Those who lose their Catholic faith..

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

For those who lose their faith in the Catholic faith, but still see the Lord Jesus Christ as their Savior and follow the Bible, do they still have a chance in Purgatory to enter into the Kingdom of our Lord? Or is it hopeless and will not even get a chance.

-- David A. Martinez (raydr2411@hotmail.com), December 31, 2004

Answers

David, if you know that the Catholic Church is indeed the Church that Christ gave birth to at Pentecost, then you would be committing a grave and serious sin by leaving!

I know that it is THAT church because I studied the issue for years before I converted. You may not "know" that in your heart, and if you don't, then you need to study the issue, study the true teachings of the Church (not what a protestant says we believe). Most people who leave the Church do so because they don't know what they believe and why they believe it. Then a "born again" Christian comes along slandering the Church, twisting its teachings, and then the poor chap doesn't know what to believe, but because he sees "fire" in the eyes of the born againer, he follows!

Gail

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), December 31, 2004.


I know how easy it would be to be sucked into Protestantism. They seem so much more laid (layed?) back than us Catholics. But remember this, there is only ONE truth. Truth stays the same no matter what you believe. You could be Buddhist but the truth is still the Catholic Church. You could be a Shintoist but the truth would still be the Catholic Church, etc.

-- Cameron (shaolin__phoenix@hotmail.com), December 31, 2004.

david,

there are any number of sayings which fit with what you are asking, but the best is probably, if it seems to good to be true, it probably is. the path is narrow and winding, it is HARD. the true belief of the church is vastly different from what society holds true today. there is no one who is truly catholic who converts away, the truth simply is too overwhelmingly powerful. i've yet to meet a single person who converted to protestantism who was ever a serious catholic to begin with.

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


No, it is not hopeless for those who lose their Catholic faith--particularly if they never had much in the first place; if the Catholic faith they were given was corrupted and not clearly resembling the true Bride and Body of Christ.

But it is still perillous to leave. The problem is, once somebody has left the Church, telling them they're placing their souls in danger will not likely have much effect, except to confirm their decision to leave the "judgemental" Catholic Church.

Apostasy is a devil; neither condemning nor clever words can exorcise it. As Jesus says in Matthew, "But this kind [of devil] does not come out except by prayer and fasting."

-- anon (ymous@god.bless), December 31, 2004.


"For those who lose their faith in the Catholic faith, but still see the Lord Jesus Christ as their Savior and follow the Bible..."

This is an impossible situation which cannot ever exist.

There's your answer right there. If you have lost the underlined part, you can't have the bolded part.

An non-existent and impossible condition to be in.

Are you asking if someone loses their Catholic Faith and die, will they lose their salvation?

Well, yeah, of course. They're toast.

Just being up front.

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



I'd sure like to hear what Paul M. has to say about this, in relation to previous discussions concerning Christians of other faiths having salvation.

Since the Catholic Church now teaches that it is not necessary to be IN the Catholic Church, per se, in order to obtain salvation but that ALL Christian faiths are essentially a part of the Catholic faith and have "some" truth to them..so people who are living good holy lives in other Christian churches aren't "doomed" as was once thought..

then how could it be that a Catholic who chooses to join up with another Christian church, and live a good holy life would be "toast"?

I asked before how is it possible to be reconciled to God without the sacraments and there was no answer forthcoming. The response was that the Catholic Church has the "fullness of truth" and it would be better to be Catholic and enjoy that, but not necessary for salvation.Well, if it's not necessary, then why not have Catholics leave the Church and be OK with God?

To me, it's pure logic: Protestants reject the "fullness of truth" and the sacraments, yet the Church teaches that is Ok since they belive in Jesus Christ..so they will can achieve salvation because they have half the truth? So if Catholics reject the "fullness of truth" what's the difference??????

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), January 01, 2005.


No difference. If a Catholic OR a Protestant, recognizing that the Catholic Church is the one true Church founded by Jesus Christ as the means of salvation for all men, nevertheless rejects it, then he rejects salvation. However, if a nominal "Catholic" OR a Protestant does NOT recognize that the Catholic Church is the one true Church founded by Jesus Christ as the means of salvation for all men - and a great many nominal Catholics are in that position - and as a result of that lack of belief ends up in an unauthorized Church teaching partial truth, then it is up to God in His mercy - not us - to make judgment concerning that person's salvation, in terms of their sincere response to that portion of the truth which is accessible to them.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 01, 2005.

Much of the damage of indifferentism has been caused by the new ecumanism. As one of you said, it doesn't seem to matter much anymore which church you attend.

-- Nigel (Hollingsworth3@aol.com), January 01, 2005.

do they still have a chance in Purgatory to enter into the Kingdom of our Lord?

Once a human soul is in Purgatory, he "WILL" get to Heaven and share in the Beatific Vision of God with the rest of the Saints. It is just a matter of when. He is already without a doubt saved.

-- DJ (newfiedufie@msn.com), January 01, 2005.


Fascinating..so a "nominal" Catholic can now leave the Church and be Protestant and is not condemned. Meaning if a person was baptised in to the Cathoic faith, raised Catholic, and then decided at some point in time that they disagreed with the teachings of the Church and left..telling themselves that they simply do not believe that the Church has the "fullness of truth" ..the Church now teaches that this person CAN still achieve salvation?

I guess that one has to define "nominal Catholic". There are many folks in the Church who believe many things until they are personally faced with choices. THEN they question the teachings of the Church. THEN they say to themselves: "This cannot be truth because it doesn't fit in with what I want to do." and they actually believe it.

THEN they speak with folks who are Protestants who tell them, "Hey, look..these things are man-made rules..come join us. Your wife left you for another man. Your own church says even though you didn't WANT a divorce, you cannot ever marry again. Look at this bible verse. It says that if your wife is an unbeliever you can put her aside. Here, with us, you can worship God and marry again and have a community who will support you."

And then just to make things more attractive, these Catholics hear that if they leave the Catholic Church, they are not condemned since they are "nominal Catholics"?

IF someone truly believes that the Catholic Church is THE one true Church and has all the "fullness of truth", they'd NEVER EVER leave in the first place, under any circumstances, lest they put their immortal soul in jeopardy.

With the "new" teaching of any Christian Church is a path to salvation and a nominal Catholic joining up with one can also be "saved" , is it any wonder to anyone why so many Catholics are now happy Protestants???????

Good grief.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), January 02, 2005.



> "so a "nominal" Catholic can now leave the Church and be Protestant and is not condemned"

A: A "nominal" "Catholic" who rejects the teachings of the Church IS Protestant, whether he formalizes his position by joining another church or not. Which is more important - what we believe? Or where we believe it?

> "IF someone truly believes that the Catholic Church is THE one true Church and has all the "fullness of truth", they'd NEVER EVER leave in the first place, under any circumstances, lest they put their immortal soul in jeopardy".

A: I agree it would be very unlikely. But even Catholics solidly grounded in their faith are subject to temptation. Consider Martin Luther; Henry VIII.

> "With the "new" teaching of any Christian Church is a path to salvation and a nominal Catholic joining up with one can also be "saved" , is it any wonder to anyone why so many Catholics are now happy Protestants???????"

A: No Church but the Holy Catholic Church is the path to salvation, for no other Church is the source of the fullness of truth which leads to salvation. Should we criticize God for extending mercy to those who hold less than the fullness of Catholic truth, yet respond to the partial truth they do possess by earnestly seeking to follow Him with their whole heart and mind?

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 02, 2005.


ST. JOHN VIANNEY AND THE PROTESTANT

The Cure of Ars once gave a medal to a Protestant who visited him, who exclaimed: "Dear sir, you have given a medal to one who is a heretic, at least I am a heretic from your point of view. But although we are not of the same religion, I hope we shall both one day be in Heaven." The holy priest took the gentleman's hand in his own, and giving him a look which seemed to reach his very soul, answered him, "Alas! my friend, we cannot be together in Heaven, unless we have begun to live so in this world. Death makes no change in that. As the tree falls so shall it lie. Jesus Christ has said, 'He that does not hear the Church, let him be to thee as a heathen and a publican.' And He said again, 'There shall be one fold and one shepherd,' and He made St. Peter the chief shepherd of His flock." Then, in a voice full of sweetness, he added, "My dear friend, there are not two ways of serving Jesus Christ; there is only one good way, and that is to serve Him as He Himself wishes to be served." Saying this, the priest left him. But these words sank deeply into the good man's heart, and led him to renounce the errors in which he had been brought up, and he became a fervent Catholic.

