HERE’S A NICE INTERVIEW WITH FRANK BECKWITH AT THE NATIONAL CATHOLIC REGISTER.
AND AN ACCOMPANYING EDITORIAL.
Some excerpts I particularly like:
For someone like me, who was interested in both the spiritual and intellectual grounding of the Christian faith, I didn’t need the “folk Mass” with cute nuns and hip priests playing “Kumbaya” with guitars, tambourines and harmonicas. And it was all badly done.
After all, we listened to the Byrds, Neil Young and Bob Dylan, and we knew the Church just couldn’t compete with them.
But that’s what the Church offered to the young people of my day: lousy pop music and a gutted Mass. If they were trying to make Catholicism unattractive to young and inquisitive Catholics, they were succeeding.
What I needed, and what many of us desired, were intelligent and winsome ambassadors for Christ who knew the intellectual basis for the Catholic faith, respected and understood the solemnity and theological truths behind the liturgy, and could explain the renewal movements in light of these.
* * *
You spent 32 years in the evangelical world. What could Catholics learn from evangelicals?
In terms of expository preaching, as well as teaching the laity, Protestant evangelicals are without peers in the Christian world.
For instance, it is not unusual for evangelical churches to host major conferences on theological issues in which leading scholars address lay audiences in order to equip them to share their faith with their neighbors, friends, etc. Works by evangelical philosophers and theologians such as [J.P.] Moreland, [Paul] Copan, and William Lane Craig, should be in the library of any serious Catholic who wants to be equipped to respond to contemporary challenges to the Christian faith.
* * *
Then I read the Council of Trent, which some Protestant friends had suggested I do. What I found was shocking. I found a document that had been nearly universally misrepresented by many Protestants, including some friends.
I do not believe, however, that the misrepresentation is the result of purposeful deception. But rather, it is the result of reading Trent with Protestant assumptions and without a charitable disposition.
For example, Trent talks about the four causes of justification, which correspond somewhat to Aristotle’s four causes. None of these causes is the work of the individual Christian. For, according to Trent, God’s grace does all the work. However, Trent does condemn “faith alone,” but what it means is mere intellectual assent without allowing God’s grace to be manifested in one’s actions and communion with the Church. This is why Trent also condemns justification by works.
I am convinced that the typical “Council of Trent” rant found on anti-Catholic websites is the Protestant equivalent of the secular urban legend that everyone prior to Columbus believed in a flat earth.
I have to say something I never thought I would-I like this man (Beckwith)as he is as unique of an individual, and his admission (of the misrepresentation of Trent by the Protestants) is open and honest
For any of my past statements on this man in past posts and threads I will do additional pennance and pray for him
God bless
Good for you, John.
I ain’t no Beckwith, but I must say that his experience of the Council of Trent was precisely the same for me. A Calvinist friend, upon hearing of my interest in the Church, challenged me to read Trent, while telling me what I would find there. I also was shocked to read something entirely the opposite of what I had been told. At that point, I was completely sold. Tough break for my friend, though.
Sir,
The liturgy of Mass is the greatest ‘Action’ where Our Lord Jesus Christ is brought down on earth in His Body, Blood, Soul
and Divinity,by the anointed hands of the specially cosecrated persons of priesthood. It is certainly an extension of incarnation of Our Lord Jesus Christ,Our Saviour and His Crucifixion, manifested for the redemption of our soul of all the sacraments of the Church. The Sacrament of Eucharistic Liturgy is the heart-beat and the richest wealth of the Mother Church. This Mass has produced all the Holy Saints and Martyrs in the Church.
After the 2nd Vatican Council, the People and the hierarchies do not know the sacrificial nature of the Mass. It is re-enactment of Calvary. So it is a silent, it must be a silent.
Further the Liturgy of Mass is defined in Canon 897, 898 and 899. The Holy Mass is very carefully instituted by the Trent Council.Do not look at the Prtestants, Do not follow the Protestants.
“But that’s what the Church offered to the young people of my day: lousy pop music and a gutted Mass. If they were trying to make Catholicism unattractive to young and inquisitive Catholics, they were succeeding.”
He left out felt. As a young child, I hated felt. As an atheist visiting Rome, I was shocked to see marble, and no felt.
As a thrilled revert, I am happy to see very little of it at all. Now, I would like to see all churches, especially those being built right now, with kneelers. I can dream.
I suppose that I will put the documents of Trent on my list after the Vatican 2 docs. I have a related question – I read a passing mention a Pope having problems instituting the reforms of the tridentine rite. Was this something that arose from Trent?
Reading the Council of Trent is what converted me from The Lutheranism to the Catholic Church.
I think for Christmas I might be sending out the council of Trent to my Protestant friends.
Dave
While I can rejoice in Beckwith’s return, I do wish he’d stop saying that he hasn’t ceased to be an evangelical. It just confuses the issue. If in fact he’s made an authentic return to the Church, he has parted ways from a sect that is very different from Catholicism. I do tire of converts from the evangelical bodies telling Catholics about all the ways in which their former ecclesial groups are “similar” to the Church when in fact this is not true in any significant way.
Sheesh. This is like the Catholic equivalent of the anti-Catholic triumphalist/separatist rhetoric-mongering Beckwith describes in some quarters of Protestantism.
Or substitute “Samaritans” and you’ve got why Jesus told the parable of the good Samaritan. Just because salvation is from the Jews, it doesn’t mean that a Jew couldn’t possibly benefit from the example of a righteous Samaritan. And you’d better believe that just because the Catholic Church possesses the fullness of truth and faith, it doesn’t mean there isn’t a lot we could learn from the example of our Protestant separated brethren.
That’s not to say that we don’t have something to teach them too, up to and including the necessity of the sacraments, the apostolic succession, and the Petrine unity. But one thing at a time. The one doesn’t exclude the other.
their former ecclesial groups are “similar” to the Church when in fact this is not true in any significant way.
Ah, I guess the doctrines of the Trinity, the Divinity of Christ, the Resurrection, etc aren’t significant.
Interesting to note, this bit here in the editorial that mentions elements that influenced Dr. Beckwith’s conversion back into the Catholic Faith:
It’s telling to note the contemporary works that sparked Beckwith’s return to the Catholic Church. He cites the “Joint Declaration on the doctrine of Justification” by Lutheran and Catholic scholars and Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences by Norm Geisler and Ralph MacKenzie. He also refers generally to First Things magazine, the journal of religion, culture, and public life which is edited by Father Richard John Neuhaus, who was a Lutheran pastor before his own conversion.
Each of these works is concerned with promoting mutual understanding between Catholics and Protestants.
I guess all the “ECUMANIA” that some folks keep complaining about actually do HAVE PURPOSE for the greater glory of God and His Church, the Catholic Church!
Why don’t we wait before we start canonizing Beckwith and see if he’s still here in five years? Remember Rod Dreher? He’s now on his fourth or fifth church. People who can go, as Beckwith did, from Catholicism to evangelical protestantism, don’t have a good track record of stability. Why don’t we celebrate people who have devoted their lives to the Catholic Church and usually go unheralded?
“Canonizing”? We are rejoicing that a lost sheep has returned to the fold. Our Lord assures us that the angels in heaven are doing the same.
Why don’t we celebrate people who have devoted their lives to the Catholic Church and usually go unheralded?
Janice,
I know where you might be coming from, but don’t you think the way you’re behaving here is similar to the older brother in the story of the Prodigal Son?
Yes, I’m familiar with how some folks who come into the Catholic Church still end up behaving and believing in Protestant things and there are even those who end up leaving the Catholic Church for Protestantism yet again.
However, it’s not right that we should assume this with every individual who comes into the Catholic Church. We need to give folks a chance.
Esau-Ecumania has nothing to do with this
Beckwith if I recall was CATHOLIC early in his life, only to go over to your side of the fence and now to return
His honesty in admitting that Protestants have issues with Trent (but love Vatican II as do Jewish people as it seems that is all my Jewish friends know of the catholic church other than pedophile priests as well) as well as having issues with the blessed mother and the Tridentine mass is to be commended
I only wait for you to do likewise
John, you owe Esau an apology for your rudeness to him.
John: You started the thread so well. Alas.
People who can go, as Beckwith did, from Catholicism to evangelical protestantism, don’t have a good track record of stability.
What people do between the ages of 15 and 25 regarding religion generally doesn’t predict their behaviour for the rest of their life. That is really the immature ages for a lot of people, before they start examining religion. I doubt young Mr. Beckwith sat down and thought out his jump to Evangelicalism as a late teen/early adult. The older man, on the other hand, is a very thoughtful individual.
As for Rod Dreher, there were trouble signs from Day One that his faith was somewhat unstable, as many of us can testify. I actually like him a lot, but most of my exchanges with him over several years *before* he switched were trying to argue/persuade him that the Church *was* valid. I don’t see any need to worry about Beckwith unless he starts down that road.
John – you wrote: “Beckwith if I recall was CATHOLIC early in his life, only to go over to your side of the fence and now to return”
OK, let’s see if I have this right. A man who is born Catholic, leaves on his own free will, and then returns to the Church, is to be commended, at least for his honesty in prior misunderstandings of Trent.
But a person such as Scott Hahn (and I use him as an example because you’ve named him in more than one thread) who was born into a Protestant denomination through no fault of his own, and then after years of careful consideration and prayer, converts to Catholicism and devotes his life to evangelization, is to be thought of as illegitimate at best and disingenuous at worst?
Using your logic, then Saul would be comparable to Scott Hahn, because he was born into the Jewish faith through no fault of his own and then converted to Catholicism, and as far as I know, his treatment of the Church while as a Jew was far worse than what Scott Hahn ever preached as a Protestant.
Sorry – should have written “St Paul” instead of “Saul”. Mea culpa
Janice said: “While I can rejoice in Beckwith’s return, I do wish he’d stop saying that he hasn’t ceased to be an evangelical. It just confuses the issue.”
I have to say I totally disagree with you here. The term “Evangelical” encompasses so many doctrines in the Protestant world (some of which sit in juxtaposition to one another on key teachings) as to be almost meaningless in that sense. The heart of being Evangelical, apart from the doctrinal hodgepodge, is to be on fire for Christ to the extent that your life’s focus is on glorifying Him, your walk with Him, and teaching others about Him. I know this because several years ago it was the faith of my Evangelical Protestant friends that encouraged me (a lukewarm, poorly Catechized convert to Catholic Christianity) by their witness and example to study what the Church actually teaches and to more fully embrace a relationship with Christ. Needless to say, I fell completely and totally in love with Jesus and His Church (…thanks in large part to Jimmy Akin and the apologists that work through Catholic Answers. May God Bless and Keep You!).
At the same time, I mourned the fact that though my friends worshiped and loved Christ, they did not know him in Adoration and the Eucharist; they did not know the comfort of His mother; and they had no teaching body to keep them from errors like the “rapture”, etc. I also felt very strongly that I had become a blood-bought, spirit-taught, Evangelical Catholic, which is frankly a little different from most of my cool fellow Catholic brothers and sisters that I see in the pews every Sunday. I applaud Mr. Beckwith for continuing to call himself an Evangelical, because that is what he remains. The only real difference is that he now exercises his faith within the fullness of truth. We do need more Evangelicals in the Church. My sincerest prayer is that all Evangelicals find their way Home; not because I’m concerned with their salvation, but because we need every last one of them to be who and what they are in the Church that Jesus founded.
Mary Kay,
Thanks once again for your usual kindness.
As for John, I doubt he will ever overcome his prejudice against Protestant converts. Acquainted already with his warped sense of Catholicism, he probably believes it to be a just and “Catholic” thing to do. Almost similar to the dark and twisted notions of the KKK; that their hatred toward other races is justified and, in fact, “Christian”.
Brava Magdalaine! It’s time we started throwing around the term “evangelical” in Catholic circles a LOT more frequently to express the rootedness, vigor, intelligence and self-confidence of the Catholic faith. “Evengelical” is most properly a characteristic of the “apostolic” Catholic tradition because we are “sent” with the authority of the Apostles to announce the truth:
“But how are men to call upon him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without a preacher? And how can men preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach good news!” Romans 10.
It was posted:
“But a person such as Scott Hahn (and I use him as an example because you’ve named him in more than one thread) who was born into a Protestant denomination through no fault of his own, and then after years of careful consideration and prayer, converts to Catholicism and devotes his life to evangelization, is to be thought of as illegitimate at best and disingenuous at worst?”
When Scott Hahn returns the money he makes from those dumb enough to buy his garbage then we can talk
Scott Hahn and those of those who were Protestants and are now catholics, many due to marriage to catholics, are the new poster children of the Vatican II church trying to explain their heresy in ecumenism as Esau so quickly threw my way, while millions of catholics dont go to mass, refuse to practice or have left the church out of disgust for the love love love touchy feelie we love the world church that it has become
The one thing that Protestants do have right is how many of the denominations, not all, go about in counting their members. Not by birthrite, but by practice
I have no issue with those that have converted to Catholicism as that is the goal of the church, conversions, or at least it used to be before Vatican II as now we teach unity and all faiths are equal and each has a path to salvation which of course we all know from all of the pre V2 popes is heresy
John:
You are so pathetically hopeless.
Just take a look at what you wrote here:
I have no issue with those that have converted to Catholicism as that is the goal of the church, conversions, or at least it used to be before Vatican II…
But then you had remarked:
Scott Hahn and those of those who were Protestants and are now catholics, many due to marriage to catholics, are the new poster children of the Vatican II church trying to explain their heresy in ecumenism…
The whole point of Ecumenism, as the editorial pointed out, is to promote conversions to the Catholic Faith! Even if it doesn’t, at the very least, it would have provided an understanding of it which is like planting a seed, if you will, into such folks.
Didn’t you even read carefully the articles that Jimmy Akin linked this post to at all???
Or do you need Inocencio or others to do the reading for you and actually break down its details so that you might be able to understand?
Perhaps that’s why you cannot fathom the things Scott Hahn writes/talks about or even refuse to read anything Cardinal Ratzinger had written.
As Inocencio had stated previously, you’re just too incompetent when it comes to reading.
And, again, if you claim the popes we’ve had are all heretical, where the heck is your Catholic Church, then?
Where is this ‘TRUE’ church from which you hail from? Or are you just leading others to your Hell?
Esau,
By all means debate John’s statements, but please refrain from personal attacks. They are neither charitable nor necessary.
Uncharitable, perhaps.
Necessary, yes.
I need to see exactly what this guy John really thinks about Protestants and Protestant converts without the ‘sanitary’ treatment he gives his remarks.
Although, admittedly, such provocation is more effective in person.
I would venture that based on what John has written in the past, John harbors a much deeper enmity against Protestants and Protestant converts than what he actually reveals explicitly in his comments.
Esau
Only you can make a positive story into an argument as you have an axe and and agenda to grind as you as always took the first volley with your backhanded slap regarding ecumenism which for obvious reasons you and other luke warm catholics are so in favor of
One can only guess why John XXIII and the reformers did away with the mandatory “Oath against Modernism” which all clergy were required to take. If this was a requirement for all clergy and promulgated by a Saint (before the JPII saint factory) and Pope, but done away with soon after when Modernism was then embraced, either the church was wrong then or it is wrong now
I chose now as ecuemenism/modernism/freedom of religion is clearly heresy and blurs the lines just enough to allow those like Esau to pass for Catholic
THE OATH AGAINST MODERNISM
Pope Pius X
——————————————————————————–
Given by His Holiness St. Pius X September 1, 1910.
To be sworn to by all clergy, pastors, confessors, preachers, religious superiors, and professors in philosophical-theological seminaries.
I firmly embrace and accept each and every definition that has been set forth and declared by the unerring teaching authority of the Church, especially those principal truths which are directly opposed to the errors of this day.
And first of all, I profess that God, the origin and end of all things, can be known with certainty by the natural light of reason from the created world (see Rom. 1:90), that is, from the visible works of creation, as a cause from its effects, and that, therefore, his existence can also be demonstrated:
Secondly, I accept and acknowledge the external proofs of revelation, that is, divine acts and especially miracles and prophecies as the surest signs of the divine origin of the Christian religion and I hold that these same proofs are well adapted to the understanding of all eras and all men, even of this time.
Thirdly, I believe with equally firm faith that the Church, the guardian and teacher of the revealed word, was personally instituted by the real and historical Christ when he lived among us, and that the Church was built upon Peter, the prince of the apostolic hierarchy, and his successors for the duration of time.
Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. I also condemn every error according to which, in place of the divine deposit which has been given to the spouse of Christ to be carefully guarded by her, there is put a philosophical figment or product of a human conscience that has gradually been developed by human effort and will continue to develop indefinitely.
Fifthly, I hold with certainty and sincerely confess that faith is not a blind sentiment of religion welling up from the depths of the subconscious under the impulse of the heart and the motion of a will trained to morality; but faith is a genuine assent of the intellect to truth received by hearing from an external source. By this assent, because of the authority of the supremely truthful God, we believe to be true that which has been revealed and attested to by a personal God, our Creator and Lord.
Furthermore, with due reverence, I submit and adhere with my whole heart to the condemnations, declarations, and all the prescripts contained in the encyclical Pascendi and in the decree Lamentabili, especially those concerning what is known as the history of dogmas. I also reject the error of those who say that the faith held by the Church can contradict history, and that Catholic dogmas, in the sense in which they are now understood, are irreconcilable with a more realistic view of the origins of the Christian religion. I also condemn and reject the opinion of those who say that a well-educated Christian assumes a dual personality—that of a believer and at the same time of a historian, as if it were permissible for a historian to hold things that contradict the faith of the believer, or to establish premises which, provided there be no direct denial of dogmas, would lead to the conclusion that dogmas are either false or doubtful. Likewise, I reject that method of judging and interpreting Sacred Scripture which, departing from the tradition of the Church, the analogy of faith, and the norms of the Apostolic See, embraces the misrepresentations of the rationalists and with no prudence or restraint adopts textual criticism as the one and supreme norm.
Furthermore, I reject the opinion of those who hold that a professor lecturing or writing on a historico-theological subject should first put aside any preconceived opinion about the supernatural origin of Catholic tradition or about the divine promise of help to preserve all revealed truth forever; and that they should then interpret the writings of each of the Fathers solely by scientific principles, excluding all sacred authority, and with the same liberty of judgment that is common in the investigation of all ordinary historical documents.
Finally, I declare that I am completely opposed to the error of the modernists who hold that there is nothing divine in sacred tradition; or what is far worse, say that there is, but in a pantheistic sense, with the result that there would remain nothing but this plain simple fact—one to be put on a par with the ordinary facts of history—the fact, namely, that a group of men by their own labor, skill, and talent have continued through subsequent ages a school begun by Christ and his apostles. I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the belief of the Fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the apostles. The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way.
I promise that I shall keep all these articles faithfully, entirely, and sincerely, and guard them inviolate, in no way deviating from them in teaching or in any way in word or in writing. Thus I promise, this I swear, so help me God. . .
http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P10MOATH.HTM
I am confused as to why this oath is so important. One pope judged it so. Another one did not. That happens. There are many examples of popes changing stuff like that especially when it is only a few decades old.
I wasn’t aware that the Oath Against Modernism was part of Catholic Dogma.
(Essau, how can you believe in the efficacy of ecumenism if you give in to anger in dealing with John?)
I for one am a regular attendee of the local licit Tridentine Rite. But I am also a convert from the Baptist denomination. I can attribute my conversion to the ecumenism of Vatican II as much as I can to the Church’s ancient catholicity.
I do not think we have to hold these two characteristics in mutual opposition. And thankfully reality agrees.
It was the Catholic understanding of authority that rests in the Vicar of Christ that engendered the Church to make radical changes in her stance with our separated brethren.
It could not have happened any other way. Protestant denominations carry an authority greater than any pope could ever wield: they can transform the intrinsically wrong into the intrinsically right. For example: birth control. But the same authority carries limitations that Catholic authority does not have because it is not universal or eternally binding.
Even if the greatest minds of the Protestant tradition were moved to preach a greater ecumenism with their Catholic brethren, the general response would have been one of revolt. History shows this is the case time and again, concurring even as recently with the conversion story of Francis Beckwith today.
On the other hand, the Church, like Eddie, can go. Proving that the Church is only truly flexible and progressive institution out there. Catholicism has historically shown greater flexibility than Protestantism because this faith can go to places where the language is unknown and the locals cannot speak English or read the KJ Bible.
If the Church can go to unChristian or anti-Christian lands, brave the flames of greater physical and spiritual terrors from cannibals and emperors alike, why then is she forbidden to make this simple journey to friendlier lands on her immediate border? Why cannot the Church send missionaries to the Protestants?
If you think this somehow shameful and defeatist, then you need to brush up on your strategy. We call entering foreign territory advancing, not retreat.
(Essau, how can you believe in the efficacy of ecumenism if you give in to anger in dealing with John?)
StubbleSpark:
What does that have to do with the other?
Even St. Paul got furious with the Galatians in Galatians 3:
1 O stupid Galatians! Who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified?
2 I want to learn only this from you: did you receive the Spirit from works of the law, or from faith in what you heard?
3 Are you so stupid? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now ending with the flesh?
4 Did you experience so many things in vain?–if indeed it was in vain.
Did Paul getting angry mean he didn’t believe in the efficacy of Christianity?
You don’t make sense.
John,
By your own comments on this blog you have shown you could not sincerely take this oath.
The oath states clearly “I firmly embrace and accept each and every definition that has been set forth and declared by the unerring teaching authority of the Church, especially those principal truths which are directly opposed to the errors of this day.”
and
“I believe with equally firm faith that the Church, the guardian and teacher of the revealed word, was personally instituted by the real and historical Christ when he lived among us, and that the Church was built upon Peter, the prince of the apostolic hierarchy, and his successors for the duration of time.”
Since time did not end in 1962 the Church is, of course, still built upon the successor of Peter.
Pope St. Pius X gave us a clear standard on how to decide who to hear and who to ignore.
“Do not allow yourselves to be deceived by the cunning statements of those who persistently claim to wish to be with the Church, to love the Church, to fight so that people do not leave Her…But judge them by their works. If they despise the shepherds of the Church and even the Pope, if they attempt all means of evading their authority in order to elude their directives and judgments…, then about which Church do these men mean to speak? Certainly not about that established on the foundations of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus Himself as the cornerstone (Eph. 2:20).” Pope St. Pius X May 10, 1909
The moment Vatican II, like every council before it, was approved by the God-given authority of the pope it became a part of Catholic teaching and understanding.
My hope is you will actually read the words of Pope St. Pius X and consider your actions. You have been asked the question many times that the pope asks; Of what church do you speak? Please point it out to us. It would be the most catholic thing to do if you actually believe you know where it is and who authoritatively guides it.
My answer is the Church guided by the Vicar of Christ Pope Benedict XVI. What is yours?
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Whatever he actually says or believes, John certainly acts as if he believes himself to be a god, condemning any who disagree with him to damnation. While someone like Scott Hahn obviously doesn’t speak or write infallibly, he has definitely done more for the Church than a thousand John’s have done with their angry rants.
“You will know them by their fruits.” The fruits of Scott Hahn include many excellent educational and orthodox books, talks, and articles, and many people converted to the faith or renewed in their faith. The fruits of John would seem to be nothing more than hatred, bitterness, and judgement. He reminds me of a certain fig tree I recall hearing about recently, that didn’t fare so well. I can only hope and pray a few small figs manage to show up before the pruning shears do.
Snowman,
I join you in that prayer for all us.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
The fruits of Scott Hahn include many excellent educational and orthodox books, talks, and articles, and many people converted to the faith or renewed in their faith.
AMEN Snowman!
John complained:
while millions of catholics dont go to mass, refuse to practice or have left the church out of disgust for the love love love touchy feelie we love the world church that it has become
But this is EXACTLY what Scott Hahn is trying to reverse with all his work for the Church, attempting to inspire renewal in folks for the Catholic Faith.
What has John done for the Catholic Church but tear it down with his tiresome bigoted rants?
He’s not even a ‘Traditional’ Catholic, for goodness sake!
That’s what’s so troubling is that John merely pretends to be one, causing folks to think badly of those who are actually Traditional Catholics.
Don’t you folks ever tire of the adolescent banter with John? Haven’t you figured out that he does not stay on point nor reply with any integrity to questions posed to him? Yet, time and time again you allow him to hijack threads with his vacuous and spiteful dumps. Now, instead of discussing something of substance, the Francis Beckwith interview, were revisiting the “Oath Against Modernism” for the umpteenth time!
I think the old standard “Don’t feed the trolls” is appropriate here. Isn’t it better to have silence on these boards then childish squabbling?
I get very tired as well at how good many of you are at never explaining how what was Catholic before Vatican II is no longer, and on the contrary what was defined infallibly under the penalty of excommunication to be avoided (ecumenism and Modernism)is now the cornerstone of the church
Troll, schismatic, whatever
I wear it with a badge of honor
It was posted:
“The oath states clearly “I firmly embrace and accept each and every definition that has been set forth and declared by the unerring teaching authority of the Church, especially those principal truths which are directly opposed to the errors of this day”
That is correct-but as I explained Obedience falls after Faith and Truth and what is clearly defined in the deposit of faith. If a Pope or council can go forth and try and change what is in the deposit of faith, under the penalty of excommunication, then to follow such would be error. Vatican I was clear in this as well as the limits of the papacy, which even B16 clearly does not know as he just recently defined the deposit of faith as “renewing” or so I paraphrase
A Traditional Catholic is obedient to all of the church teachings BEFORE the church decided to have a reformation to appease the Modernists who are in love with Modern society and the ills of secularism, which has been denounced by Leo XIII and Pius X as heresy
So by pre Vatican II definitions you are a heretic. One does not need to be a scholar as the church has embraced heresy as defined by all Popes before the council.
I would have no problems taking the Oath because I do NOT embrace Modernism
John,
You said “Troll, schismatic, whatever I wear it with a badge of honor”
Finally some honesty from you!
The test of what is Catholic teaching and understanding past and future in the words of Pope Pius X is papal approval.
“Wherefore we find it necessary to declare and to expressly prescribe, and by this our act we do declare and decree that all are bound in conscience to submit to the decisions of the Biblical Commission relating to doctrine, which have been given in the past and which shall be given in the future, in the same way as to the decrees of the Roman congregations approved by the Pontiff; nor can all those escape the note of disobedience or temerity, and consequently of grave sin, who in speech or writing contradict such decisions, and this besides the scandal they give and the other reasons for which they may be responsible before God for other temerities and errors which generally go with such contradictions.” Praestantia Scripturae, Nov. 18, 1907
End of story.
We apologize for this interruption and now back to our regularly scheduled post already in progress…
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
I believe that our scheduled post had something to do with rejoicing that our brother, who was dead, is alive; our brother, who was lost, is found.
Esau in his nastyness to my positive post stated:
“I guess all the “ECUMANIA” that some folks keep complaining about actually do HAVE PURPOSE for the greater glory of God and His Church, the Catholic Church!”
Lets see, as reported today on MSNBC, the fruits of ecumania, Cleveland is to close at least 23 parishes due to low attendance. Parishes closing left and right either due to no priests, attendance or to pay for the sins of the clergy at the highest level and as condemned by Our Lord in scripture (and defended by Esau time and time again) pedophilia:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18946163/
Bishop Says Diocese Could Close At Least 23 Parishes
5:11 p.m. EDT May 30, 2007
CLEVELAND – Cleveland Roman Catholic Bishop Richard Lennon announced Wednesday that money and priest shortages will force the Diocese of Cleveland to close some of its 231 parishes. The bishop sent out a two-page letter asking the 69 parish clusters, consisting of five churches each, to help reformulate the diocese.
He’s asking them to come up with a plan to consolidate some of the parishes because the diocese doesn’t have enough money to run all 231 parishes.
Then lets compare John Paul in his speaking of how other religions (Voodoo), a pagan faith, actually contain the “seeds of the word”:
“creating the conviction that though we are different from adherents of other religions, God is greater than our differences, that the semina Verbi (seeds of the Word) are to be sought in other religious communities, and that all believers in God can together give witness that the greatest of all is love;
And then again:
Voodoo contains “the seeds of the Word”! (“L’Osservatore Romano,” February 10, 1993), which even B16 could not tolerate and refuted
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/migrants/documents/rc_pc_migrants_doc_20040611_XVI_plenary_session_finaldoc_en.html
This is heresy and ecumenism
So we have one Esau in exchange for church after church closing and the complete loss of the Catholic faith, a Pope that is fast tracked for sainthood who praised voodoo!!
John,
No where in that quote did JPII say that pagan religions will save souls, should be practiced, are preferrable to the True Faith, etc. Clam down. You hate a pope whom you created in your mind, not the real late Pope, whom you misrepresent.
Why so sad, John?
You should be VERY, VERY happy that so many churches of the “heretical” Catholic Church is closing down!
Esau,
I didn’t see your response. Will you give sworn testimony that John is obsessed?
😉
…with me?
You hate a pope whom you created in your mind, not the real late Pope, whom you misrepresent.
David B.,
You said it best here, brutha!
I think John has a very disturbed mind and his mental issues causes him to behave in this manner repeatedly, unfortunately.
His perceptual set is so screwed up that he’s unable to distinguish reality from the twisted fantasy he’s created in his head.
Just stay away from, David B. — especially since he’s got an obsession with you for some odd reason.
What’s even stranger is the fact that all those times he kept bringing up your name in his comments, you hardly ever posted about/to him, which makes me wonder why did he keep posting about you?
God bless ya!
What’s even stranger is the fact that all those times he kept bringing up your name in his comments, you hardly ever posted about/to him, which makes me wonder why did he keep posting about you?
I wondered if anyone else noticed.:-)
God Bless ya 2!
Watch out John! A surpremely evil, dynamic duo is out lookin’ for ya! Bwa ha ha ha!!!!
John’s posts have hurt me deeply. I am a convert to the catholic church from an evangelical Baptist fundamentalistic anticatholic background. My journey was agonizing enough, to embrace the faith that I had been taught was the ****** of Babylon… Fortunately most of my journey was alone with the Bible and Church documents, so I was preserved from hearing horrific calumnies similar to those from John’s keyboard.
I see a disturbing eagerness to consign others to eternal hellfire. Perhaps there is a gravely scandalized soul who in despair seeks to preserve the church from error. But actions that are gravely contrary to truth and honor are destroying ones own soul, and are scandal themselves.
I will pray for John and those on similar paths.
(And Janice, we ‘newbies’ to the Church have ‘much to suffer’ in reparation for all the evil that we have done in fighting against God’s Church, so even if you envy the smattering of rejoicing at our ‘coming home’, please pray for us also.)
PPS: re Scott Hahn…in my humble opinion, his books cost to much & don’t say enough, but they are faithful to the magesterium. But I’m dirt poor, and rely upon the wonderful availability of church documents and historic writers via the net.
I pray the seekers who met people like John will not be dismayed, disuaded, distracted or derailed, but will follow Jesus into His body: The historic Catholic Church.
wayne
“After all, we listened to the Byrds, Neil Young and Bob Dylan, and we knew the Church just couldn’t compete with them.”
I don’t know why some liturgists seem so desperate to pop-inculturate the Mass. I’m sure the reasoning is that it must be done in order to lure or keep the young people. But to a large degree, the more the liturgy loses its distinctiveness from the surrounding culture, the less one can recognize it as being holy. And the less one believes in its holiness, the more the Church becomes just another form of entertainment — and our culture does entertainment far too well for the Church to compete.
We have to stop sending mixed messages. How can we offer people the real presence of God if our liturgies seem like desperate attempts to keep the congregation entertained? I’m definitely not saying that liturgies should be intentially boring, but we need to re-focus the liturgy on worship of God, not entertainment.
CatholicWayne, thank you for your post (and welcome to the Church!). Some of us respond to John’s posts only to defuse the damage that he does.
Sometimes the public library has solid Catholic books.
Mary Kay posted:
“CatholicWayne, thank you for your post (and welcome to the Church!). Some of us respond to John’s posts only to defuse the damage that he does.”
Is that so, damage? Speaking of and desiring for a return to the faith before the reformation of Vatican II? If I am speaking such hogwash, then why such of an uproar? Why will all of the post Vatican II popes meet with everyone from Protestants, to Rabbis to Voodoo witch doctors but continue to denounce and not meet with, except in one secret meeting B16 supposedly had with Bishop Fellay of SSPX? Is it because of fear? Because they realize that they are selling a new Catholic faith?
How can one today who is a “Traditionalist” be labeled by the hierarchy of the church and many like you and Esau as “Fringe” or “Rad”?
