the ecumenistic absurdity. I spent a lot of time looking around the Church. I'm pretty sure there are pictures; I just need to find out who took some, so I'll ask around.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), November 01, 2004.


I think this is sort of an eclectic forum now.

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), November 01, 2004.

Finally!

My work is done here :)

And now for phase II--Figuring out what Phase II should be.

.................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 01, 2004.


True Catholic,

You posted a few blurbs about "Pope John Paul II's teachings." Some of them by themselves appear to contradict Church teaching. I'd like to pick on one of those specifically. Do you have a link to the source for this one?

All men are saved. (Osservatore Romano, 6 May 1980)

I'd like to see the context of it. I've been trying to find it but couldn't.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), November 01, 2004.


Andy

i would agree that there can be nothing wrong in sharing a coffee with a non-Catholic and talking about differences in faith. that's what we do here, in cyberspace, so i hope that i am not doing the wrong thing!

the problems start however when this chat in the coffee house turns into some kind of bargaining exercise. eg we'll stop saying the "Hail Mary" if you agree that [insert appropriate trade].

here's one fairly modest example of the fruits of ecumenism:

"In a departure from tradition, last night's St Mary's Cathedral, Sydney celebration of Dr George Pell's elevation to the Sacred College of Cardinals started with evening prayer instead of mass.

The Australian reports that this allowed representatives of Protestant faiths, including Anglican Archbishop of Sydney Peter Jensen and Rev Alistair Christie from the NSW Uniting Church to join the occasion."

we were warned in Mortalium Animos that ecumenism presupposes "the erroneous view that all religions are more or less good and praiseworthy (this is the error of indifferentism), inasmuch as all give expression, under various forms, to that innate sense which leads men to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule".

we were also told that: "Those who hold such a view are not only in error; they distort the true idea of religion, and thus reject it, falling gradually into naturalism and atheism. To favor this opinion, and to encourage such undertakings is tantamount to abandoning the religion revealed by God."

is Mortalium Animos infallible, being a Papal Encyclical? well, i don't have the theology to argue that it is part of the Ordinary Magisterium, but my suspicion is that you are looking at something that has always been taught by the Church. just look at what the Church Fathers have said about it.

and consider why did the West did not allow the East to continue in Schism and just hold joint celebrations - they denying the Divinity of Christ, us affirming it: or better still, both sides agreeing not to mention Jesus in case we upset each other.

ultimately, ecumenism breeds religious indifference. those protestants attending Pell's "cardinalization" can only believe one thing: that they are on a par with Pell in evey respect.

now you tell me how that squares up to EENS. we are now telling the world that everyone is saved. we don't have to use words. we've done it far more powerfully - by our actions.

perhaps the Church believed that if it was nice to everyone, everyone would see the light. if so, that's just human error because, imho, it's really achieved is the legitimisation of heresies and schisms around the world.

however, at its core might well be the belief,criticised by Pius XI, that all religions are broadly equal and of equal salvific quality. this is rejection of EENS.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), November 02, 2004.


the other point that i would make is that, insofar as ecumenism acually results in conversion to Catholicism, the convert is coming into a Church that he misunderstands. i have seen a converted Catholic deacon preach religious indifference from the pulpit. would he have converted had he gauged the true extent of the Church's rejection of indifferentism? i very much doubt it.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), November 02, 2004.

Ian,

I do see your points, especially this one.

the problems start however when this chat in the coffee house turns into some kind of bargaining exercise. eg we'll stop saying the "Hail Mary" if you agree that [insert appropriate trade].

I don't think anyone who believes their religion to be true would agree to such an exchange. This would turn truth into politics.

I'll have to read Mortalium Animos to see what your talikng about specifically.

I don't see that John Paul II's teachings on "no salvation outside the Church" ever state that "everyone is saved." But maybe I haven't come across that one yet (see my request to T.C.).

The truth seems to lie between two extremes. Religious indifferentism on the one hand and those who would deny such things as "baptism by desire."

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), November 02, 2004.


"The truth seems to lie between two extremes."

lol, Andy actually said it! It least there's intellectually honesty here.

That belief is actually the errant principle that lies at the core of just about all modern liberalism. Any kind of liberalism... religious, societal, political, or otherwise. We're all so immersed in a world full of liberalism that we hardly notice it, and are all to some degree or another tainted by it.

That the truth is in the mean is philosophically impossible; however, the idea represents the majority of people's practical approach to answering questions. Perhaps it is borrowed from another principle which is in fact true, which is that virtue is often found in the middle between two extremes.

But that's the hard way to approach these subjects though. The easy way is to love Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament and His Mother.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), November 02, 2004.


I'll have to read Mortalium Animos to see what your talikng about specifically.

Allow me. It's only a couple of pages long, and should set off gigantic red flares in the mind of any Catholic with a brain in his head.

-- jake (j@k.e), November 02, 2004.

You got me Emerald! Glad you called me on that one. You made a very important point.

The truth is not the philosophical "mean". We can't take a poll and then take the mean to determine the truth. But the truth can be taken to extremes so that it isn't the truth anymore. Most heresies are just that. That's what I had in mind when I made that statement. For example, Pelagianism vs. Calvinism. The truth can be corrupted either way.

I totally agree with your last statement: The easy way is to love Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament and His Mother.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), November 02, 2004.


Thanks jake.

The two statements in MORTALIUM ANIMOS that struck me are:

Those, who are unhappily infected with these errors, hold that dogmatic truth is not absolute but relative, that is, it agrees with the varying necessities of time and place and with the varying tendencies of the mind, since it is not contained in immutable revelation, but is capable of being accommodated to human life.

and this one:

Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors.



-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), November 02, 2004.

The next question I have is, even though the two are related isn't combatting religious indifferentism and the dogma "no salvation outside the church" two different topics?

That is, can't one allow for "baptism by desire" without adhering to religious indifferentism?

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), November 02, 2004.


isn't combatting religious indifferentism and the dogma "no salvation outside the church" two different topics?

Dogmas are like dominos. If you knock one down, the rest fall, too. Usually, the two topics are argued seperately (and passionately). What should be eminently clear by now is that the current program of false ecumenism can't stand in the face of past teaching. They can't both be true. They are contradictory. Modern churchmen try to skirt the issue by simply changing the definition of what "the Church" is. Hence, they are perfectly comfortable arriving at the conclusion that the Jewish religion is still valid, that they have no need of Christ to be saved, but anyone who assistes at the Traditional Latin Mass for the "wrong" reasons is bound for Hell fire. Authentic teaching thus takes a back seat to humanistic sentiment. What's been taught is out there. It's well within the bounds of any Catholic to find & understand.

-- jake (j@k.e), November 02, 2004.

As for the truth being found in the middle of two extremes, I have a comment. While I was a Protestant searching for Truth, I concluded that if I found two extremes and tried to find a balance in the middle, this must be closer to the Truth. I proposed this idea to a friend, and she responded, "Well, what if what you see as an extreme is actually the Truth?" She made a good point, and now the irony of it is that I am becoming Catholic -- what I had formerly considered to be an extreme, I now consider to be the Truth. In short, she was right -- and she rejected Catholicism!

I was very bothered by the notion in my various Evangelical churches that Truth could be put up to vote. What drew me to Catholicism (in part) was the idea that God establishes Truth and our job is simply to follow. No more worrying or speculating as to whether I have my doctrine all right (and might be headed for hell if I don't). It's all in God's hands.

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), November 02, 2004.


In a truly amazing reversal that has occurred since Vatican II, Catholics (and others) now believe in the doctrine of Universal Salvation. Everyone is saved; no one goes to hell. If you don’t believe this has happened, just go to the typical Novus Ordo funeral. There the deceased are canonized on the spot, and declared to be enjoying heavenly bliss in God’s presence. And heaven forbid that there should be any mention of hell or purgatory.

I quote the words of Fr. Robert D. Smith, now deceased: "All heresy, from Gnosticism in the first century to Arianism in the fourth; from Islam in the seventh to Lutheranism in the sixteenth, boils down to the notion that at least some people are so loved by God that they do not have to repent of sins against the Commandments to be saved. Some people do not have to repent at all. And this notion is all too likely to lead to the logical conclusion that, after all, everyone who has ever lived must be saved. This is the final state of heresy… belief in universal salvation. Universalism. Today, this belief in universal salvation seems to be itself universal" ("A Heaven Which Makes No Sense," from The Other Side of Christ, Issue 25).

Whom can we blame for this? We can blame in part the documents of Vatican II, as well as other documents issued by the Vatican. Take, for instance, the document for Mission Sunday, October 20, 2002, Mission is Proclamation of Forgiveness, in which John Paul II declared that we were all on our way to our "common Homeland," following different paths, it is true (the various religions), but destined to end up in the same place—our "common Homeland." That very ecumenical document pretended to speak of evangelization, but failed to mention the necessity of Baptism.

Now hear this! John Paul II, who now openly uses the term universalism, has expressed the opinion that hell is only for the devil and his fallen angels, and that no human being goes there. In fact, he was teaching this heresy even before he was declared to be pope by a den of Masonic Cardinals and infiltrators at the conclave in 1978, after the suspicious and untimely death of John Paul I. As Karol Cardinal Wojtyla, he gave a retreat to the papal curia under Paul VI. His retreat conferences were afterwards published in a book called The Sign of Contradiction. A careful study of these conferences as well as of his encyclicals, such as Redemptor Hominis, brings to light his universalist convictions.

