SSPXgreenspun.com : LUSENET : Ask Jesus : One Thread |
for Frank.
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 05, 2005
is it a sin to go to an SSPX Mass? is that Mass valid? is the Consecration effective?
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 05, 2005.
Ian's previous discussion moved here:"And many Catholics with "traditionalist" leanings do exactly that, carefully limiting themselves to those activities which are specifically allowed, however reluctantly, by the Holy See."
"Wide and generous" were the words that the Holy Father used when he told his bishops to provide the traditional Latin Mass for the laity. That's hardly reluctant.
By and large, of course the bishops have disobeyed him. If it were the case that it was sinful to assist at a latin Mass provided by, for instance, the SSPX, it could easily be said that the bishops are partly responsible, or complicit, in that they have not made the Latin Mass available in a wide and generous manner in submission to the Pope.
Is there reluctance? Heck yeah... who is reluctant? The bishops. Reluctant to provide the latin Mass in a manner similar to what you say. That's bad; because in failing to do so, they have not obeyed the Pope, pure and simple.
"The overly simplistic, legalistic, coldly condemnatory interpretations of God's Word which my grandparents were subjected to has been brought more into line with the nature of God as He has revealed it."
This is the same as to say that the Catholic Church was, for most of it's existence, "legalistic, coldly condemnatory interpretations of God's Word". This is an amazing statement. Of all the things said by traditional Catholics which are considered "hateful" or destructive or negative concerning the Church, this one is far out and away worse. Far worse. You're actually saying it. Once again, the accusers do it worse.
It's that same old thing again. Modern man. He thinks he's so very enlightened, has progressed so very far. If you're a modern Catholic, all you do is this: hold the same ideas as the rest of progressed, enlightened society. Change one thing only. Don't credit yourself. Say the Holy Ghost did it instead. Say He condones it, approves it, in fact leads it on. Then, proceed full throttle conjoined with the rest of humanity in the establishment of the ideals of the City of Man.
"The Holy Spirit guides His Church into all truth."
Into? The Deposit of Faith wasn't complete? It's a work in progress?
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 05, 2005.
Ian,We've been through the sspx thing SO many times. It's founder and the bishops he ordained were all excommunicated BY NAME, and in ecclesia dei everyone who is in formal adherence to their schism is ALSO excommunicated. Why is this so hard to understand?
Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 05, 2005.
Franktell me, is it a sin to go to an SSPX Mass? is that Mass valid? is the Consecration effective?
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 05, 2005.
................
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 05, 2005.
that's magic Rod!
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 05, 2005.
It's scary, actually.........
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 05, 2005.
What would we do with you, Elpidio?Thanks!
.....................
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 05, 2005.
it's even more magic over on the old thread --- and if we carry on like this, you'll have to do it again, and again, and again,....so i'm just gonna shut up and wait for Frank.
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 05, 2005.
Non, non, non. Mon Ian- que pourrait dire Elpidio?
Or as Mongo would say, "I'm just a pawn in the game of life."
.................
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 05, 2005.
Yikes! That should have been:What would we do without you, Elpidio?
A whole different meaning.
...........
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 05, 2005.
Iantell me, is it a sin to go to an SSPX Mass? is that Mass valid? is the Consecration effective?
No, it is not a sin merely to attend an sspx mass, and the mass is valid, and the consecration is effective.
However, excommunicated priests are forbidden to SAY mass to the public in the first place, so knowingly attending their mass would not be recommended, nor is their mass *licit*.
There ARE some sacraments are NOT VALID if performed by and excommunicated priest such as *penance* or *marriage*. This alone should be a grave reason to avoid the sspx like the plague, that and of course the fact that formal adherence to their schism results in excommunication of the parishoner.
You can read about excommunication from a reliable source here
Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 05, 2005.
formal adherence to their schism results in excommunication of the parishoner
Who is "they?" What schism has occurred? What constitutes "formal adherence?"
-- jake (j@k.e), February 05, 2005.
Jake, you of all people have been over this enough for me not to waste my time repeating it with you."Formal adherence" would mean someone doing something like joining up in an sspx church and saying something like:
"Formal adherence, baby!"
According to the pre-vatII pope Eugene, schismatics and heretics are roasting in Hell, as you well know. Make sure to bring your asbestos undies, Jake.
Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 05, 2005.
Thaat is a new one. Their masses aare valid but they ar not licit. Their power to forgive sins are invalid and illicit.That is called "partial excommunication". Like being just a little bit pregnant.
Novus ordo ordinations are partial but valid and licit.
SSPX ordinations are total but invalid.
Who makes up this stuff!
-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), February 05, 2005.
TC,That's what the church teaches, and this is pre-Vatican II, if you'd bother looking anything up.
Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 05, 2005.
It bears repeating that Ecclesia Dei was not a formal excommunication, but that it was a claim of latae sententiae excommunication based upon the assumption that Lefebvre had rejected the papacy.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 06, 2005.
"Formal adherence" would mean someone doing something like joining up in an sspx churchBut you said that it is not a sin to go to an SSPX Mass. You seem to be saying now that it would be a sin to go...what...all the time?
Make up your mind.
and saying something like:
"Formal adherence, baby!"
That constitutes formal adherence? Err, OK, but I was looking for a definition of "formal adherence," which none of you has yet been able to provide, as far as I've read. If I ask Eugene, he comes back with a load of crap about how he loves the Holy Spirit. Heck, you've not been able to provide a definition of schism, much less explain how me or anyone else who goes to the Real Mass has fallen into it. You answer my query by saying things like:
Make sure to bring your asbestos undies, Jake.
...seemingly because you take some sort of perverse pleasure from the assumption that I am bound for Hell, which is a sin in itself. Newchurch doesn't bridge those gaps, because it can't. It is impotent or unwilling to do so.
-- jake (j@k.e), February 06, 2005.
"Who makes up this stuff!"The Marketing dept.
-- Michael G. (NoEmail@Nowhere.no), February 06, 2005.
"Formal adherence, baby!"It seems that that grave act of the use of sarcasm has become the definitive principle of schism.
"Sarcasm is a form of irony that is widely used in English especially when people are being humorous. Generally the sarcastic speaker or writer means the exact opposite of the word they use, often intending to be rude or to laugh at the person the words are addressed to."
Your actual point in uttering this statement was well understood on this end.
As to the offensiveness contain therein... by the power vested in me by the LayMagisterium ® ... Te absolvo, etc.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 07, 2005.
Frank,"Indeed, the extent and depth of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council call for a renewed commitment to deeper study in order to reveal clearly the Council's continuity with Tradition, especially in points of doctrine which, perhaps because they are **new**, have not yet been well understood by some sections of the Church."
what does this mean [emphasis added]? it's from ECCLESIA DEI (para 5b). i thought there was nothing **new** in VII.
