Do Protestants consider Catholics to be Christians?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Ask Jesus : One Thread

I'm pretty sure the answer is no, but I've heard it both ways. I'm willing to get it from the horse's mouth, so to speak, so if you can answer clearly & succintly, go for it.

-- jake (j@k.e), August 31, 2004

Answers

burp

-- jake (j@k.e), August 31, 2004.

Hi jqake..

I have so many Catholic friends. I can honestly say that some are sincerely Christian and have understood the gospel of Jesus Christ-- in spite of their religion.

Then there are those Catholics who are clueless.

But I think you could find clueless people in just about any relgion.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), August 31, 2004.


Do you mean like clueless people who claim to be saved? Does that count, Faith?

.........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 31, 2004.


So some Catholics are Christians? Which ones?

Clear. Succint. Like that.

-- jake (j@k.e), August 31, 2004.


"So some Catholics are Christians? Which ones?"

It's impossible to know. One thing for sure is, if they hold to the true teachings of Rome, they are not saved for Rome preaches a false gospel. Now, if you are here to cause trouble, I'd suggest you beat it.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 31, 2004.



*If* they hold to the true teaching of Rome, then they are lost.

If they are in the Roman communion, and dont hold to the true teachings of Tome, then there are only two options: 1) They are lost souls who are just religous. 2) They are regenerate souls that believe they can reach out to people in Rome if they stay and hang around there long enough. It is better for these people to find a real church.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 31, 2004.


This is assuming that their church is holding to the true teachings of Rome too. Rome is divided up into so many groups, it's hard to tell what is "true".

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 31, 2004.

Err, OK. Thanks.

-- jake (j@k.e), August 31, 2004.

David,

If you're done answering jake, I have a question about something you said.

You said, Rome is divided up into so many groups, it's hard to tell what is "true"?

What definition of "communion with Rome" are you using when you say that?

What contradicting truths (or divisions) are you referring to among those in communion with the Roman Pontiff?

Thanks.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), August 31, 2004.


If I'm throwing this thread off, I'll be happy to start a new one. I'd like to hear what everyone has to say regarding jake's question too.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), August 31, 2004.


"What contradicting truths (or divisions) are you referring to among those in communion with the Roman Pontiff?"

There are many divisions. Is Vatican II infallible, etc. I will come back to this later, I am busy responding to someone.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 31, 2004.


Catholics liek anyone else can easily be Christain, and its just the Doctoriens, Litergy, and certain interpretatiosn Protestants disagree with.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), August 31, 2004.

I totally disagree!!!

I'm totally just kidding!!

Catholics believe in John 3:16 and all that in encompasses. For some Christian groups, John 3:16 is just about all they need.

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

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 31, 2004.


This has been an enlightening and thoughtful thread, and based on everything I've read, I think its both obvious and safe to say that we can agree that Catholics are Christians.

Thats the wonderful think about dialogue among friends who disagree from time to time. In spite of that, we sometimes are able to come to something resembling a reasonable consensus. Bravo and Peace out!

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


What is the definition of a Christian? People have many interpretations.

Here is mine,As I understand it, the word Christian is Greek in origen.Those at Antioch were called Christians for the first time. Acts 12:26. These seem to be People who were gentiles, the word here Greeks,Acts 11:20, since 11:19 states that at first only Jews were preached to. Paul is called the Apostle to the Gentiles (uncircumcised) Galatians 2:1-8, thus, Christians are mostly Gentile people.

The Circumcised brothers and disciples of Jesus are called Nazarenes (Acts 24:5). (later they were called ebionites(the poor) see James 25. Matthew 5:3.

The Church was called The Way (Acts 9:2, 19:9,24:14,24:22), which comprised both Nazarenes and Christians. Both were baptized in the name of Jesus (Acts 2:38,19:5, I Corinthians 15:29). Both believed Jesus was the one God Yahweh had sent to show them the way to salvation. (I Corinthians 15:3-11).

So what makes a person a Christian? Besides those things listed at I Corinthians 15:3-5 like the belief in the resurrection and being baptized in the name of Jesus, Acts 10:34--43 also gives a summary of a basic belief system. Jesus is the chosen one (Christ), baptism by water and by the Holy Spirit, abelief in Jesus miracles, his death and resurrection, belief that we receive forgiveness of sins in his name by God Yahweh.

The Gospel of Mark, Luke,Acts, Romans, Galatians, and I Corinthians form the basis of our Christian faith for most Protestants. Roman Catholics and Christian Yahwists like me add the letter of James into the equation. James wants us to take care of the poor, the afflicted, the orphans, the destitute,...which we call works (As opposed to works of the Law by Jews like keeping the Sabbath, circumcision, diaetery laws... which is what Paul means by works).

Thus, using this New Testament criteria, then not only Roman Catholics (Novus Ordo, Traditionalists, Old Catholics, Charismatics,...) and all other Catholics (Orthodox,...) are Christians, but ...

also Christian Yahwists like me.

Once we deal with dogmas from the 325 first Ecumenical council (I call it the second, I consider Jerusalem's 49 AD the first) which rely on interpreteations of Matthew 1, some sections of the Gospel of John, I John,some sections of Hebrews, Ephesians 4, I Timothy 3, and some sections of revelation

Using other criteria, from oman Catholic standpoint:

then... Dogmas: Jesus born of a virgin, Jesus born without sin,the father of Jesus, Jesus existed before Abraham,...This is accepted by most Christians,Catholics, Protestants,Waldenses, even Jehovah's Witnesses.

the apostolicity of bishops (either through Peter,...) .... This disqualifies most Protestants except Lutherans and Anglicans (Episcopalians in USA)

Accecptance of only the first 3 councils :325, 381, 431 (or 451) disqualifies Armenians, Copts, Syrians, Assyrians(Caldees),...)