Now we know! What did Fr. Smith say? "This is the final state of heresy… belief in universal salvation." Conclusion: Karol Wojtyla + Universalism ¹ Pope. (Karol Wojtyla, plus Universalism, does not equal "Pope"). According to the decree of Pope Paul IV: "... if at any time it will be found that some bishop … conducting himself as an archbishop or patriarch … or …cardinal … or even a Roman Pontiff, before his promotion or assumption as cardinal or as Roman Pontiff, had deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy, … that promotion or assumption concerning him, even if made in concord and from the unanimous assent of all the cardinals, is null, void and worthless; [regardless of] the reception of consecration, … the ensuing possession of the office and administration, … the enthronement or homage of the Roman Pontiff, or the obedience given to him by all …" (Pope Paul IV, Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio, 15 March, 1559).

But many traditionalists are still unable to face the truth about "the emperor’s new suit of clothes." To them John Paul must be the pope, so they protect him by blaming all the abominations on his curial assistants like Cardinals Sodano and Ratzinger.

As for the existence of hell, nothing is more clearly taught in the Gospels. St. John Chrysostom used to say that Jesus preached more often on hell than on any other subject. We have a clear reference to hell in today’s Gospel in which Jesus speaks of darkness outside, and weeping and gnashing of teeth (Mt.8:12). In His description of the Last Judgment in which the sheep are separated from the "goats," the Just Judge pronounces over those unrepentant sinners: "Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" (Mt.25:41).



-- T-C (Treadmill234@South.com), November 02, 2004.


Andy

"That is, can't one allow for "baptism by desire" without adhering to religious indifferentism? "

i *think* you're describing Feeneyism.

read this.

http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/eens2.html

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), November 02, 2004.


"Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (John 3:5)

What is so difficult about these words. Do they leave any other options?

Why were unbaptized catechumens not burried in Holy ground? This was the belief of the earliest Church. Somewhere along the way St. Ambrose with a heartbroken remark, caused much confusion.

-- T-C (Treadmill234@South.com), November 02, 2004.


Ian,

Yes, I am describing Feeneyism as I understand it. Thanks for that link.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), November 02, 2004.


Hi T-C,

You said,

In a truly amazing reversal that has occurred since Vatican II, Catholics (and others) now believe in the doctrine of Universal Salvation. Everyone is saved; no one goes to hell.

Do you have a reference that states this as official teaching anywhere? Are you saying that some Catholics believe this to be true, or that it is now taught in the Church as official teaching from the Magesterium? I hadn't heard that taught and nothing I've read yet by John Paul II indicates that he believes or teaches that no one goes to hell. Would you direct me to the documents that brought you to this conclusion?

Here are some excerpts from

Redemptoris Homini

that lead me to believe that John Paul II teaches that truth must not be compromised and that truth lies in the Catholic Church. The comments about other religions such as Islam and Judaism appear to be respect for whatever pieces of the truth they hold as “seeds of the Word” (as described by some of the Church fathers). These excerpts don't sound like religious indifferentism to me. What am I missing?

- Consequently, we have become sharers in this mission of the prophet Christ, and in virtue of that mission we together with him are serving divine truth in the Church. Being responsible for that truth also means loving it and seeking the most exact understanding of it, in order to bring it closer to ourselves and others in all its saving power, its splendour and its profundity joined with simplicity.

- The Church lives by the Eucharist, by the fullness of this Sacrament, the stupendous content and meaning of which have often been expressed in the Church's Magisterium from the most distant times down to our own days. However, we can say with certainty that, although this teaching is sustained by the acuteness of theologians, by men of deep faith and prayer, and by ascetics and mystics, in complete fidelity to the Eucharistic mystery, it still reaches no more than the threshold, since it is incapable of grasping and translating into words what the Eucharist is in all its fullness, what is expressed by it and what is actuated by it. Indeed, the Eucharist is the ineffable Sacrament! The essential commitment and, above all, the visible grace and source of supernatural strength for the Church as the People of God is to persevere and advance constantly in Eucharistic life and Eucharistic piety and to develop spiritually in the climate of the Eucharist. With all the greater reason, then, it is not permissible for us, in thought, life or action, to take away from this truly most holy Sacrament its full magnitude and its essential meaning.

- Jesus Christ is the stable principle and fixed centre of the mission that God himself has entrusted to man. We must all share in this mission and concentrate all our forces on it, since it is more necessary than ever for modern mankind. If this mission seems to encounter greater opposition nowadays than ever before, this shows that today it is more necessary than ever and, in spite of the opposition, more awaited than ever.

- This is the source of the duty to carry out rigorously the liturgical rules and everything that is a manifestation of community worship offered to God himself, all the more so because in this sacramental sign he entrusts himself to us with limitless trust, as if not taking into consideration our human weakness, our unworthiness, the force of habit, routine, or even the possibility of insult. Every member of the Church, especially Bishops and Priests, must be vigilant in seeing that this Sacrament of love shall be at the centre of the life of the People of God, so that through all the manifestations of worship due to it Christ shall be given back “love for love” and truly become "the life of our souls". Nor can we, on the other hand, ever forget the following words of Saint Paul: “Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup”.

- The Church's fundamental function in every age and particularly in ours is to direct man's gaze, to point the awareness and experience of the whole of humanity towards the mystery of God, to help all men to be familiar with the profundity of the Redemption taking place in Christ Jesus. At the same time man's deepest sphere is involved-we mean the sphere of human hearts, consciences and events.

- We perceive intimately that the truth revealed to us by God imposes on us an obligation. We have, in particular, a great sense of responsibility for this truth. By Christ's institution the Church is its guardian and teacher, having been endowed with a unique assistance of the Holy Spirit in order to guard and teach it in its most exact integrity.

- The Church wishes to serve this single end: that each person may be able to find Christ, in order that Christ may walk with each person the path of life, with the power of the truth about man and the world that is contained in the mystery of the Incarnation and the Redemption and with the power of the love that is radiated by that truth.



-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), November 02, 2004.


http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/2002Oct/oct18mdi.htm

Hopefully this article will give you further insight.

-- T-C- (Treadmill234@South.com), November 02, 2004.


T-C

as you have quoted Scripture, how would you square your beliefs with the Beatitudes?

for example, the "poor in spirit", the "clean of heart" and those that "are persecuted for righteousness' sake" are not explicitly commanded to be baptised.

my question is: do we trust ourselves to interpret Scripture? i find my own personal interpretation somewhat unreliable. in fact, i would NEVER rely upon it.

other Scripture suggests that water is not the only medicant.

was St Dismas baptised by water? he was not a martyr as he had been crucified before he "saw the light".

was he in Paradise.

over-arching this is the unlimited mercy of God.

there is a statement from a Council (not VII) that i am convinced supports invincible ignorance. currently, i just can't find it. i will try again and i will post it here if i do.

thanks to everyone, including moderators, for this informative engagement. long may it continue.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), November 02, 2004.


The Catechism has much to say about the subject of "Hell" as well, T.C. Surely you know that! Hell is still real and it is still a place for the damned.

Also, Ian, what about Ratzinger's Dominus Iesus. I read that some time ago. It is an excellent.

Gail

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), November 02, 2004.


Gail

Dominus Iesus promotes universalism.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), November 02, 2004.


St Dismas was saved before baptism came into effect, as was Moses St. Joseph, Abraham etc.

-- T-C (Treadmill234@South.com), November 02, 2004.

I always believed Ian that cordial dialogue is better than bayonets, cannon balls, bombs,mustard gas,.....

Just look at Northern Ireland, Kashmir, Israel and Palestine, Cyprus, The Balkans, Sudan,....

Jesus was asked the same qustion by his disciples when they told him they saw a man also casting out demons in Jesus name. Jesus said that whoever is not against you is for you.

Regular Catholics at the Catholic forum asked for the ouster of people like Jake, Emerald, Regina, ....

I disagreeed. At least here I get a chance again to hear both sides.

For example: In Catholicism one has to obey the Pope as representative of Jesus on Earth. What happens if the Pope preaches a message that is believed different to what has been preached before? Do people follow blindly or do they complain?

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), November 02, 2004.


"What happens if the Pope preaches a message that is believed different to what has been preached before? Do people follow blindly or do they complain?"

It's a non-issue, since it CANNOT happen. The Holy Spirit will not allow it. If such a thing happened, the words of Jesus to the first Pope, "whatsoever you bind upon earth is bound in heaven" would be revealed as false. If Jesus was a liar, or if he lacked the power to ensure that His promises were genuine, then there is really no reason to follow Him at all, and Christianity is a sham. However, if He was truly God, if He was "the truth" as He claimed to be, then whatsoever the Pope teaches as binding doctrine is necessarily true, and therefore cannot conflict with such teaching by any other Pope. Truth cannot conflict with truth. If Jesus was who He claimed to be, then we know that the Holy Spirit guides His Church to "all truth", and that whosoever listens to His Church listens to Him. That's what He promised.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 02, 2004.


"That is, can't one allow for "baptism by desire" without adhering to religious indifferentism?"

Not really, theologically. It's a painful subject to get into because someone if you state that it isn't, some people love to shout you down. Personally, on this end it's kind of amusing, but people get hotheaded about it and sometimes I have to back off. It isn't at all heresy to restate the Catholic doctrine that Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation. It's far more laborious to state that Baptism isn't always necessary than it is to just submit to the doctrine of the Church.