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 07, 2005.
sorry Frank, this is hopefully staying on topic because it appears to be the basis of the censure in ED, ie Lefebvre's failure/ refusal to accept new doctrine. now, if there are no new doctrine - there can't be - then there was never any reason to excomm, was there?...which means that the excomm was sent in the wrong direction.
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 07, 2005.
by the power vested in me by the LayMagisterium ® ... Te absolvo, etc.What's my penance?
-- jake (j@k.e), February 07, 2005.
...which means that the excomm was sent in the wrong direction.The terms I like to use are "null" and "void."
-- jake (j@k.e), February 07, 2005.
In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.For the souls of TC, Jake, Ian, and Emerald:
"O Mary, Mother of mercy and Refuge of sinners, we beseech thee, be pleased to look with pitiful eyes upon poor heretics and schismatics. Thou who art the Seat of Wisdom, enlighten the minds that are miserably enfolded in the darkness of ignorance and sin, that they may clearly know that the Holy Catholic Church is the one true Church of Jesus Christ, outside of which neither holiness nor salvation can be found. Call them to the unity of the one fold, granting them the grace to accept all the truths of our holy faith, and to submit themselves to the Supreme Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Jesus Christ on earth; that so, being united with us in the sweet chains of divine charity, there may soon be one only fold under the same one Shepherd; and may we all, O glorious Virgin, sing forever with exultation: Rejoice, O Virgin Mary, thou only hast destroyed all heresies in the whole world. Amen.
Hail Mary, three times."
An indulgence of 500 days (S. C. Prop. of the Faith, Dec. 30, 1868; S. P. Ap., March 18, 1936 and June 10, 1949). The Raccolta 2004. Authorized by the Holy See.
In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
-- (prodigalson@new.israel), February 07, 2005.
"...that they may clearly know that the Holy Catholic Church is the one true Church of Jesus Christ, outside of which neither holiness nor salvation can be found."?!?!?!?!?!?you need to read Dominus Iesus, friend. ...and perhaps you need to start updating these "old" prayers.
here's a quote from DI: "Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him. The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches. Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church."
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 07, 2005.
Nice prayer, but why quote from the old, schismatic Raccolta? Church teaching on indulgences was thorughly updated by Pope Paul VI.Obey current teaching, or roast eternally. It's up to you, dude.
-- jake (j@k.e), February 07, 2005.
Divine Mercy NovenaFifth Day "Today bring to Me the Souls of those who have separated themselves from My Church*,
*Our Lord's original words here were "heretics and schismatics," since He spoke to Saint Faustina within the context of her times. As of the Second Vatican Council, Church authorities have seen fit not to use those designations in accordance with the explanation given in the Council's Decree on Ecumenism (n.3). Every pope since the Council has reaffirmed that usage. Saint Faustina herself, her heart always in harmony with the mind of the Church, most certainly would have agreed.
Get your heart in harmony with the mind of the Church since Vatican II. Get behind me, Satan. I'm protected from cranks like you by the Council's Decree on Ecumenism.
-- jake (j@k.e), February 07, 2005.
Reverses. Reverses.The souls of those who have separated themselves from the Holy Catholic Church (i.e. schismatic traditionalists) who used to prefer dusty old parchments from centuries ago now want dust-free papers hot off the press. Well then, time for you guys to embrace the 1994 and 1997 Catechism of the Catholic Church. Sad to say, the terms schism and heresy are still contained in the 1997 CCC.
The prayers and indulgences in The Raccolta, originally published 1957, latest publication 2004, are still valid even though nowadays indulgences are only classified as either partial or plenary, in the 1968 and 1991 Handbook of Indulgences.
BTW, St. Faustina was the first Saint canonized in the third millenium by Pope John Paul II -- the one who excommunicated the schismatic SSPX.
-- (prodigalson@new.israel), February 07, 2005.
When Vatican II opened up the windows to let the fresh air in the wolve entered and scattered the sheep.Since that time millions of souls have gone to destruction.
It starts to make clear now why Our Lady wanted the 3rd secret opened to the faithful by no later than 1960.
-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), February 07, 2005.
Simply unbiblical....all of it!The original disciples would not recognize you...any of you!!
-- (faith01@myway.com), February 07, 2005.
prodigal son,are you here to throw rocks, or to have a serious discussion? if the latter, why not address the point i made to Frank. if the Archbishop's mistake was to reject the "new" doctrine of VII, how was that really a sin?
there is no new Doctrine - there can't be; and VII expressly said that it would not introduce new doctrine.
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 07, 2005.
The souls of those who have separated themselves from the Holy Catholic Church (i.e. schismatic traditionalists)You've chosen not to conform your heart with the current mind of the Church. Poor, schismatic soul. Have fun in Hell!
Well then, time for you guys to embrace the 1994 and 1997 Catechism of the Catholic Church. Sad to say, the terms schism and heresy are still contained in the 1997 CCC.
Time for you to embrace the Council's Decree on Ecumenism. It's infallible (isn't it?), unlike some pissant '97 (?) catechism.
The prayers and indulgences in The Raccolta, originally published 1957, latest publication 2004, are still valid even though nowadays indulgences are only classified as either partial or plenary
Then why did you post that the prayer had an "Indugence of 500 days?" Conform your heart to the current mind of the Church. Pray to St. Faustina for assistance. The PostConsillier Popes unanimously agree that she would have fallen in line with Consiller thought. Do ye likewise or perish in unending torments, O unknown, anonymous poster.
BTW, St. Faustina was the first Saint canonized in the third millenium by Pope John Paul II -- the one who excommunicated the schismatic SSPX.
The SSPX is excommunicated? Well then tell that to Frank, who apparently thinks it's not a sin to go to their Masses. The two of you get together & decide what you think, then come back here & we'll talk about it.
-- jake (j@k.e), February 07, 2005.
FRANK IS CORRECT!Ian my friend, 2300 years ago, 1800 years before Trent, the writer of Ecclesiastes said, "Nothing is new under the sun."
Archbishop Lefebvre committed the sin of "disobedience", "the rejection of Roman primacy" -- "a schismatic act" warranting "excommunication":
" In itself this act was one of disobedience to the Roman pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience—which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy—constitutes a schismatic act. In performing such an act, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning sent to them by the cardinal prefect of the Congregation for Bishops last June 17, Archbishop Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law." -- Ecclesia Dei
The Pope implores for the cessation of support for SSPX:
"In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfill the grave duty of remaining united to the vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offense against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the church's law." -- Ecclesia Dei
-- (prodigalson@new.israel), February 07, 2005.
FRANK IS CORRECT!