-- - (David@excite.com), January 02, 2005.


I'm not criticizing God..

I'm absolutely mystified at how the Church can do such a complete 180 from previous teaching.If previous teachings were inspired by the Holy Spirit, and held to be so, how can those teachings ever change????

It's like listening to Bill Clinton say "it depends on your definition of the word "is".."

For centuries, outside of the Church there was NO salvation..and now there is....because the rest of the churches have suddenly been declared to be "related" to the mother-church by their belief in Jesus Christ. What happened to the Eucharist in this? How can people have "life" in them without the Eucharist???????

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), January 02, 2005.


Lesley:
Please explain what you think is our 180 from previous teaching. I'm not baiting you; just want to see the point of view by which you can say ''180''.

Beenhere-- done this:
You aren't qualified to judge who ''knows the Bible.'' Nor do you speak for Jesus Christ.

You never will. You're a heretic who believes in errors planted by self-ordained ministers. Our Lord warned this would come to pass. He said we had to persevere in the faith of the holy aostles. Something your blessed ancestors have done; and they are in Christ's glorious presence today.



-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 02, 2005.


On the full story of the development of the doctrine of salvation outside the Church, I highly recommend Salvation Outside the Church? Tracing the History of the Catholic Response by Francis Sullivan, S.J.

Solid stuff.

-- anon (ymous@god.bless), January 02, 2005.



Don't troll, please.

I would ask others not to respond.

-- anon (ymous@god.bless), January 02, 2005.


The troll can be answered without very much animosity.

Been here etc., is a fallen away Catholic. His ancestors also; and when he investigates he'll see I was telling him only the truth.

He says we Catholics don't ''know'' the Holy Bible. He couldn't be talking about our forum regulars. Let me see, --He asked, ''Where in the Scriptures do we see Catholicism practiced?''

Read just the first 8-8 verses of Paul's epistle to the Romans, Mr. Heretic. The Church which was in Rome, to whom Paul wrote, is the same one of our era. --Never changed, Pal.

Take a visit to Rome and see the Catacombs where early Catholics were laid to rest.

You could also visit Germany, where the Holy Bible was first set in print by Gutenberg; a faithful Catholic.

But no- - He thinks Christ's Church originated in Little Rock Arkansas or Bug Tussle, Texas. He thinks a Bible fell out of the sky and hit his minister on the head. The same one who preached error from day One to a flock of bible-thumpers. Of his own Catholic ancestory this ''Been there did What'' knows NOTHING. It's a lousy job, but somebody has to teach him. He came to the right place.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 02, 2005.


Paul M. is correct. A nominal Catholic might not know or understand that the Catholic Church is the true church, because--let's face it-- most Catholics are "sacramentalized" but not "evangelized". In other words, they have received sacraments but haven't necessarily been taught well.

The more we know, the more we are responsible for. As Christ says, "To whom much is given, much shall be required."

A Catholic might honestly believe that they should become a protestant, etc. But if the Lord enlightens them later, they are responsible to come back obediently.

-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), January 02, 2005.


Eugene..I don't feel baited at all..

When I was growing up and attending parochial school (16 years of it), we were taught that at baptism, Catholics have an "indelible mark" on our souls..if you leave the Church and deny the faith, you will be in mortal sin and be "toast" as Emerald put it..

This was rather emphatically taught. The emphasis wasn't upon so much leaving the Church as an organization, but being away from the Eucharist..denying the Eucharist. You simply couldn't walk away from the Church, say you didn't believe anymore and even think that God would forgive you for that unless you returned.

Secondly, we also were taught that there is NO salvation for folks outside of the Catholic Faith..none..and that meant if you weren't a practicing Catholic, you couldn't achieve salvation..period. It was very black and white.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), January 02, 2005.


Thank you Lesley, for clarifying. But now I have to tell you plainly; there hasn't been any 180 change. There never will be. You can pursue the truth further by studying just a small range of Catholic literature. What you thought was a draconic hardship on humanity (taught the faithful in past years) is hardly so. God is infinitely merciful.

There is no change in these teachings. You now need discernment; spiritual and rational. And the Church is very capable today of teaching you.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 03, 2005.


Lesley,

I know people don't like it when I give them "reading assignments," but I do strongly encourage you to take a look at the book I linked above. I'm sure it will answer a lot of your questions, and it shows the strong continuity between the basic convictions of the Catholic Church throughout the ages.

I've read about half of the book, and everything that was taught in the Vatican II conference were well in place long before Vatican II ever happened.

The reason you were taught the way you were has a lot to do with the Jansenists, a group that taught a lot of heresies but was very powerful in the Church until the 19th century. They denied the universal salvific will of God and said that many were predestined to Hell. That is not Catholic belief.

A lot of people on this forum are basically Jansenists themselves and will try to sway you to their side, so you must remain firm in your Catholic faith.

"Test everything; retain what is good." Be critical and thoughtful, and remember that God is perfectly just and perfectly merciful, and that our reason comes from him and was meant to serve him.

-- anon (ymous@god.bless), January 03, 2005.


"A lot of people on this forum are basically Jansenists themselves..."

Now that's one thing I haven't observed here. Do you have an example?

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), January 03, 2005.


Lesley said something interesting upthread:

"The emphasis wasn't upon so much leaving the Church as an organization, but being away from the Eucharist..denying the Eucharist."

Interestingly enough, "Being away from the Eucharist" was one of the chief damaging results of Jansenism. It promoted this strange sort of scrupulosity whereby people would refrain from receiving the Blessed Sacrament because they thought even the slightest defect should bar them from reception, when in fact, reception of the Blessed Sacrament was exactly what they needed to cure what spiritually ailed them. Another damaging effect was an "I can't help myself" excuse for sinning.

As a sidenote, St. Louis De Montfort was a powerful foe of Jansenism in his time.

If one really knows what the heresy of Jansenism consisted of, they would be hard pressed to find it among any of the Catholics frequenting this forum. One might have better luck scoping out Pelagianism, imho.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), January 03, 2005.


So, please bear with me here:

If all Christians can achieve salvation, since they have "partial truth" available to them, and..

those who were baptised into the Catholic Church yet left the Church to join other Christian faiths (because of sincere beliefs) can achieve salvation..

Why is there ever been such a thing as a charge of heresy with the result of excommunication and mortal sin attached to it? If a person is believed to be free to leave the Catholic Church and to follow their own beliefs and conscience, and still achieve salvation by the mercy of God, then it seems as if as long as one believes in Christ as Savior, there cannot be any such thing as "heresy".

Obviously this must be incorrect, but on the face of it it would appear to be logical..so where does heresy come in if people have always been free to leave the Church without incuring mortal sin?

Isn't being a "heretic" someone who believes other than the "fullness of truth" ????

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), January 03, 2005.


Heresy, according to the Bible--is against God and His Word. It does not matter if someone is a heritic according to some religion. Are we heritics because we reject the Jehovah Witnesses doctrines? Only according to the jehovah Witnesses. Who cares what they say? Who cares what the Vatican says? It only matters what God says. Read His Word!!

-- (anon@anon.com), January 03, 2005.

Yes it does matter what God says. And God told the Church He personally founded, "he who hears you hears Me; and he who rejects you rejects Me". You don't receive God's Word by reading the Bible. The thousands of conflicting Protestant denominations should be evidence enough of that. Can God's Word conflict with itself? By simply reading the Bible on your own what you receive is your own interpretation of God's Word, which may be miles away from the actual meaning of God's Word, or even direct opposed to it. You receive God's Word by listening to the Church He founded as the means of salvation for all men - including His Church's authoritative interpretation of His Word, written and unwritten.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 03, 2005.

and so if a person rejects the teachings of the Catholic Church,the person rejects God. A person cannot "partially" reject God.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), January 03, 2005.

Ridiculous,

Jesus fully expected the Jews of His day to know the Scriptures and the Catholic church didn't even exist yet.

God has given us His Word that we can know what He is revealing when we by faith, have received Jesus Christ and thus the Holy Spirit's guidance.