Theologically, Baptism of Desire as commonly held is what is called a Theologumena or a theological speculation. In other words, it is not of the Deposit of Faith, but rather it is a product of theology speculation concerning difficult instances. As such it is not doctrine. However, desire is an essential element of Baptism. The question is, can you separate out the matter of the Sacrament from the other witnesses and have them stand alone as a real and true Baptism. The answer theologically is of course, no.

But then everyone wants to know what happens to those souls that seem to not have had a "chance" to receive this Sacrament through no fault of their own. Any answer one might give, though, maybe absolutely not contradict a doctrine of the Catholic Faith... that's the hardfast rule.

The last tangle I had over this issue was actually with a Sedevacantist. They seem to really drive this issue hard, far harder than any discussions with what I would deem to be liberal Catholics. BUT, it is liberal Catholic thought that stands to gain the greatest dividends from holding sloppy positions regarding the necessity of Baptism, because loose doctrine on Baptism is the first and perhaps the single bolt that holds together all liberal ideas of a false ecumenism. By false, meaning that ecumenism that does not require one to come into the Catholic Church, to hold whole and entire the Deposit of Faith, and to entirely ditch their moral errors.

I like Feeney; he was a good theologian and a good priest, and knew well the essence of Liberalism. He took the heat for it, but died in the good graces of the Church holding the Faith whole and entire.

Gotten plenty of heat from traditional Catholics and liberal Catholics alike on this topic, but it's theologically air-tight; so airtight. Anymore I usually shrug my shoulders and move on. It's a tough topic, sure; I wouldn't blame anyone for having a bit of trouble getting their heart and their brain around it.

Again, the short way to understand the heart of some of this stuff is Jesus and Mary. Everyone, naturally, worries about people that don't accept or live the Faith, or who live in sin that will kill their soul. We all want to think of a way to think well of them and to think that there's a chance for them, in spite of what the believe, don't believe, and how they live their lives. But I'm not sure Catholics quite understand a fundamental point of Catholicism: mercy is in this life. This life is where the mercy happens, where we can accept graces and change; to stop loving self and fall in love with God. Perhaps people think mercy will be found at the entrance to the other side, at the point of judgment. No; there's only justice there. The mercy is on this side of life, before the afterlife. This is where we can accept grace, repent and reform. Once the door of death closes, there are no more opportunities. There's only justice on the other side, and it's severe. God is all powerful and perfect, and the disparity between what we are and how we should be is going to be stunning for every soul that will be put before the light of so majestic a being.

Back to Jesus and Mary, then... if Jesus is really, really present in the Blessed Sacrament, and the imitation of Him and His life can really, really be found by the request of grace from His Mother anytime or anywhere just for the asking... and even Catholics don't avail themselves of these gifts and graces, then... it's easy to see how so many souls can be lost. We have to pray and sacrifice for the ones we love so that they may come not just to know the Catholic Truth but it live it and love it above every created thing.

Many souls are lost, and it is arguable that only a very, very small percentage can lay any claim to real ignorance. On top of that, it's true that ignorance is not salvific.

Anyways, I like what Emily said about accepting the extreme, that being Catholicism.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), November 02, 2004.


"meaning that ecumenism that does not require one to come into the Catholic Church, to hold whole and entire the Deposit of Faith, and to entirely ditch their moral errors."

A: On the contrary. The sole purpose and intent of true ecumenism is restoration of unity by facilitating the return to the true Church of those who are separated. Ecumenism in this sense is an essential component of the divine commission of the Church to make disciples of all peoples - including members of schismatic and heretical groups. Ecumenism in any other sense is not ecumenism at all but merely semi-indifferentism.

"it's true that ignorance is not salvific."

A: It's true that Jesus Christ IS salvific, and can save whomever He chooses to save, except of course those who have consciously and completely rejected salvation of their own free will. Fortunately the Catholic Church, while ever fully recognizing and accepting its identity as the sole channel of salvation provided by God for all men, has followed the leading of the Holy Spirit and risen above its callous, exclusivist medieval interpretation of this truth which was so incompatible with the nature of God as He has revealed it.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 03, 2004.


"What happens if the Pope preaches a message that is believed different to what has been preached before? Do people follow blindly or do they complain?"

Elpidio,

i think that's the essence of this thread.

and there is also a third way: you just do what you want and ignore the Pope.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), November 03, 2004.


Fortunately the Catholic Church, while ever fully recognizing and accepting its identity as the sole channel of salvation provided by God for all men, has followed the leading of the Holy Spirit and risen above its callous, exclusivist medieval interpretation of this truth which was so incompatible with the nature of God as He has revealed it.

The Holy Ghost, by this logic, was at one time "callous, exclusivist, and medieval," but He has since changed His mind. When did He convert? 1964? Can the Church teach what is incompatible with the nature of God, or can't She? The answer, for liberals, seems to depend on the times and context under which it was taught. Jesus Christ, though, is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

-- jake (j@k.e), November 03, 2004.

"Jesus Christ, though, is the same yesterday, today, and forever."--Jake.

Evidently, this is not the case. We have two Catholic Churches, my fathers' and his sons'.

...........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 03, 2004.


Emerald said,

Again, the short way to understand the heart of some of this stuff is Jesus and Mary. Everyone, naturally, worries about people that don't accept or live the Faith, or who live in sin that will kill their soul. We all want to think of a way to think well of them and to think that there's a chance for them, in spite of what the believe, don't believe, and how they live their lives. But I'm not sure Catholics quite understand a fundamental point of Catholicism: mercy is in this life. This life is where the mercy happens, where we can accept graces and change; to stop loving self and fall in love with God. Perhaps people think mercy will be found at the entrance to the other side, at the point of judgment. No; there's only justice there. The mercy is on this side of life, before the afterlife. This is where we can accept grace, repent and reform. Once the door of death closes, there are no more opportunities. There's only justice on the other side, and it's severe. God is all powerful and perfect, and the disparity between what we are and how we should be is going to be stunning for every soul that will be put before the light of so majestic a being.

I like this description of mercy and justice. That's an excellent description I think. I hadn't heard it put quite that succinctly before.

I need to do a little more research on "baptism of desire" before posting any more comments.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), November 03, 2004.


Evidently, this is not the case. We have two Catholic Churches, my fathers' and his sons'.

I'm interested to know what your experience has been that has led to you to make that statement.

-- jake (j@k.e), November 03, 2004.

Errors condemned and proscribed by St Pius X in 1907:

.......................

58. Truth is no more immutable than man himself, since it evolved with him, in him, and through him.

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.

.......

63. The Church shows that she is incapable of effectively maintaining evangelical ethics since she obstinately clings to immutable doctrines which cannot be reconciled with modern progress.

...........

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), November 03, 2004.


"Evidently, this is not the case. We have two Catholic Churches, my fathers' and his sons'."--[Rod].

"I'm interested to know what your experience has been that has led to you to make that statement."--Jake.

Well, for starters, the constant debates between Traditionals and the present day Catholics. Secondly, I grew up during that transitional period that gradually saw the interior church change its appearance, language, and other "procedures". Were they simply cosmetic or doctrinal changes?

...........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 03, 2004.


Emerald

1/ another priest has promised to keep his eyes on the next baptism that this guy does. he was genuinely concerned. it turns out this guy is a "liturgist". not sure what that is. too stressed out to ask. thanks for the advice.

2/ i gauge that baptism by desire is not something you particularly like to dwell upon, but you would help me greatly if you could shed what light you have the 2 Encyclicals i have dug out where Pius IX excepts those that are "invincibly ignorant": Quanto Conficiamur Moerore and Singulari Quidam. i am one who struggles to get heart and brain around this.

he says:

"Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments."

i guess you might answer that this is more theological speculation?

i have also been referred to St Paul to the Romans 2,14 - 15:

"For when the Gentiles who do not have the law by nature observe the prescriptions of the law, they are a law for themselves even though they do not have the law. They show that the demands of the law are written in their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even defend them"

i can only surmise that, reading through the posts in this thread, an adequate case has ben made that ecumenism has engendered indifference and universalism, and these are not Catholic teachings.

it is just very hard (as in harsh) for one to accept that this thing is so black and white.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), November 03, 2004.


"Can the Church teach what is incompatible with the nature of God, or can't She? The answer, for liberals, seems to depend on the times and context under which it was taught. Jesus Christ, though, is the same yesterday, today, and forever. "

A: At any given moment in history the Church can teach whatever the Holy Spirit has revealed through ongoing theological scholarship up to that point in time, and whatever constitutes the Chuch's current interpretations of that revelation. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever, but obviously our understanding of Jesus Christ, His teachings and His Church is far more complete today than during Apostolic times. The Apostles held essentially the same doctrinal beliefs that the Catholic Church still holds and teaches today, but their understanding of those beliefs and all that they imply was relatively primitive. Fuller understanding and appreciation of doctrinal truth necessarily evolves over time as the Holy Spirit continues to guide the Church toward all truth. Otherwise the writings of Augustine, Aquinas, and other Doctors of the Church are irrelevant, for they proposed insights into pre- existing doctrinal truth that the Aposltes never dreamed of.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 03, 2004.




Traditionalists are present-day Catholics. We are living, breathing, practicing members of the Mystical Body, and we believe and worship as Catholics believed and worshiped for centuries.

Secondly, I grew up during that transitional period that gradually saw the interior church change its appearance, language, and other "procedures".