Bzzzzz. Nope. Wrong answer.
-- jake (j@k.e), February 07, 2005.
Oops! Pope John Paul II used the word "schismatic" and for the love of God, even excommunicated them! Year 1988 -- 24 years after Vatican II's Decree on Ecumenism."Nope" is a link to the schismatic SSPX website.
-- (prodigalson@new.israel), February 07, 2005.
Oops! Pope John Paul II used the word "schismatic"Oops, indeed. The purported "excommunication" is not infallible. Vatican II was, was it not?
-- jake (j@k.e), February 07, 2005.
prodigal son:you're up for discussion. great!
i'll write back on yr point - overnight. thank you.
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 07, 2005.
God the Holy Spirit guided PopeJohn Paul II in his decision to excommunicate SSPX -- a matter concerning faith and morals -- therefore, his decision is INFALLIBLE, ERROR-FREE, CORRECT.
-- (prodigalson@new.israel), February 07, 2005.
God the Holy Spirit guided PopeJohn Paul II in his decisionSee, the thing about it being fallible is that you can't say that for sure. The purported "excommunications" were a disciplinary measure, and therefore not subject to infallibility.
-- a matter concerning faith and morals
Wrong again.
-- therefore, his decision is INFALLIBLE,
See above.
ERROR-FREE,
Incorrect.
CORRECT.
We have some lovely consolation gifts...
-- jake (j@k.e), February 07, 2005.
What part of "thou shalt not" don't you understand?God always answers his knee mail. Something the N.O. seems to have forgotten.
-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), February 07, 2005.
Mom.Smart enough to get a dagger past your guards.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 07, 2005.
close tags.
-- Emerald (em@cox.net), February 07, 2005.
I sometimes attend SSPX masses and believe them valid, but I am troubled by one thing.They urge me to not attend novus ordo masses, but on the other hand they recognize the validity of the 1968 ordinations. They accept N.O. priests without Re-ordaining them.
-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), February 07, 2005.
In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.Specifically for Emerald who has a heart of dissension:
"O God, who guidest that which is gone astray, and gatherest that which is scattered, and keepest that which is gathered together; we beseech thee, mercifully pour forth upon the Christian people the grace of Thy unity; that they may reject the spirit of dissension and unite themselves to the true Shepherd of Thy Church, and may thus be enabled to serve Thee worthily. Through Christ our Lord. Amen."
An indulgence of 3 years. A plenary indulgence on the usual conditions, if this prayer is said with devotion every day of the month (S. P. Ap., Nov. 22, 1934). The Raccolta 2004. Authorized by the Holy See.
In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
-- (prodigalson@new.israel), February 07, 2005.
we are all in need of prayer and indulgences, but this man needs every bit as we do, if not more.Now, don't take me wrong. As a Catholic, I believe in papal infallibility and papal primacy, and I affirm with all my being all the doctrinal tenets of Catholic teaching on the Pope. But this is not part of it. Let's remember that with John Paul II we're not simply faced with a Pope who may, occasionally, engage in this or that obscure act of which we can't really make sense. Oh, no! With John Paul II, we're faced with a man who engages in things that used to make one suspect of heresy, such as the public praying with Protestants, voluntarily entering synagogues and a mosque, inviting representatives of all the world's religions and telling them to pray to their demons and evil gods so that we may obtain "peace"! He kisses the Koran and prays that St. John the Baptist, one who gave his life to testify to Christ, not to error, might protect, not Muslims, but Islam!
-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), February 08, 2005.
"Specifically for Emerald..."Thank you. Rest assured your prayers are being heard.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 08, 2005.
prodigal soni still see "new doctrine" as the core theme. the disobedience was to refuse "new doctrine". this, in turn, becomes the schismatic act.
tell me. was there "new doctrine"? what was ED talking about? can't disobedience be the charitable thing, sometimes?
this is the angriest thing i've ever seen from the Pope.
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 08, 2005.
I sometimes attend SSPX masses and believe them valid, but I am troubled by one thing. They urge me to not attend novus ordo masses,Rightly so.
but on the other hand they recognize the validity of the 1968 ordinations. They accept N.O. priests without Re-ordaining them
Archbishop Lefebvre never took the position that the new rites were de facto invalid. However, they are doubtful even if they are conferred exactly according to the rubrics, and that was a number of years ago, and things in the newchurch have spiraled downward so drastically since then. In that light, how many Novus Ordos are actually assisting at valid sacraments? Who knows? Why wonder?
The SSPX does not automatically re-ordain new order priests who convert to Catholicism, unless the priest requests it. What they do do is to supply the ceremonies of the ordination rite that are absent from the new rite (i.e., conferral of the power to forgive sins & offer sacrifice). It's like if a child was baptized emergently, say by some Protestsnt nurse in the hospital. The Church recognizes the validity of the baptism, and does not conditionally re- baptize, but if the baby survives it is given the benefit of the other ceremonies, i.e., exorcisms, anointing, etc. that could not be done initially. The SSPX does conditionally reconfirm its faithful, only if the confirmandi request it due to some positive doubt, not as a matter of policy.
Some people I know personally were confirmed with invalid matter (vegetable oil) or invalid form (a handshake). Many of us who were confirmed in the '70's and '80's have good reason to believe that they were never validly confirmed.
-- jake (j@k.e), February 08, 2005.
Thanks for the info Jake.I sometimes go to an SSPX priest for confession, and I am never sure if he does have the power to forgive sins. I just hope for the best.
I asked the priest that I usually go to. He was very understanding and told me that he was ordained in the old rite by a bishop of a valid line.
A friend asked Father Paul Kramer that question and he grumbled "New rite". I would think that Father Gruner was also.
-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), February 08, 2005.
Fr. Gruner, I believe, was ordained in the 70's, so yes, it would have to have been the new rite. Not to take anything away from any of the work which he (or Fr. Kramer) do, which is fantastic.
-- jake (j@k.e), February 08, 2005.
I agree with you on the good work. I get the Fatima Crusader, and have Fr. Kramer's new book.
-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), February 08, 2005.
Mr. Smith and other dumbed-down Catholics realize that in order to implement the teachings of Vatican II, it was necessary that the modernists change the Code of Canon Law (1917), as it contradicted their designs by reflecting the mind of the Church in her past doctrine and discipline? That's exactly what John Paul II and cohorts did. The new code contains a matter which should be most disturbing to all informed Catholics who treasure their faith. According to the new law of Modern Rome, non-Catholics can, under certain circumstances, petition the "sacraments" from a Catholic priest (without the non-Catholic abjuring his heretical beliefs), and the priests must administer them. The Council of Florence, (Session 8, November 22, 1439) as well as the 1917 Code of Canon Law (Canon 731), strictly forbids this. Mr. Smith and those defending the conciliar church's actions must realize again that a true pope cannot teach error in matters of faith and morals. Since Karol Wojtyla approved error in the new Code of Canon Law and it most definitely deals with faith and morals, the syllogism must again be drawn that the man called John Paul II cannot be a legitimate Roman Pontiff from the succession of Peter because the universal laws of the Church are protected by her infallibility and cannot impose obligations opposed to faith and morals. Therefore, the New Code must be considered as lacking all force of law. Moreover, as has been deducted, it has been promulgated by those who no longer represent Catholic authority.
