This is a serious question, I do not know much about catholism (sp) do they believe in the Rapture and Tribulation period? My mom in law is catholic and has been all her life, yet she did not have the answers. She is very distressed right now cuz they took the kneelers out of her church and the confessionals arent what they were. Unsure of what that means.

thnks

-- world (not@of.this), November 01, 2004

Answers

St. Paul, in his First Letter to the Thessalonians 4:16, writes: "Then we who are alive, who are left, shall be taken up [Greek "hapargesometha"] together with them [the dead in Christ 4:15] in the clouds to meet Christ, into the air: and so shall we be always with the Lord."

Some Fundamentalist Protestants hold to the error of Millennialism, believing that Christ will actually reign as king over the entire earth for a thousand-year period at some time in the future. These Protestants read the passage as meaning that the entire Church would be taken to meet Christ in the air on a cloud ("raptured out") at the start of the Millennium.

Against this error is the fact that this notion was first taken from a marginal commentary in a Protestant Bible and over time was given a life of its own. St. Augustine, enunciating the belief of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, held that the thousand-year period allegorically refers to all of time after the death and resurrection of Christ and that those who are alive at the Lord's second coming (parousia) will be "caught up," that is, changed by the power of God from being corruptible and mortal to being incorruptible and immortal (cf. 1 Cor. 15:51, 2 Cor. 5:2-4).

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

world

"the kneelers out of her church "

the Church pays illegal immigrants to kneel permanently before the Cross so that we more affluent Catholics can get on with our lives.

"the confessionals arent what they were"

you used to be able to get a beer in there. no longer the case.

are these the answers you were seeking?

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

The whole Rapture/Tribulation theory (or I should say theories - there are various conflicting versions of this tradition) was unheard of by any Christian on earth prior to the early 19th century, when it was dreamed up by a couple of itinerant fundamentalist preachers. The Catholic Church does not profess any doctrine that is not based on revelation by God to the Apostles. There is no such thing as a valid Christian doctrine which originated more than a thousand years after Christ. Therefore the Catholic Church rejects this manmade tradition, which was never and still is not a part of genuine Christian doctrinal truth. One more example of the great danger of building one's theology on the shifting sands of unauthoritative personal interpretation of Scripture.

Your mother-in-law's concerns don't involve any Catholic teaching or doctrine, but simply certain ways of doing things. No doubt she is an older lady who was raised attending the Mass in Latin, and doing many other things a certain way. It is often difficult for such folks to feel comfortable when the Church decides to do things differently. In older Catholic churches, and most modern churches as well, there are kneelers in each pew, to facilitate kneeling during certain particularly sacred parts of the Mass. Some modern churches are eliminating the kneelers, which really means they are discouraging kneeling - a very unfortunate decision and a real cause for concern in my opinion, so I can understand your mother-in-law's distress. There are likewise changes in the format of Confession. In the "old days" the priest sat in a darkened booth and people confessing would go into an adjoining darkened booth and speak to the priest through a small window. That's what "old time Catholics" (like myself) experienced while growing up. Today many older churches still use these confessionals, but an increasing number are using a more "open" setting where the priest simply sits in a chair in a small lighted room, and the person confessing has the option of kneeling beside him and speaking through some sort of screen, or sitting in a chair and speaking to the priest face to face. Again, some older Catholics have difficulty adapting to such changes from what they have always been used to.

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

Confession to a great extent is greatly rduced. It should be stressed mpre from the pulpit but it seems not to be.

It is unfortunate that the face to face type has been introduced. It seems more like a psychiatrist setting.

-- T-C (Treadmill234@south.com), November 01, 2004.

Paul, thank you for the answers. You are correct in assuming my mother in law is up there in age. And yes, re: confessionals this was what she didnt like. She is used to the kneelers, having only been in a catholic church a few times, I liked those. Thanks again for helping me understand a lil more.

-- world (not@of.this), November 01, 2004.

"Some modern churches are eliminating the kneelers, which really means they are discouraging kneeling - a very unfortunate decision and a real cause for concern in my opinion,..."