I grew up in the diastrous post-transitional hell of the 1970's. I knew next to nothing about the Faith, even after 12 years of supposedly-Catholic education. Then I went to my first Traditional Latin Mass and picked up a little pocket catechism. From that tiny book, I learned more about the Faith than I had been taught for the previous 22 years combined. I also learned that the True Mass is my Catholic heritage, and that it had been stolen from me and made to seem like a distant & fading nightmare to anyone old enoug to remember it, and that Truth had not changed, and that I had better get with the program and wake up from the pipe dream that I could walk around in mortal sin & expec to be handed salvation whether I wanted it or not.

Were they simply cosmetic or doctrinal changes?

So much has been written on the subject. I suggest you start with some of the books of Michael Davies. In particular I recommend The Reform of the Roman Liturgy: Its Problems & Consequences by Msgr. Klaus Gamber (w/ a foreward by Cardinal Ratzinger).

-- jake (j@k.e), November 03, 2004.

Hmm....my earliest recollection of the Mass was the one in latin. Then, the big change happened. I will look for those books, Jake. My late grandmother exemplified the Tridentine Mass, my father is a product of that faith (me too, I suppose), but I am left scratching my head as to what is "right".

.............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 03, 2004.


Here's an enire book online, in pdf format, and a pretty good one at that. Stil, I can't recommend Gamber's book highly enough.

-- jake (j@k.e), November 03, 2004.

Thanks, Jake. (Now, if I can remember which of my computers has Acrobat Reader.....)

..............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 03, 2004.


Correcttion on the title of the Gamber book: It's The Reform of the Roman Liturgy: Its Problems and Background. Another must-read is Christ Denied by Fr. Paul Wickens.

-- jake (j@k.e), November 03, 2004.

Jake's experience and mine are similar. I did not really know my faith until I found real tradition and the true mass. Everything else was watered down to less than protestantism in many churches.

-- T-C (Treadmill234@south.com), November 03, 2004.

Rod

[try] it and see. find an Indult Mass if you're feeling a bit guilty about it. that's what i did. the guilt went away very quickly.

there is no hype about it.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), November 03, 2004.


This is what I have rediscovered about the Traditional Mass.

...........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 03, 2004.


Is this still part of the N.O:

"Thus, the Mass is not and cannot be simply a celebration of Communion, or a mere remembrance or memorial of the sacrifice of the Cross, but rather a true, unbloody making present of this self-same sacrifice of the Cross."
(http://www.latinmassmagazine.com/stickler.asp)

...........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 03, 2004.


rod -

Are you serious? That is the very definition of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and EVERY Mass completely fulfills that definition, whether it is the Mass as currently approved by the Church, or the rubrics of days gone by, allowed by indult to pacify nostalgic old-timers. A solemn high Mass celebrated in the national cathedral is of necessity "a true, unbloody making present of this self- same sacrifice of the Cross", and a Mass celebrated on the hood of a jeep in the jungle while under enemy fire is of necessity "a true, unbloody making present of this self-same sacrifice of the Cross." The Mass is the Mass is the Mass.

You say "My late grandmother exemplified the Tridentine Mass, my father is a product of that faith (me too, I suppose), but I am left scratching my head as to what is "right"." Well, my grandparents and parents also grew up attending the Tridentine Mass, as did I in my childhood. We are all products of that faith. However, "that faith" is called the Holy Catholic Faith, not the Tridentine Faith. And I am still a product of that faith today, because I still submit to the God- given authority of the Church. I don't have to scratch my head as to what is "right", because the Church is the means God has provided for knowing what is right. He who listens to the Church listens to Christ. He said so. Those who choose to reject the authority of the Church in favor of some sedevacantist Tridentine denomination of their own design have no authoritative source of truth. They quote early encyclicals the way other non- Catholics quote the Bible, apparently oblivious to the lesson so clearly illustrated through the history of Protestantism - that private interpretation of early Church writings, apart from the authority of the Church which produced them, does not yield truth.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 03, 2004.


This quotation:

"Thus, the Mass is not and cannot be simply a celebration of Communion, or a mere remembrance or memorial of the sacrifice of the Cross, but rather a true, unbloody making present of this self-same sacrifice of the Cross."

Was taken from the Traditionalist's website. I think they were trying to imply that the Catholic Church has skewed off that very basic meaning of the Mass. I'm not sure if that was their intention, but that is why I posted it. I don't believe that the Catholic Church has become "Protestant" in the Rite of Holy Communion.

...........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 03, 2004.


Paul M.--

Then my previous remark--"Evidently, this is not the case. We have two Catholic Churches, my fathers' and his sons'."--is obviously meant as sarcasm because, as you say, there is only one Catholic Church. It is still rather cloudy as to the freedom of attending a Tridentine Mass. On one hand it can be considered schismatic to attend, while in the other, it is permitted underst specific intentions. So, my itchy head may find it hard to find a definated understanding.

...........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 03, 2004.


"underst", "definated"??

.......

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 03, 2004.


allowed by indult to pacify nostalgic old-timers.

That's great.

Well, clearly some annoyance has been caused here. So be it. Poke their head into any Traditional Latin Mass on Sunday. Don't worry, you won't be struck dead by lightning on the spot. If your Bishop has been obedient to the Pope, you should find them on a "wide and generous" basis throughout your diocese; or perhaps you're lucky enough to have a chapel nearby served by the priests of the Society of St. Pius X. If so, by all means, go there. Then come back & post here & tell us how many "nostalgic old timers" you found in attendance.

-- jake (j@k.e), November 03, 2004.


Well of course they were trying to imply that the Church has wandered from the truth! Like any other denomination, they have to try to justify their rebellion by demonstrating that what they rebelled against - God's Church - is WRONG. Because if Jesus was right, and His Church has divine authority to bind and loose upon earth under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and to speak for Him with divine authority, then their rebellion itself is WRONG.

Attendance at a Tridentine Mass, if that is your preference, should not be a cloudy issue. Your bishop has authorized the celebration of the indult Mass at certain times and places, which you should be able to easily identify by a call to your diocesan office of liturgy, and you may attend those Masses without reservation. Any Latin Mass which is offered without the specific permission of the bishop, in open defiance of his authority, should not be attended. It's pretty clearcut as far as I'm concerned.

Then my previous remark--"Evidently, this is not the case. We have two Catholic Churches, my fathers' and his sons'."--is obviously meant as sarcasm because, as you say, there is only one Catholic Church. It is still rather cloudy as to the freedom of attending a Tridentine Mass. On one hand it can be considered schismatic to attend, while in the other, it is permitted underst specific intentions. So, my itchy head may find it hard to find a definated understanding.

...........

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 03, 2004.


It is obvious that fiding an indult Mass in most of america is moe difficult than finding Bin Laden.

I called the Birmingham, Alabama, and the have none at all. If you find one in some places, it is once a month in some factory area at 5pm. The pope said to allow a generous celebrations of Mass.. Surely they did not. Either he did not mean it or he has a rebellion on his hands. Where is this one, holy, Catholic, apostolic church? SSPX is not an alternative, it is a necessity.

-- T-C (Treadmill@234.com), November 03, 2004.


some might say that the Holy Father is a "nostalgic old-timer".

he's certainly an "old-timer".

is he not nostalgic, Paul?

do you have to be old to be nostalgic?

can you be old and not be nostalgic?

where do i find all this stuff in the Indult?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), November 03, 2004.


Sin is never a necessity. Disobedience to lawful authority is sin. Schism is sin.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 03, 2004.

"Schism is sin."

that's not what the Church "currently" teaches.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), November 03, 2004.


the Church on Schism:

Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."

With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), November 03, 2004.


..there are a few more, but these I consider Catholics.

What is your opinion on the

-- check test run (try@this.okay), November 03, 2004.


the Church on Schism:

"The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostacy, and schism - do not occur without human sin." (CCC 817)

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 03, 2004.


"However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . ."

so schisms can mature into fully fledged and acceptable communities? the next generation of SSPX-ers will be accepted "with respect and affection as brothers"?

Paul, the whole point is that the Eastern Orthodox and the protestants had issues with the Church. they broke away.

now its the turn of the "liberals".

the so-called Traditionals are not Traditionals but are just plain old orthodox. this debate is as much about religious indifference as anything and here you have it in the Catechism.

when did this enter Catholic teaching:

"The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."

or this:

To the Jews "belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ", "for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable."

or this:

Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."

you know of the 3 infallible teachings. where did they go to? have you ever noticed that CCC 846, on EENS, omits to mention these infallible teachings, but instead references certain teachings of the Church Fathers who could not speak ex cathedra?

moreover, the comments above about the Moslems, the Jewish and others CONTRADICT CCC 846 - 848.

there's a real sleight of hand going on here. a reversal in teaching. a denial of infallible truth.

how on earth could i consider myself orthodox if i went along with it? you tell me.

is it possible to be in schism when that is necessary to avoid heresy?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), November 04, 2004.


I would rather kiss a hyena than kiss that abominable Koran.

That's good. Think of how many saints there have been who, when given the choice to kiss the Koran or have their heads removed from their bodies, chose the latter, and in so doing, won the crown of martyrdom. In that measure, you're in good company, and you're quite right to be scandalized by the Pope doing such things. By doing so, he spits on the graves of the martyrs.

Still, sedevacantism is an error, since the Church has made provisions against such things; and if you think this Pope is a bad Pope which, under certain angles you're certainly entitled to think, just wait until he dies. Pray for him, the poor man. He is the Pope.

-- jake (j@k.e), November 04, 2004.


Ian said: when did this enter Catholic teaching:

Ian said (quoting CCC): The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."

Muslims are included in the plan of salvation, just like everyone else. God wants all men to be saved and come to a knowledge of the Truth (1 Tim. 2:4). Why should that not include Muslims?