The Pastors and teachers in my church are no more or less interpreting God's Word than your religious hierarchy.

The difference is that my church is not dictating to me what God has revealed. There is no *private* interpretation where if I disagree with them, I am threatened excommunication. Excommunication is the threat of cults who need to control the people.

-- (anon@anon.com), January 03, 2005.


The difference is that my church is not dictating to me what God has revealed. There is no *private* interpretation where if I disagree with them, I am threatened excommunication. Excommunication is the threat of cults who need to control the people.

Would you consider someone who denied Jesus' divinity or the Trinity as a member of your church, if they got their beliefs from reading Scripture?

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), January 03, 2005.


Doersn't the Word of God itself tell us not to keep heretics among us?

2 John 1 (NIV) 7-11

Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist. Watch out that you do not lose what you have worked for, but that you may be rewarded fully. Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him. Anyone who welcomes him shares in his wicked work.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), January 03, 2005.


That would not be possible. A proper understanding of the Scriptures reveal that Jesus was divine and that He is part of a Godhead. Only when you are in a cult-like setting, can the Scriptures be contorted to convince you of lies.

The Scriptures need to be studied openly to avoid such indoctrination. You need to be free to question, discuss, study and grow in the Word.

-- (anon@anon.com), January 03, 2005.


''Only when you are in a cult-like setting can the Scriptures be contorted to convince you of lies.''

Hahaha. What kind of idiotic statement is that?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 03, 2005.


A proper understanding of the Scriptures reveal that Jesus was divine and that He is part of a Godhead. - anon

If everyone is reading Scripture and they come up with opposing doctrines, who determines what is "proper understanding"? There are people not associated with any cult who are "free to question, discuss, study and grow in the Word", that came to the conclusion that Scripture does not support either Jesus' divinity or the Trinity.

In fact, I have met "Bible-believing" Christians online who use Scripture to support their view that abortion is acceptable in the eyes of God.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), January 04, 2005.


The answer, Andy,

Is not necessarily then that the Catholic Church Hierarchy must be it. I know that that is what you are trying to get at. But they are only human as well. And unfortunately, the self given power has gone out of control and they make-up doctrines.

The answer is that those who are truly indwelt by the Holy Spirit-- will klnow the truth, and the truth will set them free.

-- (anon@anon.com), January 04, 2005.


Come on; we aren't talking about Old Testament prophets. The Church has the Holy Spirit; not her rank and file, as a rule. When the Holy Spirit speaks it's never to the ''indwelt'' free-lancer. One like you.

The Church speaks for the Spirit and for her Founder. Whoever hears you hears me,'' says Jesus Christ to His apostles. And this Church is the Church of the apostles. Not the Reformation crew of the 1500's. (More aptly, the Wrecking Crew.)

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 04, 2005.


The Catholic church since Vatican II is in chaos. Anyone who says otherwise is not being honest or is gullible. One just has to look at the rapid deterioration since that time. Numbers do not lie.

The church before vatican II taught exactly as Lesley says it did. They followed the popes who respected what their predecessors passed on. One thing that they were honest about was calling it the New Order, which indeed it was.

-- A (A@A.com), January 04, 2005.


Yours is another opinion. Just an opinion.

OK, this is an open forum; you vented.

But you're absolutely mistaken.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 04, 2005.


Is not necessarily then that the Catholic Church Hierarchy must be it. I know that that is what you are trying to get at. But they are only human as well. And unfortunately, the self given power has gone out of control and they make-up doctrines.

The answer is that those who are truly indwelt by the Holy Spirit-- will klnow the truth, and the truth will set them free.

I agree anon, that it doesn't necessarily follow that the Catholic Church is correct. There is of course, much more to dicuss and pray about in order to come to that conclusion. My point is, that many "good" people read Scripture and come up with different "truths". Whatever church you belong to, there are certain truths that one must accept in order to be a member of that church.

To imply that Catholicism is a cult because you must accept Catholic doctrine in order to be considered a Catholic is unfair. Every church that claims to have the truth does that. You cannot be a Christian and not accept the Trinity and the divinity of Christ. And if your church doesn't have the truth, then why should anyone believe your teachings?

Now if everyone who reads the Bible is indwelt with the Holy Spirit, why different doctrines? Surely some Bible believers are not indwelt with the Spirit. How do you discern whether someone has right doctrine if everyone argues from Scripture? Do you get a "feeling" that you're interpreting Scripture correctly? You can trust the Holy Spirit, but can you trust yourself to hear the Holy Spirit?

For all the criticism that the Catholic Church hierarchy is just a bunch of humans, that doesn't change the fact that you and your church are also just a bunch of humans and are therefore fallible. Catholics never claim that the Catholic hierarchy isn't made up of sinners. The Catholic Church claims that the Holy Spirit protects the Church from teaching false doctrine. The Church is more than the sum of it's human parts. She is the Bride of Christ. Christ dwells within the Church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), January 05, 2005.


Maybe our argument, anon, can be summed up in whether we believe the Holy Spirit dwells in and protects the Catholic Church from teaching false doctrine, or within you and those who believe as you do.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), January 05, 2005.

The Scriptures need to be studied openly to avoid such indoctrination.

anon,

Are you not concerned that the Scriptures you reverently study were collected, evaluated and organized into canon by the Catholic Church you irreverently deny?

Further, why do you presuppose your differences with and duisobedience against this same Catholic Church's teachings are not your errors? What do you measure your Truth against?

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), January 05, 2005.


Mr. Chavez you say that I am mistaken. Why? Just saying so does not change reality. It is a mess and you deep down know it.

It is going to get a lot worse befor it gets better. Yes the Church cannot be killed, but it can be sorely wounded.

What are you doing to improve things? Denying the trouble won't work. I can't do much myself , but by telling people that there is trouble, (if they want to listen), is at least a start.

-- A (A@A.com), January 05, 2005.


-- A (A@A.com,

You must be a Traditionalist Catholic from jake's board?

I guess this because you seem "not" to recognize that the Church has been in trouble since long before Vatican II. Surely you have studied up on the history of the Catholic Church during the middle ages, right? It was standard college course curriculum.

-- (anon@anon.com), January 05, 2005.


Daniel Hawkenberry,

It is your contention that the Catholic Church gave us the Bible.

I, however, believe that God gave us the Bible and that the early church believers recognized the inspired Word long before any council ever sat down to ratify what was already understood.

In the same way that the Jews knew their Scriptures before any council affirmed it in A.D. 95, so too did the early believers of the New Testament era kno0w what was inspired and what was not.

-- (anon@anon.com), January 05, 2005.


Andy,

I believe that the Holy Spirit is promised to individuals who make up the church or body of Christ, and I do not think that this body and the Roman Catholic religion are one and the same.

-- (anon@anon.com), January 05, 2005.


You think that the Body of Christ can be represented by a tradition of thousands of conflicting, contradicting manmade denominations? Where in the Bible can I find anything similar to that described as "the Church" or "the Body of Christ"? Everything I read in the Bible about the Body of Christ emphasizes the unity of their belief and worship. The Protestant notion that one can leave the Church and yet continue to be the Church is simply untenable.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 05, 2005.

What is actually vatican II??

-- jer (doofykorn@hotmail.com), January 05, 2005.

True believers are united by one truth. They are the true body of Christ. They are not caught up in any earthly religion of one kind or another.

You kid yourself if you don't recognize that Catholicism is just another part of all the division that has happened to the earthly institution called the church.

The real church, or called out body of believers, is not limited to Roman Catholicism. In fact, there are probably loads of Catholics who do not belong to the true church of Jesus Christ.

-- (anon@anon.com), January 05, 2005.


-- A (A@A.com, ''Mr. Chavez you say that I am mistaken. Why? Just saying so does not change reality,''

You're badly mistaken. In fact, ''just saying so,'' YOU, doesn't make the Church since Vatican II now a Church in chaos. Look at your false statement.

You bring with you the subjective feeling that a Church Council under the auspices and protection of the Holy Spirit must only serve your purposes. Is that any kind of reality? GOD is served. He doesn't serve us. Your own chaos is showing; since you lack the courage of your convictions. One who poses as ''A'' in our midst, making with the inflammatory rhetoric, has no business telling his brethren what ''reality'' means. Go back, please. Read all the words of our Lord. Then tell us in what passage he prophesies CHAOS in his Church?