-- TC (treadmill234@south.com), February 08, 2005.
Was very busy the past few days, anything NEW (meaning that hasn't been repeated 50 times already without change0 *and* worth responding to here?Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 08, 2005.
lots
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 08, 2005.
LOL, doubtful. There's nothing new under the Son.Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 08, 2005.
"i still see "new doctrine" as the core theme. the disobedience was to refuse "new doctrine". this, in turn, becomes the schismatic act. tell me. was there "new doctrine"?"Whether or not there was new doctrine, the SSPX failed to obey the Divine Primacy of the Successor of St. Peter, hence, the just excommunication.
Pope John Paul II himself said that V-II promulgated "points of doctrine" which are "new" and require "deeper study":
"Indeed, the extent and depth of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council call for a renewed commitment to deeper study in order to reveal clearly the council's continuity with tradition, especially in points of doctrine which, perhaps because they are new, have not yet been well understood by some sections of the church." -- Ecclesia Dei
Now, as to which exact "points of doctrine" are definitively "new," I leave them to the Teaching Authority of the Magisterium to sift through, accurately identify, and explain. Regardless, they are all IN "CONTINUITY with tradition," as the Pope stated.
Nevertheless, IMHO, Vatican II simply reiterated, clarified, and expounded on the One Ancient Truth of Jesus Christ through the guidance of God the Holy Spirit.
V-II's Extraordinary Magisterium and JP-II's Ordinary Magisterium have the Divine Authority to AUTHENTICALLY Interpret the Living Word of God: Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.
SSPX defied that Infallible Authority and decided to have their own private erroneous interpretation of Sacred Tradition. By doing so, they broke the Sacred Tradition of Obedience to the Magisterium. They also resisted the Sacred Tradition of Unity. The list goes on. They also defied the Sacred Tradition of Humility. They also failed to follow the Sacred Tradition of having Faith in the Magisterium. They also forfeited the Sacred Tradition of Loyalty to the Holy Catholic Church.
"can't disobedience be the charitable thing, sometimes?"
IMHO, disobedience to the Primacy and Infallibility of the Pope in matters of faith & morals and disobedience to his Primacy in Jurisdiction are not only uncharitable but also foolish because such disobedience would mean jeopardizing one's eternal salvation.
-- (prodigalson@new.israel), February 08, 2005.
prodigal sonthanks for coming back.
do you say this :
"because such disobedience would mean jeopardizing one's eternal salvation"
because of this:
"We declare, we say, we define, and we pronounce that it is wholly necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." (Unam Sanctam, A.D. 1302)
if so, then you have a great point.
...but hang on, doesn't the "new doctrine" deny this infallible statement? where does that leave us?
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 09, 2005.
"Pope John Paul II himself said that V-II promulgated "points of doctrine" which are "new" and require "deeper study":"Indeed, the extent and depth of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council call for a renewed commitment to deeper study in order to reveal clearly the council's continuity with tradition, especially in points of doctrine which, perhaps because they are new, have not yet been well understood by some sections of the church." -- Ecclesia Dei
"Now, as to which exact "points of doctrine" are definitively "new," I leave them to the Teaching Authority of the Magisterium to sift through, accurately identify, and explain."
When?
"Regardless, they are all IN "CONTINUITY with tradition," as the Pope stated."
What are they?
So you're saying, there are new points of doctrine, we're waiting to have them explained to us, but though nobody knows exactly what they are (yet), that we can rest assured that when so explained they'll all be in continuity with tradition?
"V-II's Extraordinary Magisterium and JP-II's Ordinary Magisterium have the Divine Authority to AUTHENTICALLY Interpret the Living Word of God: Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition."
But you just said that we were waiting on these explanations of new points of doctrine. Now you seem to indicate that we already have them. Do we, or do we not? If we do, what are they?
Btw, the Extraordinary Magisterium, or the Supreme Magisterium, is the pontificate. Right now that's Pope John Paul II.
"SSPX defied that Infallible Authority and decided to have their own private erroneous interpretation of Sacred Tradition."
Who do you refer to when you say "the SSPX", and can you give me an example of a private interpretation they have, and how it is erroneous?
"By doing so, they broke the Sacred Tradition of Obedience to the Magisterium."
Actually, that's not what I heard. The same document stated that is was over the issue of the consecration of a handful of bishops.
"They also resisted the Sacred Tradition of Unity. The list goes on."
Can you list everything? Thanks in advance.
"They also defied the Sacred Tradition of Humility."
Why are you equating everything with Sacred Tradition? Humility is a virtue. Unity is rooted in the theological virtue of Charity.
But in any case, "They also defied the Sacred Tradition of Humility"... this is really getting quite ridiculous at this point. You could predicate lack of humility about anybody at some point because everybody is a sinner. But to use lack of humility to expound upon why someone is in or out of the Church is far too convenient.
"They also failed to follow the Sacred Tradition of having Faith in the Magisterium."
Explain exactly what you mean by "having Faith in the Magisterium. You mean little "f" faith though, right? As in confidence or trust? Not the big "F" Faith that would reference the Deposit of Faith which are the divinely revealed truths of the Catholic Faith, I would assume. You wouldn't want to confuse one with the other.
By the way, "The Magisterium" is not a person, or people.
"They also forfeited the Sacred Tradition of Loyalty to the Holy Catholic Church."
That's a lot of accusations. I think you're just making a lot of this stuff up. It has less to do with how we ought to believe and live as Catholics in order to see God when we leave this world, and more to do with just fostering a negative public opinion regarding the authentic search for Catholic truth and practice.
"And so they audaciously charge the Church both with taking the wrong road from inability to distinguish the religious and moral sense of formulas from their surface meaning, and with clinging tenaciously and vainly to meaningless formulas whilst religion is allowed to go to ruin. Blind that they are, and leaders of the blind, inflated with a boastful science, they have reached that pitch of folly where they pervert the eternal concept of truth and the true nature of the religious sentiment; with that new system of theirs they are seen to be under the sway of a blind and unchecked passion for novelty, thinking not at all of finding some solid foundation of truth, but despising the holy and apostolic traditions, they embrace other vain, futile, uncertain doctrines, condemned by the Church, on which, in the height of their vanity, they think they can rest and maintain truth itself." --Pope St. Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis against the doctrine of the Modernists, 1907.