The Spirit proceeding from the father and the Son disqualifies Catholic Orthodox,

Papal infallibility disqulifies Old Catholics,

Use of the vernacular intead of Latin disqualifies Traditionalists like Emerald, jake, Ed Richards,

then some people are no longer considered Christians....like the Mormons and Muslims even though they believe in Jesus.

I happen to reject most dogmas liste above. Yet, I believe I am truly a Christian.

The Christian Yahwist

The Man of Yahweh

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), September 01, 2004.



Elpidio,

I for one do not have a problem with you considering yourself to be Christian. I can accept it. You approach it differently then most everyone here, but I trust that your knowlege of scripture and understanding of it sincerely brings, you to the belief that you are Christian. Others may argue with you over specifics, but I will not. This is ultimately between you and God. I don't find it hard to fathom that you believe and follow the teachings of Christ. This would make you a Christian,---a follower of Christ's truth.

We all tend to practice our own denominational "ways" to salvation. We fight with each other over the specifics of who is or isn't doing it correctly. If salvation is lost when you don't cross a "T" properly, then I guess my spelling has got me in deep trouble.

My orientaion has left me with the belief that salvation is something that we are continually working out. I hope I'm doing the best I can with mine, and wish you the best with yours.

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


Thanks , Jim.

I know people want to exclude me for not believing in the virgin birth, Jesus same as Yahweh,...

But I always make myself this question, if Paul believed the above, why then the synagogues of Jews back then did not exclude him from their midst. Their problem was that they did not accept Jesus to be the Christ. See Acts 9:22-23. And also, that he forbade circumcision for Gentiles.Acts 21:20-22.

Besides that, Jesus folowers were not excluded from the Temple as James told Paul to purify himself for the sake of the Zelous Jews who were members of The Way. Only Jews could enter the Temple, if Paul preached Jesus to be Yahweh, then not only him but James, Peter and the other disciples would be excluded.

The fact thet they were able to enter the Temple shows they could not believe they thought Jesus was Yahweh.

When Paul was arrested he was never accused by them of claiming Jesus was Yahweh. Instead, they accused him of profaning the temple by bringing uncircumcised people inside!!!Acts 21:28-29, 25:8

When I was a strong Catholic in the 1980s there was one problem that sadened me. The exclusion from the sacraments (bread, wine..) for divorced people. Divorced people are treated worse than criminals and killers, or those who had shed blood in self defense. Even people who commited abortion are forgiven, except divorcees.

I tried to do something about it as a catholic. They said it was an order from Jesus.

These days 40% + of Catholics in the United States are divorced or live in union with others. The Pope is still inflexible.

If the Churches will not take them, I want to try. I believe that if people stay away from Church for too long, they fall into sin more often.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio onzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), September 01, 2004.


Thank God the Pope is "inflexible". When truth become "flexible" it ceases to be truth. As for divorced Catholics, they are NOT excluded from the sacraments. Divorced AND REMARRIED Catholics are excluded from the sacraments since they are living in an ongoing state of adultery, just as the Bible says. However, the simple fact of divorce doesn't exclude anyone from receiving the sacraments. Why would it, since divorce has no effect whatsoever on a valid Christian marriage?

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

"Divorced AND REMARRIED Catholics are excluded from the sacraments since they are living in an ongoing state of adultery, just as the Bible says."

'Tis time for removing one's bloody sweltering presence from that church and proceed in finding a new church to park one's wagon. God's sacraments aren't for the sinful dregs of society who go off and marry after divorce. "Tish, tish, tish," and shame on your fallible and feable lack of control or is that love? Poor sinful man who's timing is also his downfall. Why couldn't he have been born a Solomon? The Great Wise Solomon has one thing this dreg has not. Solomon did not divorce and remarry. His cup runneth over with wife and concubine. The dreg runneth without the grace, without the sacraments, without the church to find him in the lost pasture, as he cries for forgiveness. If there truly is God, may he remember the dreg and not cast his wrath upon with much prolonging, as the dreg falls to his eternal damnation.



-- Elevator Falling Fast (cooked_n_done_for@sorry.chump.fried), September 03, 2004.


"Thank God the Pope is "inflexible". " - Paul

Is this the same pope who believes Jews and Moslems need no evangelism?? What about Hindus?

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), September 03, 2004.


Is this the same pope who believes Jews and Moslems need no evangelism?? What about Hindus?

Good question, David. You've hit on a major sticking point between Traditionalists and Neo Catholics. For Traditionalists, it's very clear that it's been infallibly taught (i.e., required for Catholics to believe) that there is no salvation outside the Church. Period. End of argument. Or so we thought.

Neo Catholics, to justify the Modernist errorrs held by the modern hierarchy, attempt to jam a square peg into a round hole by simply changing the definition of what "the Church" is. To say that the Jews (et al.) do not need Christ is, as even you know, a direct contradiction of the very words of Jesus Christ Himself, and therefore a pernicious lie.

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


Jake?

Why even bother with the "Neo"? Why not go full throttle with the Traditional Church and get you all's pope? It has been done before. I'm not joking; I'm very serious about these questions.

..........

-- rod (elreyod@yahoo.com), September 03, 2004.