If those like me are “Rad” today-then are you saying that the church before she reformed after Vatican II was “Rad” then? If that is so-what are you being “obedient” to? A new church with a new doctrine which per Vatican I is not allowed nor ever to be changed so quite possibly you dont know your faith and are indeed the “Rad”
With church closings left and right-your fruits of your reform are bare
Thank you for responding to my post, John, even if you did so only to continue your diatribe. I guess it was wishful thinking on my part that a reasonable conversation would have resulted.
And thanks be to God for Dr Beckwith’s conversion. Christ continues to work in the world, drawing all men to Himself.
Jimmy,
I think we’ve reached the point where John’s hobby-horsing is really ruining these threads. It is impossible to have a focused and orderly discussion without him dumping a lot of adolescent trash onto the boards. Please consider cleaning up these threads and banning John altogether.
Sorry to say the value of these discussions have really gone down …
I agree 100%, Mark. For the sake of non-Catholics who may read these posts, and, especially, for those drawn to the Church as Catholic Wayne was, Jimmy should ban John and his Hobby Horse.
Catholic Wayne, welcome Home.
Larry posted:
“Thank you for responding to my post, John, even if you did so only to continue your diatribe. I guess it was wishful thinking on my part that a reasonable conversation would have resulted. ”
Please explain the diatrabe? I responded clearly to your post and you as others never can refute my clear question with the wish I am banned
Lets then converse as I have a simple question:
If what was Catholic taught before 1962-65 is now considered “Rad” and “schismatic”-what was the church then (Rad?) and then what is it now?
The best analogy is this is like the kids on the playground who are all trying to get the one “holdout” (Traditionalist) to dabble in drugs or smoke (ecumenism, freedom of religion, liturgical abuse, etc)and when the holdout refuses, you call him or her names and when that does not work try to just do away with that person
In the end one will be right and one will be wrong. What was Catholic before 1962-65 either is today or it was not then. There is no middle ground .
So, please lets continue this conversation, it obviously is not ruining the thread as it was those of your ilk in Esau who said that Beckwith coming back to the faith was due to Ecumenism. So the Esau followers like the pharisies obviously never see anything they do wrong and like liberals when their left wing stance is shredded resort to name calling.
Care to continue?
John – to answer your short question – the answer is no, I don’t care to continue, because I don’t like being shouted at by a stranger. So, I’m shaking the dust from my feet and strolling away from the soapbox. Or playground.
And for what it’s worth, based on the Register interview and subsequent editorial, Dr Beckwith came back to the Catholic Church because he acknowledged that it is the Church founded by Christ, and not because he listened to people who cared about being right all the time and were incessant about it.
Dr Beckwith is a man in love with Christ and with His Church, and I’m sure we’ll see in time some incredibly wonderful books that will only serve to help Catholics deepen their faith in the One True Church, and possibly, by the grace of God, lead other Protestants home.
John’s posts have hurt me deeply. I am a convert to the catholic church from an evangelical Baptist fundamentalistic anticatholic background. My journey was agonizing enough, to embrace the faith that I had been taught was the ****** of Babylon… Fortunately most of my journey was alone with the Bible and Church documents, so I was preserved from hearing horrific calumnies similar to those from John’s keyboard.
catholicWayne:
Brother, don’t worry about what you did in the past, but what you do now and I believe you’ve taken a great step!
Saul (St. Paul) similarly was terrible to Christians and persecuted them because he believed them to be, in a manner of speaking, apostates of the Jewish religion.
Yet, once he came to see just how wrong he was and repented, he became one of the greatest saints in Christianity.
I feel for you and will pray for you.
In terms of materials, there are several websites that offer free materials.
If you’re interested in Scott Hahn materials, he has the following website where you can even take online courses for free:
St. Paul Center for Biblical Theology
There’s also this site here which provides free mp3s of Scott Hahn talks as well as others:
Catholic Audio Talks, Conversion Stories, Debates, and MP3 Files
And don’t be hurt by John’s evil rants.
He has twisted notions of Catholicism that are NOT “Catholic” at all, as I have tried to prove time and again with all the Pre-Vatican II Catechesis quotes I had been providing in other threads.
He is nothing more than the hypocritical pharisees Jesus dealt with in the past.
I know what terrible hardships you might have underwent.
I can recall Marcus Grodi having mentioned ministers who converted to Catholicism only to lose their source of income and be reduced to a greeter at the local Walmart.
Still, even in spite of this adversity, these folks seem to remain strong in their Catholic Faith, knowing the value of the Eucharist and the Ancient Church.
John doesn’t see all that.
He doesn’t see all the terrible sacrifices a lot of Protestants make in order to become Catholic.
All he sees is his blind hatred toward Protestants and Protestant converts.
But do not be distressed by him or what he says.
NOTHING he says is “Catholic”, only his evil twisted, bigoted version of what he believes Catholicism teaches.
God bless you on your journey and walk with the Lord. May your Faith in Our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, ever bring you strength and blessings!
As pointless as it seems, I’ve got a few minutes, so I’ll take a swing at your question.
John asks:
If what was Catholic taught before 1962-65 is now considered “Rad” and “schismatic”-what was the church then (Rad?) and then what is it now?
The Church before 1962 wasn’t “Rad” because the Mass that was being celebrated was the normative Mass at that time. And those teachings are not considered “Rad” now either. What is considered Rad is abandoning the Church because you don’t get your way regarding things that the Church (and only the Church; not us, not the SSPX) has the authority to change. In your question, you said “taught”, but no teachings or doctrines of the Church changed. Matters of discipline or practice, however, can be changed. The bishops and the Pope were given that authority by Jesus.
If Jesus didn’t set down a very specific liturgy, and say “this is exactly how the Mass should be said”, then clearly it is an area that falls under the authority of the bishops. We need to simply trust the bishops, and trust that the Holy Spirit is guiding the bishops in such areas. Everybody has different tastes, as is apparent from the number of different styles of music that exist. So it stands to reason that people will have different preferences for liturgy, but it’s not up to us to decide what is best. John, you’re trying to take on an authority to which you’re not entitled. It’s not your job.
Regarding calling Esau a Pharisee, ironically, this is how I think of you. Jesus criticized the Pharisees because they were obsessed with the rules, but never understood the point of them, which seems to be the same problem you have. Jesus said to the Pharisees “Man was not made for the Sabbath; the Sabbath was made for man”. The same applies to the liturgy. Man was not made to be a slave to a certain liturgical directive. The liturgy is there to help man worship God and grow in holiness. So if the church, in it’s authority, determined that changes needed to be made in the liturgy to help it serve its purpose, then so be it. That’s what the church, and the liturgy, are there for. We may or may not like it, but we are called to be obedient to our bishops. If they have done wrong, they will answer for it before God, but they are exercising an authority given to them by God.
Larry O posted:
“John – to answer your short question – the answer is no, I don’t care to continue, because I don’t like being shouted at by a stranger. So, I’m shaking the dust from my feet and strolling away from the soapbox. Or playground.”
Larry, you must have supersonic hearing to hear me all the way through the computer! I see no shouting or anything in my post, just a reply and a question for you in return, and like the school child who cared less for the questions being asked of him, you are now taking your ball away and going home
The question is very simple
If what the Traditionalist Catholic practices today is so called “Rad” or “schismatic” because it is THEY who refuse to change….Was the church schismatic or Rad then and if not then what is it now…Knowing full well the church is never supposed to change?
Very simple question that does not need all of Esaus references to Saint Paul and his vast Protestant Bible background
Very Very simple-if you cant answer in a paragraph or less than either the church was wrong then or it is now
So, John, you’re saying the Church was right then but wrong now?
Mmmmmm… how about this thing that was taught during the time of Vatican I then:
How We Know the Catholic Church is THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH — The Apostolicity of Catholic Doctrines:
APOSTOLIC CHURCH
1. Our Saviour gave pre-eminience to Peter over the other Apostles: “I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 16:19). “Strengthen thy brethren” (Luke 22:32). “Feed my lambs; feed my sheep” (John 21:15-17).
CATHOLIC CHURCH
1. The Catholic Church gives the primacy of honor and jurisdiction to Peter and to his successors.
PROTESTANT CHURCHES
1. Other Christian communions deny Peter’s supremacy over the other Apostles.
————-
APOSTOLIC CHURCH
2. The Apostolic Church claimed to be infallible in her teachings. “When you heard and received from us the word of God, you welcomed it not as the word of men, but, as it truly is, the word of God” (1 Thess. 2:13).
CATHOLIC CHURCH
2. The Catholic Church alone, of all the Christian communions, claims to exercise the prerogative of infallibility in her teaching. Her ministers always speak from the pulpit as having authority, and the faithful receive with implicit confidence what the Church teaches, without once questioning her veracity.
PROTESTANT CHURCHES
2. Protestant churches repudiate the claim of infallibility, denying that such a gift is possessed by any teachers of religion. The ministers advance opinions as embodying their private interpretation of the Bible. Their hearers are expected to draw their own conclusions from the Bible.
——-
Mmmmm… based on these quintessential elements of Catholic Doctrine demonstrated by a very well respected Vatican I Cardinal, James Cardinal Gibbons, it is in fact YOU who are the PROTESTANT!
You:
1. Deny Papal Authority.
2. Promote Private Interpretation which is EXACTLY what Protestants do!
Like you said:
…for something to be infallible and for obedience to follow, one must ask themselves, would God or Jesus Christ himself teach that?
This is NOT unlike how Protestants treat such matters! They do so according to their criteria and not according to the Church Christ founded!
And you had better APOLOGIZE to catholicWayne and all other Protestant converts who have sacrificed so much to become Catholics; those who have been hurt by your bigoted rants!
I can assure you, in the same manner Jesus told the Pharisees, such Protestants and Protestant converts will be entering Heaven before you ever will!
John,
You either trust that the Holy Spirit guides the Church, or you don’t. If you don’t, you might as well be Protestant.
Anti-Catholicism and Anti-Protestantism are two sides of the same coin, a coin called “hate”. It is one of Satan’s most powerful tools among believers; but it also loses all power when the issues that divide us are approached with a humble, obedient spirit and a thirst for Truth.
Perhaps you should spend some time with Him in Adoration and ask Him if this fight is truly the course he desires of you.
In the meantime, I agree with other posters that your comments are detractive and destructive to the conversation at hand. You are insulting and you do “shout”, yet you have no ability to do anything but insult and shout some more, much less reflect on your own words. (A humble spirit is missing, perhaps?)
In any case, for the sake of others, I hope you are banned.
Esau
Your cut and pastes again did not answer the question, and if you look further into Vatican I the Pope is only to safeguard the deposit of faith, never ever change it, and at the same council the question arose what would happen if indeed a Pope were to deviate from catholic teaching and it is not one requirement to follow a Pope who has defected or tried to reinvent the deposit of faith (ecumenism, salvation within not from without the catholic church, etc)
You failed to answer the question again going back to your old “hobby horse” of obedience which the church has always taught from the time of the Aryan heresy that faith and morals come before obedience
Care to try again???????????
Oh, so the Church was ALSO WRONG THEN about:
1. The Catholic Church gives the primacy of honor and jurisdiction to Peter and to his successors.
2. The Catholic Church alone, of all the Christian communions, claims to exercise the prerogative of infallibility in her teaching. Her ministers always speak from the pulpit as having authority, and the faithful receive with implicit confidence what the Church teaches, without once questioning her veracity.
The Catholic Church is just a liar THEN and NOW, plain and simple; at least, according to your twisted version of Catholicism!
By the way, you still haven’t apologized to catholicWayne and others who have been hurt by your BIGOTRY!
Hallelujah!
Dr. Robert Koons Converts to Catholicism
There’s no telling exactly just how evil this “ECUMANIA” is!?
Just look at the many Converts entering into the Catholic Church!
St. John Paul II Pray For Us!
It’s all because of you!
John,
You are correct the Papacy guards the deposit of faith and not you.
As Pope Pius X clearly said judge them by their works. If they despise the shepherds of the Church and even the Pope, if they attempt all means of evading their authority in order to elude their directives and judgments.
You despise the shepherds of the Church especially the Pope and you attempt all means of evading their authority and judgements. End of story.
You are condemned by the very pope you hold up so highly. Over and over again Pope Pius X, like all popes, give their decisions by virtue of their Apostolic Authority. You prove how little you know about the Teachings of the Catholic Church every time you try to quote a document of the Church which you clearly have not read or understood.
You lack humility and obedience and that should concern you. Especially since the only person you have the power to excommunicate is yourself.
Before you say anything about the limited authority of the pope understand that you have no authority to judge the pope. None. God alone will judge His Vicar.
Remember the Catechism of Trent said to obey the authority of even wicked pastors. It is clear Catholic teaching to do as they say and not as they do.
Now mount you might hobby horse and say exactly the same thing over and over again. By now most of us could write your comments for you.
Lord, Have mercy on both our souls.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
John,
You said:
if you look further into Vatican I the Pope is only to safeguard the deposit of faith, never ever change it, and at the same council the question arose what would happen if indeed a Pope were to deviate from catholic teaching and it is not one requirement to follow a Pope who has defected or tried to reinvent the deposit of faith
And Vatican I said:
“When, therefore, anyone says that the Pope of Rome has only the office of supervision or of guidance, and not the complete and highest power of jurisdiction over the entire Church not merely in matters of faith and morals, but also in matters which concern the discipline and administration of the Church throughout the entire world, or that the pope has only the chief share, but not the entire fullness of this highest power, or that this his power is not actual and immediate either over all and individual Churches, or over all and individual clergy and faithful, let him be anathema.”
Not only can you not reconcile your beliefs with Catholic Teaching you haven’t read or understood the very documents you claim to be quoting. Game over.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
John, you just justified the Lutheran Reformation. . . .That is exactly what the Lutherans thought that they were doing: returning the Catholic Church to the teachings it had before the Great Schism, removing certain errors that had arisen in disagreement with earlier councils and Fathers.
Inocencio,
Thanks for providing these citations!!!
By the way, how’d you come to know so much about such things???
I hope you continue to provide such edification for our benefit, even if and when John gets banned! ;^)
Game Over Indeed!
A very good point indeed, Innocencio.
(For your reference, John, the entire text of Vatican I’s statements can be found here.)
Esau,
All glory to God. I by His grace seek to follow Him. If I know anything it is because He has given us such a wonderful teacher and mother, His Bride the Church.
16 years ago I was worse than Realist, but the humble faithful example of so many Catholics, especially my future wife’s family, made me hunger for the Truth. I wanted the underlying joy they had even in the face of tragedy and suffering.
As I began my investigation of the claims of the Catholic Church I came across an apologist named Jimmy Akin who always said when presented with a “teaching of the Catholic Church” always asks for documentation. I have been reading Church documents and the writings of the Early Church Fathers ever since. We don’t watch television in our home so any spare moment I have I read.
The beauty and power of the Catholic Faith has changed my life from lonely emptiness to communion with Christ. Now that I understand that all suffering when united to Christ is redemptive, I have that underlying joy of finding the One Who loved me first.
I apologize for running on and on. I try very hard to be concise.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Inocencio:
PRAISE GOD!
Thank you for revealing how you came into Our Lord’s Church!
It seems He still continues to bless you in your Catholic Faith!
I love hearing from/about folks who are “on fire” for the Catholic Faith.
One day, I just hope we’ll have “Catholic” Crusades even bigger and better than the “Harvest” Crusades we’ve had as Protestants!
Esau posted:
“Inocencio,
Thanks for providing these citations!!!
By the way, how’d you come to know so much about such things???
I hope you continue to provide such edification for our benefit, even if and when John gets banned! ;^)
Game Over Indeed!”
Oh but Esau, Inocencio clearly forgot and did not refute my statement at all as he/she left out the most important infallible teaching of Vatican I, the limits of the pope. The path to salvation (The Catholic church) was taught infallibly by all of the pre Vatican I and of course Vatican II popes through out history, but in their effort to appease the modernists and Protestants and now Voodooists (JPII) defected from church doctrine (see Lumen Gentium Decree on Ecumenism, Freedom of Religion or for that matter any of the 16 documents of V2 and the actions of the Pope as well after V2. Concellabration and interfaith gatherings were condemned but now are a matter of practice.
From Vatican I
6. For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.
Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren [60].
http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.HTM
So therefore, the Pope is only promised to have the Holy Spirit when the are DEFENDING and GUARDING the Deposit of Faith, not making New!!
GAME OVER and SLAM DUNK!
Oh my gosh — are you really that terrible at reading????