"IMHO, disobedience to the Primacy and Infallibility of the Pope in matters of faith & morals and disobedience to his Primacy in Jurisdiction are not only uncharitable but also foolish because such disobedience would mean jeopardizing one's eternal salvation."
Write the bishops. They seem not to know this. When the pope ordered a "wide and generous" availability of the traditional Mass, they blew him off.
That's disobedient. Uncharitable too.
But don't let me distract from proving each and every one the inflated charges which you have made against some of those who wish to believe and to practice their Catholic Faith in a way that Jesus and Mary would be pleased with.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 09, 2005.
Ian, Vatican II's Unitatis Redintegratio affirms Unam Sanctam:"For it is through Christ's Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained. It was to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, that we believe that our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant, in order to establish on earth the one Body of Christ into which all those should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the People of God." -- Unitatis Redintegratio
-- (prodigalson@new.israel), February 09, 2005.
here's some more. i've read it recently. its the ecumenicism decree."The brethren divided from us also use many liturgical actions of the Christian religion. These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community. These liturgical actions **must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation**."
"It follows that the separated Churches(23) and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been **by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation**."
Unam Santam said " ...it is wholly necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff..."
these are really quite different.
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 09, 2005.
John Paul II is a heretic. Plain and simple. No mincing of words.This politically correct stuff is carried too far.
HE IS A H E R E T I C!
-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), February 09, 2005.
"Who do you refer to when you say "the SSPX", and can you give me an example of a private interpretation they have, and how it is erroneous?"
The Pope said that SSPX made an "incomplete and contadictory notion of tradition":
" The root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of tradition. Incomplete, because it does not take sufficiently into account the living character of tradition, which, as the Second Vatican Council clearly taught, "comes from the apostles and progresses in the church with the help of the Holy Spirit." -- Ecclesia Dei
"Actually, that's not what I heard. The same document stated that is was over the issue of the consecration of a handful of bishops."
The Pope said that the SSPX disobeyed by illicit ordination of bishops:
"In itself this act was one of disobedience to the Roman pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated." -- Ecclesia Dei
The Pope also said that the SSPX has "a notion of tradition which opposes the universal magisterium":
"But especially contradictory is a notion of tradition which opposes the universal magisterium of the church possessed by the bishop of Rome and the body of bishops. It is impossible to remain faithful to the tradition while breaking the ecclesial bond with him to whom, in the person of the apostle Peter, Christ himself entrusted the ministry of unity in his church." -- Ecclesia Dei
"Write the bishops. They seem not to know this. When the pope ordered a "wide and generous" availability of the traditional Mass, they blew him off.That's disobedient. Uncharitable too."
In the same token, the Pope also wants "vigilance" in "safeguard[ing]" "fidelity" to the Holy Catholic Church:
"To the bishops especially it pertains, by reason of their pastoral mission, to exercise the important duty of a clear-sighted vigilance full of charity and firmness, so that this fidelity may be everywhere safeguarded." -- Ecclesia Dei
The Bishops know how to discern.
"Btw, the Extraordinary Magisterium, or the Supreme Magisterium, is the pontificate. Right now that's Pope John Paul II." By the way, "The Magisterium" is not a person, or people."
Since you like splitting hairs:
"Magisterium: The living, teaching office of the Church, whose task it is to give as authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form (Sacred Scripture), or in the form of Tradition. The Magisterium ensures the Church's fidelity to the teaching of the Apostles in matters of faith and morals." -- CCC
"The pope can exercise his papal infallibility in two ways. One is called the Extraordinary Magisterium and the other is called Ordinary Magisterium. The word magisterium is from the Latin word magister meaning teacher, so the Magisterium is the teaching authority of the Church, which resides with the pope alone and with the pope along with the bishops all over the world." -- Fathers Trigilio and Brighenti
The teaching authority vs. where the teaching authority resides seem interchangeable for an insignificant laity like me. The interchangeability suits my simple purpose.
"And so they audaciously charge the Church both with taking the wrong road from inability to distinguish the religious and moral sense of formulas from their surface meaning, and with clinging tenaciously and vainly to meaningless formulas whilst religion is allowed to go to ruin. Blind that they are, and leaders of the blind, inflated with a boastful science, they have reached that pitch of folly where they pervert the eternal concept of truth and the true nature of the religious sentiment; with that new system of theirs they are seen to be under the sway of a blind and unchecked passion for novelty, thinking not at all of finding some solid foundation of truth, but despising the holy and apostolic traditions, they embrace other vain, futile, uncertain doctrines, condemned by the Church, on which, in the height of their vanity, they think they can rest and maintain truth itself." --Pope St. Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis against the doctrine of the Modernists, 1907."
Every devout, faithful Catholic who believes in ALL the teachings of the Holy Catholic Church for 2000 years, including Vatican II, all of Pope JP-II's writings, and the CCC, and who upholds Sacred Tradition as taught by the Magisterium, is not a Modernist.
A Modernist corrupts the teachings of the Holy Catholic Church of the Successors of St. Peter for the purpose of leading souls away from her.
-- (prodigalson@new.israel), February 09, 2005.
" these are really quite different."Ian, the Holy Catholic Church has no trouble at all explaining those seemingly contradictory doctrines. Please read carefully the following:
WHO BELONGS TO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH? (CCC 836-838)
"All men are called to this catholic unity of the People of God. . . . And to it, in different ways, belong or are ordered: the Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind, called by God's grace to salvation."
"Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who—by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion—are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but ‘in body' not ‘in heart.'"
"The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter." 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."
"OUTSIDE THE CHURCH THERE IS NO SALVATION" (CCC 846-848)
How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.
This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—those too may achieve eternal salvation.
"Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."
-- (prodigalson@new.israel), February 09, 2005.
dear prodigal son.WHO BELONGS TO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH? (CCC 836-838)
"All men are called to this catholic unity of the People of God. . . . And to it, in different ways, belong or are ordered: the Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind, called by God's grace to salvation."
***yes.
"Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who— by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion—are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but ‘in body' not ‘in heart.'"
*** yes.
"The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."
*** what are the "many ways". we might have somethings in common, if you go through the Faith item by item, but where does the "joint" come from?
can you find anything like this in any of the Church's teachings? it seems to be a novelty.
where do the Infallible Definitions mention this: they require submission to the Pope, membership of the Church,....NO heretics can be saved.
"Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."
*** ditto
"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."