"Neo Catholics, to justify the Modernist errorrs held by the modern hierarchy, attempt to jam a square peg into a round hole by simply changing the definition of what "the Church" is." - j@ke

It is amazing how they try to get around "no salvation outside the Church"

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), September 03, 2004.


"no salvation outside the Church"

Are you talking about the Traditional Church?

..........

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


Why even bother with the "Neo"? Why not go full throttle with the Traditional Church and get you all's pope?

We already have one, John Paul II, inadequate from certain angles as he may be. I understand that there are a lot of misconceptions over papal infallability, which may or may not be the source of some of your confusion. Many people, including many Catholics, mistakenly think that the pope is infallible in everything he says, does, & thinks. That's not what the Church teaches. True, some people have "elected" their own "popes," but Catholics know there can be only one legitimate succesor to St. Peter.

Garage Masses, if need be! Garage Popes, no thank you.

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

"no salvation outside the Church" Are you talking about the Traditional Church?

I'm talking about the Catholic Church.

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


The catholic esslecia--the called out true Body of Believers-- Christ's Body is indeed catholic/universal.., and surely we do need to be a part of this body to be saved.

But it has nothing to do with the Roman Catholic religion.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), September 03, 2004.


oops..I think I meant *eclessia*...which was falsely translated as the Lord's House and then Church--in that understanding.

But church--translated from eclessia--actually means a called out body of believers and has nothing to do with a building or religious headquarters in the physical sense.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), September 03, 2004.


Faith wrote-"esslecia"

I don't think Faith should be posting in any language other than english. Moderators please delete her post........

I'M JUST KIDDING AROUND, FAITH.

It's nice to see you using your latin.:)

.....I'm out of here.....................

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


Really, Christians aren't 'spose to judge people, much less...it makes no sense to think that all indiviuals in a group are the same of have the exact some ideas or beliefs. That'd be like saying all Repulicans are bad, or all Democrats are bad. Things just aren't that way.

-- Ed Swearingen (ercmail@yahoo.com), September 06, 2004.

Dave

the Church is the Church. it is better than the sum of its parts. it has to be because we are all such wretched creatures.

what lets it down is not the Church but the people that attend -- and, frankly, and moreover, thoise people that minister. many Catholics would be better off going to protestant services where you have a menu of beliefs and a chef that will cook to your taste.

i attend both NO and traditional Masses. but i am pretty confident that NO is going to die a death (which means dissappearing or becoming openly protestant). and i am equally confident that the traditional Church is going to outlove all NO and protestant deniminations.

furthermore, I am absolutely convinced and confident that outside the Catholic Church there is NO salvation.

the new wave of seminarians in Europe, so i am informatively told, are ORTHODOX.

no more tambourines. no more fear of saying the Rosary lest one offends one's protestant neighbours. no more indifferentism.

the Church will grow from that, just as it slims down. just as it adheres to 2 millenia of truth.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), September 07, 2004.


"the new wave of seminarians in Europe, so i am informatively told, are ORTHODOX"

That sounds good to me.

.......

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 07, 2004.


Rod

NOT Russian or Greek Orthodox, so i am told!!

just plain old Catholic.

you know, the ones that believe in the Real Presence and the power of the Blessed Virgin to intercede on our behalf and the authority of the Holy Father and .....

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), September 07, 2004.


Ian, It is also the orthodox Catholic seminaries and religious orders that are booming with new entrants in the US, while the liberal/heterodox ones are dying out.

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), September 07, 2004.

Hi Ian.

Yes, I want the rail back and the Latin Mass. I want all of the statues back where they were, too.

I'm not kidding. I'll get slammed for wanting those Traditions; I'm sure.

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

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 07, 2004.


Hi!

Trads and NO, a dubius distinction for me. Obviously, if I'm not trad, I must be Novus Ordo. But, I guess that's just another label catholics will have to bear with. Though, it's no skin off my teeth.

Trads feed off liberals. If liberals are fruitfly and multiple, so will trads. I surmise, the trad movement will die a slow death like all other eddys that get whipped up whenever the Church move things along. Gasping for life, it will have sought refuge among farmers and disillusioned dissidents, elitists and isolationists as befits a fringe movement.

The idea that beyond this miniscule deluded minority, the rest of the Church has always thrived on latin liturgical rubrics is ludicrous. The feeling that it embodies love is more rhetorical nonsense. What is love that lacks charity? What does a trad who runs off on an 80 mile trek for a fancy liturgy have to do with empty parish pantries and the suffering of their fellows?

Sure, if one make tons of money from movies, it's no skin off their back to build churches for their own use, hire a retired schismatic to say mass, and give a bit of change for the poor. Great! The high watermark of latin traditionalism.

If the current brood of trads want their line to continue, pass on their sectarian interests to their kids, wrangle some stray youngins so to speak, they'll need to find some way to steer their attention away from empty parish food banks, the devotion of the greater non- english-speaking catholic majority, etc, and the gravitating unity that binds them to the One Church of all time - the blood of martyrs.

Moreover, there's absolutely 0(zero) chance the Catholic Church will make the latin Mass the singular standard again. It competes with the dozens of languages of the current Mass, languages that people speak, love, and glorify God with - more meaningful than a dead language they can't understand.

It won't happen unless the human race abandons all it's vast heritage of culture and language embodied in the richness of their various forms in favor of latina lingua. And again, that will never happen.

The Church's use of the latin language will remain as it is. The current liturgy in the multitude of languages will remain accessible to the billion Catholics who don't speak latin. The ontological beauty of it a reflection of the fact that God will not become a foreign concept to the people of the world.