Look at what you cited:
6. For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.
Time and again, this exactly was what the recent Popes have done and what Vatican II in fact did!
You still continue to fail to prove otherwise!
John,
Please read you own quote slowly.
6. For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.
Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren [60].
The Church has clearly defined that the pope guided by the Holy Spirit defines Church teaching and understanding and not you. Nothing you say will ever give you the authority you seem to want so deperately.
I have read the documents of Vatican II and I accepet them because they have papal approval. You are arguing that the Holy Spirit failed to guide the Church.
It is you who are in error and not the popes who are the very visible source of unity of the Church of Christ.
3. In this way, by unity with the Roman Pontiff in communion and in profession of the same faith , the Church of Christ becomes one flock under one Supreme Shepherd [50].
4. This is the teaching of the Catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation.
So keep reading it is very good for you.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Further to what Inocencio stated in the above post, here’s another Pre-Vatican II Catechesis tid-bit that John seemed to have NEVER LEARNED:
2. Jesus Christ promised to preserve the Church from error. If His prediction and promises were false, then He would not be God, since God cannot lie. Christ said: “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” If therefore the Church falls into error, the gates of hell certainly would prevail against it. Christ promised: “I will ask the Father, and he shall give you another Advocate to dwell with you forever … He will teach you all the truth” (John 14). If the Church can err, then the Holy Ghost cannot abide in it and Christ has failed to keep His promise-a thing absolutely impossible.
So, John, did you ever LEARN your Pre-Vatican II Catechism that you keep touting here?
Or are you just what I have been saying all along — A FAKE, AN IMPOSTER, who only thinks he’s a Traditional Catholic but, really, is nothing more than a PRETENDER!
Genuine ‘Traditional’ Catholics know these FACTS.
You don’t — in spite of your claims that you know your Catechism!
As a new convert, I have been trying to find out more about these PPX schismatics like John and understand what makes them state the Church is in error.
None of the citations listed by John indicate to me to be an infallible teaching on faith and morals like for example Mary’s Assumption or birth control but more of a matter of discipline.
Why wouldn’t the Holy Spirit move the Church to open up to more potential converts by changing the language of the Mass to the native tongue? I was lost, in more than one way, at my first Mass, if it had been Mass spoken in Latin I may still be lost today.
It is important to memorize the prayers and be an active member during the liturgy and to pray it from the heart.
Not that there wasn’t an over reaction by the US Church to the lack of reverence I see today in some of the Masses I have attended.
John, why is the language such an important issue. Enlighten me.
John, I’ve noticed on a number of occassions you have mentioned freedom of religion as something you disagree with. I may be misunderstanding you, but are you saying people should be forced to accept Catholic doctrine, in some sort of Big Brother manner? Like how the Communists tolerated no dissent?
I fail to see how a Pope wanting governments to allow their people the freedom to examine different religions to be the equivalent of saying “it doesn’t matter which religion people choose”. Are you saying the two are the same?
It seems to me we shouldn’t have to fear “competition” from other religions, if Catholicism is the true faith. We just have to do a good job of teaching people what the doctrines really are (as in, “no, we don’t worship Mary”).
I fail to see how a Pope wanting governments to allow their people the freedom to examine different religions to be the equivalent of saying “it doesn’t matter which religion people choose”. Are you saying the two are the same?
Great point, Snowman!
By the way, St. Thomas More advocated freedom of religion in his Utopia:
…not to mention, More stupidly gave up his life (and his wealth, by the way, irresponsibly turning his family into impoverished misfits) to a Pope who invented annulments!
THAT IS HERESY, I TELL YOU!
As St. Jtnova@optline.net teaches, people do not owe allegiance to heretical popes; thus, Thomas More was nothing more but a HERETIC!
Esau
You make this to easy for me
Pope Felix III said: “Not to oppose error, is to approve it, and not to defend truth is to suppress it, and indeed to neglect to confound evil men, when we can do it, is no less a sin than to encourage them.”
Pope Leo I said: “He that sees another in error, and endeavors not to correct it. testifies himself to he in error.”
Pope St. Pius V said: “All the evils of the world are due to lukewarm Catholics.”
Pope St. Pius X said: “All the strength of Satan’s reign is due to the easygoing weakness of Catholics.”
St. Augustine said: “Medicinal rebuke must be applied to all who sin, lest they should either themselves perish, or be the ruin of others . . . Let no one, therefore, say that a man must not be rebuked when he deviates from the right way, or that his return and perseverance must only be asked from the Lord for him.”
Hold fast to Tradition “Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.” (2 Thes 2:14)
St. Vincent of Lerins said: “When a foulness invades the whole Church . . . We must return to the Church of the past.”
Vatican I states: “By Divine and Catholic Faith, all those things must be believed which are contained in the written word of God and in Tradition, and those which are proposed by the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or in her ordinary and universal teaching power, to be believed as Divinely revealed.(I see nothing here about Ecumenia Esau?)
Then lets look at a clear John Paul II contradiction when he states in paragraph 1703 of his new Catechism that the human person. “from his conception . . . is destined for eternal beatitude,” while anyone who knows the teachings of the church is that the exact opposite is taught. Except for Adam, Eve, and the Blessed Virgin, all of us are born with Original Sin, and without the sacrament of Baptism and the true Catholic Faith we are all destined for eternal damnation.
In his lame attempt at ecumania, he along with V2 are now trying to teach that anyone born by their very incarnation are part of the Catholic church and can be saved. What a slam to us Traditional Catholics who actually abide by church teachings to be saved that there was a pope who actually tried to sell that anyone by their very birth can be saved!!
HAHAHHAA!!!!
You’re HILARIOUS!!!
Rather than post VOLUMES of quotes against you, allow me to post something from St. Vincent of Lerins, from whom you quoted in your post:
On the Development of Doctrine
From Commonitorium,
by
Vincent of Lerins
Is there to be no development of religion in the Church of Christ? Certainly, there is to be development and on the largest scale.
Who can be so grudging to men, so full of hate for God, as to try to prevent it? But it must truly be development of the faith, not alteration of the faith. Development means that each thing expands to be itself, while alteration means that a thing is changed from one thing into another.
The understanding, knowledge and wisdom of one and all, of individuals as well as of the whole Church, ought then to make great and vigorous progress with the passing of the ages and the centuries, but only along its own line of development, that is, with the same doctrine, the same meaning and the same import.
The religion of souls should follow the law of development of bodies. Though bodies develop and unfold their component parts with the passing of the years, they always remain what they were. There is a great difference between the flower of childhood and the maturity of age, but those who become old are the very same people who were once young. Though the condition and appearance of one and the same individual may change, it is one and the same nature, one and the same person.
The tiny members of unweaned children and the grown members of young men are still the same members. Men have the same number of limbs as children. Whatever develops at a later age was already present in seminal form; there is nothing new in old age that was not already latent in childhood.
There is no doubt, then, that the legitimate and correct rule of development, the established and wonderful order of growth, is this: in older people the fullness of years always brings to completion those members and forms that the wisdom of the Creator fashioned beforehand in their earlier years.
If, however, the human form were to turn into some shape that did not belong to its own nature, or even if something were added to the sum of its members or subtracted from it, the whole body would necessarily perish or become grotesque or at least be enfeebled. In the same way, the doctrine of the Christian religion should properly follow these laws of development, that is, by becoming firmer over the years, more ample in the course of time, more exalted as it advances in age.
In ancient times our ancestors sowed the good seed in the harvest field of the Church. It would be very wrong and unfitting if we, their descendants, were to reap, not the genuine wheat of truth but the intrusive growth of error.
On the contrary, what is right and fitting is this: there should be no inconsistency between first and last, but we should reap true doctrine from the growth of true teaching, so that when, in the course of time, those first sowings yield an increase it may flourish and be tended in our day also.
Bold Off!
Also, John, what exactly did you learn from your Pre-Vatican II Catechesis????
Did you not even learn the following?
They who remain “outside” the Catholic Church (not official members, but invincibly ignorant of the Church are implicitly INSIDE the Church) through no grave fault of their own, and do not know it is the true Church, can be saved by making use of the graces which God gives them.
Folks, if you want Jimmy to ban John, you have to draw his antics to Jimmy’s attention; Jimmy frequently does not read all the comments.
Use email.
It is interesting that schismatics do not have development of doctrine. The Eastern Orthodox stopped developing doctrines in 787 and the Traditionalist’s stopped prior to Vatican II. It is as if the Holy Spirit has left them to a certain degree, not completely abandoned but kept them stuck in time.
For argument’s sake:
The Orthodox claim that doctrine cannot develop.
“Dearly beloved, taking all care to write unto you concerning your common salvation, I was under a necessity to write unto you: to beseech you to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints.” St. Jude 1:3
John is so traditional that his rosary only has one bead. 🙂
If that was you, Dr. Beckwith, I want to offer my congratulations and well wishes.
“Welcome Home!”
🙂
Ditto.
Vince posted:
“It is interesting that schismatics do not have development of doctrine. The Eastern Orthodox stopped developing doctrines in 787 and the Traditionalist’s stopped prior to Vatican II. It is as if the Holy Spirit has left them to a certain degree, not completely abandoned but kept them stuck in time.”
Vince-you again do not know your religion which I cant blame you as I was a product of the post V2 laity learn your catechism from 3x divorced woman in their home living with their new boyfriend (later to be recatechised by Traditional nuns)
Lets take a look at what the post Vatican II popes are teaching with repect to the deposit of faith, which Vatican I clearly defines that papal authority is to only safeguard such and not develop new doctrine:
Pope Benedict XVI
“It is not a case of the transmission of faith being entrusted to men who are more or less capable, but it is the Spirit of God who guarantees the truth of faith”. At the same time this also guarantees a “freshness” of the Church. In short “a precious deposit, held within a valuable vase, which renews itself continuously also renewing the vase which contains it”.
Then we have the infallible teachings of Vatican I
“For the holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine,
but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles. Indeed, their apostolic teaching was
embraced by all the venerable fathers and
reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors,for they knew very well that this see of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Saviour to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren…
Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the christian faith, to the glory of God our saviour,
for the exaltation of the catholic religion and
for the salvation of the christian people,
with the approval of the sacred council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when,
in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church
So there you have it, the Pope is only infallible when he is adhering to TRADITION, and as well as he or any council promised the HOLY SPIRIT
Do you think that the Holy Spirit would come down on a council that promotes that we all are saved, the Moslems should be “held in high esteem” and promotes religious ecumenism and “unity” instead of conversions to the Catholic faith?
By your fruits ye shall know them and the council and ecumenism has borne rotten fruit
🙂 at Dr. Beckwith.
Vince, if you’re a new convert (yee-haw! as some people would say), what John presents is so inaccurate and his thinking so muddled, that it’s probably not a good use of time.
The only thing John’s post do present is an opportunity to clarify. John says he attends an Indult Mass, so he himself is not as schismatic as his posts sound.
Clarification for your comments:
None of the citations listed by John indicate to me to be an infallible teaching on faith and morals … but more of a matter of discipline.
Bingo. Right on the nose.
Why wouldn’t the Holy Spirit move the Church to open up to more potential converts by changing the language of the Mass to the native tongue?
Actually Latin is still the language with the option of using the vernacular. That’s a fine distinction to some, but good to remember. Also, there was a larger change than using the vernacular. The lectionary readings were expanded and several other changes.
Not that there wasn’t an over reaction by the US Church to the lack of reverence I see today in some of the Masses I have attended.
Unfortunately true. But that won’t last either.
Good to see your post!
Vince, pay no attention to John.
John, you insult everyone in sight don’t you? Vince asked you a straightforward question and you arrogantly tell him that he doesn’t know his faith.
Since you and Esau have gone at it several times, I can sort of understand the “provoke and react” cycle that you two are in. But leave the new Catholics alone. Don’t drag them into your uncertainty.
John,
Few on this website, other than you, have a problem with what the Church teaches, before, during, or after Vatican II.
Do you think that the Holy Spirit would come down on a council that promotes that we all are saved, the Moslems should be “held in high esteem” and promotes religious ecumenism and “unity” instead of conversions to the Catholic faith?
One of your problems is, evidently, an incomprehensible ability to mangle and distort the English language into something completely unrecognizable. You somehow manage to ignore the plain meaning of some words, ignore the fact that other words have ever been spoke at all, and contort what’s left until you can cram it into the pre-formed box that you have created and call “Catholicism,” but which would be as unrecognizable to Pope St. Pius X and the Church Father as it is to us (though it might seem vaguely familiar to Martin Luther).
Case in point. Vatican II does not teach or promote “that we all are saved.” Vatican II does not promote religious ecuminism and unity instead of conversions to the Catholic faith, but you might legitimately say that it promotes ecuminism and unity as a means of conversion. The caricature of Vatican II that you have created bears no resemblance to the real thing, and your suggestions (implied here, expressed elsewhere) that Vatican II was not a legitimate Ecumenical Council and teaches heresy are old and tiresome.
Jimmy should, as some of the saner posters have repeatedly suggested, ban you from this website for good, as you have absolutely nothing useful to add to a discussion of Catholicism.
May I also suggest that the website http://www.Church-According-To-John.com is probably available. You can create your own blog (or Church?) and see what kind of kooky following you get?
John, I’m still curious about what problem you have with freedom of religion? As I asked earlier, are you equating the Church’s desire for nations allowing freedom of religion with the Church saying it doesn’t matter what religion you choose?
I’m trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here, since you have a lot of people responding to you, but it really does seem like you evade simple questions, and instead bring in a laundry list of unrelated complaints to try to confuse he discussion. I’m just trying to at least get some clarity on this one speciic issue before moving on to any others.
For argument’s sake:
The Orthodox claim that doctrine cannot develop.
“Dearly beloved, taking all care to write unto you concerning your common salvation, I was under a necessity to write unto you: to beseech you to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints.” St. Jude 1:3
This coming from a guy who believes in Apparitions.
Hysterical.
Dear Anonymous,
Who ever said I believe in apparitions?
I doubt you will even come back to read my rebuttal.
“This coming from a guy who believes in apparitions.”
Is that supposed to be an argument?
“Hysterical.”
Ah, that may be the explanation.
Esquire posted:
“Case in point. Vatican II does not teach or promote “that we all are saved.” Vatican II does not promote religious ecuminism and unity instead of conversions to the Catholic faith, but you might legitimately say that it promotes ecuminism and unity as a means of conversion. The caricature of Vatican II that you have created bears no resemblance to the real thing, and your suggestions (implied here, expressed elsewhere) that Vatican II was not a legitimate Ecumenical Council and teaches heresy are old and tiresome.”
Well then lets look at how Vatican II deals with atheism,bascially saying it is OK for one to be a non believer
Gaudium et Spes (Church in the Modern World)
“While rejecting atheism, root and branch, the Church sincerely professes that all men, believers and unbelievers alike, ought to work for the rightful betterment of this world in which all alike live; such an ideal cannot be realized, however, apart from sincere and prudent dialogue. Hence the Church protests against the distinction which some state authorities make between believers and unbelievers, with prejudice to the fundamental rights of the human person. The Church calls for the active liberty of believers to build up in this world God’s temple too. She courteously invites atheists to examine the Gospel of Christ with an open mind.
Above all the Church knows that her message is in harmony with the most secret desires of the human heart when she champions the dignity of the
human vocation, restoring hope to those who have already despaired of anything higher than their present lot. Far from diminishing man, her
message brings to his development light, life and freedom. Apart from this message nothing will avail to fill up the heart of man: “Thou hast
made us for Thyself,” O Lord, “and our hearts are restless till they rest in Thee.”[19]
So we now have the Church as established by Christ hear on earth now saying that it is all fine and dandy that those who are atheist to “examine the church of Christ”, go ahead and do as you please….but fails to inform them of their pending doom (or maybe they can be saved now as well??)
Decree on Ecuemenism
Unitatis Reindegratio
Noww we have the church of V2 teaching that Christians (schismatics can be saved by their baptism and that it is OK for them to stay within their church’s). Baptism of desire is agreed-has a council or a pope before V2 ever ever made such a proclamation? How can one receive “grace” or be in the state of sancitifying grace without going to Catholic Mass, receiving our lord, penance, etc? It makes a mockery of the sacraments and being Catholic, all in the name of ecumenism!!
“he 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 cndition 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. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as
means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.