Paul

until VII, one would go all the way from standing to kneeling upon mention of the Incarnation.

now we get a theatrical bow from the priest during the Creed.

we used to kneel before the Real Presence. that too has gone away. now we stand and are expected to receive vis our own hands.

were these changes in Liturgy also a real cause of concern to you?

is there such a thing as neo-Traditionalism?

you know my views. God did not tell us to celebrate Mass only in Latin. however, by having the text/rubrics/ liturgy of the Mass set for ever and a day, we had a discipline that would most certainly have prevented the removal of kneelers in modern Churches.

surely there is some sense in this?

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

This has been thrown around endlessly, but one more time. Why do they say for all, when the words of Christ was for many. It is an obvious lie, meant to pacify Protestants. No other Catholic liturgy, anywhere in the world says ,for all. That with all the other changes is the worst. Now you are meddling with the Gospels.

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

T-C,

Why do they say for all, when the words of Christ was for many. It is an obvious lie, meant to pacify Protestants. No other Catholic liturgy, anywhere in the world says ,for all. That with all the other changes is the worst. Now you are meddling with the Gospels.

What are you referring to exactly?

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

for Andy S

http://www.latin-mass-society.org/promult.htm

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), November 05, 2004.

Thanks Ian.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), November 05, 2004.

I can see the advantage of using a dead language. The meanings of words never change.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), November 05, 2004.

The phrase "for many" in the Liturgy of the Eucharist was changed to "for all" in order to more accurately reflect the traditional teaching of the Church, as expressed in the inspired Word of God. The Church has taught from the very beginning that Christ died for ALL mankind. The Greek word which expresses this idea in the original New Testament texts can be translated either "all" or "many". When the order of Mass was changed from the traditional Greek to the common language of the day - Latin - the translators rendered the term "many". This was not really "wrong" in the sense of being inaccurate or heretical, for obviously that which is available to "all" is available to a great "many". However, the problem is that "many" is not as definitive as "all". It can mean the same thing, and in this case it obviously does. However, some were using the lack of specificity in the wording to advance the erroneous idea that Christ did not die for all men or that salvation had not been made available to all men - positions which ARE heretical, since they directly contradict divine revelation and the traditional teaching of the Church.

"So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to ALL MEN." (Romans 5:18)

"For the death that He died, He died to sin once FOR ALL; but the life that He lives, He lives to God." (Romans 6:10)

"For the love of Christ controls us, having concluded this, that one died FOR ALL, therefore all died; and He died FOR ALL, so that they who live might no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again (2 Corinthians 5:14-15)

"For Christ also died for sins once FOR ALL, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit" (1 Peter 3:18)

"And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw ALL MEN to Myself." (John 12:32)

"who desires ALL MEN to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." (1 Timothy 2:4)

"For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to ALL MEN" (Titus 2:11)

Passages like these reveal the constant teaching of the early Church, as given to them directly from the lips of Jesus Christ Himself. Therefore, when the words of Jesus in Matt 26:28 are translated "this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins", the meaning obviously must be the inclusive "many", meaning "all", rather than an exclusive "many", meaning "some but not all". Otherwise the Word of God would directly contradict itself. This is why the holy Council, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, wisely adopted the alternate translation of the Greek word, in order to remove any doubt or confusion as to just what the text truly means, and has meant since Apostolic times.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 05, 2004.

Thanks for that explanation Paul. Makes sense.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), November 05, 2004.

Andy

it might "make sense" but is it correct.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), November 05, 2004.

Paul gives a convincing explanation, but it is all wrong. A protestant made the modern translation for the new mass. Here is what an infallible council says about it. They were not stupid fools. They know just what they wanted to say and they said it.