Ian said (quoting Catechism): To the Jews "belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ", "for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable."

This entered Catholic teaching when Saint Paul wrote it in his letter to the Romans:

Romans 9 (NAB)
4 They are Israelites; theirs the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; 5 theirs the patriarchs, and from them, according to the flesh, is the Messiah. God who is over all be blessed forever. Amen.

Romans 11:29 (NAB)
For the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable.

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), November 04, 2004.


Another discussion about the kissing (a different server).

..............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 04, 2004.


Emily

you might wish to read this:

http://www.romancatholicism.org/infallible.html

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), November 04, 2004.


..and here's some Scripture that was posted above:

"Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (John 3:5) What is so difficult about these words. Do they leave any other options?

Why were unbaptized catechumens not burried in Holy ground? This was the belief of the earliest Church. Somewhere along the way St. Ambrose with a heartbroken remark, caused much confusion.

-- T-C (Treadmill234@South.com), November 02, 2004.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), November 04, 2004.


Ian's post on romance catholicism concerning the three infallible pronouncements of the Church is exactly why I do not consider John Paul to be a true pope. He has taught, (quite cleverly and "Unoficially"), that there is universal salvation, (a heresy). He, in teaching and preaching ecumanism is spreading heresy. He seems to be doing everything in his power to keep people out of the Church.And one guess as to who benefits the most from this. Need I name him.We must not let the time element between true popes to force us into recognizing imposters. Why did he refuse the papal oaath, and the oath against modernism? That is odd behaviour that one can not explain. Of couse I pray for the man, but not as a pope.

-- T-C (Treadmill234@south.com), November 04, 2004.

T-C

despite everything, he is the Holy Father - the Vicar of Christ. pure and simple.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), November 04, 2004.


T-C,

I can understand disagreement with John Paul II's theological speculations and criticism that some of his encyclicals can be misleading. I can even understand - even though I disagree with - the opinion that he isn't doing enough to combat modernism. But how can you say he isn't Pope?

What makes his election invalid?

Also, what's your opinion of his encyclical ECCLESIA DE EUCHARISTIA, especially Chapter Four on THE EUCHARIST AND ECCLESIAL COMMUNION? It seems to me that John Paul II is totally against false ecumenism and watering down Church teaching on the Eucharist.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), November 04, 2004.


Read the writings of John Paul as a teacher, a bishop, a Cardinal, and some of the heretical documents of v2 and then read cum ex apostolatus. Below is just par of it:

that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:

(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless; (ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation; (iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way; (iv) to any so promoted to be Bishops, or Archbishops, or Patriarchs, or Primates or elevated as Cardinals, or as Roman Pontiff, no authority shall have been granted, nor shall it be considered to have been so granted either in the spiritual or the temporal domain; (v) each and all of their words, deeds, actions and enactments, howsoever made, and anything whatsoever to which these may give rise, shall be without force and shall grant no stability whatsoever nor any right to anyone; (vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power.

7. Finally, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity, We] also [enact, determine, define and decree]:- that any and all persons who would have been subject to those thus promoted or elevated if they had not previously deviated from the Faith, become heretics, incurred schism or provoked or committed any or all of these, be they members of anysoever of the following categories: (i) the clergy, secular and religious; (ii) the laity; (iii) the Cardinals, even those who shall have taken part in the election of this very Pontiff previously deviating from the Faith or heretical or schismatical, or shall otherwise have consented and vouchsafed obedience to him and shall have venerated him; (iv) Castellans, Prefects, Captains and Officials, even of Our Beloved City and of the entire Ecclesiastical State, even if they shall be obliged and beholden to those thus promoted or elevated by homage, oath or security; shall be permitted at any time to withdraw with impunity from obedience and devotion to those thus promoted or elevated and to avoid them as warlocks, heathens, publicans, and heresiarchs (the same subject persons, nevertheless, remaining bound by the duty of fidelity and obedience to any future Bishops, Archbishops, Patriarchs, Primates, Cardinals and Roman Pontiff canonically entering).

To the greater confusion, moreover, of those thus promoted or elevated, if these shall have wished to prolong their government and authority, they shall be permitted to request the assistance of the secular arm against these same individuals thus promoted or elevated; nor shall those who withdraw on this account, in the aforementioned circumstances, from fidelity and obedience to those thus promoted and elevated, be subject, as are those who tear the tunic of the Lord, to the retribution of any censures or penalties.

8. [The provisions of this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity are to take effect] notwithstanding any Constitutions, Apostolic Ordinations, privileges, indults or Apostolic Letters, whether they be to these same Bishops, Archbishops, Patriarchs, Primates and Cardinals or to any others, and whatsoever may be their import and form, and with whatsoever sub- clauses or decrees they may have been granted, even "motu proprio" and by certain knowledge, from the fulness of the Apostolic power or even consistorially or otherwise howsoever; and even if they have been repeatedly approved and renewed,have been included in the corpus of the Law or strengthened by any capital conclaves whatsoever (even by oath) or by Apostolic confirmation or by anysoever other endorsements or if they were legislated by ourself. By this present document instead of by express mention, We specially and expressly derogate the provisions of all these by appropriate deletion and word-for-word substitution, so that these may otherwise remain in force.

9. In order, however, that this document may be brought to the notice of all whom it concerns, We wish it or a transcription of it (to which, when made by the hand of the undersigned Public Notary and fortified by the seal of any person established in ecclesiastical dignity, We decree that complete trust must be accorded) to be published and affixed in the Basilica of the Prince of the Apostles in this City and on the doors of the Apostolic Chancery and in the pavilion of the Campus Florae by some of our couriers; [we] will [further] that a quantity of copies affixed in this place should be distributed, and that publication and affixing of this kind should suffice and be held as right, solemn and legitimate, and that no other publication should be required or awaited.

10. No one at all, therefore, may infringe this document of our approbation, re-introduction, sanction, statute and derogation of wills and decrees, or by rash presumption contradict it. If anyone, however, should presume to attempt this, let him know that he is destined to incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul.

Given in Rome at Saint Peter's in the year of the Incarnation of the Lord 1559, 15th February, in the fourth year of our Pontificate.

+ I, Paul, Bishop of the Catholic Church…

Papal Encyclicals Index

-- T-C (Treadmill234@south.com), November 04, 2004.


I believe this is pertinant, but in the final analysis, it is the heart not the words that count.

http://www.cathinsight.com/statusjpii.htm

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), November 04, 2004.


Hi T-C,

I couldn't find "Cum Ex Apostolatus" outside of sedevacantist sites. Is it posted anywhere else?

A couple of other questions:

What specific writings of Pope JPII are heretical?

What Church authority determined that he was a heretic?

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), November 04, 2004.


What documents from Vatican II are heretical, why, and who determined this?

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), November 04, 2004.

I have found "Cum Ex Apost." referred to at a Traditionalist site, but it appears whether the Bull was disciplinary or doctrinal in nature is the question.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), November 04, 2004.

Andy, If Cum Ex and Quo primum are not binding for all time,, then nothing is. I went through a couple of years defending John Paul with every excuse in the book, so I speak from experience. The time came when the evidence wa too overwhelming, and I had to concede. It was not easy. Read what the popes and saints said about ipso facto loss of the popes status. I will look for more about what JP hs done, but nothing will convince one who does not want to be convinced. Look at How O.J. walked.

Meantime look at this;

http://www.geocities.com/pharsea/limits.html

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), November 05, 2004.


Here is one that raches Paul VI as well. The novus ordo mass is not valid.

VENERABLE POPE PIUS IX (1846-1878) "I am only the pope. What power have I to touch the Canon?" "If a future pope teaches anything contrary to the Catholic Faith, do not follow him

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), November 05, 2004.


Principle, principle, and again principle. There are two pursuits that turn up empty handed:

One is that the Holy Father John Paul II is not the pope, or has forfeited the papacy, or that one of those who preceded him has forfeited the papacy. The ruling-out of this can be derived from the dogmatic clarifications of Vatican One; chiefly, that the succession of pontiffs must be uninterrupted. Secondly, the premise that "a pope who falls into heresy forfeits the papacy" is theological speculation and has nowhere been defined or posited de fide. It seems possible that a pope may be in heresy yet retain the papacy.

The second is that the Novus Ordo Mass, as promulgated (note: as promulgated) does not confect the Blessed Sacrament. By all accounts regarding the form of the Sacrament, the Novus Ordo, undeviated from in both form and matter, does not fail the minimums for the confection of the Blessed Sacrament.

Note that neither of the above consitutes apologia for any action or opinion of the Holy Father, nor does it constitute apologia for the Novus Ordo Missae.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), November 05, 2004.


Sorry for not responding right away Ian; been working like a dog lately. I'll get to it eventually.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), November 06, 2004.

thanks Emerald. i look forward to it.

this is the discussion that i waited for over at the Catholic forum for over a year. it never happened. its quite crucial that this discussion be had.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), November 06, 2004.


Yes Ian, It is ironic that this cannot be discussed in a Catholic forum.Ignoance is bliss over there. Emerald. if you concede that a pope, (this one in particular), is a heretic, then you have to concede that he is no a Catholic. One who is not Catholic cannot be the head of the Church. As for a break in popes, it is not claimed that there is a break, but only the time element. The church was without a pope for two and a half years at one time. so that is not a factor. Read wht JP has said about ecumanism and religious freedom, and then read the syllabus of errors. It condemns Jp's teachings.

-- T-C (Treadmill234@south.com), November 06, 2004.