***ditto
"OUTSIDE THE CHURCH THERE IS NO SALVATION" (CCC 846-848)
How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
**** No it means that there is no salvation outside the Church. there's a tons of stuff on that going back all the way.
re-formulated positively, it means "There is Salvation in the Catholic Church"
"Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: ..."
***indeed
"....the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church."
***imdeed
"He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door."
**** yes, indeed
"Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it."
*** HENCE? this is a non-sequitur - or, to be more precise, a partial truth. it is true, but where do the Infallible Definitions mention the state of mind of the non-Catholic. i won't post them as you've no doubt seen them plenty of times. however, submission to the Pope, membership of the Church,....NO pagans can be saved.
do you have any authority for this that goes back any way?
"This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—those too may achieve eternal salvation."
***ditto
"Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."
**** yes.
can you trace these "new" bits, even if only back into the 18th or 19th centuries?!?!?! i'd be interested if you could.
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 09, 2005.
JP2 preaches that the Jews are saved by the old law. This conflicts drastically with the bible. No one is saved unless they accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour.
"Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, "It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you [Jews:] but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles. For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, "I hath set thee to be a light to the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth."" And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed." (Acts 13:46-8)
Pope St. Clement I, A.D. 88-97: "Heretical teachers pervert Scripture and try to get into Heaven with a false key, for they have formed their human assemblies later than the Catholic Church. From this previously-existing and most true Church, it is very clear that these later heresies, and others which have come into being since then, are counterfeit and novel inventions." (Epistle to the Corinthians)
Saint Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple of Saint Peter and Saint Paul (died A.D. 107): "Let no man deceive himself. Unless he believes that Christ Jesus has lived in the flesh, and shall confess His cross and passion, and the blood which He shed for the salvation of the world, he shall not attain eternal life, whether he be a king, or a priest, or a ruler, or a private person, a master or a servant, a man or a woman." (Epistle to the Smyrnaeans)
-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), February 09, 2005.
"JP2 preaches that the Jews are saved by the old law."The following is the teaching of the Holy Catholic Church regarding the Jews, the Muslims, and other non-Christians:
THE CHURCH AND NON-CHRISTIANS (CCC 839-845)
"Those who have not yet received the Gospel are related to the People of God in various ways."
The relationship of the Church with the Jewish People. When she delves into her own mystery, the Church, the People of God in the New Covenant, discovers her link with the Jewish People, "the first to hear the Word of God." The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God's revelation in the Old Covenant. 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."
And when one considers the future, God's People of the Old Covenant and the new People of God tend towards similar goals: expectation of the coming (or the return) of the Messiah. But one awaits the return of the Messiah who died and rose from the dead and is recognized as Lord and Son of God; the other awaits the coming of a Messiah, whose features remain hidden till the end of time; and the latter waiting is accompanied by the drama of not knowing or of misunderstanding Christ Jesus.
The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "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."
The Church's bond with non-Christian religions is in the first place the common origin and end of the human race:
All nations form but one community. This is so because all stem from the one stock which God created to people the entire earth, and also because all share a common destiny, namely God. His providence, evident goodness, and saving designs extend to all against the day when the elect are gathered together in the holy city. . . .
The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as "a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life."
In their religious behavior, however, men also display the limits and errors that disfigure the image of God in them:
Very often, deceived by the Evil One, men have become vain in their reasonings, and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and served the creature rather than the Creator. Or else, living and dying in this world without God, they are exposed to ultimate despair.
To reunite all his children, scattered and led astray by sin, the Father willed to call the whole of humanity together into his Son's Church. The Church is the place where humanity must rediscover its unity and salvation. The Church is "the world reconciled." She is that bark which "in the full sail of the Lord's cross, by the breath of the Holy Spirit, navigates safely in this world." According to another image dear to the Church Fathers, she is prefigured by Noah's ark, which alone saves from the flood.
-- (prodigalson@new.israel), February 10, 2005.
prodigal sondo you have any idea what this actually means?
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 10, 2005.
I presume all the CCC writings are since V2. Of course they will agree with other writings since V2.This seems to show the differences between the teachings pre V2 and post V2.
-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), February 10, 2005.
"do you have any idea what this actually means?" I have some idea. Ian, what does it mean to you? The CCC is pretty straightforward but God's Truth has many layers. Also, one's reading of the CCC may be colored by one's current beliefs. I don't suppose that you have an outrageous take on the above excerpt (CCC 839-845). You probably simply disagree with it. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is a "sure norm for teaching the faith," a "sure and authentic reference text," a "valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion," and an "AUTHORITATIVE exposition of the one and perennial apostolic faith." -- Laetamur Magnopere It is also "useful reading" for the "Christian faithful." -- CCC 12 "This seems to show the differences between the teachings pre V2 and post V2." Fr. Thomas Merton, Trappist monk for 27 years, (born 1915, died 1968) gave Catholics a definition of Tradition: "Tradition is the renewal, in each Christian generation and society, of the experiential knowledge of the mysteries of the faith. Each new age of Christendom renews its faith and its grasp of the mystery of salvation, the mystery of man united to God in Christ, and EACH AGE RENEWS THIS FUNDAMENTAL EXPERIENCE OF THE CHRISTIAN MYSTERY IN ITS OWN CHARACTERISTIC WAY." Aramaic Mass then.
Novus Ordo now.
-- (prodigalson@new.israel), February 11, 2005.
in truth prodigal son, i think that the bits you posted are not meaningless, but amount to very little. that's a bold statement so i will go through it line by line to show what i mean. i'm not sure i disagree, but i think i would consider it very ambiguous.
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 11, 2005.
prodigal son, i'll go through the bit on the Jews first:The relationship of the Church with the Jewish People.
"When she delves into her own mystery, the Church, the People of God in the New Covenant, discovers her link with the Jewish People, "the first to hear the Word of God.""
true. a fact. they had the first relationship with our God.
"The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God's revelation in the Old Covenant."
in what sense? is Judaism salvific? why didn't they listen to Jesus. He's God. surely, the point was that they didn't listen hard enough. Hence the need for the New Law. what is really being said here. according to Florence [and tonnes of other stuff], the Jews cannot be saved unlessa and until they convert.
"To the Jews "belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises;.."
what does this mean? what about the Gentiles? what is really being said here?
".. to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ";
mmm. so what?
"for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable.""
what does that mean?
"And when one considers the future, God's People of the Old Covenant and the new People of God tend towards similar goals: expectation of the coming (or the return) of the Messiah."
mmm, we get to the crux of the issue, perhaps.
**coming** or **return**.
which one is it? next sentence is real special.
" But one awaits the return of the Messiah who died and rose from the dead and is recognized as Lord and Son of God; the other awaits the coming of a Messiah, whose features remain hidden till the end of time;..."
goodness gracious. double speak. Is Jesus the Messiah or not? has it become irrelevant that the Jews do not follow Jesus. the Incarnation, the Trinity - are at the absolute core of Chiristianity.