Form To Be Used In The Consecration Of The Wine:

With regard to the consecration of the wine, which is the other element of this Sacrament, the priest, for the reason we have already assigned, ought of necessity to be well acquainted with, and well understand its form. We are then firmly to believe that is consists in the following words: This is the chalice of My blood, of the new and eternal testament, the mystery of faith, which shall be shed for you and for many, to the remission of sins. (3)

Thus the words, this is the chalice, are found in St. Luke and in the Apostle;(4)but the words that immediately follow, of my blood or my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for you and for many to the remission of sins are found partly in St. Luke and partly in St. Matthew.(5). But the words, eternal and the mystery of faith, have been taught us by holy tradition the interpreter and keeper of Catholic truth.

Concerning this form no one can doubt, if he here also attend to what has been already said about the form used in the consecration of the bread. The form to be used (in the consecration) of this element, evidently consists of those words which signify that the substance of the wine is changed into the blood of Our Lord. Since, therefore, the words already cited clearly declare this, it is plain that no other words constitute the form.

They moreover express certain admirable fruits of the blood shed in the Passion of Our Lord, fruits which pertain in a most special manner to this Sacrament. Of these, one is access to the eternal inheritance, which has come to us by right of the new and everlasting testament. Another is access to righteousness by the mystery of faith; for God hath set forth Jesus to be a propitiator through faith in His blood, that He Himself may be just, and the justifier of him, who is of the faith of Jesus Christ. (6) A third effect is the remission of sins.

Explanation Of The Form Used In The Consecration Of The Wine:

...The additional words for you and for many, are taken, some from Matthew, some from Luke, (7) but were joined together by the Catholic Church under guidance of the Spirit of God. They serve to declare the fruit and advantage of His Passion. For if we look to its value, we must confess that the Redeemer shed His blood for the salvation of all; but if we look to the fruit which mankind received from it, we shall easily find that it pertains NOT UNTO ALL, BUT TO MANY of the human race. When therefore (Our Lord) said: For you, He meant either those who were present, or those chosen from amoung the Jewish people, such as were, with the exception of Judas, the disciples with whom He was speaking. When He added, And for many, He wished to be understood to mean the remainder of the elect from among the Jews and Gentiles.

With reason, therefore, were the words For All NOT USED, as in this place the fruits of the Passion are alone spoken of, AND TO THE ELECT ONLY DID HIS PASSION BRING THE FRUIT OF SALVATION. And this is the purport of the Apostle(8) when he says: Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many; and also of the words of Our Lord in John: I pray for them; I pray not for the world, but for them whom thou has given me, because they are thine.(9)

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

"Here is what an infallible council says about it".

Such disciplinary matters as the order of Mass are not doctrinal issues, and therefore no decisions made regarding such matters are "infallible". If they were, then obviously we would have to celebrate Mass exactly as the first Mass was celebrated, in the vernacular, while gathered around a table in an upper room. If the order of Mass as demonstrated by God Himself was not "infallible", or more properly, immutable, then certainly no later order of Mass devised by men could be.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 05, 2004.

With respect Paul, who is talking about the "order of the Mass".

the pertinent portion of TC's post concerns the interpretation of Scripture - nothing to do with discipline.

in particluar when you say:

"The phrase "for many" in the Liturgy of the Eucharist was changed to "for all" in order to more accurately reflect the traditional teaching of the Church, as expressed in the inspired Word of God."

you directly contradict this:

"With reason, therefore, were the words For All NOT USED, as in this place the fruits of the Passion are alone spoken of, AND TO THE ELECT ONLY DID HIS PASSION BRING THE FRUIT OF SALVATION."

there are further points you make that i find somewhat hard to understand.

how can there be any confusion between "many" and "all". they are simply quite different concepts. "many" stands somewhere between "none" and "all", often closer to "none". eg there are a great many Americans in the World, even though they account for about 4% of the population of the world. there are a great many Australians in the world, though they account for about 0.3% of the world's population.

furthermore, Latin has no problem in expressing these concepts: pro omnibus, pro multis.

if you read the link i provided, it is argued that the Greek could also distinguish. now i have no Greek - maybe Elpidio or Zarove could chip in here, as they do - but if you look at the KJV, translated from a different source, it says "for many".

other translations do.

i also note this from Trent: "Moreover, the same sacred and holy Synod,.... ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever."

and this:

"It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,--in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, --wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,--whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,--hath held and doth hold"

pro multis starts to seem pretty orthodox to me.

i do appreciate that, from a purely semantic perspective, the Sacrifice will have been sufficient for the salvation of "all" souls, but that, due to the effects of free-will, it will be efficacious for only a limited number of them (the many). in that sense, you could in isolation of Scripture argue that both sense are true.

however, we are not in isolation of Scripture.