Then we have:
Nostre Aetate (Declaration of non Christian Religions)
“The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct
and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often
reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men. Indeed, she proclaims, and ever must proclaim Christ, “the way the truth, and the
life” (John 14, 6), in whom men may find the fullness of religious life, in whom God has reconciled all things to Himself (4).
Great! The church now “regards those with sincere reverence who are not even Christians!!!
” 3.The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself, merciful and all-powerful,
the Creator of heaven and earth ”
So the church holds with high esteem the Moslems as they adore the “One God”. Well, they do deny Jesus as the son of God not to mention the Holy Ghost (Trinity)-Is not our Lord God as well? Did I miss something?????
Then lets not forget pagan worship (Buddhists and Hindus)
“Religions, however, that are bound up with an advanced culture have struggled to answer the same questions by means of more refined concepts and a more developed language.
Thus in Hinduism, men contemplate the divine mystery and express it through an inexhaustible abundance of myths and through searching philosophical inquiry. They seek freedom from the anguish of our human condition either through ascetical practices or profound meditation or a flight to God with love and trust.
Again, Buddhism, in its various forms, realizes the radical insufficiency of this changeable world; it teaches a way by which men, in a devout and confident spirit, may be able either to
acquire the state of perfect liberation, or attain, by their own efforts or through higher help, supreme illumination. Likewise, other
religions found everywhere try to counter the restlessness of the human heart, each in its own manner, by proposing “ways,” comprising
teachings, rules of life, and sacred rites.
The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct
and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often
reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men.”
Hey wait-Pagan worship is now Ok as well? What about the first commandment? No “let him be anethema” like in all other councils? Does everybody now get to heaven even Pagan worshippers???
Come on all, you cant actually believe this stuff is Catholic and from the Holy Spirit and the reason Our Lord died on the cross.
Our Lady just 90 years ago blocked the sun out to over 70,000 people to warn them, she told those 3 little children when they asked about their young friends who had died that one youth was in pergatory for ever, a child and warned about sins of the flesh and devotion to her sacred heart which has gone unheeded
If a little child is in pergatory, what does that say about the Buddhist? The Hindu? The sinful Catholic? Common sense , this council should have been written by Kant, Rahner, Kung or maybe it was as it sounds just like such
http://www.rc.net/rcchurch/vatican2/
Link for anyone interested in reading through any of the 16 documents
Not to feed the troll, but John, honestly, the passage you quoted was what made me realize I had found the True Church. I came to Catholicism through Hinduism (long story) and I KNOW I found holiness and grace there. I know that holiness and grace touched the lives of those that worshiped with me. Upon reflection, it was the Holy Spirit acting there all along, through the imperfect vehicle that you dismiss as “paganism”. By the way, I lived for a year in India, so I was immersed in many approaches to holiness simply through contact with the folks that lived there: hinduism, islam, jainism, sikhism, buddhism; and I know what I’m talking about.
Later, much later, it was a protestant friend of mine who insisted that Gandhi, having not been saved, must have gone to Hell. Knowing quite a bit about the life of Gandhi, I found this proposition very hard to swallow. Did the Catholic Church teach this? What did the Church teach about other religions and the fate of those who follow them? And my journey into apologetics began…
The above passage confirmed what I have always thought would be the attitude of the religion of a loving a just God, and I rejoiced when I found it. I have to say, I think I would have thought twice about being Catholic if your view of Salvation was being taught. It just doesn’t have the ring of Truth.
It is so funny that you have so much in common with our Fundamentalist brothers and sisters, insisting on limiting God’s mercy to a proscribed definition and having such trouble accepting His love and guidance for ALL of mankind.
“Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God.” (1 John 4:7)
“she told those 3 little children when they asked about their young friends who had died that one youth was in pergatory for ever”
Is that even possible? I thought purgatory was a temporary state; otherwise it would just be called hell.
“she told those 3 little children when they asked about their young friends who had died that one youth was in pergatory for ever”
Is that even possible? I thought purgatory was a temporary state; otherwise it would just be called hell.
True enough; the central trait of purgatory is that everyone in it has been saved.
Once again, Fatima is a Private Revelation and no one is required to believe that the Holy Theotokos ever appeared there.
John said:
Answer:
Yes
John,
You said: “By your fruits ye shall know them and the council and ecumenism has borne rotten fruit
Pope Pius X said:
“judge them by their works. If they despise the shepherds of the Church and even the Pope, if they attempt all means of evading their authority in order to elude their directives and judgments.
I hope you understand that, as a Catholic, I value the pope’s opinion above yours.
What everyone who is Catholic understands is that we can have complete faith in the Church founded by our Lord upon the Rock of the papacy. Why? Because as the Church has always taught and Vatican I clearly confirms:
The See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren [60].
The See of Peter always remains unblemished by any error by the divine promise of Christ. The See of Peter is guaranteed to be free from error and you are not. Why can’t you understand? So simple.
Acting as if you are infallible does not make it so. You are exactly the type of person Pope Pius X condemned.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
I still want to know who John’s bishop is.
To be a Catholic is to be under a bishop in communion with the Roman See.
If one is not, one is not Catholic.
If one’s bishop is NOT in communion with the See of Rome because it is not Catholic enough, then all claims to tradition are but a bale of straw – for certainly then the gates of hell have prevailed and the great Roman theorem – that the faith is safeguarded by the papacy – has failed. If it has failed, why uphold (in his mind) the traditions that preceeded the failure?
So it comes down very simply to this – and there can be no third option in the matter – has Catholocism failed and been proved false in this great age of so-called apostacy, or is he in fact, simply a non-Catholic.
Catholics were never right, or you are not Catholic. One or the other.
You are exactly the type of person Pope Pius X condemned.
He condemned people?
John,
I believe the Second Vatican Council’s primary purpose was to safeguard and better present the sacred deposit of the faith (something to that effect).
You said, “Do you think that the Holy Spirit would come down on a council that promotes that we all are saved, the Moslems should be “held in high esteem” and promotes religious ecumenism and “unity” instead of conversions to the Catholic faith?”
I do believe the Holy Spirit working through the Pope and the Bishops united to him would acknowledge others attempts at worshipping the true God even though they are in error. It never states that they are on the same level as those who follow the Bishop of Rome and never makes a declaration that there is any guarantee of salvation for any of those outside the Church and who are not in a state of grace. It leaves open the hope of salvation for those who have never been able to clearly discern Christ’s Church. I believe this does lead to conversions, maybe just initial ones but enough to get the person into Christ’s Sacraments which ultimately if followed faithfully will lead to salvation.
The main distinction that I see, as a result of V2, is in the hard-line wording of certain Dogma’s that were presented in an “exclusivist” manner prior. To significantly paraphrase one example, “Everyone outside the Church is going to hell.” The Church never changed the declaration that you are saved by Christ’s Church; it still remains the only authentic ordinary avenue of Salvation. But it softened the language to not appear to be condemning everyone else, Muslim, Hindu and Baptist alike. Just like the recent example of the teaching of limbo of the children (although it is important to distinguish here that this was never a Dogma but a theological speculation); it never states that there is any guarantee of salvation for children who died unbaptized only holds open the hope. You are free to believe one way or the other and only God knows. I actually had a child who died (miscarriage) 5 months prior to my initiation into the Church and this issue weighed heavily on me but through daily praying of the rosary and frequent Eucharistic adoration I never wavered in my trust for the Church. A few weeks after my Baptism it dawned on me that I had actual faith, the kind the Catechism uses in its definition and not the kind that is so very prevalent here in the “churches” in America (i.e. Cafeteria Catholics & Protestants).
I would recommend 2 sources for you John, both from Cardinal John Henry Newman; the first is his book An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine
http://www.newmanreader.org/works/development/index.html
The second is his The Discourse to Mixed Congregations on the “Faith and Private Judgment”
http://www.ewtn.com/library/CHRIST/JUDGMENT.TXT
John, you obviously have had the inclination to inquire very seriously about the disarray of your previous local Church due to the improper catechesis. You need to let go of that and get back to the Sacraments and lots of prayer. I don’t know my religion very well but look forward to always learning but I know I have faith in the true sense, not making my own judgments on each and every line item. I trust everything my Church teaches, I know she gives them to me for my salvation and once I learn a new facet I incorporate it with reading, spiritual direction and lots of prayer, and daily Mass attendance.
I recommend everyone pray for John as I now do, pray for his conversion.
Again, to keep this simple, I will only quote three examples of the Vatican II documents where the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity, is supposedly at work. These 16 documents are chockful of abuse, but let me repeat the examples above as they are very easy, as they clearly condone
Atheism
Protestant/Orthodox Schismatic Salvation
Pagan worship
Gaudium et Spes (Church in the Modern World)
“While rejecting atheism, root and branch, the Church sincerely professes that all men, believers and unbelievers alike, ought to work for the rightful betterment of this world in which all alike live; such an ideal cannot be realized, however, apart from sincere and prudent dialogue. Hence the Church protests against the distinction which some state authorities make between believers and unbelievers, with prejudice to the fundamental rights of the human person. The Church calls for the active liberty of believers to build up in this world God’s temple too. She courteously invites atheists to examine the Gospel of Christ with an open mind.
SO THOUGH REJECTED, IT IS THIER “LIBERTY” TO BE ATHIESTS WITH NO MENTION OF ETERNAL DAMNATION??
Decree on Ecuemenism
Unitatis Reindegratio
“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 cndition of each Church or Community. These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving
access to the community of salvation.
SO THE MEANS THAT LUTHER, CALVIN, BUCER AS WELL AS SCHISMATIC ORTHODOX “ENGENDER A LIFE OF GRACE” AND ‘CAPABLE OF GIVING ACCESS TO THE COMMUNITY OF SALVATION”
CLEAR HERESY!
Nostre Aetate (Declaration of non Christian Religions)
“The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct
and of life …..The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself, merciful and all-powerful…
Buddhists and Hindus)
Thus in Hinduism, men contemplate the divine mystery and express it through an inexhaustible abundance of myths and through searching philosophical inquiry. They seek freedom from the anguish of our human condition either through ascetical practices or profound meditation or a flight to God with love and trust. Buddhism, in its various forms, realizes the radical insufficiency of this changeable world; it teaches a way by which men, in a devout and confident spirit, may be able either to
acquire the state of perfect liberation….The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often
reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men.”
HUH? THE CATHOLIC CHURCH REGARDS WITH SINCERE REVERENCE THE WAY THOSE CONDUCT THEIR LIVES (PAGANS???)
DID THE MARTYRS AND FIRST POPES DIE A MARTYRS DEATH RATHER THAN WORSHIP THE PAGANS OF ROME SO THAT NOW WE CAN HOLD THEM IN HIGH ESTEEM?
Was this the Francis Beckwith thread?
You’re HILARIOUS, John!
You say the Pope has authority NOT because GOD SAYS SO, but ONLY IF A CATHOLIC SAYS SO!
Yes, how ‘Traditional’ you are, indeed!
So, tell me, how are you any different than Martin Luther???
As I’ve repeated many times, he claimed that the Pope had become apostate — same as you do here, and that he would, thus, hold no authority at all.
Therefore, based on what you’ve mentioned about a ‘true’ traditional Catholic who owes no obedience to such heretical popes and shouldn’t be called a ‘rad trad’ and ‘schismatic’ simply because he wishes to follow what was once before; Luther, according to you, was nothing more than a ‘Traditional’ Catholic!
I have greater respect for Luther than the likes of you whose only intent is to deceive GENUINE Catholics and PREVENT Conversions to the Catholic Faith – putting down Protestant converts, declaring legitimate councils and popes heretical by your authority over God’s, and all the while PERVERTING Catholic Doctrine!
Your fruits are obvious to anyone with even half a brain.
John,
Please read St. Justin Martyr’s Second Apology.
“And those of the Stoic school—since, so far as their moral teaching went, they were admirable, as were also the poets in some particulars, on account of the seed of reason [the Logos] implanted in every race of men—were, we know, hated and put to death,—Heraclitus for instance, and, among those of our own time, Musonius and others. For, as we intimated, the devils have always effected, that all those who anyhow live a reasonable and earnest life, and shun vice, be hated. And it is nothing wonderful; if the devils are proved to cause those to be much worse hated who live not according to a part only of the word diffused [among men] but by the knowledge and contemplation of the whole Word, which is Christ.Chapter 8
Why not read the actual words of a martyr? I highly recommend reading Chapter 8, 10 and 13 very slowly. And then re-read them again.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
John,
Your main problem is not being able to adapt to the language used in V2. “Read between the lines” seems kind of wrong to use in light of the authenticity of the teaching of the Holy Spirit that was Vatican II but I don’t have a better one to use yet.
Your points:
1) They are inviting atheists to examine the Church. It is their liberty. Their eternal salvation is at stake but we can’t force it on them and the Catholic Church has never taught that was acceptable. If V2 had said according to your own probable preferred wording, “All atheists must come to the immediate faith in the one, holy, catholic and Apostolic church under the Bishop of Rome otherwise they are damned” would be missing the point of better presenting the doctrine of the faith and affecting ecumenism. It never says atheists are going to heaven.
2) “SO THE MEANS THAT LUTHER, CALVIN, BUCER AS WELL AS SCHISMATIC ORTHODOX “ENGENDER A LIFE OF GRACE” AND ‘CAPABLE OF GIVING ACCESS TO THE COMMUNITY OF SALVATION”
No they were heretics. To hold people who follow their teachings to the same degree of accountable 500 years after the most disruptive split in Christian history is again too harsh to put in writing. The wording states our Protestant and Orthodox brothers and sisters are “capable” of receiving grace no definitive statement made.
Having fun let me hypothesize what your preferred wording would have been to our separated brethren, “All Protestants and Orthodox are damned to hell if they do not come to immediate faith in the one, holy, catholic and Apostolic Church under the Bishop of Rome” That would have made some in-roads there.
3) HUH? THE CATHOLIC CHURCH REGARDS WITH SINCERE REVERENCE THE WAY THOSE CONDUCT THEIR LIVES (PAGANS???)
That is a nice way of saying, to pagans, “nice try, but try again!”
DID THE MARTYRS AND FIRST POPES DIE A MARTYRS DEATH RATHER THAN WORSHIP THE PAGANS OF ROME SO THAT NOW WE CAN HOLD THEM IN HIGH ESTEEM?
I don’t understand this statement here. I hold in high regard Gandhi who died in error to the truth of Christianity, I hope he made it to heaven but have NO guarantee. Again I am not God.
In fact many martyrs died in complete Theological error prior to the complete Christological developments we saw in the 4th and 5th Centuries. The fact is developments occur in Christ’s Church but they never contradict what was taught before. Read Cardinal Newman and get back with us.
I also need to state the obvious here too John, you are outside the Church and as a consequence are damned to hell if you do not come to immediate faith in the one, holy, catholic and Apostolic Church under the Bishop of Rome.
HUH? THE CATHOLIC CHURCH REGARDS WITH SINCERE REVERENCE THE WAY THOSE CONDUCT THEIR LIVES (PAGANS???)
What pagans? “Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God.” (1 John 4:7)
No they were heretics. To hold people who follow their teachings to the same degree of accountable 500 years after the most disruptive split in Christian history is again too harsh to put in writing. The wording states our Protestant and Orthodox brothers and sisters are “capable” of receiving grace no definitive statement made.
Having fun let me hypothesize what your preferred wording would have been to our separated brethren, “All Protestants and Orthodox are damned to hell if they do not come to immediate faith in the one, holy, catholic and Apostolic Church under the Bishop of Rome” That would have made some in-roads there.
But that’s just it, Vince, John NEVER learned his Pre-Vatican II Catechesis.
Even before Vatican II, the Church taught:
They who remain “outside” the Catholic Church (not official members, but invincibly ignorant of the Church are implicitly INSIDE the Church) through no grave fault of their own, and do not know it is the true Church, can be saved by making use of the graces which God gives them.
As I’ve mentioned before, even Pope St. Pius X himself taught the possibility of Salvation for those who are invincibly ignorant of the truth; that is, they never rejected the truth of the Catholic Faith, but they, through no fault of their own, are in a position where they never received the fullness of the Faith, yet they can receive the grace of the Sacraments.
Pope Eugene says that apart from the Sacraments, there is no Salvation, but the grace of the Sacraments can be received outside the visible bounds of the Church; therefore, those who are saved can only be saved by the grace that comes through the Church but, nevertheless, people outside of the visible boundaries – and again I emphasize the visible bounds or boundaries of the Catholic Church – can receive the grace of Salvation. This, too, has been taught by St. Thomas Aquinas.