".. and the latter waiting is accompanied by the drama of not knowing or of misunderstanding Christ Jesus. "
they don't accept Jesus as Messiah, period. "drama", what "drama"?
--- so what does this really amount to? what exactly is being said here? this is just so nebulous, so vague, ... what does it mean?
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 11, 2005.
In 1982 the Catholic church entered ino a pact with the communists. It was called the Metz pact. the church promised not to say anything about communism during the council. Indeed they kept that promise.Our Lady warned that russia would spread her errors throughout the world if the Consecration was not done.. It was not.
Rather than listen to the waarning they enter a pact with the devil. Harsh words right? But are they true or not?
The Revolution, which entered the Church through the takeover of the papacy, was inflicted upon the whole Church through the Second Vatican Council and its false prophets, described by Cardinal Suenens as "1789 within the Church." It is presumed by many that through Vatican II the Church has made her peace with the Revolution. But this is impossible. Satanic in origin, the Revolution takes many forms, but it can never be anything but anti- God, anti-Christ, and anti-Church. Pope Pius XI warned about the Revolution in its Communist form:
"Communism is intrinsically evil, and no one who would save Christian civilization may collaborate with it in any undertaking whatsoever" (Divini Redemptoris, 1937
-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), February 11, 2005.
Correction. that should read 1962
-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), February 11, 2005.
The Church's relationship with the Muslims."The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims;..."
why in first place? moreover, whose plan of salvation. God wants all people to be saved. what does this really mean?
"... these profess to hold the faith of Abraham,.."
what faith is that - Judaism?
"... and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."
the **same** God. how come, then, Jesus is a prophet, subordinate top Mohammed. does anyone who worship a "god" worship our God?
"The Church's bond with non-Christian religions is in the first place the common origin and end of the human race:"
what does that mean?
"All nations form but one community."
truism? all nations amount collectivey to the population of the planet earth - save for those that are in orbit at the time.
" This is so because all stem from the one stock which God created to people the entire earth, ..."
where exactly is this leading. what has it got to do with the Moslems, specifically.
"...and also because all share a common destiny, namely God."
meaning?
" His providence, evident goodness, and saving designs extend to all against the day when the elect are gathered together in the holy city. . . . "
back to God wants ALL men to be saved.
"The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved."
this sentence is meaningless, surely. recognises what? and non- Moslem specific.
"Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as "a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life."
does it?
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 11, 2005.
final bit of the CCC"In their religious behavior, however, men also display the limits and errors that disfigure the image of God in them:
Very often, deceived by the Evil One, men have become vain in their reasonings, and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and served the creature rather than the Creator. Or else, living and dying in this world without God, they are exposed to ultimate despair. "
what does this mean? the Moslems and Jews? its so vague.
"To reunite all his children, scattered and led astray by sin, the Father willed to call the whole of humanity together into his Son's Church."
yes.
" The Church is the place where humanity must rediscover its unity and salvation."
...or what happens to them?
"The Church is "the world reconciled." She is that bark which "in the full sail of the Lord's cross, by the breath of the Holy Spirit, navigates safely in this world." According to another image dear to the Church Fathers, she is prefigured by Noah's ark, which alone saves from the flood."
meaning? No salvation outside the Churc - PERIOD? that's a simple message to deliver. this is a long-winded, ambiguous message.
are the Jews and Moslems in or out? this is smoke and mirrors. exactly what is being taught here. why the ambiguity.
do i summarise it as:
a) you're nice and well-meaning, but get on the Ark or you're lost; or
b) we're all saved - the Ark'll pick you up; or
c) you're on this Ark, but you don't know it (nor, perhaps, would you accept it if you knew); or
c) we don't know what's going on?
as i say, i can't really understand this stuff, nor do i thing anyone could positively draw a conclusion to it -- without going back to Trent, St Thomas, Florence etc.
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 11, 2005.
does it? ...It certainly does not.Can anyone truly believe tha the Holy Ghost poured out His blessing on V2, when it contradicted the message from Heaven at Fatima?
I don't think so.
-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), February 11, 2005.
Being curious, I just looked over at that "catholic" board. They are debating salvation outside the Catholic church. It is remarkable that even catholics do not understand their own religion.One person named Isabel is the only one to gt it right. I can understand the Protestants not agreeing, but Catholics?
The problem is that all councils before V2 are obsolete, (according to them).
If they ever bring up the subject it is that we now "interpret it" it in a new light. What a bunch of nonsense.
Anything to defend the 'robber council". Even try to get rid of Fatima.
They are disintigrating at top speed but nobody wants to look. That is sad indeed.
-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), February 11, 2005.
"The Synod (of Vatican II) declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person, as this dignity is known through the revealed Word of God and by reason itself. This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed. Thus it is to become a civil right. ……." 1. Paul VI and the duped Council Fathers concluded this hideous document on religious freedom with the following confirmation. I can hardly believe my eyes. Here it is: "Each and every one of the things set forth in this Declaration has won the consent of the Fathers of this most sacred Council (Vatican II). We, too, (referring to the papal "We") by the apostolic authority conferred on us by Christ, join with the Venerable Fathers in approving, decreeing, and establishing these things in the Holy Spirit, and we direct that what has thus been enacted in synod be published to God's glory. - Rome, at St. Peter's, Dec. 7, 1965 - I, Paul, Bishop of the Catholic Church."." Over and over we are told that Vatican II was not a dogmatic council. An overview of some of the above quotations convinces me that it was a dogmatic council. I shall highlight the very telling words of Vatican II. In number 12 (above): "The Church … is following the way of Christ and the apostles … (and is) … in accord with divine revelation." Then we go to the final words of the document of Vatican II. Paul VI and the Council Fathers try to make a dogmatic decree by the words, again following Christ (so they say): " … approving decreeing, and establishing these things in the Holy Spirit, and we direct that what has thus been enacted in the synod be published to God's glory." Just looking at the words, we see that Vatican II attempted to make a dogma of the faith contrary to all former dogmatic decrees. What audacity!
The Teachings ARE Different It is against right reason to agree that the Church's former dogmatic teaching on religious freedom and that of Council Vatican II is the same teaching. One teaching has to be wrong, and that is the teaching of Council Vatican II. My faith and reason tell me (and it should tell you too) that I must stay with the constant tradition of the Church. The last Catholic on earth will believe as the first Catholics, or he is not a Catholic.
-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), February 11, 2005.
forget Marian apparitions, TC.what about original sin?
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 12, 2005.