If you concede that the personal Vicar of Jesus Christ, the one who alone holds the keys to the kingdom, the one whose binding decisions are bound in heaven, the one who is the Rock on which the Church is built, is a heretic, then Jesus Christ obviously didn't know what He was talking about, His promises were lies, and Christianity is a sham. If it is even remotely possible that a Pope could teach heresy, then you have no possible way of knowing who the heretic is - the current Pope, or the Pope whose teaching is supposedly contradicted by current teaching - or both for that matter. Indeed, if the personally appointed representative of Christ Himself can wander from the truth in his official teaching, then we have absolutely no way of knowing with certainty that anything the Catholic Church has ever taught is actually true. That's why Peter and his successors are the Rock. Apart from their authority, doctrinal beliefs rest on shifting sand.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 06, 2004.

John Paul did not promise to pass the faith on as it was givn to him. One cannot say that dogmatic declarations by three popes saying that there is absoutely no salvation outside the Catholic church can be passed over. The spin about "developing doctrine" has been used to promote a lot of heresy in the Church. Developing "anything' in doctrine or in the Constitution, has been a disaster. Abortion in our country is an example.

http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com

Ian, or Andy, check this out. It will teach you, disgust you, or whatever, but check it out and the rest is up to you.

-- T-C (Treadmill@south.com), November 06, 2004.


"Doctrine" does not evolve. But obviously our understanding of doctrine does. Did the Church have its doctrines in place before Augustine was born? Before Aquinas was born? Obviously, yes. Did the Church have a fuller understanding of many doctrinal issues as a result of the writings of these men? Obviously, yes. The Church receives fuller understanding and richer interpretation of its fundamental doctrines in every age.

Explanations by previous Popes of doctrinal matters are not "passed over"; but they are rightly reinterpreted and explained more fully in light of centuries of additional scholarship and divine guidance.

As for the website - ho-hum, more sedevacantist drivel. Curious how they create these sites to hammer us over the head with their simplistic, hyperliteralist interpretations of "no salvation outside the Catholic Church", and on the same sites reveal that they themselves are outside the Catholic Church, since they reject the authority of the Pope and the bishops, to whom Christ said "he who listens to you listens to Me; and he who rejects you rejects Me".

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 06, 2004.


So we now "understand" the Holy Ghost better because we are wiser and enough time has passed to see it more clearly. What were those poor people doing in the meantime. "Just becoming Saints and martyrs". It seems that with our greater understanding we are losing people, losing belief in the blessed Sacrament, scandals galore in the church, both of the flesh and thievery. An understanding like that will bury the Church in no time.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 8, Nov. 22, 1439, "Exultate Deo": "All these sacraments are made up of three elements: namely, things as the matter, words as the form, and the person of the minister who confers the sacrament with the intention of doing what the Church does. If any of these is lacking, the sacrament is not effected." (Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Georgetown Univ. Press, Vol. 1, p. 542; Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, no. 695)

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), November 06, 2004.


"So we now "understand" the Holy Ghost better because we are wiser and enough time has passed to see it more clearly. What were those poor people doing in the meantime."

A: Learning. Just as we are doing now. And just as the Church will be doing until the end of time.

"It seems that with our greater understanding we are losing people, losing belief in the blessed Sacrament, scandals galore in the church, both of the flesh and thievery.

A: Many people ignored the teaching of the Church long before we reached our present level of doctrinal understanding. No-one knows what percentage of Catholics believed in the Real Presence prior to Vatican II, because no-one asked. "Scandals" doesn't simply mean that people are doing things; it means that people are being caught. Surely you don't seriously think that there wasn't a small percentage of pre-Vatican II priests who had sexual problems, just like now? Who molested children? Who had mistresses? Who were homosexual? Such problems have always affected mankind, and priests have never been exempt. It is only societal changes which encourage the reporting of such problems that has caused "scandals" to appear. But the same kinds of problems have always existed in the Church, just as in the rest of society, and in any subset of society you choose.

As for your second paragraph, yes, that is precisely what effects a sacrament. It was so in 1439, and is exactly the same today. I teach this in RCIA. Your point?

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 06, 2004.


I refer to theform of the sacraments; "If they are changed to signify something else they ar not valid"

The sacament of holy orders Old way: Whose sins you shall forgive they are forgiven etc etc"

New way: eliminated.

old way; "Receive the power to offer sacrifice" etc.

new way; eliminated.

Making a bishop; old way: "receive the power to ordain"

new way; eliminated;

Curiously the new bishop now hears " Receive the power to forgive sins".. Why? does he not already have them?

How is it the new way of things are always either eliminated or watered down.

Is this part of the new clarifications and understandings?

May logic prevail just a bit.

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), November 06, 2004.


"Emerald. if you concede that a pope, (this one in particular), is a heretic, then you have to concede that he is no a Catholic."

Not necessarily, because one would have to first have to make distinctions as to how the heresy is held. Is it formal or material, is ambiguity involved in what has been said or written, is somebody filtering what has been said or written, is it a matter of poor understanding, poor theological education, oversight, undersight, etc. etc. etc. and so on and so forth.

Now that's assuming that it has been absolutely determined that heresy is in fact being held. This would have to be established first beyond a shadow of a doubt, even before addressing the question of whether or not one would cease to be Catholic for their involvement in it. What adds so much difficulty in establishing these things, particularly in this era, is the widespread and regular use of ambiguity.

"One who is not Catholic cannot be the head of the Church."

This premise is not a doctrine, but a theological conclusion. Now of course it's a safe conclusion on the face of it, true. But the charge against a pope wouldn't be the obvious "he's not a Catholic" as in someone from another religion; that would be easy. Of course they couldn't be head of the Church. Rather, the question is whether the head was Catholic, and ceased to be so... a far more involved question and difficult to answer.

"As for a break in popes, it is not claimed that there is a break, but only the time element."

Technically speaking, calling anyone a "sedevacantist" is a bad use of terms, as the term really refers to vacancy of the papacy from the death of one pontiff to the installation of another. But the period of time referred to by the one who is called a sedevacantist is not that same period of essential time. It's a different vacancy; there's a distinction to be made there.

"One cannot say that dogmatic declarations by three popes saying that there is absoutely no salvation outside the Catholic church can be passed over. The spin about "developing doctrine" has been used to promote a lot of heresy in the Church. Developing "anything' in doctrine or in the Constitution, has been a disaster."

True. I agree with most your take on some of these things, really. But the sedevacante conclusion cannot square with the doctrine of the Faith, so therefore, there must be another answer.

Of course, the last possible answer is anything like liberal Catholicism. I believe the forces that be want people to feel "forced" to accept the post-conciliar brand of Catholicism as authentic. But the need not be forced; there is an answer.

-- (em@cox.nett), November 06, 2004.


Em; You bring up the subject of matrial and formal heresy. I believe that a material heretic is one who innocently commits heresy because they do not know any better. A formal heretic know full well what he is dong but does it anyway. Is that correct?

Now; Is there salvaation outside the church. three popes have strongly defined it and the answer is no. I do not think that this is a discipline.

John Paul says that all are saved no matter what. He also says that there is religiousfreedom. His encyclicles say so very clearly. He is called the foremost theologian in the church today. Is he therefore a material hertic? Hardly. He knows full what he is saying, but says it anyway. I would rather acquit Scott Peterson than believe that.

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), November 06, 2004.


"...but you would help me greatly if you could shed what light you have the 2 Encyclicals i have dug out where Pius IX excepts those that are "invincibly ignorant": Quanto Conficiamur Moerore and Singulari Quidam. i am one who struggles to get heart and brain around this."

First off, I think it's only normal to struggle with certain things. I was having a talk with a friend that is your ordinary run of the mill traditional Catholic, actually one of the middle-eastern rites, and I realized that he, and maybe not many other people, realling think of intellectual "suffering", or let's say in general, struggling with ideas and concepts of Faith or reason's relationship to Faith, as something that could be offered up. Sure it can! It is most certainly a variety of suffering. And while not physical, it can often seem more torturing in its own way. It can be offered up to God as suffering in participation with the Cross; let's say something akin to what Christ may have experienced in agony in the garden, or after 40 days in the desert. Just a sidenote. Always offer this stuff up, or anything else like it, in advance by your morning offering. Cover the whole day with that initial prayer in the morning; concencrate the whole day in advance. Jake has been strong on that point, and its rubbed off on me and has made increasing sense with each passing day.

Anyways: "Pius IX excepts those that are "invincibly ignorant":"

I know what you getting at, but I don't see that he really excepts them. Here it is again:

"Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching..."

Ok, to stop it there briefly, just to point out that he most explicitly upholds the doctrine of the Faith here, no doubt. Moving on:

"There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments."

He does say by divine grace. We all know what that comes through, namely, the Sacraments. As Catholics, we know of no other way to salvific grace. First, or prior in sequence, before all other Sacraments is Baptism. This one little qualifier "by divine grace" keeps the phrase in play as to conformity with the doctrines of the Catholic Faith.

It's true, though, that it sure does look as though someone could draw further conclusions. For instance, saying "hey, he just said people outside the Church can be saved, didn't he?" Well, no... note that the person had to "...not guilty of deliberate sin". Now who would that be? Not me, that's for sure. Unbaptised babies? Well, they truly are not at all guilty of deliberate sin, true. I read "deliberate" here as what we know as Actual Sin, which I'm sure you probably read it that way as well. So those babies won't be suffering specific torments in Hell in payment for sins not committed. But does that mean they can see the Beatific Vision? No, of course not. Even the modern catechism admits that it cannot say that they do. That would require a healing remedy for Original Sin; that remedy is, de fide, Baptism.