So, don’t believe what John tells you.
He doesn’t even KNOW the Catholic Faith, as he falsely claims.
You probably know MORE about the Catholic Faith than he does!
I only believe what the Church teaches and am not influenced by individual members to even consider her wrong on any point of Dogma regarding matters of faith and morals. In fact she has been right about everything I have looked into and when I don’t understand something I give the assent of faith. Faith proceeds understanding.
Vince,
You have a beautiful faith, brother!
I pray the ‘fire’ that burns in you for your Catholic Faith becomes only stronger!
God bless you!
when I don’t understand something I give the assent of faith
What are you assenting to if you don’t understand it?
As much as I love a good debate, I am starting to understand those who find it pointless to respond to John. First, he lacks the consideration to respond to questions about his posts (like my questions about his opposition to freedom of religion). Secondly, he posts a lot of quotes from various church documents, but doesn’t seem to have the foggiest clue what they actually mean, and interprets them in the harshest possible way.
In John’s eyes, everybody is going to hell except him and a few of his buddies who believe exactly as he does, and I honestly get the impression he takes pleasure in that. He seems incapable of grasping the simple notion that, while the church offers the surest means of salvation, anyone who feeds the hungry, visits the sicks, etc., has at least a chance at salvation. Charity covers a multitude of sins.
What are you assenting to if you don’t understand it?
Do you believe in God?
Faith precedes understanding.
Ahhh-men! (or in my upstate NY… Ayyyy-men!)
I should add, John should put away the council documents for a while, until he gets a better knowledge of the Gospels, where he seems seriously deficient. If he doesn’t know the Gospel message, what hope does he have of properly understanding Church documents and teachings? Which is reminding me that I could stand to spend some more quality time with Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as well.
As much as I love a good debate, I am starting to understand those who find it pointless to respond to John. First, he lacks the consideration to respond to questions about his posts (like my questions about his opposition to freedom of religion). Secondly, he posts a lot of quotes from various church documents, but doesn’t seem to have the foggiest clue what they actually mean, and interprets them in the harshest possible way.
In John’s eyes, everybody is going to hell except him and a few of his buddies who believe exactly as he does, and I honestly get the impression he takes pleasure in that. He seems incapable of grasping the simple notion that, while the church offers the surest means of salvation, anyone who feeds the hungry, visits the sicks, etc., has at least a chance at salvation. Charity covers a multitude of sins.
Snowman,
That’s the BEST summary about John I’ve seen yet!
You posted a lot of great comments and inquiries which I really wished John would’ve actually taken the time to acknowledge and answer.
So let me get this straight, John is saying that all except Good Catholics, or his idea of them, are damned, regardless of their circumstances or moral character. So he has something in common with those he condemns, the Muslims. They (or at least last time I checked) say that all who aren’t Muslims are going to burn. Also, correct me if I am wrong, he is saying that we should tell atheists they are going to hell in order to get them to convert, thing is, thats going to convert atheists to Christianity no more than Muslims saying that is gonna get me to convert to Islam.
P.S. Sorry for the anonymity but I honestly have no idea what name to post under.
So let me get this straight, John is saying that all except Good Catholics, or his idea of them, are damned, regardless of their circumstances or moral character. So he has something in common with those he condemns, the Muslims. They (or at least last time I checked) say that all who aren’t Muslims are going to burn. Also, correct me if I am wrong, he is saying that we should tell atheists they are going to hell in order to get them to convert, thing is, thats going to convert atheists to Christianity no more than Muslims saying that is gonna get me to convert to Islam.
P.S. Sorry for the anonymity but I honestly have no idea what name to post under.
You all have answered nothing, (Vince-you dont think that Hindus who have gods for everything are not pagan??) and just go on your merry way of name calling
V2 is not a council guided by the Holy Spirit as to say such would be insinuating that God himself can promote error, hence the reason why this council is the most divisive in history and instead of clarifying and uniting the church, the only purpose for a pope to call or convene any council, V2 has done the opposite
I am looking only for a rollback to times before V2 as are other countless millions of Traditional Catholics not a “renewal” or “new church” as the fathers of Vatican II and all of you here are promulating, while guising under the banner of “obedience”-your agenda is clear
Your continued defense of atheists (Snowman), and reference to Justin Martyr (Inocencio) who by the way Inocencio as far as I know, Justin Martyr’s writings though very beautiful and insightful are not infallible or dogma and of cause Esaus rant
So again tell me-Should I hold Moslems in “high esteem?, Does the church think that Hindus and Buddhists should be allowed to worship pagan Gods and idols (1st commandment even, not even talking about Catholicism!!) and now Protestants and schismatics are encouraged to perform and stick to their own liturgy that gives them “grace”?
Do you believe in God?
John claims to. Does that help him?
Clara,
I’m asking you — do you believe in God?
Clara, there have been several occasions when I’ve accepted on faith something that I did not understand.
What I assented to was that
One, God’s ways are above my ways. Subset: a)I have a finite understanding of God’s ways. b)God’s ways are not some mechanical object that I can take apart and dissect to understand. c) Understanding is not the most important thing.
Two, the Catholic Church safeguards the deposit of faith. Therefore, it is perfectly safe to accept all the Church teachings, both the ones I understand and the ones I don’t.
Anon posted:
“So let me get this straight, John is saying that all except Good Catholics, or his idea of them, are damned, regardless of their circumstances or moral character”
Anon-That is not what John thinks-but what the Pre Vatican II church taught for 1962 years and is defined dogma and no matter what anyone says can not be changed
If the Catholic church is the one true church as instituted by Christ here on earth.
Not “Pope John” here, but an infallible council that Vatican II has disregarded as well as papal teachigns which were clear when they said:
There is one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all can be saved. Pope Innocent III, ex cathedra, (Fourth Lateran Council, 1215).
We declare, say , define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. Pope Boniface VIII, (Unam Sanctam, 1302).
St. Thomas Aquinas, a doctor of the church, made it clear that God does not want all men to be saved because he could have simply created everyone in heaven, confirmed in grace like the saints and all would have been eternally blessed
Christ gave to the Apostles the entire deposit of faith (“The Holy Ghost will teach you all things” John 14:26), told them to pass it on to the world (“Going therefore, teach ye all nations” Matt. 28:19), and threatened damnation for those who did not believe them (“He who believes not will be condemned” Mark 16:16).
But I guess now with V2 even atheists and pagan worshippers have a chance at heaven.
What a farce!!
“What are you assenting to if you don’t understand it?”
Superior knowledge and Authority. For example, when I ruptured my Achilles tendon, I assented to the superior knowledge of my orthopedic surgeon. I didn’t understand all the intracacies of the operation I was going to undergo, but I trusted his expertise. Similarly, the Church, the Body of Christ, has superior knowledge, inspired by the Holy Spirit, and teaches with the Authority of Christ. I try to understand what the Church teaches and why, but, when I don’t fully understand, I acknowledge my limitations and trust my mother, the Church.
I’m asking you — do you believe in God?
And I was asking the person who said he assented what he was assenting to in regard to the matter of understanding. If someone hands me a contract I don’t understand and I have faith in God, it doesn’t mean I’m not going to be swindled.
Another gnostic (sigh). Move along. Nothing(literally, nothing) to see here.
Two, the Catholic Church safeguards the deposit of faith. Therefore, it is perfectly safe to accept all the Church teachings, both the ones I understand and the ones I don’t.
John doesn’t appear to believe the party you call the Catholic Church is actually the Catholic Church.
But Nothing is Something to those who have everything.
John,
You have as little memory as faith. You made the reference to popes and martyrs and I suggested you actually read their writings. But you keep ignoring Pope Pius X clear condemnation of your disdain for the pope just like you want to ignore St. Justin Martyr’s writings.
Every time you try to quote a text it is apparent to everyone you don’t grasp the context and just continue with your pretext.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
I retract my last two comments. Clara just nailed it. I apologize.
I didn’t understand all the intracacies of the operation I was going to undergo, but I trusted his expertise.
John seems to be saying the doctors have been replaced by impostors and he doesn’t trust them much less what they say.
Bill, great minds think alike 🙂
Clara posted:
Be very careful as Our Lord warned of the wolf in sheeps clothing. Search for the truth, the Catholic church untainted by Modern sinful secular times, that of before Vatican II
The greatest act of charity that one can perform is to bring others to the truth. The Traditional Catholic Faith is a gift from God, one that can be shared, one that gives life and salvation.
The Church, has always sought to bring all into the One Fold (John 10:16), and to unite all in the profession of the one Faith given to us by Christ through the Apostles. If She were to hide the truth, or be content to leave others in their error, She would be cruel and indifferent. So that is why those like myself fight for the true faith under the ridicule of those like Esau
Like the Catholics and martyrs of old, who died rather than relinquish one doctrine of their Catholic Faith, and like the great missionaries, who endured extreme sufferings in order to bring salvation, I am willing to take on the multitude on this blog to save even one soul.
As scripture taught, it is only a firm belief in the importance of the Catholic Faith for salvation that motivated these heroic actions and it is only such a faith that can “overcome the world” today (I John 5:4).
My post referred to Bill 10:20 post.
St. Thomas Aquinas, a doctor of the church, made it clear that God does not want all men to be saved because he could have simply created everyone in heaven, confirmed in grace like the saints and all would have been eternally blessed
John,
You HAVE NO IDEA what St. Thomas Aquinas taught — which is made evident by your hysterical statement here!
Read the Summa, for goodness sake!
Question 2. The act of faith
As St. Thomas Aquinas states:
If, however, some were saved without receiving any revelation, they were not saved without faith in a Mediator, for, though they did not believe in Him explicitly, they did, nevertheless, have implicit faith through believing in Divine providence, since they believed that God would deliver mankind in whatever way was pleasing to Him, and according to the revelation of the Spirit to those who knew the truth, as stated in Job 35:11: “Who teacheth us more than the beasts of the earth.”
Inocencio posted:
“You have as little memory as faith. You made the reference to popes and martyrs and I suggested you actually read their writings”
Inocencio-I will reread St Justin Martyr if you could help explain the following teachings from Bishops, martyrs and saints with regards to no salvation outside of the church
Please help me as you seem to think that Vatican II and yourself are more knowledgeble than the following:
St. Irenaeus (130-202), Bishop and Martyr: “The Church is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account we are bound to avoid them . . . . We hear it declared of the unbelieving and the blinded of this world that they shall not inherit the world of life which is to come . . . . Resist them in defense of the only true and life giving faith, which the Church has received from the Apostles and imparted to her sons.”
St. Augustine (354-430), Bishop and Doctor of the Church: “No man can find salvation except in the Catholic Church. Outside the Catholic Church one can have everything except salvation. One can have honor, one can have sacraments, one can sing alleluia, one can answer amen, one can have faith in the Name of the Father and the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and preach it too, but never can one find salvation except in the Catholic Church.”
St. Fulgentius (468-533), Bishop: “Most firmly hold and never doubt that not only pagans, but also Jews, all heretics, and all schismatics who finish this life outside of the Catholic Church, will go into eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.”
Pope St. Gregory the Great (590-604): “The holy universal Church teaches that it is not possible to worship God truly except in Her and asserts that all who are outside of Her will not be saved.”
St. Francis of Assisi (1182-1226): “All who have not believed that Jesus Christ was really the Son of God are doomed. Also, all who see the Sacrament of the Body of Christ and do not believe it is really the most holy Body and Blood of the Lord . . . these also are doomed!”
St. Thomas Aquinas (1226-1274), the Angelic Doctor: There is no entering into salvation outside the Catholic Church, just as in the time of the Flood there was not salvation outside the Ark, which denotes the Church.”
St. Louis Marie de Montfort (1673-1716): “There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. Anyone who resists this truth perishes.”
St. Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621), Bishop and Doctor of the Church: “Outside the Church there is no salvation…therefore in the symbol (Apostles Creed) we join together the Church with the remission of sins: ‘I believe in the Holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins”…For this reason the Church is compared to the Ark of Noah, because just as during the deluge, everyone perished who was not in the ark, so now those perish who are not in the Church.”
St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori (1696-1787), Bishop and Doctor of the Church: “All the misfortunes of unbelievers spring from too great an attachment to the things of life. This sickness of heart weakens and darkens the understanding, and leads to eternal ruin. If they would try to heal their hearts by purging them of their vices, they would soon receive light, which would show them the necessity of joining the Catholic Church, where alone is salvation. We should constantly thank the Lord for having granted us the gift of the true Faith, by associating us with the children of the Holy Catholic Church … How many are the infidels, heretics, and schismatics who do not enjoy the happiness of the true Faith! Earth is full of them and they are all lost!”
When, Jimmy? When?
Like the Catholics and martyrs of old, who died rather than relinquish one doctrine of their Catholic Faith, and like the great missionaries, who endured extreme sufferings in order to bring salvation, I am willing to take on the multitude on this blog to save even one soul.
TALK ABOUT A MESSIAH COMPLEX!
My gosh, man, don’t you see that everything you preach here is AGAINST Pre-Vatican II Teachings and what the Saints and Martyrs actually fought and died for, and even AGAINST Christ Himself!?!?!?
Just as Pre-Vatican II Catechesis teaches:
“Catholics should possess solid piety, a sound knowledge of the Catholic Faith, and unquestioning obedience to the Pope and the hierarchy.”
“A church which at any time denies an apostolic doctrine, discards the sacrament of Holy Orders, or breaks away from obedience to the Pope, ceases to be apostolic.”
“It is not enough to belong to the Church. We must also live up to our beliefs, otherwise our membership will only work to our greater condemnation. Only those Catholics who, live according to the teachings of the Church will be saved.”
“All members of the Church are under a strict obligation to obey her laws and regulations; DISOBEDIENCE to the Church IS disobedience to HIM Who authorized her rule, Jesus Christ, God.”
Thus, John, YOU HAVE CONDEMNED YOURSELF TO HELL BY YOUR OWN ACTIONS AGAINST OUR LORD!
I pray that others DO NOT HEED your heretical beliefs and DISCARD the Catholic Faith simply because of your HERETICAL RANTS that CONTRADICT IT!
Who, in their right mind, would PAY HEED to the Catholic Faith if the very foundation of that Faith which CHRIST HIMSELF built the Church on, the Pope, is DECLARED TO BE APOSTATE????
You are NOT CONVINCING others to become Catholic, you dolt, you are actually PROMOTING ANTI-CATHOLICISM!
To Jimmy Akin Blog Readers:
Those who are reading this thread, who are not Catholic but simply investigating it, please do not pay heed to anybody’s rants on this thread, including mine.
Though, I would ask only that you instead, should you genuinely be interested in the Catholic Church, judge it by the writings of the Early Church Fathers, as recent converts such as Dr. Beckwith and Dr. Koons have, which played a major role in their conversions to the Catholic Faith.
Judge it by Scripture itself along with Tradition which had flourished harmoniously together unchallenged for almost 1500 years before the Reformation.
If you seek the Lord truly, seek Him through the pages of Christian History; if you do so with an open mind and an open heart, taking into consideration the Church Fathers, Scripture and Tradition, you will find yourself in the arms of the Church Our Lord established — the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church!
God bless You All!
when I don’t understand something I give the assent of faith
What are you assenting to if you don’t understand it?
Posted by: Clara | Jun 4, 2007 9:44:07 AM
I could use a number of different Dogma’s of examples of the faith that I don’t fully understand. Not that I don’t grasp certain elements of the divine truth:
1) The Trinity and their being one God in three divine persons. Don’t understand that one completely and I doubt any do.
2) Jesus Christ being true God and true man with the two natures perfectly being in harmony. Don’t understand that one completely either.
3) The fact and miracle of transubstantiation.
Again I can better understand them with years of experience, study, prayer and emersion in the Sacramental life of Christ but I will never be able to understand it all. If you think you can understand all of those concepts in their fullness you claim something no Doctor of the Church would have dared.
I was the anonymous poster above. Sorry for the repeat post but my computer acted up.
Also, correct me if I am wrong, he is saying that we should tell atheists they are going to hell in order to get them to convert, thing is, thats going to convert atheists to Christianity no more than Muslims saying that is gonna get me to convert to Islam.
^ You still haven’t answered this
Also, John would you mind showing me the documents before Vatican II that define what you say as church dogma.
O and by the way, a priest was excommunicated for teaching that “outside the Church” meant the visible Church.
You can find that info in here, I suggest you read it, especially toward the end.