In the end, catholics will have disentangled themselves from Lefebevrist and Thucite rubbish. I surely hope!

God bless,

-- Vincent (love@noemail.net), September 10, 2004.


I can see your point, Vincent. I guess I should clarify that the Tridentine Mass seems aesthetically pleasing the the senses. So, I am allowing my emotions to get in the way. Also, there is such a beauty to the High Mass.

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

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 10, 2004.


rod,

You've expressed sentiment and that's fine with me especially when I share some of the same on the issue. So, I don't contend with what you wrote.

I also think the High Mass is beautiful. Though, it is in any language, not just Latin.

The Latin Mass is a resource and a luxury. Being a resource, it should never cease. Being a luxury...you get the idea.

God Bless,

-- Vincent (love@noemail.net), September 13, 2004.


Vincent

the Church, just as it was the only world class organisation that openly condemned Nazism and Communism, is the only world class organisation that openly condemns abortion and homosexual unions and adoption by homosexual parents and ..... the list goes on.

it does this as it has done for 2000 years.

that makes it mega-traditional -- in a world that believes that these Catholic ideas are just fuddy-duddy, outdated ideas that belong to another age.

and that makes you a traditional man, it makes me a traditional man, it makes Rod a traditional man,......, etc.

therefore, for you to say that "Gasping for life, it will have sought refuge among farmers and disillusioned dissidents, elitists and isolationists as befits a fringe movement" is for you to use the modernist liberal mantra that is typicaly applied to the Church and her teaching. are we all farmers or elitists or what?!!

with that in mind, there seems to me to be 2 levels on which one can earn the badge of "traditionalist":

a/ by preferring to attend Mass said in the form of St Pius V; AND/OR

b/ by contending that certain teachings of the Church are in conflict with its original teachings.

regarding a/ --- well, a preference for a Latin Mass is just that, a personal *preference*, and anyone who condemns an alternative preference is just being plain uncharitable. the Latin Masses said under indult, such as i attended yesterday, are as acceptable as the NO Masses, according to Catholic teaching. the attendees at either demand equal respect according to Catholic teaching.

by the same token, SSPX Masses, which i also occasionally attend, are as licit, if you follow Rome's teaching. the SSPX has not been excom'd. dialogues are ongoing. SSPX Masses are licit Masses so far as i can figure out.

you will gather I atend both but my preference is for the original traditional Mass of Ages.

to prove that my "preference" is mistaken, you would have to go through both liturgies and explain why, rather than just condemning "traditionalism" for its own sake. fyi, the St Pius V Missals are in English ;-)

regarding b/ --- well, maybe you can reconcile Innocent III in 4th Lateran Council, Boniface VIII in Unam Sanctam and Eugene IV in Cantate Domino with modern ecumenism. or the Syllabus of Errors. i can't - though i have tried. the debate is, therefore, to me, not about trad vs liberal or N.O.: it is about orthodox vs heterodox.

there is no substantive difference between ecumenism and indifference even thougfh the Catechism clearly states that he prime duty is to convert.

to my mind, we must strive for orthodoxy. we are already all mega- traditionalists. we just need to keep on being orthodox.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), September 13, 2004.


This point from you, Ian, makes more sense to me.

I can see why you prefer the traditional mass.

This gets you closer to Emerald , Jake and Regina.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), September 13, 2004.


"I can see why you prefer the traditional mass."

i doubt you can, Elpidio.

but i understand why you profess so to do.

i will explain this if you want me to.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), September 13, 2004.


I had told Rod before you did not sound like Novus Ordo, Ian.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), September 13, 2004.

Ian,

Let's get this straight:

with that in mind, there seems to me to be 2 levels on which one can earn the badge of "traditionalist":

a/ by preferring to attend Mass said in the form of St Pius V; AND/OR

b/ by contending that certain teachings of the Church are in conflict with its original teachings.

So, there two levels or criteria for traditionalists - an you've met both.

the Church, just as it was the only world class organisation that openly condemned Nazism and Communism, is the only world class organisation that openly condemns abortion and homosexual unions and adoption by homosexual parents and ..... the list goes on.

it does this as it has done for 2000 years.

that makes it mega-traditional -- in a world that believes that these Catholic ideas are just fuddy-duddy, outdated ideas that belong to another age. i>

There's also this mega-traditional thing going on. Are Traditionalists subsets of mega-traditionalists? If they are, it would mean mega-traditionalism has met the two criteria for traditionalism.

and that makes you a traditional man, it makes me a traditional man, it makes Rod a traditional man,......, etc.

Wait, but we haven't passed muster for the traditionalist badge yet.

therefore, for you to say that "Gasping for life, it will have sought refuge among farmers and disillusioned dissidents, elitists and isolationists as befits a fringe movement" is for you to use the modernist liberal mantra that is typicaly applied to the Church and her teaching. are we all farmers or elitists or what?!!

It's metaphorical, Ian. Hodge-podge traditionalism can't even agree with itself, trying one different thing after another, fragmenting into bickering sects already. Oh, and apologies to all the farmers out there who may take it the wrong way. I myself come from an agrarian background. That's cute, though, Ian. Me, a liberal mantrist.

Ok, back to what you were saying.

you will gather I atend both but my preference is for the original traditional Mass of Ages.

Well, your post up top makes it plainly obvious. Let me quote:

i attend both NO and traditional Masses. but i am pretty confident that NO is going to die a death (which means dissappearing or becoming openly protestant). and i am equally confident that the traditional Church is going to outlove all NO and protestant deniminations.