What we need to do as Catholics here is to remember a hardcore, inviolate doctrine of the Church: there's something called Original Sin. It's real, and it's mortal. Mortal because we die from it, in both senses of the concept of death spoken of in Scriptures: first and second death. We cannot theologically ditch the whole idea of Original Sin and the corresponding remedy instituted by God Himself, namely Baptism, simply because we feel uncomfortable over the destiny of certain souls in certain circumstances. If we do this, our intellectual and emotional satisfaction then takes precedent over the doctrine of the Faith, and then we have chosen against the firm doctrine and command of God.

That's not to say that feeling unsettled or bothered by hard doctrine is a sin against the Faith. Like anything else, it's only a temptation. When it becomes a culpable violation against the Faith is when we simply decide "well that's ridiculous and I refuse to believe that", and we proceed to choose those thoughts, ideas and concepts which suit our emotions, sooth our intellects but violate the Faith.

There is a study which may help quite a bit here, and that would be to read up on the difference between a "necessity of means" and a "necessity of precept". Baptism is necessary by both means and precept. Confession, on the other hand, is only necessary by precept.

"i guess you might answer that this is more theological speculation?"

Sure, it's pretty much mostly that, held intact by a reference to divine grace. That changes the whole character of the passage. It puts the salvation spoken of into the category of having to having come from the divine grace of God; while yet, there's no other path clearly defined or even posited. He didn't define anything, clarify anything, other than the way of grace through the Church. Assumptions are made by those who read this passage, namely, that there's "another way".

Should he have said anything like this to begin with? Probably not. People are just itching to hear of another way to salvation. He didn't really state another way, but yes he did leave the door open for people to insert their desired opinions under the apparent "blessing of the Holy Father". He should have slammed the door shut, probably. On one hand he did slam it tight with a clear restatement of a doctrine of the Catholic Faith; on the other, he leaves ambiguity in its wake in a manner that's not too much different than way the in which our current Holy Father approaches things.

i have also been referred to St Paul to the Romans 2,14 - 15:

"For when the Gentiles who do not have the law by nature observe the prescriptions of the law, they are a law for themselves even though they do not have the law. They show that the demands of the law are written in their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even defend them"

I think he's speaking on the fact that everyone inescapably knows, in their hearts, the truth. Whether they deny it or admit it or not. In that sense, it seems an argument not so much for ignorance so much as an argument against ignorance. Let me know if you see what I'm seeing here, and we'll look at that one more closely.

"i can only surmise that, reading through the posts in this thread, an adequate case has ben made that ecumenism has engendered indifference and universalism, and these are not Catholic teachings."

Exactly.

"it is just very hard (as in harsh) for one to accept that this thing is so black and white."

I know. It's a shocker to come to the realization that, no matter what, our default condition before being remedied by Christ, is damnation. No matter what good we've done. Not one bit of our salvation is deserved by any deed of ours whatsoever; it is all 1000% the sheer goodness, grace, love, and mercy of God that sustains us and is what ultimately may, and hopefully, save us. We deserve damnation; that's the whole necessity of His suffering the the Cross right there, and the gift of a Heavenly Mother, a Church and so on.

The true gravity and nature our our damnable condition can be a killer of a realization to come to, but once it is solidly in place, it changes one's entire life... it colors everything, hopefully for the better. It takes you out of this world and puts you on the road to the Beatific Vision.

On a peripheral matter, note that technically, Dismas the good thief was actually... an Old Testament character.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), November 06, 2004.


TC:

There's no doubt, at least in my mind, that Pope John Paul II has been brandishing what at a minimum is a severe leaning towards a universal salvation stance. And that's a minimum admition here.

There are two ways to help something along... one is by doing nothing to stop something. There's certainly a whole lot of "doing nothing to stop heretical ideas" in 25 years. Tons of not speaking out against false ideas which in contradiction to Catholic principle and pose an immense danger to the flock. But there's also a helping- along. He helped formulate Lumen Gentium which is completely Rahner-ian, as "Anonymous Christian" stuff as you can get; ambiguous enough to drive a truck through and allow salvation for just about everyone without them even professing or living the true Catholic Faith.

When ambiguity is present, two things happen... one thing happens to the reader of the ambiguous passage, and one happens to the writer of ambiguity itself. The reader interprets the words to mean what he wants them to mean. A proponent of universalist salvation theory will walk up to Lumen Gentium and claim that it supports their heresy, even adding that the title includes the word "dogmatic constitution" even though nothing in it is declared or defined. The writer? Because of the ambiguity he creates in the texts, he is able to walk away held harmless. Totally "not liable". Why? Because of the ambiguity, there's a possibility of a "traditional interpretation". So he walks. The rest is a complete disaster and a shipwreck of immutable concepts and ideas. It's the "synthesis of all heresies" spoken of Pope Saint Pius X, and there's not a doggone thing anyone can do about it, because of ambiguous texts and speech.

"John Paul says that all are saved no matter what. He also says that there is religiousfreedom. His encyclicles say so very clearly. He is called the foremost theologian in the church today. Is he therefore a material hertic? Hardly. He knows full what he is saying, but says it anyway. I would rather acquit Scott Peterson than believe that."

Again, ambiguity. It's impossible to nail anyone, or anything down.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), November 06, 2004.


Emerald;

Ambiguity is exactly the reason, (a deliberate reason) an escape hatch for teaching heresy, and getting away with it. One has to do the V2 tap dance to protect JP. You know as well as I do the crystal clear language of cantate domino, unam sanctum, and many others. The church does not exist to mislead by the disgraceful trickery and ambuguity put forth. They have an agenda, and just like pacts with communism, they have adopted the communist tack.

And that ain't good.

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), November 07, 2004.


I think what you say is accurate.

-- (em@cox.nett), November 07, 2004.

TC,

Thank you for the link. It provides the information I was looking for regarding the case that Vatican II is heretical and that Pope John Paul II's writings are heretical. There is a lot of information there to go through.

I also have to agree with Ian that this discussion is important. I appreciate hearing everyone's side of this issue. I'm learning a lot.

Ambiguity and nonaction don't necessarily make one a heretic or even an anti-pope. Wasn't Pope Honorius a real pope? To my understanding, he has been accused by some non-Catholics of teaching Monothelitism. But his actual "crime" is that he didn't do anything to stop the heresy, rather than actively participating in it. He has been used to make a case against Papal Infallibility by showing that popes have taught heresy. Did his successor have him declared a heretic?

If anyone knows the whole story, please set me straight. I just wonder if all this talk about John Paul II isn't along the same lines as the accusations against Honorius.

When I read Lumen Gentium I don't see universalist salvation theory. I see statements like:

"8. Christ, the one Mediator, established and continually sustains here on earth His holy Church, the community of faith, hope and charity, as an entity with visible delineation through which He communicated truth and grace to all. But, the society structured with hierarchical organs and the Mystical Body of Christ, are not to be considered as two realities, nor are the visible assembly and the spiritual community, nor the earthly Church and the Church enriched with heavenly things; rather they form one complex reality which coalesces from a divine and a human element..."

"This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd, and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority, which He erected for all ages as "the pillar and mainstay of the truth". This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him, although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity. Just as Christ carried out the work of redemption in poverty and persecution, so the Church is called to follow the same route that it might communicate the fruits of salvation to men."

"14. This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.

They are fully incorporated in the society of the Church who, possessing the Spirit of Christ accept her entire system and all the means of salvation given to her, and are united with her as part of her visible bodily structure and through her with Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. The bonds which bind men to the Church in a visible way are profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical government and communion. He is not saved, however, who, though part of the body of the Church, does not persevere in charity. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but, as it were, only in a "bodily" manner and not "in his heart." All the Church's children should remember that their exalted status is to be attributed not to their own merits but to the special grace of Christ. If they fail moreover to respond to that grace in thought, word and deed, not only shall they not be saved but they will be the more severely judged.

Now, one example on the flip side is the statement that:

"Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel."

But doesn't this describe invincible ignorance as opposed to "universal salvation"?

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), November 07, 2004.


"Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved."

Actually, it's not just those people. It is everyone who doesn't enter, and remain in, the Catholic Church.

It's a carefully crafted sentence the Lumen Gentium puts on the table for the Catholic faithful: it takes the part and implies this part to be the whole. But it isn't done explicitly: it leaves it to the reader to make the leap in logic, leaving the writer held harmless. And people fall for it. Note that it doesn't openly say "only those, therefore, knowing..." but instead says "whosoever, therefor, knowing...".

But let me tell you something... ask anyone what they think this sentence means, and they will tell you that it only applies to Catholics who leave the Church, who should have known better. Ask them if it applies to everyone else. They'll say it doesn't.

But it does apply to everyone, and across the entire board. That's because each and every person is born in original sin, and later, commits actual sin. How do we know it applies to everyone, dogmatically? At the very top of the certitude chain, by means of ex- cathedra, infallible pronouncements of popes. Here's the most biting example:

"The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church."

This version leaves no cracked doors or unlocked windows. It's full of the necessary qualifiers, such as "unless before death" and "only those" and "remain within" and so forth. Every door is slammed shut. This is a theological tungsten carbide one shot kill.

Plus, the statement takes place withing the within the infallible format. It's just plain Catholic Truth, and no amount of sugar is going to make this medicine go down any easier. You know what I mean? I wish there was a way, but 'fraid not.