If the 2nd Vatican Council had repudiated Christ or His saints, lost the Apostles' Creed, corrupted any sacrament or sold anybody a bill of goods, --There STILL wouldn't be cause to cry ''chaos.'' Maybe there's a bump in the road, a trial. After all, this life is a pilgrimage, not a theocratic Elk's Lodge. You need some committee someplace, to run the Church YOUR way or the highway?

Tell us your name; come off the pretentiousness. You didn't show any credentials. Go to the back of the line, faithful Catholic; if you ARE a faithful Catholic.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 05, 2005.


True or false?

Have the bishops in the process, also destroyed the Catholic Church? It is a certainty that, whether they attack from the outside or from within, they could never destroy the Catholic Church, because it is a divine institution, established by the God-Man Himself, Jesus Christ, Who promised that the gates of Hell would never prevail against His Church. But they have destroyed most of what was once the Church. What is left of the Catholic Church in America, for instance, when the American bishops can vote 180 to 6, as they recently did, leaving it up to "freedom of choice" in giving Holy Communion to politicians or others who publicly promote, encourage or support legalized abortion?

If you are old enough to remember, do you recall this being the Catholic Church of the 1950's? If not you can get material easy enough to find out how they would handle the situation.

Politicians had respect for the Church in the old days. Today they just laugh it off.

The Legion of Decency was feared and Roe vs Wade did not appear until 1973. Where was it before that.

Yes, sadly the Church has becme the laughing stock of many since the 'Aggiornamento" of Pope John.

It just made us another one of the boys. Hard talk, yes, but what has happened is a spiritual Tsunami, but we say it is just a little puddle that will eventually dry up.

Our Lord warned about wolves in sheep's clothing, and he did not mean little putz's like you and me.

-- John Smith (A@A.com), January 05, 2005.


Paul.."the position that one can leave the church yet still be the church is untenable "..This is what I was asking about earlier.

How is it possible for a person to be brought up in the Catholic faith, reject it,join a Protestant faith and obtain salvation?

"He who rejects you rejects ME"..

So the person rejects the "fullness of truth" and accepts heresy, yet he can be saved by the "mercy of God"????

And all of those churches who have rejected the "fullness of truth" and preach against it..effectively preaching heresy, those members can achieve salvation because they have "partial truth"??

So, heresy is partial truth and can lead to salvation by God's mercy?

Either there is no such thing anymore as heresy, or I am missing something here.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), January 05, 2005.


Flavor, please? I'll serve your Kool-Aid now.

''They have destroyed most of what was once the Church.''

''THEY'' HAVE NOT. I was to Holy Mass this week; everything is serene and holy. --

''What is left of the Catholic Church in America for instance, when the American bishops, etc.,'' (Well, what?) The bishops actually crossed you? Did something without your OK? and what's left for you now? Nothing. You have no authority, but bishops do. -- The communicants they voted about have their own consciences. If they choose to sin and not repent, God has the upper hand, don't fret. A bishop who decides along those lines is fearful of inciting people's hatred, detracting against Catholic politicians in public. He cannot punish someone before the cameras, making a spectacle for the secular media. God would not be pleased. But the sinners won't be absolved, don't worry.

You are penny wise and pound foolish, Mr. Smith. Our bishops are what Christ called ''wise as serpents & gentle as doves''. You, on the other hand seem gentle as a serpent. (Not very.) Are we to see it as your brainstorm, ''The Legion of Decency was feared'' --? You feared them? ''and Roe vs Wade did not appear until 1973.'' Is that our bishops' doing, Roe vs. Wade? It's news to me.

I think it's Catholics like you, Sir, who can cause the ruin of our holy faith. You sow dissent and rebellion. You cast that first stone, acting supercilious and proud. How is it you can't offer any love? We love Christ and his Church; together with His saints and with our bishops. Now-- confess your sins: You have been a muck-raker today. You have pitted Catholic against Catholic in this forum. We wanted to love you. We still can; but you must stop this class warfare first.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 06, 2005.


True believers are united by one truth. They are the true body of Christ. They are not caught up in any earthly religion of one kind or another.

anon,

Not "caught up in any earthly religion"? You deny all religious tradition by labeling it earthly -why do you not deny us all earthly temporal as well?

I think you are confused and grouping apostolic 'Tradition' with human 'tradition' into somthing you term 'earthly' -see if the following helps you open your eyes:

But what about 'Tradition'?

"But what about 'Tradition'?

Some people will say 'Tradition' is just something the Catholic Church uses and we can't really believe it because if it isn't written, it can't be true.

'SOLA SCRIPTURA'...

Lets look at this more closely...

Now some are saying, they believe in the 'Trinity', of which, the word is not in the Bible (neither is the word 'Incarnation' but most Christians believe in it), but they don't believe in 'Tradition' which IS in the Bible.

What? 'Tradition' is in the Bible...?

Well for starters, look in your Bible in Thessalonians:
2 Thes 2:15, 'Therefore brethren, stand fast, and hold the TRADITIONS which ye have been taught, whether by WORD, or our Epistle'.

This verse is telling you to honor the traditions which have been handed down by word of mouth from generation to generation.
SOLA SCRIPTURA...? No way, "For the Bible tells me so."

An 'apparent' Bible conflict with 2Thes 2:15, is Col 2:8, "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the 'tradition' of MEN, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." However the Bible refers to two types of 'Tradition', human 'tradition' (small 't') handed down by men and not after Christ (as stated in Col 2:8), and apostolic 'Tradition' (capital 'T'), handed down from the 'Word of GOD', the teachings of Jesus Christ Himself, and the on going teaching of the Church.

The condemnations of tradition in Mt 15:3, Mk 7:9, and Col 2:8 refer to bad human traditions. 2Thes 2:15 refers to apostolic Tradition, the 'Word of GOD'"

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), January 06, 2005.


Lesley:
Paul perhaps will answer that. Let me give you my 2 cents.

''How is it possible for a person to be brought up in the Catholic faith, reject it, join a Protestant faith and obtain salvation?'' Indeed; and who is telling you he/she will, unless he repents? None of us said that. The Church doesn't teach us that. Only they who have sinned and REPENTED of the sin can be saved. But who are WE to judge them? Has God nothing to say about it?

''So the person rejects the fullness of truth and accepts heresy, yet he can be saved by the "mercy of God"???? Only when the person comes back and receives the Church's forgiveness. Who has been telling you lies? BTW- Don't place scare-quotes around the phrase Mercy of God. It isn't a myth. God is VERY merciful to the sinner. saved by another church, not for their partial truth or for whatever.

All must be saved in the Church Christ founded. So, you see: No other church has grace to offer; even with their partial truth. You were lamenting for nothing.

''So, heresy is partial truth and can lead to salvation by God's mercy?'' Certainly not. Why do you presume to say we believe that? -- ''Either there is no such thing anymore as heresy, or I am missing something here.'' Yes-- you're missing plenty.

I'm astounded at your lack of understanding. The Catholic Church is not excusing heresy. Get that clearly understood.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 06, 2005.


Eugene..see Paul M's reply earlier on this thread. Sorry you are so amazed at my lack of understanding. Not everyone can see things as clearly as you do. I am HONESTLY TRYING to "get it" .

Since Jesus Christ himself said "Whatever YOU bind on earth is bound in heaven, etc. "..and I WAS most defintely taught for years in Catholic grammar school, high school and college that if a Catholic left the Church and joined another, rejecting the ONE TRUE Faith, they were in a state of mortal sin and were headed straight for hell..

How can it NOW be that Paul M says that: 1. if you are a Catholic who actually BELIEVES in the Church and leaves, that is true.. 2. yet if you are simply a "nominal Catholic"..whatever that is, I guess that means that you were baptised into the faith, received the Eucharist, went to Mass with your family, were Confirmed, yet as an adult you really didn't "believe" anyway..then you're really Protestant to begin with..so if THAT person leaves the Church, they aren't condemned, but it's up to the "mercy of God" (quoting Paul M here)as to the state of their salvation.

My QUESTION is.. Since God instructed the Church to bind and loose things on earth in HIS NAME, and the Church ABSOLUTELY has the complete FULLNESS of TRUTH..how then can ANYBODY who has been baptised into the Church be told that they are really a Protestant..that they are a "nominal Catholic" ..and by leaving the Church they are NOT in mortal sin, and it's anywhere near possible for them to hope for God's mercy since they have rejected HIS CHURCH????????????????????????????????