That too!. Ian, the N.O. was not kidding when they called themselves New Order. Everything old went out. They really cleaned house didn't they?
-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), February 12, 2005.
"One teaching has to be wrong, and that is the teaching of Council Vatican II."A: And just how would you know that? First is best? If the church teaches infallibly, as Christ said it would, then obviously there cannot be any conflict between the teachings of two Councils, both of which have precisely the same teaching authority. On the other hand, if the Church is capable of promulgating false doctrine, there is absolutely no way of knowing which of two conflicting doctrines is the correct one. Which is why Christ promised that such a situation could not occur. In that case, the Church would be in the same position as science, where newer findings are more likely to be correct than older ones, due to increased experience and scholarship. For myself, I'll stick with Christ's guarantee that WHATSOEVER the Church binds on earth is bound in heaven, and therefore cannot possibly conflict with any other binding teaching.
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 12, 2005.
Paul; The difference between us is that you quote the conciliar church as if it were still the true Catholic Church. I do not believe that it is. Of course the true church cannot err. I agree..This is not the true church.The question is whether Divine providence has other means with which to save many amongst those who are “outside” the one true Church. Providence has such means. However the use of these means will never be contrary to the principles strictly revealed in the New Testament. That is, in these eventual methods of salvation must be respected the adhesion to the Church, the acceptance of the Faith and an act of penitence for one's actual sins. God is consistent, let me repeat; we may choose not to respect the consistency but we do so always at our peril
God will provide the answers to invincible ignorance and such, but God, not we, will supply the answers.
-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), February 12, 2005.
In 1965, a revised edition was issued to include some of the documents issued under John XXIII (1958-1963) and some of the very first under issued under Paul VI (1963-1978). In 1965, Vatican II decreed that every human being has the right to religious liberty, a doctrine strictly condemned by Pope Pius IX (and after, until Pius XII, who died in 1958). What, then, did the 1965 Denzinger do with Pope Pius IX's encyclical which condemned religious liberty, entitled "Quanta Cura"? It simply cut out the portion where the Pope condemns what Vatican II approved
-- TC (Tread ill234@south.com), February 12, 2005.
"A: And just how would you know that? First is best? If the church teaches infallibly, as Christ said it would, then obviously there cannot be any conflict between the teachings of two Councils, both of which have precisely the same teaching authority."When one states that the Church teaches infallibly, usually they are referring the excercise of the Supreme Magisterium in the manner laid out in the first Vatican Council.
Vatican II made no such infallible declarations, and never intended to. It was a pastoral council. You're slurring the distinction between what took place at Vatican Council II and excercise of the Supreme Magisterium of the Catholic Church.
That being said, given the nature of the language used at Vatican Council II, it is possible to derive more than one meaning from much of the text it contains. The resultant ambiguity has allowed for varied interpretation of the texts, from orthodox to heterodox. This explains a whole lot. Lots.
"On the other hand, if the Church is capable of promulgating false doctrine, there is absolutely no way of knowing which of two conflicting doctrines is the correct one."
And people wonder why there's division.
"Which is why Christ promised that such a situation could not occur."
Did He? Be specific. He said that the gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church. And they will not. The question is: are we at the gates of Hell? And have they prevailed?
Maybe, and no.
"In that case, the Church would be in the same position as science, where newer findings are more likely to be correct than older ones, due to increased experience and scholarship."
That could never be the case.
"For myself, I'll stick with Christ's guarantee that WHATSOEVER the Church binds on earth is bound in heaven, and therefore cannot possibly conflict with any other binding teaching."
Good. But make sure you are clear on exactly what that means. Besides the fact that if you go back and look at the Council of Trent, that particular passage most specifically refers to the institution of the Sacrament of Confession. Not that it doesn't have anything to do with magisterial authority, because it does.
But don't assign any deviant meanings to it.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 13, 2005.
I believe that I am the most far, far, right, Catholic on these threads.I know of only one priest that I can totally agree with. One faith, one baptism. And he means just that.
While I respect SSPX and others I think that they are too scared to make a clean break with Rome. They recognize JP as pope but don't really pay attention to him.
If I thought that he was a real pope I would have to recognize his mass and ecumanism and synagogue things.
I don't, as what he does is a sacrilege to our Holy Church, and more important to Our Blessed Lord, and His mother.
-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), February 14, 2005.
By that post you have proven you have moved so far to the right you have LEFT the church! Well, you came to the right place. Everyone here has their own church.Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 15, 2005.
Follow a heretic and you become a heretic. JP2 is suffering physically, and nobody would not feel sorry for him on that score, but what he has done to the Catholic church is a real tragedy.
-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), February 15, 2005.
If you have made a "clean break" with Rome, you ARE a schismatic or heretic, depending on your reason for abandoning the Pope and Magesterium.Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 15, 2005.
Couldn't you use a little kinder language as you do with the Protestants and Jews. Please call us "separated brethren".Thank you.
-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), February 15, 2005.
Well, we are all separeted brethren, TC.Some more separated from the truth than others.
The Christian Yahwist
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), February 15, 2005.
I was using YOUR words TC. And there is a BIG difference between talking to someone of a different faith who may have never been exposed to Catholicism and talking to someone who KNOWS the fullness of the truth and turns their back on it.Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 16, 2005.
By following 260 popes who all agreed on dogma, I am not leaving the faith. Those who follow the novelties, ( I call them heresies), of Vatican II are the people who are following the wrong path. The results show it.I just saw the morning news, and in NYC they have closed 30 schools.
Truth makes things grow strong , not wither and die on the vine.
-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), February 16, 2005.
Here is a typical response from a Boston mother. I tell you, the Novus Ordo church is very sick. If it is truly Catholic it will survive, if not it will die.--------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------
I am totally confused as a catholic. It's the church's fault that we are all in this situation today. I believe in God and the catholic traditions that I grew up with, that's it. I no longer feel the "need" to attend weekly mass? The ONLY reason why we are Baptizing our children in the catholic church is because we don't want to deprive them of getting married in a "church" (if there are any left when that time comes). Any suggestions on a new religion that doesn't protect and pay child molestors??
-- TC (Treadmil234@south.com), February 16, 2005.
TC,Truth makes things grow strong , not wither and die on the vine
So then since the Mormon church has been growing, you think they are preaching the truth? Unfortunately TC, people go to other religions as much as Catholicism, so Truth alone does not get people to church. You if anything should agree with that, considering your antipathy to the Catholic Church!
Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 16, 2005.
I am not speaking of Mormons or even Protestants. Catholics are leaving the church because it does no seem to have anything to offer. It used to. It is nothing for me to be happy about, it is just the opposite.I had to leave for the same reason. If I did not find the traditionals, I probably would not be attending any church.
-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), February 16, 2005.