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0020.html
John thinks there are many more items that are not understood by people.
Now, Jimmy. Now.
Esau countered my post of
“St. Thomas Aquinas, a doctor of the church, made it clear that God does not want all men to be saved because he could have simply created everyone in heaven, confirmed in grace like the saints and all would have been eternally blessed”
With (among his hysterics and denouncment of me) with:
“If, however, some were saved without receiving any revelation, they were not saved without faith in a Mediator, for, though they did not believe in Him explicitly, they did, nevertheless, have implicit faith through believing in Divine providence, since they believed that God would deliver mankind in whatever way was pleasing to Him, and according to the revelation of the Spirit to those who knew the truth, as stated in Job 35:11: “Who teacheth us more than the beasts of the earth.”
Esau-what you are describing is cleary baptism of desire and something Trent and the church believed in and always will and which Pius XII excommunicated Father Feeny for countering!
It has nothing to do with ALL men/woman being saved NOR Gods desire for such!!
Just like Vatican II, you interpret and read what is in black and white and interpret however you want to justify even atheists and pagan worshippers to be saved!!
Only those on their deathbed and God himself only know if someone has obtained enough grace by desire to be saved after living a lifetime of denouncing the church and never receiving her sacraments. You know so little!
God does not want all men to be saved
and
It has nothing to do with ALL men/woman being saved NOR Gods desire for such!!
John:
You mean to say that God Himself doesn’t desire that all be saved???
Saint Paul must’ve been a HERETIC then as well!
1 Tm 2:3-4
3 This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
Gee, even back then, the Gates of Hell had already prevailed against the Church according to Saint jtnova@optline.net!
By the way, John, who is your Pope????
“A church which at any time denies an apostolic doctrine, discards the sacrament of Holy Orders, or breaks away from obedience to the Pope, ceases to be apostolic.”
Esau
You are changing the subject-we are talking about St Thomas!!! NOT the Gospels!!
The church as instituted by Christ on earths only mission is for the salavation of all souls-but many reject the teachings of the church like the atheists, Orthodox, Moslems, Hindus, Buddhists and it is clear defined church teaching per the council of Florence as well as many saints and martyrs that there is NO salvation OUTSIDE of the church
Vatican II changed that, granted salvation to schismatics, has no problems with atheists and pagan idol worshippers and refuses to DENOUNCE them but instead “holds them in high esteem” like the Moslems!!!
No one is saying that Catholics should wish harm on any of them-but to ENCOURAGE their possible loss of eternal salvation in order to be “ecuemnic” is heresy and damned.
Saints are people like you and I and are not God or infallible so this continued hangup Inocencio has on Justin Martyr makes me chuckle while refusing to take head on the above clear defections in church doctrine!!
John,
Then you, John, have something to be thankful for!
To quote a wise man,
Again John the softening in tone used by the Second Vatican Council does not contradict prior teachings (Dogma’s). Is God bound by the Sacraments of the Church?
You are just like the Pharisee’s who claimed that God read the Torah every Sabbath?
Where is the teaching in Dogmatic form that God is bound by the Church’s Sacraments and decrees? Then you have a case.
Lastly, John since you are sure of this; you do have 2 valid options. 1) Drift off into unbelief – Which I believe you are doing. 2) Come back into communion
To hang around the fringes of cyberspace trying to lead others astray is a road that leads damnation.
but many reject the teachings of the church like the atheists, Orthodox, Moslems, Hindus, Buddhists
And many people who call themselves Catholic too?
John, you have a habit of taking statements and stretching them out far beyond their intended meanings. For example, nobody would dispute what you said, that the Church desires all to be united within that one Church. Nevertheless, the Church acknowledges that some may be saved without being Catholic, as Jesus himself talked about regarding those from “other flocks”, who fed the hungry etc. But you are equating that with saying Vatican II “granted salvation to atheists and pagans”. V2 didn’t grant salvation to anybody, it simply acknowledged the possibility that, to the extent people respond to the graces and knowledge given to them by God, they might be saved. Is that so offensive to you?
In your one, uniformative, reference to my earlier question, you claimed I was defending atheists. I am not defending atheism; I simply believe that governments should grant all people freedom of worship, as the Church has stated (and you argued against). You want everyone to be Catholic… well how can a Saudi become Catholic if it is forbidden for a Catholic to preach there, and it is forbidden for a Muslim to convert? Do you honestly want governments to force all their citizens to be Catholic? Please answer these simple questions John. Thank you.
Saints are people like you and I and are not God or infallible
John:
You don’t even believe the Pope himself is infallible — to you, the Pope is only infallible when you say so!
Yeah — you’re really traditional!
…so this continued hangup Inocencio has on Justin Martyr makes me chuckle while refusing to take head on the above clear defections in church doctrine!!
John,
You just confirmed what I’ve been saying all along — that you really don’t read our posts to you or, if you actually do, fail to comprehend them!
How many times have I written to you since last year:
In Scripture, it is said:
Romans 2:14-15
14 For when the Gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature those things that are of the law; these, having not the law, are a law to themselves.
15 Who shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness to them: and their thoughts between themselves accusing or also defending one another
Here, in Romans 2:14, St. Paul talks about those who are apart from the law who keep the natural law written on their hearts become a law unto themselves and the law will either accuse them or excuse them on the Day of Judgment. St. Paul is very plain that there is a possibility that folks who are apart from the True Faith through no fault of their own can possibly be saved.
Even further, as had been mentioned previously on other threads, there are a number of Church Fathers who hold out a hope for universal salvation (St. Gregory of Nazianus, par example), who also grant salvation to pagans (St. Justin Martyr on Socrates) so I see this as less a novelty than a return to the optimistic spirit of these early Christians.
St. Justin Martyr, in his first apology, talks about how you have some philosophers who he refers to as Christians: they’re seeking the Logos even though they’ve never heard of Christ. Now, he doesn’t develop the Theology as we have it today, but we see an indicator there and you’ll find that elsewhere throughout the history of the Church.
Pope St. Pius X himself taught the possibility of Salvation for those who are invincibly ignorant of the truth; that is, they never rejected the truth of the Catholic Faith, but they, through no fault of their own, are in a position where they never received the fullness of the Faith, yet they can receive the grace of the Sacraments. Pope Eugene says that apart from the Sacraments, there is no Salvation, but the grace of the Sacraments can be received outside the visible bounds of the Church; therefore, those who are saved can only be saved by the grace that comes through the Church but, nevertheless, people outside of the visible boundaries – and again I emphasize the visible bounds or boundaries of the Catholic Church – can receive the grace of Salvation. This, too, has been taught by St. Thomas Aquinas.
To hang around the fringes of cyberspace trying to lead others astray is a road that leads damnation.
Vince,
Thank you for pointing this out because this is EXACTLY what John is doing!
He is not SAVING souls but sowing utter confusion.
Jn:8:44:
44 You are of your father the devil: and the desires of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning: and he stood not in the truth, because truth is not in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof. (DRV)
Again, John, who is your Pope???
“A church which at any time denies an apostolic doctrine, discards the sacrament of Holy Orders, or breaks away from obedience to the Pope, ceases to be apostolic.”
My Pope is Pope Benedict XVI, our present Pope, is the direct successor of St. Peter.
He is the lawful successor of the Popes who preceded him, until we reach St. Peter, the first Pope, chosen by Christ Himself!
(As Pre-Vatican II Catechesis teaches:
…thus each Pope lawfully succeeded the one before him, until we reach St. Peter, the first Pope, chosen by Christ Himself.
Who is your “Pope”, John???? ANSWER!
bold off
Dr. eric,
If you have something meaningful to contribute, then do so instead of your petty attempts to ridicule people.
“To hang around the fringes of cyberspace trying to lead others astray is a road that leads damnation.
Vince,
Thank you for pointing this out because this is EXACTLY what John is doing!
He is not SAVING souls but sowing utter confusion.”
Two things to note Esau:
1) I wish I had put the word “to” in front of damnation to make a better point.
2) Don’t let John upset you so much. He is trying to sow confusion, the true sign is that he never responds to simple questions. He is a troll and needs to be treated as such.
I invite John to call into Catholic Answers and take this issue up with Mark Brumley this afternoon. The topic is Can Catholicism Change?
Thanks, Vince.
I just worry for those visitors to the blog not familiar with the Catholic Faith but are familiar with Anti-Catholic rhetoric.
Every erroneous comment that John has made only serves to further corroborate the suspicions of the ignorant anti-Catholic.
I fear for their souls and the lost opportunity for their conversion.
I wouldn’t even blame them if they were to read John’s comments and, after so doing, dismiss Catholicism altogether and the notion of actually becoming Catholic or even investigating it for that matter.
Really, who would actually take stock in the Catholic Faith if so-called Catholics like John have already declared that the Pope himself is an Apostate?
This would only serve to validate Martin Luther’s reasons for the Reformation who also claimed the same thing about the Pope in his days; that he and the clergy of the time had become apostate, which Martin Luther subsequently proclaimed no man owes their obedience to, just as John claims in his heretical comments.
Again, thanks Vince for the info and God bless.
No problem Esau,
We also have 500 years of history to discern the effects of the reformation both on the Roman Catholic Church and the Protestant Churches.
There is no doubt where the Holy Spirit makes His home.
If Luther, Calvin and Zwingli (sp?) were right our Church would not total 1B.
In my opinion the Council of Trent was mind-blowing in its proclamations and ramifications. V2 although deep in meaning and direction for the Church made no real new assertions. It only better presented them in the culture we live in.
It usually takes around 40-50 years for things to settle down after a council so we are getting close.
I certainly share your frustration, Esau. I note that, like me, you’ve added Scripture passages to the debate, which hopefully will help John see that his various council passages need to be read in light of Scripture. If a Council seems to be saying something that contradicts Scripture, clearly his understanding of that Council’s intentions must be flawed, but he’s unwilling to admit that (besides being unwilling to answer our questions).
By the way, thanks for your kind comments towards some of my earlier posts – if they don’t do John any good, hopefully others found them at least slightly helpful to the discussion.
Esau posted (which Pope Eugene Esau??) in his clear distortion
“Pope Eugene says that apart from the Sacraments, there is no Salvation, but the grace of the Sacraments can be received outside the visible bounds of the Church; therefore, those who are saved can only be saved by the grace that comes through the Church but, nevertheless, people outside of the visible boundaries – and again I emphasize the visible bounds or boundaries of the Catholic Church – can receive the grace of Salvation”
The actual infallible teaching is as follows:
Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence declared:
“The Church “firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart ‘into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ (Cf. Matthew 25:41), unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practised, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
Esau-I see nothing about salvation there outside but burning in hell!!
With respect to who is my pope-my church is the Catholic church and I follow all matters given by the Pope when they are infallible and as defined by Vatican I in accordance with TRADITION
And I dont consider kissing the Koran which blasphems our Lord and denies that he is the Son of God, worshipping with Moslems towards Mecca, with voodoo doctors, Buddhists and any other form of pagan worship something that I will or ever espouse to do in adherence to any Pope!
John,
Esau-I see nothing about salvation there outside but burning in hell!!
If I were you, I wouldn’t be so ‘giddy’ about declaring non-Catholics to Hell since…
Just like you said:
…and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life
…a Schismatic like you will similarly enjoy the same fate!
“It is not enough to belong to the Church. We must also live up to our beliefs, otherwise our membership will only work to our greater condemnation. Only those Catholics who, live according to the teachings of the Church will be saved.”
Email Jimmy if you think John should be banned. Do not count on his reading the comments.
Email Jimmy if you think John should be banned. Do not count on his reading the comments.
Ok, one question, since when have any of the post Vatican II popes “worshipped” any other religion. All they are doing is being respectful. They are not “kissing” anything. They are not denying anything in our faith, all they are doing is saying there might be a hope for salvation of non-christians and other denominations. Or do you still believe in the fire and brimstone of the Old Testament. God is perfectly just and forgiving, and only he can judge a person soul, but I am not God, and neither are you.
P.S. I support banning John not only for the good of all the Catholics on this blog but for all of the other people John has mentioned in his posts.
Humm. Apparently the error message didn’t mean that the post didn’t get through.
Say, I’ve got a capital idea here. Why doesn’t Jimmy start a sticky thread to an article on “The Conversion of John” and any time John posts something distracting from the actual current post at hand, we can answer him there and ignore any non-relevant material in the thread itself? It’d be so nice to actually talk about the thread at hand for a change of pace.
Oh, and Dr. Beckwith, that was a good bit of humor there. 🙂
Jun 4, 2007 2:08:48 PM
Esau,
You wrote that I used petty attempts to ridicule people.
What are you talking about?
Esau posted:
“John,
Esau-I see nothing about salvation there outside but burning in hell!!
If I were you, I wouldn’t be so ‘giddy’ about declaring non-Catholics to Hell since…
Just like you said:
…and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life
…a Schismatic like you will similarly enjoy the same fate!”
Esau Esau Esau
You misled by providing an inaccurate quote from an infallible council from a Pope to try and prove your point that the church before vatican II clearly taught salvation must come from those within and part of the church and can not be achieved from without, where Vatican II and the decree on ecumenism says otherwise, that Protestants and Orthodox schismatics can obtain grace and salvation and are encouraged to stay within their church!! Clear contradiction!!
Book worm posted:
“Ok, one question, since when have any of the post Vatican II popes “worshipped” any other religion. All they are doing is being respectful”
Bookworm, it was taught infallibly that it is sinful for any Catholic let alone a pope to participate in ANY form of worship other than that of the Catholic church.
That aside-Can you please show me a picture of a moslem cleric “kissing the bible”? showing Catholics respect? Can you show me a moslem cleric praying to the blessed sacrament in a church like our Pope prayed towards mecca? Can you show me a picture of a Hindu or Moselem taking down their false idols, etc and placing a blessed sacrament and crucifix up and worship as we now have Cardinals and Bishops doing at Fatima and Assissi under the full approval of the Vatican (www.vatican.va) and the Pope????
Of course NOT because it is ONLY Catholicism that now preaches that ecuemenism is OK and one can dabble in any faith as all are OK, have some truths, and should be explored, sort of like a drug dealer telling your children to try some crack as it has some good to it (gets you high)-may kill you (loss of salvation) but go ahead anyway!
John should be banned for his own good as well.
OK, first John, you need to stop bringing up this thing with the Pope “praying towards Mecca”, because to be quite honest, it just makes you look stupid. We can pray in any direction we want, to Mecca, to the North Pole, to Rome, or to New York. The direction a person faces is irrelevant, and quite frankly, silly to bring up. The pope was likely just facing the same direction as the Moslems, becuase it would have looked weird and rude if they all faced one way and he turned around and faced the opposite direction while praying. You see everybody else’s actions in the worst possible light, yet refuse to look in the mirror and see that you are a modern day Pharisee, decrying all those who are not pure enough for your liking. If you had lived 2000 years, I bet you would have really hated this guy named Jesus who hung around with prostitutes and tax collectors and other undesirables.
Put your council documents away and start reading the Gospels John. You need it. Or if you insist on arguing, at least have the intellectual courage to answer people’s questions, rather than just changing the subject when you might be wrong about something.
John,
If you are a Traditionalist you need to be able to supply the main teachings of your very own Schismatic cult.
What are the main reasons for the split and who was the Bishop who was the figurehead of the split? What are the main 3 points of contention? Because they have nothing to do with your last posts. Anyone should be able to determine between public relations attempts of the Popes and actual ‘worship’.
Be genuine. To be frank this reeks of someone posing to be a Traditionalist who is sowing confusion.
Not an atheist, more than likely a Fundamentalist who is anti-Catholic.
And having already been beaten back by the biblically literate Catholics here and at Catholic Answers you have found a new approach.
From my limited reading I can see how someone might misinterpret past declarations from Popes, not taking into account the historical context of those declarations, and certain statements contained within the documents of Vatican II.
But you misrepresent the past declarations and carry them to illogical and uncharitable conclusions.
Luckily there are numerous resources to combat these issues for those who wish to know the truth. Just like every difficulty that comes up there is always a Catholic answer.
Did you pray about this last night? Do you go before the Lord in the Blessed Sacrament and pray about these things? For my conversion I prayed for God’s will to be done thousands of times, not my own.
This shouldn’t take any time John. Don’t research just type.
Vince,
I like it.