The Church, as God's "voice" still teaches that to reject the church is to reject God himself..so what is this exception for "nominal Catholics" all about???? What I am hearing is that for one Catholic to leave the Church, it's a mortal sin..for another, it's not, since they weren't "really" Catholic to begin with. THIS is not confusing?

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), January 06, 2005.


"You are penny wise and pound foolish, Mr. Smith. Our bishops are what Christ called ''wise as serpents & gentle as doves''. You, on the other hand seem gentle as a serpent. (Not very.) Are we to see it as your brainstorm, ''The Legion of Decency was feared'' --? You feared them? ''and Roe vs Wade did not appear until 1973.'' Is that our bishops' doing, Roe vs. Wade? It's news to me."

Mr. Chavez;

I am not a muck raker any more than Lesley is; We are just trying to open the eyes of people who act like those three little monkeys, covering their eyes, their ears, and their mouth.

If you can say that these American bishops are as wise as serpents, you have to come to the conclusion that they are deliberately causing this harm. I will not go so far as to say that. I just think that they have been brain washed by a few clever serpents, and have swallowed the heresy that Lesley writes about.

If reporting what is seen and heard out there as being a muck raker, so be it. There are too many in the Church today that just want to ignore the muck ,or even cover it up.

You ignore the number of scandals, church sell offs, seminaries and convents closing etc. Well, I do not! You do not win a war by denying that there are no enemies within your ranks.

-- John Smith (A@A.com), January 06, 2005.


Whoa there John..I think that you and I have a different agenda. I'm merely trying to get some clarification here as to exactly WHAT the Church teaches, since I became terribly confused by this issue of "nominal Catholics" being "really Protestants", etc.

Right now I'm not trying to open anybody's eyes but my own.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), January 06, 2005.


Mr. Smith is unhappy with the bishops. He thinks they are bad servants. He laments the 2nd Vatican Council; let's just see how far we've fallen since before that Council. Otherwise, you're a see- nothing, hear-nothing, know-nothing phony, who eats out of the bishop's hand. (But that isn't dissent. That isn't muck-raking, that's being truly devout; and nobody else is devout nowadays in the Catholic Church.) John wants the good old days!

Lesley decided Protestants are going to hell. Because it was once taught. But I attended Catholic school. Nuns never taught us that. They told us SINNERS were going to hell, unless they repent. Lesley was certainly taught by the Church; sinners are damned, without repentence and confession. Weren't you, Lesley?

You equate protestantism with unrepentent sin. If the sin is mortal, willful and the sinner knows that; protestants will have to go to hell; the same as unrepentent Catholics. No difference. But how do we know it's mortal? God may not think so. God may well forgive an upright, religious and truly sincere protestant; if the person acts in good conscience. The person happens to be in error --not necessarily mortal sin, Lesley. Somebody such as Billy Graham; you know. Because he LOVES Jesus Christ! He hates sin. He walks with God to the best of his knowledge and good will.

Do you believe Billy Graham will be sent to hell? Isn't his perfect act of contrition as good as mine? Jesus Christ says this: ''Other sheep have I --who are not of this fold. Them also I must bring, and they shall hear MY VOICE, and there shall be one fold and One Shepherd.'' (John 10, :16.)

We in this life are gathered into the fold of the shepherd called our Pope; together with Our Chief Shepherd, Christ. But in heaven there will be only One. It will then be known as the Church Triumphant. The same Catholic Church we know; but brought to fulfillment in Jesus Christ. That's what He promises in the above passage from John 10. Can it be the VOICE is other than our Pope's voice; who will bring us all together in One fold with One shepherd? Just think; would Jesus lie to us?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 06, 2005.


"Do you believe Billy Graham will be sent to hell?"

If he doesn't repent and profess the Catholic Faith, than yeah, sure. I mean, come on Eugene. That's basic Church teaching. For crying out loud, he leads people out of the Catholic Church, not into it. Does he believe in the Blessed Sacrament? Is Mary his mother?

"Isn't his perfect act of contrition as good as mine?"

How could it possibly be perfect, if he isn't contrite enough to profess the Catholic Faith? Come on, Gene.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), January 06, 2005.


Now you're not on firm Catholic ground, Emmie.

You can't be the judge. Jesus Christ will judge.

Mind you, I did NOT say anybody however righteous is sure to be saved. I asked: "Do you believe Billy Graham will be sent to hell?" You spoke for God. You did so basing it on your flawed understanding of Catholic doctrine. Just like a Pharisee. You know; those great men of Jerusalem who believed Jesus had a devil?

Why not just posit: Nobody knows. That's what I always do. Jesus in fact stated: ''Other sheep have I.'' I'm not making it up.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 06, 2005.


Ah, don't start with this Emerald, you just sent someone to hell, you judger-dood stuff.

I did no such thing. I said IF. If Billy Graham doesn't enter the Church. He ain't dead yet, as far as I know. Fat chance, but who knows. Maybe he will.

There's "if/then" and then there's "is". I said if/then, not "is".

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), January 06, 2005.


"Why not just posit: Nobody knows. That's what I always do."

I know you do, and that's what drizes me crazy. Although I do enjoy discussing things with you. But it drives me crazy because it isn't true that nobody knows. The whole point of divine revelation, the whole point of Catholic doctrine and morality is that we do know. We know what will lead to Heaven, and, what will lead to Hell.

And it's our responsibility to tell people which road will lead them to which place. How can it be that telling the truth can be construed as judgmental or mean? Of course people get hackles up when you tell them the truth. So what. It is part of our duty as faithful, baptised Catholics. We can't go around telling people that we don't know. We do know. Some people actually change their lives when they hear it.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), January 06, 2005.


Now you're waffling. The Church is where sanctifying grace is; and a soul can enter her as it pleases Christ. Since He is the source of sanctifying grace. The Church channels ours in her sacraments. However, it may be Christ gives the grace independently of sacraments. That would have to make of the recipient a newly born Catholic.

We could meet Billy in heaven one day. A member of the Church Triumphant. Naturally, he still has to repent of all his sins. Do you know all his sins? Only God knows, Emerald.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 06, 2005.


IF IF;
We DO NOT know. We can surmise; but not the way God knows. What we know is the norms, our Church's teaching. You know these, I know them, but some protestants have no such ''knowledge''-- They follow their consciences. As I said up above: error. Not mortal sin.

Implore just once today of God: ''Let me not fall into error, Lord.'' Because even if you don't always sin, you err frequently. (Unless you're a Pharisee. They are never wrong.)

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 06, 2005.


"Now you're waffling."

Anything but. No, I'm just hammering in the Catholic principle; sticking to it like glue.

"However, it may be Christ gives the grace independently of sacraments."

An idea anathemetized at the Council of Trent. You've got it working like this, Gene: according to your way of thinking, Catholic requirements only apply to Catholics, and for all the rest, there's another way.

No. The sacraments are the way instituted for all of mankind. There is no E ticket for Catholics, and B tickets for everyone else. This isn't Disneyland. The ticket is universal, with universal requirements.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), January 06, 2005.


You didn't waffle. You just flubbed.

No-- The Council of Trent did NOT anathemize anything Christ promises to do. And Christ clearly says: ''Other sheep have I who are not of this fold. Them also I must bring, and they shall hear MY VOICE, and there shall be one fold and One Shepherd.'' (John 10, :16.) Did He mean Gentiles? Or did He mean those NOT in His fold, the Catholic Church?

You react just as those Jews who were listening to Jesus. They didn't accept ''diversity''. Yet Christ died to save all men.

''The sacraments are the way instituted for all of mankind.'' Yes; and there is Baptism of Desire; of Blood, and the way of the Church. --Each is that sacrament. The word of Jesus isn't bound to one only. Mankind is bound to baptism. And --at least in potential, all men can repent. Not just the Catholic.



-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 06, 2005.


No, I did not flub. Nor was I even talking about baptism of blood or desire.

And who are you to be interpreting Scripture?

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), January 06, 2005.


I'm an aware Catholic, who understands the ecumenical movement and Vatican II. As opposed to you; a dated Catholic, unaware of the mission of our Church in this new millennium.