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

> "With respect Paul, who is talking about the "order of the Mass". the pertinent portion of TC's post concerns the interpretation of Scripture - nothing to do with discipline".

A: It doesn't have anything to do with interpretation of scripture. It has to do with a decision regarding which of two legitimate translations of a Greek word should be used in a particular prayer, which is part of the order of the Mass.

> "With reason, therefore, were the words For All NOT USED, as in this place the fruits of the Passion are alone spoken of, AND TO THE ELECT ONLY DID HIS PASSION BRING THE FRUIT OF SALVATION."

A: The fruits of the passion here are spoken of in terms of whom they are offered to, not who chooses to accept them. There can be no doubt that His Blood was poured out for ALL, and the fruits of His sacrifice are thereby available to ALL, even though not all will personally accept what has been made available to them.

> "how can there be any confusion between "many" and "all". they are simply quite different concepts. "many" stands somewhere between "none" and "all""

"There are a great MANY Americans". That statement includes ALL Americans. It is the sum total of ALL Americans which result in the fact of "a great many". Likewise, it is the sum total of ALL people which constitutes the "many" to whom the fruits of Christ's sacrifice are made available. Surely there are none from whom He withholds the promise of salvation. If the wording here referred only to those who personally accept the fruits of Christ's salvific act into their lives, there would really be no way of knowing whether the appropriate term is "many", or "some" or "few". After all, Christ said "MANY are called, but FEW are chosen." And in another place, "I will draw ALL MEN to Myself." According to these words of Christ, the "many" who are called include "all men", while those who respond are not "many", but "few".

> "Latin has no problem in expressing these concepts: pro omnibus, pro multis".

A: Exactly right. Which is what caused the problem in the first place. If the New Testament had been originally written in Latin instead of Greek, there would be no ambiguity; and in all likelihood, "pro omnibus" would have been used. However, when the Latin Mass replaced the traditional Greek Mass as the norm, the original Greek term could be vaildly translated either "pro omnibus" or "pro multis", and "pro multis" was used. Unfortunately, this term in Latin, or English, can be used to make distinctions that could never be inferred from the Greek. This caused no problems initially because the teaching of the Church was so strong and constant that the blood of Christ was poured out for ALL mankind, and therefore the wording "pro multis" was clearly understood in light of the Church's teaching. It was only when some theologians began to move toward a hardcore exclusivist view of salvation that the Church amended the wording of its prayer - something it was clearly authorized to do - to clarify the theological meaning which had been inherent in the prayer from the beginning.

> "Moreover, the same sacred and holy Synod,.... ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever."

A: Well first of all, just for the record, no such statement regarding a translation of scripture is binding in perpetuity, any more than such a statement regarding a specific order of Mass. However, more to the point - Nothing is being rejected here, or even changed. Only clarified.

> "It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,--in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, --wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,--whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,--hath held and doth hold"

A: WOW, does that hit the nail on the head! It is Holy Mother Church - whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures - who has determined that "all" more accurately describes her infallible teaching than "some". How then can some individuals, "relying on their own skill", "presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church" dictates??? That really says it all!

> "I do appreciate that, from a purely semantic perspective, the Sacrifice will have been sufficient for the salvation of "all" souls, but that, due to the effects of free-will, it will be efficacious for only a limited number of them (the many)."

A: This is true not only from a "purely semantic perspective", but as a profound and infallible theological reality. As I said above, the fact that many will reject the fruit of the sacrifice is irrelevant to the prayer in question, since the prayer only states whose sins His blood was poured out for - the sins of ALL mankind for ALL time - and makes no reference to the fact of who will or will not receive the fruits of that sacrifice.