Based on historical experience, what you will get, if anything, will be a cut-and-paste from one or more of several different schismatic or heretical websites. They’re not hard to find — any one that pretends to be Catholic, or better yet, more Catholic than the Pope, is a potential source of cut-and-paste material for John. Several here have busted John before by providing links to the specific sites that he has plagiarized and attempted to pass off as his own original thought. Maybe he’ll get creative now and modify something so that it will be harder to find, but that’s about the best you can hope for.
In the meantime, Jimmy, please ban John for everyone’s sake.
Vince posted:
“And having already been beaten back by the biblically literate Catholics here and at Catholic Answers you have found a new approach.”
Vince-I have not been beaten back in any way, only called names because those here cant refute infallible teachings before Vatican II that have been ignored and reinterpreted by those within the church who yearn for a “One World Religion” as John Paul II was documented and quoted time and time again
The Magesterium of the church interprets the bible and uses scripture in conjunction with past councils to form the deposit of faith because the bible has been reinterpreted 4x after V2 and used throughout history for both good and bad and it is that which a True Catholic is to follow-Councils and true Catholic doctrine and not the former bible school students/former Protestants here like Esau who throw quotes from the bible around, while has yet ONCE refuted on heretical statement or revised teaching with something prevatican II from an infallible council or pope to support his liberal Protestant agenda of having a church with blurred lines
Name calling gets you no where as it is the Traditionalist who is very clear on what they believe, we have councils to fall back on that say if you do this-then you are anethema, not the wishy washy liberal documents of Vatican II where I have seen now where the word HELL in the entire 16 documents because now the Catholic church teaches that all are saved and Hell even Limbo now does not exist!!
You didn’t answer one of my questions John.
If you are sincere I can get you two articles dealing with V2 that can add some light into your doubts about the One True Church and the previous statements from Popes that you cite out of historical context. Both enlighten but come from different points of view.
I through out Newman to you and you didn’t respond which shows something too.
You are not a Traditionalist at all. Tell me some specifics of the actual Schism.
As for my silence from here on out, I am going to attend a special Mass this evening where I can offer to God my thanks for His calling me into His True Light.
John,
You said: “Please help me as you seem to think that Vatican II and yourself are more knowledgeable than the following
I am wise enough to know that I know nothing apart from what my Mother, the Bride of Christ, the Church has taught me.
As the Catholic Encyclopedia explains the Council of Florence was called during a time which “had seen the growth of a fatal theory, based on the writings of William Durandus (Guillaume Durant), John of Paris, Marsiglio of Padua, and William of Occam, i.e. the conciliar theory that proclaimed the superiority of the council over the pope.”
The Council of Florence “proclaimed before both Latins and Greeks that the Roman pontiff was the foremost ecclesiastical authority in Christendom; and Eugene IV was able to arrest the schism which had been threatening the Western Church anew (see BASLE, COUNCIL OF). This council was, therefore, witness to the prompt rehabilitation of papal supremacy”
As was made very clear by the following declaration:
We also define that the holy apostolic see and the Roman pontiff holds the primacy over the whole world and the Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter prince of the apostles, and that he is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole church and the father and teacher of all Christians, and to him was committed in blessed Peter the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole church, as is contained also in the acts of ecumenical councils and in the sacred canons. Council of Florence Session 6—6 July 1439
Now with that background you can see the context of your quotation. It was aimed at those who knew they must belong to the Catholic Church and refused to enter into it or (now pay attention) refused to remain in it. No religious act could save a person who knew he had to belong to the Church (again play close attention to the last sentence in your quotation) “unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the catholic church.”
How do I know this is the correct understanding? Because of this Letter of the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office address the issue definitively:
However, this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church.
And:
Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.
However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.
It shows that this understanding is clearly taught in Pope Pius XII “dogmatic letter” On the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ:
“For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire.
I would suggest you read both letters carefully. Pay close attention to the last paragraph “Therefore, let them who in grave peril are ranged against the Church seriously bear in mind that after “Rome has spoken” they cannot be excused even by reasons of good faith. and “submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is required as necessary for salvation.”
Make sure you notice the name of the Assessor on the letter, I think you will recognize his name.
As always I have made sure to quote documents and teachings prior to Vatican II to show nothing has changed.
Check…
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
John,
Now as for respect for what is good in other cultures even pagan ones.
Evangelii Praecones (On Promotion Of Catholic Missions)
56. Another end remains to be achieved; and We desire that all should fully understand it. The Church from the beginning down to our own time has always followed this wise practice: let not the Gospel on being introduced into any new land destroy or extinguish whatever its people possess that is naturally good, just or beautiful. For the Church, when she calls people to a higher culture and a better way of life, under the inspiration of the Christian religion, does not act like one who recklessly cuts down and uproots a thriving forest. No, she grafts a good scion upon the wild stock that it may bear a crop of more delicious fruit.
57. Although owing to Adam’s fall, human nature is tainted with original sin, yet it has in itself something that is naturally Christian[43]; and this, if illumined by divine delight and nourished by God’s grace, can eventually be changed into true and supernatural virtue.
58. This is the reason why the Catholic Church has neither scorned nor rejected the pagan philosophies. Instead, after freeing them from error and all contamination she has perfected and completed them by Christian revelation. So likewise the Church has graciously made her own the native art and culture which in some countries is so highly developed. She has carefully encouraged them and has brought them to a point of aesthetic perfection that of themselves they probably would never have attained. By no means has she repressed native customs and traditions but has given them a certain religious significance; she has even transformed their feast days and made them serve to commemorate the martyrs and to celebrate mysteries of the faith. In this connection, St. Basil says very well: “Just as dyers prepare the material to be dyed by certain processes beforehand and only when this has been done do they color it with purple or some other color: likewise if the unfading glory of the just is to be ours for all time we shall first be prepared by these external rites and then we shall master the teachings and mysteries of Faith. When we become accustomed to looking at the reflection of the sun in the water, we shall turn to gaze upon the sun itself. . . Certainly the essential function of a tree is to produce fruit in season; still the foliage that its branches also bear serves to adorn it. In the same way the primary fruit of the soul is truth itself; but the garb of natural culture is a welcome addition, just as leaves provide shade for the fruit and add to its beauty. Thus Moses, a man of the greatest renown for his wisdom, is said to have come to the contemplation of Him, Who is, only after being trained in Egyptian lore. So later the wise Daniel is said to have been first schooled in Babylon in the wisdom of the Chaldeans, and only then to have come to know Divine Revelation.“[44]
59. We ourselves made the following statement in the first Encyclical Letter We wrote, Summi Pontificatus: “Persevering research carried out with laborious study, on the part of her missionaries of every age, has been undertaken in order to facilitate the deeper appreciative insight into the various civilizations and to utilize their good qualities to facilitate and render more fruitful the preaching of the Gospel of Christ. Whatever there is in the native customs that is not inseparably bound up with superstition and error will always receive kindly consideration and, when possible, will be preserved intact.“[45]
…mate
Please take the time to actually read the documentation I have presented and prayerfully being obedient to the clear teaching of the church. Consider the words of Pope Paul XI as he closed Vatican II.
We decided moreover that all that has been established synodally is to be religiously observed by all the faithful, for the glory of God and the dignity of the Church and for the tranquillity and peace of all men. We have approved and established these things, decreeing that the present letters are and remain stable and valid, and are to have legal effectiveness, so that they be disseminated and obtain full and complete effect, and so that they may be fully convalidated by those whom they concern or may concern now and in the future; and so that, as it be judged and described, all efforts contrary to these things by whomever or whatever authority, knowingly or in ignorance be invalid and worthless from now on.
Given in Rome at St. Peter’s, under the [seal of the] ring of the
fisherman, Dec. 8, on the feast of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the year 1965, the third year of our pontificate.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Italics off ooops
Inocencio
Totally correct as it was the goal of the church before Vatican II to COVERT those and give alms to the missionaries who died, as Pius XII said in the same encyclical
“11. Now this salutary progress of the work of the missions has cost not only the ceaseless and great labors of those who sowed the seed of the Gospel, but also much blood of Martyrs. During the course of the centuries there have not been lacking in some countries most violent persecutions of the nascent Church; and in our own time there are countries in the Far East which are being purpled with martyrs’ blood in the same cause. We have learned that many of the faithful and also nuns, missionaries, native priests and even Bishops have been driven from their homes, despoiled of their possessions and languish in want as exiles or have been arrested, thrown into prison or into concentration camps, or sometimes cruelly done to death, because they were devoutly attached to their faith.
12. Our heart is overwhelmed with grief when We think of the hardships, suffering and death of these our beloved children. Not only do We love them with a fatherly love, but We reverence them with a fatherly veneration, since We are fully aware that their high sense of duty is sometimes crowned with martyrdom. Jesus Christ, the first martyr, said: “If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you.”[10] “In the world you will have distress. But have confidence. I have overcome the world.”[11] “Unless the grain of wheat falling into the ground die, itself remaineth alone. But if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.”[12]”
Wow-Now lets look at the Vatican II documents, where right within these very documents, actually contradicts Nostre aeteate and the same documents with respect to salvation!! (ESAU-where are you?)
http://www.rc.net/rcchurch/vatican2/v2miss.txt
Decree on Mision Activity of the church
“7. This missionary activity derives its reason from the will of God, “who wishes all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, Himself a man, Jesus Christ, who gave Himself as a ransom for all” (1 Tim. 2:4-5),
“neither is there salvation in any other” (Acts 4:12). Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church’s preaching, and all
must be incorporated into Him by baptism, and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself, “by stressing in express language the
necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by
baptism, as by a door. Therefore those men cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ, founded the Church as something
necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it.”[17] Therefore, though God in ways known to Himself can lead those
inculpably ignorant of the Gospel to find that faith without which it is impossible to please Him (He b. 11:6), yet a necessity lies upon the
Church (1 Cor. 9:16), and at the same time a sacred duty, to preach the Gospel. And hence missionary activity today as always retains its power and necessity.”
But then we have JPII “The least” who cant even follow or read the one book of V2 which has some tradional overtones and spells out that salvation can only occur through conversion to Christ but actually contradicts Gaudium et spes!
“Religious differences reveal themselves as pertaining to another order. If the order of unity is divine, the religious differences are a human doing and must be overcome in the process towards the realization of the grandiose design of unity which presides over creation. It is possible that men not be conscious of their radical unity of origin and of their insertion in the very same divine plan. But despite such divisions, they are included in the grand and single design of God in Jesus Christ, who united himself in a certain way with every man (Gaudium et Spes, 22) even if he is not conscious of it.
From these words we perceive the apostasy of John Paul: all men belong to a pantheistic Christ who is united to each man, whether he knows it or not, by virtue of his Incarnation!!
John,
You have convinced be beyond a shadow of a doubt…you cannot comprehend what you read.
Your understanding of Church Teaching is fallible and incorrect. I cannot do anything other than propose the facts to you. If you choose to reject the Truth that is your responsibility.
Pope Pius X said to judge people like you by their works. If they despise the shepherds of the Church and even the Pope, and evade their directives and judgements while pretending to love the Church to what Church do they belong to? Certainly not the Church Christ founded is Pope Pius X answer.
Lord, Have mercy on both our souls.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Put your council documents away and start reading the Gospels, John.
While I wholeheartedly endorse reading the Gospels, and also Paul’s letters (I have a tendency to put the letter ahead of the spirit and Paul always helps me to balance them), I recommend that John read council documents and encyclicals. I mean really read them.
Maybe forget trying to look at them objectively for now. Instead form the hypothetical notion that the documents of Vatican II don’t contradict the Magisterium. Look at them from this perspective and try to find all they ways that the post-conciliar documents compliment the pre-conciliar ones.
I know, it sounds absurd, but isn’t that how many of us came to accept the Church. We said “Let’s say that silly claim of being the One True Church is true, we’ll see if all that crazy doctrine really holds up”. And much to our surprise, a few months/years later we determined that the Church’s teachings are the most logical, reasonable ideas this world has going for it.
Anyway I digress. Once you’re able to see both sides of the coin, John, you’ll be in a much better position to determine the truth. You may still be against the Vatican II Church after this exercise. But at least you’ll have seen things from our perspective and will be better equipped to convert us.
Squabble, squabble, bicker, bicker.
What a Catholic blog.
Bravely posted.
Brian
Your post was from the heart and I applaud that and I agree with much of what you said
What many feel to realize is that I AM on your side, that I am have not abandoned ship, though I have family and friends who are members of so called Traditional Societies who are devout, love the Pope, are as confused as I am, but for the time being dont want their children or themselves exposed to much of the ongoings, especially ecumenism as it sends a wrong message
The Pope in his MP is very smart in releasing such. I had a long discussion with family over the weekend and I questioned why the need to allow priests without their Bishops approval, and that many would be scared to do so. They said something that made very good sense, that B16 is a very educated man, has spoken out if favor of the “reform of the reform” and that he realizes that much of his Cardinals and Bishops are way to the left and ingrained with Modernism, but that possibly the young priests who have yearned for some of the orthodoxy could be trained right the ship and in another generation who knows?
I am along those lines, as I fight for a return, a rollback. A conservative wants to “conserve” or have status quo, but we all know that never works as little by little morals erode. We have had so called conservative presidents, congresses all with many Catholics and still morals in this country erode and abortion is no where to even be stopped, as even Priests I saw on EWTN admitting to
So unless all stand up and say enough of this, we will soon be a church that has no foundation, stands for nothing and when you stand for nothing and compromise your beliefs as a church, you will soon become inconsequential
John,
Great post. All of us on this blog want to rollback the “Spirit of Vatican II” – it violates both the letter and spirit of the Gospel. We all want to return to strict morals rooted in absolute truth and restore the tradition and beauty of the Catholic Church. As far as these things go, we agree with you.
And I think this is already starting to happen. For example, I was noticing today how much of an impact Pope Benedict’s comments from Mexico about culture of death politicians and excommunication are having (even if they were toned down by the Vatican). In the past month a bishop in Italy braved death threats to support pro-life demonstrations on Family Day, A bishop in Scotland is speaking out against UK pro-abort politicians, a bishop in Australia is requiring all teachers to sign an oath of fidelity to the Magisterium, A bishop in Rhode Island blasted Rudy Guiliani. Yes the good bishops are still islands, but they’re making proclaiming the truth and enduring the riducule from the media (and, sadly, some in their own flock) for it. I pray that they will be an inspiration to the rest of the episcopacy. The generation that ran away with Vatican II is old and dying (they see the writing on the wall, which is why they fear the motu proprio so much). The younger generation craves truth and tradtion; today’s world can’t give it to them – only the Church can. The youth will lead the reformation. It’s already starting. Jesus Lives!
NOTICE TO JOHN:
I’VE BEEN VERY PATIENT, BUT THE NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS I’M GETTING IS INCREASING.
KNOCK OFF THE HOBBY-HORSEISM OR VAMOOSE, ONE OR THE OTHER.
THIS IS YOUR RULE #1 WARNING.
John,
That is warning number three at least. Put the hobby horse away.
The BBC Hullabaloo
ATTENTION JOHN!
THIS IS YOUR RULE 1 WARNING.
EITHER LEARN SOME MANNERS OR CEASE COMMENTING.
SHAPE UP OR SHIP OUT.
Posted by: Jimmy Akin | Oct 4, 2006 6:55:36 PM
The Smoke Of Satan Homily
DAN’S DAD AND JOHN.
Settle down, folks.
This is your Rule 1 warning.
Posted by: Jimmy Akin | Nov 15, 2006 1:21:48 PM
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Is that like three stones?
Hopefully more like three strikes.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Jimmy-As this is your blog and I must respect your authority, I only ask at the posts above of those who continuously bait me into defending myself because they are so against hearing anything to do with tradition. I may be in the minority but so was Our Lord, and one fighting for traditional values and causes today seems to be the one all like to cast stones at.
With regard to a “hobby horse”-I feel that to try and discuss the ills of todays church without discussing Vatican II would be like trying to have a discussion on the legal system without bringing up and disecting the American Constitution, which if I recall though drafted by our Founding Fathers, has had quite a few amendments to it over these past 200+ years because it was not perfect.
I only ask that you also moderate the tone of those who persecute me
God bless and thank you
If you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to a mulberry tree, ‘Be uprooted and planted in the sea,’ and it will obey you.
John said, “Jimmy-As this is your blog and I must respect your authority” Can’t you give the same assent of Faith to the Holy Father?
Not that you can’t disagree with certain actions of Popes but never when it comes to matters of doctrine regarding faith and morals. On these subjects you need to respect his (Pope B16) authority.