1) Chances are mighty good you would have attended the "NO" mass, even confirmed into it, no need to mention. 2) To die a death is redundant, sorry I can't help it but I'm responding so why not. 3) NO as used by you can't mean anything but catholics who attend the "NO" mass. Wait, it can also mean the Magisterium or the Church. That makes you a trad-itionalist.

to prove that my "preference" is mistaken, you would have to go through both liturgies and explain why, rather than just condemning "traditionalism" for its own sake. fyi, the St Pius V Missals are in English ;-)

Come on Ian, this is weak. I'm not attacking your preference. I could care less. I'm rebutting your attack on the Church and the Mass.

there is no substantive difference between ecumenism and indifference even thougfh the Catechism clearly states that he prime duty is to convert.

Indifference? Sounds like a freudian slip. NO and trads?

We have a new category. I don't care for the NO label but ecumenist I like. Bah! I am catholic.

Anyway, denying what ecumenism is doesn't change it for the rest of us. It is what it is.

OK, Ian. Talking about the SSPX puts you into the open. But, I pretty much knew. On some level, I have more respect for Thucites(as a movement) because they aren't so namby-pamby about being schismatics. No, that's not it. Recall the proverbial rebels without a clue. Tag, you're it.

This where ecumenism comes in. Food for thought.

to my mind, we must strive for orthodoxy. we are already all mega- traditionalists. we just need to keep on being orthodox

I don't think Ultramontanists like Orthodoxy much, but their major problem seems to come from the Russian Orthodox. I agree, though. We must strive for orthodoxy. The Magisterium must be orthodox and not heterodox because that's what God wants. So the two levels of traditionalism are out-of-bounds and we're left with being catholic.

Traditionalism focuses so much on pedophilia and other sexual perversions. This agenda and so much extreme shadow-boxing is a sign of a foundering ship trying to stay afloat. I mean a disjointed full- frontal trad-rainbow attack just isn't that effective because they end up hitting each other. That's what I think.

God bless,

-- Vincent (love@noemail.net), September 15, 2004.


Moderators, can you delete my previous post. I messed up the tags. Thanks! Ian,

Let's get this straight:

with that in mind, there seems to me to be 2 levels on which one can earn the badge of "traditionalist":

a/ by preferring to attend Mass said in the form of St Pius V; AND/OR

b/ by contending that certain teachings of the Church are in conflict with its original teachings.

So, there two levels or criteria for traditionalists - an you've met both.

the Church, just as it was the only world class organisation that openly condemned Nazism and Communism, is the only world class organisation that openly condemns abortion and homosexual unions and adoption by homosexual parents and ..... the list goes on.

it does this as it has done for 2000 years.

that makes it mega-traditional -- in a world that believes that these Catholic ideas are just fuddy-duddy, outdated ideas that belong to another age.

There's also this mega-traditional thing going on. Are Traditionalists subsets of mega-traditionalists? If they are, it would mean mega-traditionalism has met the two criteria for traditionalism.

and that makes you a traditional man, it makes me a traditional man, it makes Rod a traditional man,......, etc.

Wait, but we haven't passed muster for the traditionalist badge yet.

therefore, for you to say that "Gasping for life, it will have sought refuge among farmers and disillusioned dissidents, elitists and isolationists as befits a fringe movement" is for you to use the modernist liberal mantra that is typicaly applied to the Church and her teaching. are we all farmers or elitists or what?!!

It's metaphorical, Ian. Hodge-podge traditionalism can't even agree with itself, trying one different thing after another, fragmenting into bickering sects already. Oh, and apologies to all the farmers out there who may take it the wrong way. I myself come from an agrarian background. That's cute, though, Ian. Me, a liberal mantrist.

Ok, back to what you were saying.

you will gather I atend both but my preference is for the original traditional Mass of Ages.

Well, your post up top makes it plainly obvious. Let me quote:

i attend both NO and traditional Masses. but i am pretty confident that NO is going to die a death (which means dissappearing or becoming openly protestant). and i am equally confident that the traditional Church is going to outlove all NO and protestant deniminations.

1) Chances are mighty good you would have attended the "NO" mass, even confirmed into it, no need to mention. 2) To die a death is redundant, sorry I can't help it but I'm responding so why not. 3) NO as used by you can't mean anything but catholics who attend the "NO" mass. Wait, it can also mean the Magisterium or the Church. That makes you a trad-itionalist.

to prove that my "preference" is mistaken, you would have to go through both liturgies and explain why, rather than just condemning "traditionalism" for its own sake. fyi, the St Pius V Missals are in English ;-)

Come on Ian, this is weak. I'm not attacking your preference. I could care less. I'm rebutting your attack on the Church and the Mass.

there is no substantive difference between ecumenism and indifference even thougfh the Catechism clearly states that he prime duty is to convert.

Indifference? Sounds like a freudian slip. NO and trads?

We have a new category. I don't care for the NO label but ecumenist I like. Bah! I am catholic.

Anyway, denying what ecumenism is doesn't change it for the rest of us. It is what it is.

OK, Ian. Talking about the SSPX puts you into the open. But, I pretty much knew. On some level, I have more respect for Thucites(as a movement) because they aren't so namby-pamby about being schismatics. No, that's not it. Recall the proverbial rebels without a clue. Tag, you're it.