The quote from John 10 is well- understood by the Church of Vatican II to be inclusive of other faiths, according to the intent of Jesus Christ. I'm not giving you any private interpretation; it's the Church's.

It says nothing about bringing unbelievers or unrepentent heretics into the Church in some kind of end run. It means God will call; and His sheep will come home. (I hope you don't object.)

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 06, 2005.


I met Billy Graham when I was in college and talked with him a bit. He is an incredibly humble man, and one of his heroes is Pope John Paul II. He admits to ignorance in many things. He loves Christ and wants to follow him the best he knows how, as far as I could tell. Interestingly (maybe he's like Ronald Reagan here), Dr. Graham says he believes in the Apostles Creed, but wasn't able to recite it. I think there are many questions he has not fully investigated.

Give him a chance. God loves him too, and last I heard, sent his only-begotten Son into the world to save folks like him.

-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), January 06, 2005.


BTW, remember that Pope Pius XII taught that even an implicit or unrecognized desire to enter the Catholic Church could be salvific. If Graham honors the pope, it could apply to him. "Whoever is not against you, is for you" says our Lord Jesus.

-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), January 06, 2005.

Eugene..where on earth did you get the idea I was speaking about Protestants going to hell?????? I SPECIFICALLY said :

BAPTISED CATHOLICS who leave the CHURCH..

I SAID it doesn't make any sense at all how one can say that a Catholic who BELIEVES that the Church IS the TRUTH, and leaves is damned by mortal sin unless he repents, and on the other hand, a BAPTISED Catholic who doesn't believe is somehow all of a sudden a PROTESTANT who is NOT in mortal sin when HE leaves the Church.

Where you got Billy Graham as an example is beyond me since to my knowledge, he was never a baptized Catholic.

I asked Paul M on January 1st..he replied that a NOMINAL Catholic is the same as a Protestant..there is "no difference".

YOU keep saying the SAME as I do..if a Catholic leaves the Church, they MUST repent of SIN and return..Paul M says if you are a "nominal Catholic" there is no sin...but if you are more than a "nominal" Catholic, there IS sin if you leave the Church.

NOWHERE am I speaking of people who were NEVER in the Catholic Faith to begin with in their entire lives.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), January 06, 2005.


You're right, Lesley. My return neglected to leave out that kind of sinner. It's the non-Catholic I'm talking about; as you can easily see in my subsequent postings. And-- if there's no repentence, naturally. I agree the sinner who once was a lukewarm Catholic won't be able to plead ignorance. He was not in error, but in sin. Nevertheless; he/she repents late in life quite more often than you might expect. Which means a return to the true faith. That's why we have to pray for sinners. You know the Rosary. Isn't one prayer, ''O Jesus deliver us from sin; save us from the fires of hell. Lead all souls to heaven, especially those who are in most need of thy mercy.'' --?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 06, 2005.

"I'm an aware Catholic, who understands the ecumenical movement and Vatican II."

Well if you understand the ecumenical movement, then you've got one up on me. That's for sure.

"As opposed to you; a dated Catholic, unaware of the mission of our Church in this new millennium."

Let me take a stab at it. Um... salvation of souls and the conversion of sinners? Am I getting warm?

"The quote from John 10 is well- understood by the Church of Vatican II to be inclusive of other faiths, according to the intent of Jesus Christ. I'm not giving you any private interpretation; it's the Church's."

It has never been understood by the Church to be inclusive of other faiths. It has always meant that He wanted to bring people of other religions into the Catholic Church. Read all of Chapter 10.

In fact, look at the first verse of Chapter 10:

"Amen, amen, I say to you: He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold but climbeth up another way, the same is a thief and a robber."

The is no other door than the Catholic Church.

"It says nothing about bringing unbelievers or unrepentent heretics into the Church in some kind of end run. It means God will call; and His sheep will come home. (I hope you don't object.)"

Me? Object to people becoming Catholic? My whole point is to get people into the Church, not to allow excuses for them not to need to enter. My objection isn't having them come home. My objection is withholding the truth, or misrepresenting the truth such that they seem to not actually need to "come home".

"For the whole of mankind was freed from the slavery of sin by the shedding of the blood of Jesus Christ as their ransom, and there is no one who is excluded from the benefit of this Redemption: hence the Divine Pastor has one part of the human race already happily sheltered within the fold, the others He declares He will lovingly urge to enter therein: "and other sheep I have, that are not of this fold; them also must I bring, and they shall hear my voice" (John x. 16)." --Pope Benedict XV

"From this Apostolic Center of the Church of Christ, We turn Our eyes toward those who, unfortunately in great numbers, are either ignorant of Christ and His Redemption or do not follow in their entirety His teachings, or who are separated from the unity of His Church and thus are without His Fold, although they too have been called by Christ to membership in His Church. The Vicar of the Good Shepherd, seeing so many of his sheep gone astray, cannot but recall and make his own the simple but expressive words of Christ, words which are permeated through and through by the longings born of divine desire: "And other sheep I have, that are not of this fold: them also I must bring." (John x, 16)" --Pope Pius IX

"Let us remember that our brethren "who sat in darkness and shadow"[16] form an immense multitude that can be reckoned at about 1,000,000,000. Hence it appears that the ineffable sigh of the most loving Heart of Christ is echoing still: "And other sheep I have that are not of this fold: them also I must bring. And they shall hear my voice: and there shall be one fold and one shepherd. There are some shepherds, as you know, Venerable Brethren, who strive to lead away the sheep from this one fold and haven of salvation; you likewise know that this danger is daily growing greater. When We consider before God the immense number of men without the truth of the Gospel, and duly reckon the grave danger that faces many from the prevalence of atheistic materialism or from a certain so-called Christian creed which is infected by the tenets and errors of communism, We feel the deepest concern and solicitude that nothing be left undone to promote the work of the apostolate throughout the world." --Pius XII

It has always been understood by the Church to mean that the Church wants them in, or back into, the Church. It has never meant that they were ok where they are. So I do believe your version, if it is different than this, is your own private interpretation and not the Church's.

Don't confuse this issue with an of baptism of desire and blood, either, because it isn't. A lot of the people in question are actually already validly baptised. The issue of salvation inside the Church encompasses more than that issue, and this thread is a case where it doesn't even really play that great a role in.

And yes, it is most certainly, absolutely, positively, undeniably and unchangably the Catholic truth that if they don't enter in before death... they won't make it. Why do we have to be so shy about stating the truth?



-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), January 06, 2005.


"BTW, remember that Pope Pius XII taught that even an implicit or unrecognized desire to enter the Catholic Church could be salvific."

He did not. I've been through this so many times with people, trying to show them that he did not say this. They are ripping certain texts from Pope Pius XII and Pope Pius IX out of context, and privately interpreting these texts to make them say what they want them to say.

Both those Popes, especially Pope Pius IX, were so staunch on the necessity of the Catholic Church for salvation that it is laughable to posit that they were flinging doors open right and left to allow everyone to climb in through another way. Look at this:

"Not without sorrow we have learned that another error, no less destructive, has taken possession of some parts of the Catholic world, and had taken up its abode in the souls of many Catholics who think that one should have good hope of eternal salvation of all those who have never lived in the true Church of Christ. Therefore they are wont to ask very often what will be the lot and condition after death of those who have not submitted in any way to the Catholic faith, and by bringing forward most vain reasons, they make a response favorable to their false opinion. For, it must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood. Truths of this sort should be deeply fixed in the minds of the faithful, lest they be corrupted by false doctrines, whose object is to foster an indifference toward religion, which we see spreading widely and growing strong for the destruction of souls." --Pope Pius IX, Singulari Quadem, 1854

You know what Pope Pius IX said? He said this: "It is a sin to believe that there is salvation outside the Catholic Church."

It's gets old coming back to this topic all the time. The question of the thread was more particular than this, though. I didn't intend to dig this topic up again. The thread header asked, if someone loses their Catholic Faith, but still believes in Jesus or however it was put, can they go to Heaven.

If they die in that state, NO. That's the answer. The answer is NO, goll dernit! lol.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), January 06, 2005.


HO-ho.

''Let me take a stab at it. Um... salvation of souls and the conversion of sinners? Am I getting warm?'' NO. Cold.