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

Paul, You brush off every document from the popes as discipline rather than dogma. Even Trent is not immune. I ask you that if these pronouncements are not infallible, what for goodness sake is. Give us just one aside from the two about the Blessed Mother.

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

TC,

No, I don't "brush off every document from the popes as discipline rather than dogma". I simply recognize the difference. The Immaculate Conception and the Assumption are dogmatic. Preferred translations of the Bible and various orders of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass are NOT.

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

Paul;

Correct, I covered those two about Blessed Mother, but you still have not given me one other dogmatic statement. Please specify one, rather than generalities.

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

Oh, sorry, I misunderstood your last sentence above. Ok ...

The existence of God
Transubstantiation
The Trinity
Communion of Saints
The existence and nature of Heaven
The existence and nature of Purgatory
The existence and nature of Hell
The Particular and Final Judgments
The Incarnation
The Resurrection
Mary as Mother of God
God as Creator
The Church's power to forgive sins
The perfection of God
The infinity of God
The immutability of God
The eternity of God
The omnipresence of God
The Hypostatic Union
Papal infallibility
Papal primacy of jurisdiction
The number and nature of Sacraments

[Post reformatted.]

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 07, 2004.

Sorry about lack of punctuation. Hope you can make it out.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 07, 2004.

"The Church's power to forgive sins"

Sorry, the church does "not" have the power to forgive sins...

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), November 07, 2004.

"dogma"

how does "dogma" arise?

i would be interested in the liberal answer to this question.

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

Paul;

I thank you for your answer but yoou still have not quoted a document with a name to it. A dogmatic document.

In themeantime her is the catechism of John Paul given his most solemn pronouncement as being without error. The contradictions are glaring.

CATHOLIC OR HELL --------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------

Catholic doctrine teaches that membership in the Catholic Church is necessary for salvation.

Catholic Catechism, par. 870 "The sole Church of Christ which in the Creed we profess to be one, holy, catholic, and apostolic, . . . subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter [i.e., the pope] and by the bishops in communion with him. Nevertheless, many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside its visible confines'(LG 8).

Catholic Catechism, par. 846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? [Cf. Cyprian, Ep. 73.21: PL 3, 1169; De unit.: PL 4, 509-536.] Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body: Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it. [LG 14; cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5.]

This isn't some five-hundred year-old "outdated" teaching. My copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church contains a copy of the signature of Pope John-Paul II "Given October 11, 1992, the thirtieth anniversary of the opening of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, in the fourteenth year of my Pontificate." (emphasis added)

THIS HAS BEEN THE CATHOLIC POSITION ALL ALONG:

1) "The holy universal Church proclaims that God cannot truly be worshipped save within herself, and asserts that all they who are without her pale shall never be saved." Pope Gregory the Great 540-604 A.D.

2) "The Church is like the Ark of Noah, outside of which nobody can be saved." St. Thomas Aquinas 1224-1274 A.D.

3) "That there is one Holy Catholic and apostolic Church we are compelled to believe and to hold, prompted by divine faith, and we do believe this firmly and confess it simply, outside of which there can be no salvation, or remission of sins…." Pope Boniface VIII 1235-1303 A.D., became Pope in 1294

4) "It is a sin to believe that there is salvation outside the Catholic Church." Pope Pius IX 1792-1878 A.D., became Pope in 1846, convened the first Vatican Council in 1869, which enunciated the Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility.

5) "We believe the Church is necessary for salvation because Christ, who is the sole mediator and exclusive way of salvation, renders Himself present for us in His body which is the Church. We must always remember the unity of the mystical body, without which there can be no salvation, is open to no one outside the Catholic Church." Pope Paul VI 1897-1978 A.D. became Pope in 1963

6) "For it is through Christ’s Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help towards salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained." Vatican II 1965

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

yes T-C, "Extra ecclesia nulla salus" becomes "Sine ecclesia nulla salus", an altogether different proposition.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), November 09, 2004.