This where ecumenism comes in. Food for thought.

to my mind, we must strive for orthodoxy. we are already all mega- traditionalists. we just need to keep on being orthodox

I don't think Ultramontanists like Orthodoxy much, but their major problem seems to come from the Russian Orthodox. I agree, though. We must strive for orthodoxy. The Magisterium must be orthodox and not heterodox because that's what God wants. So the two levels of traditionalism are out-of-bounds and we're left with being catholic.

Traditionalism focuses so much on pedophilia and other sexual perversions. This agenda and so much extreme shadow-boxing is a sign of a foundering ship trying to stay afloat. I mean a disjointed full- frontal trad-rainbow attack just isn't that effective because they end up hitting each other. That's what I think.

God bless,

-- Vincent (love@noemail.net), September 15, 2004.


I'm sorry Moderators, can you delete my previous attempts at this post. Thanks! Ian,

Let's get this straight:

with that in mind, there seems to me to be 2 levels on which one can earn the badge of "traditionalist":

a/ by preferring to attend Mass said in the form of St Pius V; AND/OR

b/ by contending that certain teachings of the Church are in conflict with its original teachings.

So, there two levels or criteria for traditionalists - an you've met both.

the Church, just as it was the only world class organisation that openly condemned Nazism and Communism, is the only world class organisation that openly condemns abortion and homosexual unions and adoption by homosexual parents and ..... the list goes on.

it does this as it has done for 2000 years.

that makes it mega-traditional -- in a world that believes that these Catholic ideas are just fuddy-duddy, outdated ideas that belong to another age.

There's also this mega-traditional thing going on. Are Traditionalists subsets of mega-traditionalists? If they are, it would mean mega-traditionalism has met the two criteria for traditionalism.

and that makes you a traditional man, it makes me a traditional man, it makes Rod a traditional man,......, etc.

Wait, but we haven't passed muster for the traditionalist badge yet.

therefore, for you to say that "Gasping for life, it will have sought refuge among farmers and disillusioned dissidents, elitists and isolationists as befits a fringe movement" is for you to use the modernist liberal mantra that is typicaly applied to the Church and her teaching. are we all farmers or elitists or what?!!

It's metaphorical, Ian. Hodge-podge traditionalism can't even agree with itself, trying one different thing after another, fragmenting into bickering sects already. Oh, and apologies to all the farmers out there who may take it the wrong way. I myself come from an agrarian background. That's cute, though, Ian. Me, a liberal mantrist.

Ok, back to what you were saying.

you will gather I atend both but my preference is for the original traditional Mass of Ages.

Well, your post up top makes it plainly obvious. Let me quote:

i attend both NO and traditional Masses. but i am pretty confident that NO is going to die a death (which means dissappearing or becoming openly protestant). and i am equally confident that the traditional Church is going to outlove all NO and protestant deniminations.

1) Chances are mighty good you would have attended the "NO" mass, even confirmed into it, no need to mention. 2) To die a death is redundant, sorry I can't help it but I'm responding so why not. 3) NO as used by you can't mean anything but catholics who attend the "NO" mass. Wait, it can also mean the Magisterium or the Church. That makes you a trad-itionalist.

to prove that my "preference" is mistaken, you would have to go through both liturgies and explain why, rather than just condemning "traditionalism" for its own sake. fyi, the St Pius V Missals are in English ;-)

Come on Ian, this is weak. I'm not attacking your preference. I could care less. I'm rebutting your attack on the Church and the Mass.

there is no substantive difference between ecumenism and indifference even thougfh the Catechism clearly states that he prime duty is to convert.

Indifference? Sounds like a freudian slip. NO and trads?

We have a new category. I don't care for the NO label but ecumenist I like. Bah! I am catholic.

Anyway, denying what ecumenism is doesn't change it for the rest of us. It is what it is.

OK, Ian. Talking about the SSPX puts you into the open. But, I pretty much knew. On some level, I have more respect for Thucites(as a movement) because they aren't so namby-pamby about being schismatics. No, that's not it. Recall the proverbial rebels without a clue. Tag, you're it.

This where ecumenism comes in. Food for thought.

to my mind, we must strive for orthodoxy. we are already all mega- traditionalists. we just need to keep on being orthodox

I don't think Ultramontanists like Orthodoxy much, but their major problem seems to come from the Russian Orthodox. I agree, though. We must strive for orthodoxy. The Magisterium must be orthodox and not heterodox because that's what God wants. So the two levels of traditionalism are out-of-bounds and we're left with being catholic.

Traditionalism focuses so much on pedophilia and other sexual perversions. This agenda and so much extreme shadow-boxing is a sign of a foundering ship trying to stay afloat. I mean a disjointed full- frontal trad-rainbow attack just isn't that effective because they end up hitting each other. That's what I think.

God bless,

-- Vincent (love@noemail.net), September 15, 2004.


Vincent. we are sort of trading preferences here. so let's look at something concrete and objective.

i said: "regarding b/ --- well, maybe you can reconcile Innocent III in 4th Lateran Council, Boniface VIII in Unam Sanctam and Eugene IV in Cantate Domino with modern ecumenism. or the Syllabus of Errors. i can't - though i have tried. the debate is, therefore, to me, not about trad vs liberal or N.O.: it is about orthodox vs heterodox."

so tell me how you reconcile clear-cut ex Cathedra statements with religious the de facto substantive indifference that calls itself, somewhat euphemistically, "ecumenism".

let there be one Church, but it has to be the Catholic Church, surely, with no horse-trading?!? now how do you achieve that if you are telling every other world religion that they are going to Heaven??!?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), September 19, 2004.


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

just who is being orthodox, Vincent?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), September 20, 2004.