That statement of Pope Eugene IV is still as true today as the day it was stated. No amount of newthink is going to alter the truth of its content; no updated understanding will negate it, no evolution of understanding, development of doctrine, nada, nothing, per omnia secula seculorum, etc, amen. Nothing. It's the truth.

Let me give a similiar example. We all know the three conditions for mortal sin, right? What is committed has to actually be, of its nature, a mortal sin... the person has to have knowledge that it's a mortal... and the person has to freely choose to commit it anyways.

But generally speaking, non Catholics generally won't even know what a mortal sin is. Does that mean that only Catholics could commit a mortal sin?

No... but see how easy it would be to make it appear that only Catholics could possibly be capable of commiting a mortal sin as only Catholics would generally know what one is; and everyone else would walk via ignorance. One could twist things to this conclusion if they wished. It's not accurate or true though.

What's the truth. That's what we need to know that's important. We get it, and then live it. That's where the work begins.

[Post reformatted.]



-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), November 07, 2004.


Forgot to close tags. I'll leave it to you to sort out... sorry.

-- (em@cox.nett), November 07, 2004.

Emerald,

I do see the problem with wishy-washy statements that might be more appropriate for diplomatic documents rather than Church teaching. I can see how the faithful can be mislead when the wording isn't explicit and clear. I like the way you explain things.

The problem I have is calling Lumen Gentium heretical when the heresy lies in misinterpreting the document.

That's why its important for the bishops to ensure that teachings are passed on correctly. Of course, there are some bishops who haven't done this.

I am heartened though, by the bishops I see taking a stand for the truth. Especially those standing for the truth of the Eucharist.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), November 08, 2004.


erected for all ages as "the pillar and mainstay of the truth". This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, SUBSISTS in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him, although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found OUTSIDE of its visible structure,

Andy; note the words subsists and outside. That is false... The truth is entirely in the Catholic church and outside is falsehood.

Also the words "visible structure" They want the buildings to represent the faith... The infallible declarations by the past popes,as Emerald says, is clear and to the point. It is all or nothing with the church. You are either in or out, in the ark or outside the ark.Andy they are preaching univesal salvation in the mos devious way. Tey have changed everything that the could. For example they have added a fourth rosary. The rosary was given to St. Dominic from Heaven, from Our Lady. They were the 15 psalters and that is what She wanted. They have changed the form of all seven sacraments. One at the cinsecration of the chalice, the odination of priests, the consecration of bishops, confirmation, lst rites, etc. The oly ones they could not damage was baptism and marriage. One should ask "Why did they do it". They will give you all sorts of excuses, but the bottom line is, that if was good enough from the earliest church, from the mouth of Our Lord Himself, but not good enoough for them. Hope the lead to Dimond helps. You do not have to take his pesonal opinions if you do not want to, but the research that he has done is fabulous.

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), November 08, 2004.


"The truth is entirely in the Catholic church and outside is falsehood."

A: That statement is pretty difficult to defend when you consider that many of the beliefs of any given Protestant denomination came directly from the Catholic Church. A church which does not hold a substantial number of Catholic beliefs cannot be considered Christian in any sense of the word. So, are you saying these beliefs are "truth" when they are held by the Catholic Church, but the identical beliefs become "falsehood" when they are learned from the Catholic Church by others?

"Visible structure" does not refer to buildings! It refers to the hierarchical structure with which Christ endowed His Church - Divine authority transmitted through the Pope, and subsequently through the bishops, to the Church at large.

The story of Dominic receiving the Rosary from Mary is a pious myth. The Rosary evolved from a monastic form of prayer used by Irish monks in the 9th century - the daily recitation of the 150 psalms. Because the recitation of the full 150 psalms was very time-consuming, ordinary folks who were not monastics began saying a short prayer 150 times during the day, often keeping track by carring a small pouch of [150] pebbles which they discarded as they said each prayer. This involved into a cord with 50 knots, which was to be counted three times. The Irish monks spread this devotion when they began evangelizing surrounding lands. In some places, people began using the angel's greeting to Mary as the short prayer they recited. During the 13th century, a series of 150 psalters in honor of Mary were written, and many people began using these prayers, counting them with their knotted cords. The psalters were subdivided into three sets of 50, to fit the custom of using cords with 50 knots. Each of these sets of prayers was called a "bouquet" or "rosarium". This was the form of the Rosary that St. Dominic knew and widely propagated. In the mid-14th century, about 150 years after Dominic's death, the Rosary was first divided into 15 decades of 10 prayers each, and the Our Father was added between decades. The idea of further subdividing the 15 decades into Joyful, Sorrowful, and Glorious mysteries evolved at the beginning of the 18th century. So you see, the Rosary is a work in progress, a gradual development within the Church, not a divinely revealed prayer like the Our Father, which cannot be changed by men.

[Correction made.]



-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 08, 2004.


Correction ... "150 pebbles"

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 08, 2004.

TESTIMONY OF THE POPES Pope Benedict XIV (1740-58) was a renowned scholar and a promoter of historical studies and research. When he was an official of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, he was asked about the tradition of St. Dominic and the Rosary. The following is his response, a century after the work of the Bollandists:

“You ask whether St. Dominic was the first institutor of the Rosary, and show that you yourselves are bewildered and entangled in doubts on the matter. Now, what value do you attach to the testimony of so many Popes, such as Leo X (1521), Pius V (1572), Gregory XIII (1585), Sixtus V (1590), Clement VIII (1605), Alexander VII (1667), Bl. Innocent XI (1689), Clement XI (1721), Innocent XIII (1724) and others who unanimously attribute the institution of the Rosary to St. Dominic, the founder of the Dominican Order, an apostolic man who might be compared to the apostles themselves and who, undoubtedly due to the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, became the designer, the author, promoter, and most illustrious preacher of this admirable and truly heavenly instrument, the Rosary.”

After quoting the above, Fr. Anthony N. Fuerst, in his well documented book, THIS ROSARY, states: “To reject this tradition in its entirety, without strong arguments would be very rash.” (p. 20)

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), November 08, 2004.


Here's some of what's been said on St. Dominic & the Rosary:

Pope Benedicy XIV

Pope St. Pius V

Pope Leo XIII

Pope Pius XI

Pope Leo XIII

Pope Leo XIII

Pope Pius XI

Pope Leo XIII

I love Pope Leo XIII

Pope Leo XIII, when Popes were Popes

Pope Leo XIII again.


...and then there's...

"The story of Dominic receiving the Rosary from Mary is a pious myth."
-Paul M. - Some guy from the internet, 2004

-- jake (j@k.e), November 08, 2004.

Is John Paul still a valid pope?

Moreover, the Council of Carthage declares:

One must neither pray nor sing psalms with heretics, and whosoever shall communicate with those who are cut off from the communion of the Church, whether clergy or layman: let him be excommunicated.

I rest my case..

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), November 08, 2004.


Nice collection of writings on St. Dominic, Jake. Curious though that only one of them alludes to the story of Dominic receiving the Rosary from the Blessed Mother. Presumably these distinguished writers knew the historical facts as I outlined them above. They repeated say that Dominic propagated the Rosary, as I also said. But they don't say he originated it, or that he received it ready-made from Mary. Because he didn't. Why is this difficult to accept? The Catholic faith is based on objective truth. The Holy Catholic Faith is sublime and incomparable when only the plain truth is believed. We don't need to propagate legends.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 08, 2004.

Surprised you would reference a statement from a Church Council, when you apparently don't believe that such Councils speak authoritatively. Or did someone empower you to judge the validity of various Church Councils, based on your personal interpretations of their statements? If Church Councils are guided by the Holy Spirit, and speak infallibly, then obviously you must accept Vatican II. If Church Councils are not guided by the Holy Spirit, and are subject to heresy, then obviously there is no reason to accept any statement from Carthage, Trent, or any other Council. It's one or the other. And if two Councils really taught opposing doctrine (which they cannot) then you would have absolutely no way of knowing whether the earlier or later statement was the heretical one. Maybe both! Unless of course you believe, as all Protestants do, that your personal interpretation of early Church writings is the only valid source of truth.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 08, 2004.

I have a question then for jake, Emerald, TC, and Ian.

I am in the process of converting to Catholic from a Protestant denomination. I'm taking RCIA right now, and have not yet been confirmed or received confession. I was baptized in my Protestant church at age 13. If all goes well, I will be received this coming Easter.

Sometime last February I decided for sure to become Catholic, but my priest said it was too late in the church year to be received on Easter, so I would have to go through the next RCIA in the fall. I started RCIA in September.

So if I were to die (otherwise in a state of grace) at any one of these moments, at which point would you say that I would be eligible for salvation? At what point am I fully within the Catholic Church, in your definition? (Let's temporarily set aside any arguments about where the true Church is right now and assume I was in the process of joining whatever one you consider to be the right one.)

I sincerely would like to know the state of my soul in the theology of "no salvation outside the Church" from your perspectives. Thanks.

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), November 08, 2004.


Continue the discussion and responses Here

Assistant Moderator

PS: No more postings here. Use the continuation thread. This thread is too long.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), November 08, 2004.


"I was baptized in my Protestant church at age 13."

If done according to proper matter and form, you were actually baptised a Catholic.

And you desire to, and seek to, hold the Catholic Faith; at least that's what seems evident on this end.

Seems you're a Catholic. What really remains?

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), November 08, 2004.


Shoot; sorry Elpedio. I thought I was posting to the new thread. My mistake.

-- (em@cox.nett), November 08, 2004.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