That has been the Church's work from the beginning. The mission I'm referring to is actively pursuing the unity of Christian faith by accepting challenges, not just issuing anathemas. And NOT by changing any doctrine; despite what ''trads' say.

I'm appalled at your intellectual dishonesty here: ''It has never been understood by the Church to be inclusive of other faiths. It has always meant that He wanted to bring people of other religions into the Catholic Church.'' Never?

Jesus says ''OTHER sheep have I, not of this fold.'' So--that's NOT inclusive of all souls who answer the call? He says: ''They shall hear my voice.'' If these are not of Christ's fold, and He calls them, won't He include them? Into the One fold? -- Don't play little games, Emerald.

The sense I offered of this verse is quite Catholic and sound. You intend to make sophistry, not love out of it. (I forgot to mention the other characteristic of Pharisees. -- Hypocrisy.)

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 06, 2005.


HO-ho.

''Let me take a stab at it. Um... salvation of souls and the conversion of sinners? Am I getting warm?'' NO. Cold.

That has been the Church's work from the beginning. The mission I'm referring to is actively pursuing the unity of Christian faith by accepting challenges, not just issuing anathemas. And NOT by changing any doctrine; despite what ''trads' say.

I'm appalled at your intellectual dishonesty here: ''It has never been understood by the Church to be inclusive of other faiths. It has always meant that He wanted to bring people of other religions into the Catholic Church.'' Never?

Jesus says ''OTHER sheep have I, not of this fold.'' So--that's NOT inclusive of all souls who answer the call? He says: ''They shall hear my voice.'' If these are not of Christ's fold, and He calls them, won't He include them? Into the One fold? -- Don't play little games, Emerald.

The sense I offered of this verse is quite Catholic and sound. You intend to make sophistry, not love out of it. (I forgot to mention the other characteristic of Pharisees. --Hypocrisy.)

More of the same: ''Pius IX said this: "It is a sin to believe that there is salvation outside the Catholic Church."

Well, who here is saying or believing that? I maintain all souls who are baptised and repent of sin can reach salvation IN THE CHURCH. You limit baptism to a formulary and the Church doesn't. I'll remind you of invincible ignorance, baptism of desire, etc., taught in the Catholic faith. Pius IX was aware of that.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 06, 2005.


"If these are not of Christ's fold, and He calls them, won't He include them? Into the One fold? -- Don't play little games, Emerald."

Not if they don't come when they're called, no... if they don't come, He can't include them.

Games? How could I possibly be more clear? I've almost bald now. I've got one chunk of hair left over my left ear. I've already pulled the rest out. What in the world is wrong with what I'm saying here? Do you want me to be more delicate with people... walk on pins and needles, beat around the bush a little more... what is it?

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), January 06, 2005.


''So--that's NOT inclusive of all souls who answer the call? He says: ''They shall hear my voice.''

You say He wasn't being inclusive, --Get some Rogaine and stop your BS.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 06, 2005.


Uh, Eugene..could you look this way for a moment..

Paul M says that the Church now teaches that the "nominal Catholic" who leaves the Church isn't in sin..but is the same as a Protestant, and can achieve salvation via the mercy of God through believing in the partial truths available to him by joining up with his new protestant faith..

Can you see why I might find this to be just a tad confusing???

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), January 06, 2005.


That's not a Church teaching. Paul might be proposing another thing. Let's see what he replies.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 06, 2005.

That's what he said on this thread on January 1st..go back and read it. I'd like to hear more clarification..that's what I've been posting about for the last few days.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), January 06, 2005.

Paul stated:
If a Catholic OR a Protestant, recognizing that the Catholic Church is the one true Church founded by Jesus Christ as the means of salvation for all men, nevertheless rejects it, then he rejects salvation. TRUE

However, if a nominal "Catholic" OR a Protestant does NOT recognize that the Catholic Church is the one true Church founded by Jesus Christ as the means of salvation for all men -

OK; ''does not recognise'' is tantamount to denying. That's a sin. ''-- and a great many nominal Catholics are in that position.'' Who can say? A Catholic isn't supposed to be nominal, but faithful. The sin of ommission -- will damn some souls. ''And as a result of that he [is] in an unauthorized Church, then it is up to God in His mercy not us - to make judgment concerning that person's salvation.'' A roundabout admission that God must forgive that Catholic or he'll be damned. Even so; we aren't to judge what God may do to him. That was a little misleading. But the same lukewarm catholic can receive total absolution of his sins in the end. Many HAVE, Lesley; and God's mercy is not to be doubted.



-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 06, 2005.


Lesley,

Hopefully you agree that one cannot commit a mortal sin unknowingly? You stated above, "I WAS most definitely taught for years in Catholic grammar school, high school and college that if a Catholic left the Church and joined another, rejecting the ONE TRUE Faith, they were in a state of mortal sin and were headed straight for hell". This statement, properly understood, is correct. However, necessarily implicit in this statement is the condition "knowingly". If a person rejects the one true faith, KNOWING full well that it IS the one true faith, then the result of that person's action is precisely what the above statement describes. However, if a person leaves the one true faith because he/she has not had the opportunity to understand that it is the one true faith, then the result cannot be mortal sin since the Church teaches that an absolute prerequisite condition for mortal sin is full knowledge of the gravity of the act. Such ignorance of the true faith can result from being raised in a non-Catholic religious tradition, where one has been shielded from the truth, or worse, fed a pack of lies about the Catholic Church from childhood. Such ignorance can likewise result from a lack of proper Catholic upbringing, even though raised in a nominally Catholic family (one which always writes "Roman Catholic" on the "religious affiliation" line, but doesn't attend Mass, doesn't provide for the religious education of the children, and essentially lives an irreligious, though not necessarily overtly immoral, life style). Such "Catholics", just like Protestants, have been brought up in a state of invincible ignorance. If such a "Catholic" consequently leaves the True Church for a false church, he/she is no more culpable than one who has been raised from childhood in a false church.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 06, 2005.


Hello Emerald!

So you don't have to pull any more chunks of hair out of your head, could you direct me to your previous conversation thread on the words of Pius XII?

I read about his teaching that implicit desire and unconscious longing can suffice for salvation, from a book that has excerpts from all major Catholic documents. That quote was from a letter put out by the Holy Office in the 1950s, stressing that they, the magisterium, had the correct interpretation of that teaching.

Emerald, I am no expert on this question. I suppose the Holy Office cardinals and Pius XII knew more than I do on the subject, but if Pius has been misquoted, I'd love to know more. This subject clearly is dear to your heart.

Blessings,

-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), January 06, 2005.


I see whare you were coming from, Paul; but I don't see how these souls have a claim to invincible ignorance. Any soul once exposed to the Holy Gospel, and the claims of the Catholic Church has the option of believing; and the free will. Invincible ignorance makes no claim to a free will, either to know or to deny. In fact, unless a soul were brought up in a wilderness, or someplace where missionaries weren't known at all; truly invincible ignorance is rare. Repentence along with ignorance must be even more rare; one in fifty million?

Christ said though, that with men it's impossible; but with God all things are possible.

My whole point is, lukewarmness in pracice, or reluctance to see the truth of the Catholic faith, would not constitute that kind of excuse.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 06, 2005.


"Hopefully you agree that one cannot commit a mortal sin unknowingly?"

Everyone has the law written in their heart. Without explicit knowledge of something the Catholic Church calls "mortal sin", the person can still know that what they are doing is grave matter. For instance, a person with no knowledge of the Catholic Church's teaching that a particular sin, if committed, is mortal, they can still commit one. In a more obvious example, any person who has committed murder has committed a mortal sin regardless of whether they know what the Church has said about murder, or even if they know nothing of the Catholic Church's existence. It is still grave matter, they knew it, and they chose to do it.

"However, if a person leaves the one true faith because he/she has not had the opportunity to understand that it is the one true faith, then the result cannot be mortal sin since the Church teaches that an absolute prerequisite condition for mortal sin is full knowledge of the gravity of the act."

If it was the case, without any further qualification, that the only mortal sins committed were the ones where the person knew explicitly that the Catholic Church taught that it was mortal, the absurdity arising from this would be that only Catholics could commit mortal sins.