I don't pretend that there are many who water down how necessary the Gospel is for eternal life. But, just to keep things on context, I'm posting the rest of the paragraphs from Lumen Gentium.

"16. Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God.(18*) In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh.(125) On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues.(126); But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohamedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things,(127) and as Saviour wills that all men be saved.(128) Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.(19*) Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel.(20*) She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life. But often men, deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator.(129) Or some there are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to final despair. Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, "Preach the Gospel to every creature",(130) the Church fosters the missions with care and attention.

17. As the Son was sent by the Father,(131) so He too sent the Apostles, saying: "Go, therefore, make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And behold I am with you all days even to the consummation of the world".(132) The Church has received this solemn mandate of Christ to proclaim the saving truth from the apostles and must carry it out to the very ends of the earth.(133) Wherefore she makes the words of the Apostle her own: "Woe to me, if I do not preach the Gospel",(134) and continues unceasingly to send heralds of the Gospel until such time as the infant churches are fully established and can themselves continue the work of evangelizing. For the Church is compelled by the Holy Spirit to do her part that God's plan may be fully realized, whereby He has constituted Christ as the source of salvation for the whole world. By the proclamation of the Gospel she prepares her hearers to receive and profess the faith. She gives them the dispositions necessary for baptism, snatches them from the slavery of error and of idols and incorporates them in Christ so that through charity they may grow up into full maturity in Christ. Through her work, whatever good is in the minds and hearts of men, whatever good lies latent in the religious practices and cultures of diverse peoples, is not only saved from destruction but is also cleansed, raised up and perfected unto the glory of God, the confusion of the devil and the happiness of man. The obligation of spreading the faith is imposed on every disciple of Christ, according to his state.(21*) Although, however, all the faithful can baptize, the priest alone can complete the building up of the Body in the eucharistic sacrifice. Thus are fulfilled the words of God, spoken through His prophet: "From the rising of the sun until the going down thereof my name is great among the gentiles, and in every place a clean oblation is sacrificed and offered up in my name".(135)(22*) In this way the Church both prays and labors in order that the entire world may become the People of God, the Body of the Lord and the Temple of the Holy Spirit, and that in Christ, the Head of all, all honor and glory may be rendered to the Creator and Father of the Universe. "

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), September 20, 2004.


therein lies the ostensible contradiction. why do we need to evangelise if the modern interpretation is that all religions as substantively and materially interchangeable, regardless of whether Christ is recognised as God?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), September 21, 2004.

"In the first place amongst these there are the Mohamedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind."

there's also a dazzling sleight-of-hand at play in this section.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), September 21, 2004.


don't get me wrong in all this.

i want to believe that Ghandi is in Heaven, that anyone of any creed or no creed that lived a life of service for others has a shot.

that's my preference.

however, we were told something very different many times, a long long time ago.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), September 21, 2004.


I tend to cling to the doctrine of God's Divine Mercy. We have been taught that, too.

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

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 21, 2004.


I'm not sure I understand the idea of "invincible ignorance" correctly, but maybe that's the part that's missing Ian.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), September 22, 2004.

Andy S

i *suspect* that there is quite simply a chasm between baptism of desire and this modern ecumenism that sees salvation as being freely available to all world religions and many not belonging to any religion.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), September 22, 2004.


"Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity. "

that's what the Catechism says about Baptism by [Implicit] Desire.

one must be *ignorant* of the Gospel and of the Church.

Baptism by Desire provides a way for a person to belong to the Church, even though he has not been formally baptised by water, allowing such person to "be Catholic" and therefore *inside* the Church.

but, whilst the Church believes that a protestant baptism is a valid baptism in certain conditions (Trent), it is obvious that the baptism of a protestant into one of the protestant denominations does not render that protestant a Catholic - because there would then be no "heretics" of the types referred to by Pope Eugene.

such protestant is therefore *outside* the Church. he is a heretic. of course, if he can demonstrate that he is ".... ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it" then he can be saved; but just how likely is that?

and that is simply NOT the message of ecumenism.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), September 22, 2004.


Yes, I see your point Ian.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), September 23, 2004.

a month or so ago, the deacon at Mass included the following in his Homily - a kind of parody to remind us to "loosen up a little".

you may have heard this before, but it was new to me.

the story goes as follows.

St Peter is introducing a new group to Heaven. they pass groups of all faiths, over there on the grass Methodists, over yonder by the trees some Presbyterians, back there Moslems,...etc

they then approach a high walled garden, at which juncture St Peter calls for silence: "Sssshh,...., behind there are the Catholics. They think they are the only ones here,...., and we wouldn't want to disappoint them."

how they all laughed.

the deacon then revealed that he was a convert from protestantism.

i was left asking myself when exactly did he intend to convert.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), September 23, 2004.


Ouch!

.......

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 23, 2004.


Well, if there will be a mix of denominations in Heaven, which shared tenets of Christianity are the valid ones? Would this make the Protestants Catholic? Hmmmm......."Protestant- Catholic".....oxymoron.

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

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 23, 2004.


"which shared tenets of Christianity are the valid ones?"

the Catholic ones!

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), September 23, 2004.


You cannot prove that Ian yourself.

Neither Jesus nor God Yahweh has revealed that to you. You just believe what others have said.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), September 23, 2004.


Perhaps that deacon should have stuck to a little less controversial monologue?

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

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 23, 2004.


If the protestant believes that we are saved by believing in Christ, and if Catholics believe in Christ, then that means Catholics are saved doesn't it?

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), September 23, 2004.

As long as we follow a righteous path, Luke, we all be saved.

Churches of Christ, Catholics, Disciples of christ, Jehovah's Jitnesses,....

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), September 23, 2004.


BTW, a Jehovah "Jitness" is a martial arts group who doesn't believe He was divine to begin with. Just kidding, Elpidio.

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

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 23, 2004.


It seems you mostly believe in religious indifferentism.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), September 24, 2004.

If the protestant believes that we are saved by believing in Christ, and if Catholics believe in Christ, then that means Catholics are saved doesn't it?

That is a very good point Luke.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), September 24, 2004.


Elpidio,

You wrote, "As long as we follow a righteous path, Luke, we all be saved."

Please show where this is written in Scripture???

If the gospel is God's power to salvation (Romans 1:16) and it is, then how will someone be saved without obedience to the gospel???

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), September 24, 2004.


Well, Kevin, what about James 2:21-24

21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

Jam 2:22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?

Jam 2:23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

Jam 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

Jam 2:25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent [them] out another way?

Jam 2:26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

Also by Jesus

Matthew 25:37-46 Mat 25:37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed [thee]? or thirsty, and gave [thee] drink?

Mat 25:38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took [thee] in? or naked, and clothed [thee]?

Mat 25:39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?

Mat 25:40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done [it] unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done [it] unto me.

Mat 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

Mat 25:42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:

Mat 25:43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

Mat 25:44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

Mat 25:45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did [it] not to one of the least of these, ye did [it] not to me.

Mat 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), September 24, 2004.


Elpidio,

James 2:21-24 does not answer the question I asked of you. This passage talks about faith and works working together. This does not address what you told Luke.

Matthew 25:37-46 also does not answer the question I asked of you because this is the scene on judgment day. No one will be able to do anything else on that day in order to be saved, their fate will have already been sealed as they are either saved (the righteous) or lost (the wicked).

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), September 28, 2004.


I will answer at this thread, Kevin, since this one is already too long.

Which Gospel:faith, righteousness, or love?

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), September 29, 2004.


Im delighted to read all these stimulating thoughts. But whatever, I think Christians dont consider anyone the follower of Christ until one submits to a Church which can be similar to a social club.

And rubbing our shoulders with society, I believe, only takes us away from God. It is somewhere written in the Gospel that friendship with world is enmity with God and vice versa. Im wondering and wondering how this call for asceticism and on the other hand attachment with worldly church clubs and Huge Roman Christian empire go hand in hand...? What is more important ? Personal relationship with Jesus and Jehovah or relationship with church and ''Christian'' organizations, people???

-- Rajiv (embersky@myaddress.co.nz), October 01, 2004.


Hi Rajiv,

And rubbing our shoulders with society, I believe, only takes us away from God.

(Well, society sometimes doesn't embrace a faith in God. So, I would agree with you only halfways. The other half seems to indicate that Christians need to be in society in order to spread the Good News.)

It is somewhere written in the Gospel that friendship with world is enmity with God and vice versa. Im wondering and wondering how this call for asceticism and on the other hand attachment with worldly church clubs and Huge Roman Christian empire go hand in hand...?

(I think that the part of Scriptures you are referring too involves the rejection of the "worldly" things. It doesn't mean to shun your neighbor, but it does mean to shun sin away from our lives. The world is sinful.)

What is more important ? Personal relationship with Jesus and Jehovah or relationship with church and ''Christian'' organizations, people???

(The idea of being involved in that "social club" known as "church" is to fellowship with people of the same beliefs. In that way, people are following the path with a relationship with Jesus.)

I can understand a view of Christians as being exclusive or anti- social, but we must remember that Christians have their specific tenets of their faith, which cannot be compromised. This forum shows evidence of the tenacity for holding on to one's faith. We debate, argue, discuss, and indoctrinate. Most importantly, we learn what our faith is all about.

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

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


Welcome Rajiv!!!!

You are welcome to post here.

We have people of so many backgrouds posting here. From Christians:Catholics of many religious persuasions, Protestants, Orthodox,.... Jehovah's Witnesses,....

We also have Nonreligious, Atheists, Wiccans, Budhists, Muslims,...

As for me , I am a Christian Yahwist.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), October 01, 2004.


God wants us to come together in worship. That is why he established a local church of believers all over the map as His ministry spread out..

But there is no one hierarchy--or head church that we alkl must submit.

We submit to God according to His Word.

People in God's church are not worldly people--or at least they shouldn't be.

Religious institutions tend to get politically involved and they tend to become legalistic, omething I do not think the early church leaders had in mind.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), October 01, 2004.


I wonder then what the Word of God means when it says we must submit our disputes to the Church, and that the Church is the final authority? (Matt 18:15-17)

Are you saying that people can hold opposing beliefs, and still be "submitting to God according to His Word"? That would mean that God's Word can oppose itself. Jesus said the truth would set us free. It is therefore essential that we have a way of knowing the truth with certainty. That's why He founded one Church, the pillar and support of the truth (1 Tim 3:15), and guaranteed that the one Church He founded would hold and teach the fullness of truth. (John 16:13) Denominationalism (2 Tim 4:3) is clearly a violation of the stated will of God (John 17:21) because it leads men into untruth, as evidenced by widespread conflicting and contradictory beliefs, and therefore away from the freedom which comes through truth.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 01, 2004.


Well put Paul. Though I object to the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, I would be blind if I couldn't see the structured and developed Vatican vs. random and chaotic protestantism.

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), October 01, 2004.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