The knowing part of the three prerequisites for a sin to be mortal (grave matter, knowledge of it, and a free choice to commit it) does not necessarily have to be the explicit knowledge of what the Church teaches about particular sin. Knowing can occur at many levels.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), January 06, 2005.


"So you don't have to pull any more chunks of hair out of your head, could you direct me to your previous conversation thread on the words of Pius XII?"

Too late. That last chunk I had left? It came off with Gene's last comment. j/k, Gene.

The best thing to do is to find the text in question, and see it in context. Ask what it actually said, and then look at what people are inferring from the text that quite frankly isn't expressed there.

But they're either going to hate me, or hate you for asking though, because Gene and I and some others have run up and down the staircase on this one for years now. It pretty much seems like Gene thinks I want everyone in Hell or something. Others seem to think I've lost a screw.

Others are pretty much bored to tears over the whole topic. I'd have to say I'd side with the last group. But that doesn't make understanding the topic any less important, though.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), January 06, 2005.


Lesley I was not trying to speak for you in every detail, but only to say that you know heresy when you see it. Emerald says it very well.

The liberal people are just like the liberals in the secular world. The current Yates case is a good example. Insanity pleas are in vogue and the counterpart in the Church is called invincible ignorance. A cop out is a cop out no matter how it is spelled.

Was ecumanism supposed to make the Church more popular or to bring people into the faith? Whatever the reaon it did not work. We could not even hold the people that we already had.

The liberals made the Church and the Mass easier for all. It did not work as it was just a temporary novelty.

Just imagine making the military easy and comfortable. What would happen? We know very well what would happen.It has happened in the Church.

Oh well, live and learn, or do we learn. I doubt it.

-- John Smith (A@A.com), January 06, 2005.


I haven't been called a liberal during my first 67 years. But I've been a faithful Catholic. Usually too conservative for some. But Mr. Smith doesn't believe me, I suspect. I don't despair of Christ's holy people.

He thinks a real Catholic has to carry a grudge, not his cross.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 06, 2005.


A statement by John Smith:

''Ecumanism supposed to make the Church more popular or to bring people into the faith? Whatever the reaon it did not work. We could not even hold the people that we already had.'' By that is it probable HE left the Catholic Church? Or you? I remained and I'm very supportive of our ecumenical effort.

Now we know; we ''couldn't hold the ones we already had,'' and I'm too liberal. We're just heretics in this day and age.

Tell us what you really think, Smitty.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 06, 2005.


Well it is true that it ain't working, and it is true that the Catholics that remain have forgotten more than they've learned.

You don't have to deny that to remain Catholic, you know.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), January 06, 2005.


I believe in the Church and her faithful. I believe we are blessed by Our Lord, and thriving. What you see as not working is your personal conspiracy theory and nobody buys it. You are both unwitting Devil's Advocates and Christ prophesied your day. ''Charity will have grown cold.''

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 06, 2005.

More private Scripture interpretation?

That Scripture doesn't refer to child pornographers, abortionists, homosexuals, fornicators, bad lawyers, evil businessmen, warmongers, apostates, heretics, schismatics, adulterers, ambitious polititians, corrupt clergy...

...but to a handful of traditional Catholics trying to maintain Catholic doctrine and practice in the Year of Our Lord 2005?

We are so formidable as to merit a prophecy of Christ Himself in the negative?

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), January 06, 2005.


Can we not lose sight of the topic here please? I appreciate all the side debate..I really do. yet this main topic is NOT FINISHED..

How can someone rely on the mercy of God when they are in mortal sin? If that were truth, there would be no need for Reconciliation. People could simply commit mortal sin and rely on the mercy of God to forgive them if they happened to die in that state.

What actually IS a nominal Catholic? Would that be someone who was baptised into the faith and never again saw the inside of a Catholic Church? The example I gave much earlier in this thread was not argued against: a person who was baptised Catholic, received the Eucharist, Confirmed, and later on in adulthood decided they didn't believe certain doctrines of the Church..so they went elsewhere.

Eugene calls them "lukewarm" Catholics.

Or perhaps they are Catholics who only attended mass at Easter when the relatives are in town. Yet they were Catholics all of their lives. Suddenly, they decided to join a Protestant Church.

So how could anybody who is a Catholic NOT KNOW that the Catholic Church has the "fullness of truth" and is the one true Church?

Paul, in your initial answer, you said there were "many" Catholics such as this. So the Church teaches that it is a mortal sin to leave the Church, and people do not KNOW this? So Catholics who do not know this and leave are excused from sin????

One has to wonder how many other mortal sins are kind of "out there" that Catholics might be unaware of.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), January 06, 2005.


"Tell us what you really think, Smitty."

What I realy think Mr. Chavez, is that you are a liberal without really knowing it. A type of invincible ignorance. You say that you are not, but what you defend is indeed of a liberal bent. Perhaps you are not as liberal as some others on this website but you cannot admit one concrete incident where the clergy ha done wrong.

You have the liberal habit of attacking the messenger rather than refuting the message. I can see that in your dialogue with Emerald and Lesley.

If you can equate vatican II and it's completely new direction for the church, but yet say that it agrees with Pius X, you can no longer think with logic.

If you are indeed 67 years of age you must have first hand experience with the church of Pius XI and Pius XII. You were adult enough to notice the devout attention at Mass with the people going to communion in far less numbers than today. That with long confession lines on Saturday also. What a change in today's Church, just the opposite.

Maybe you think that they were too rigid but they came back every Sunday.

You might say that this does not happen in your particular church, but since when does a Catholic have to go church shopping like the Protestants.

-- John Smith (A@A.com), January 06, 2005.


I tried to answer the original question of the thread as honestly as I could, Leslie. I'll attempt yours right now. I can't do anything better than the below, I don't think.

"How can someone rely on the mercy of God when they are in mortal sin?"

If they are resolute in their sin, then they really can't rely on the mercy of God. Matter of fact, they can rule it out. However, if they have a change of heart, if they wish to repent, then they most certainly can rely on the mercy of God, and avail themselves of a Sacrament already instituted and ready for them, Confession. The nature of the Sacrament has mercy written all over it.

"If that were truth, there would be no need for Reconciliation."

Right. If it were really the case that a person in mortal sin, unrepentant, could still be the recipient of the mercy of God, then Confession would be worthless and a waste of time. But it isn't. Therefore, it must have been deemed necessary.

"People could simply commit mortal sin and rely on the mercy of God to forgive them if they happened to die in that state."

Right. If it was true that a hardened sinner in mortal sin could really be the recipient of the mercy of God, without the sinner having changed his mind or heart one iota. Then that would be correct. However, it isn't possible. God isn't going to drag anyone kicking and screaming back into union with Him if they don't desire it.

"What actually IS a nominal Catholic? Would that be someone who was baptised into the faith and never again saw the inside of a Catholic Church?"

It is a relative term. It could mean anything from someone who is Catholic in name only and doesn't even come to Church on Sunday and doesn't believe all the doctrines of the Church, to someone who doesn't commit mortal sin, goes to Mass every Sunday, doesn't question the doctrine and precepts of the Church, but other than that is lukewarm, has no interest in really progressing in the Faith, and pretty much is content to entertain himself with thoughts of the things of this world.

So what constitutes nominal, as concerns the actual state of the soul therefore, while people might look pretty much similar on the outside, inside the soul, the condition of one compared to another might be night and day, from a damnable condition to someone in a state of grace but staring down the barrel of a lot of penance that needs to be done for sheer laziness towards the Faith. Who knows. Who can say the true condition of a soul? We don't know.

"The example I gave much earlier in this thread was not argued against: a person who was baptised Catholic, received the Eucharist, Confirmed, and later on in adulthood decided they didn't believe certain doctrines of the Church..so they went elsewhere."

That person has lost the Faith. Hopefully a temporary condition only. But if they die in that state, "nominal" would not describe them. Damned would. I'm just shooting you straight, no fluff, no frills.

"Eugene calls them "lukewarm" Catholics."

Double check with him to make sure. He might not have meant that.

"Or perhaps they are Catholics who only attended mass at Easter when the relatives are in town. Yet they were Catholics all of their lives. Suddenly, they decided to join a Protestant Church."

Same thing: out of the Church. They need to go to confession and come back. When they get back, that's not all there is to it. They need to actually live their lives like they're actually going to die someday... aquire virtue, get rid of vices, pray and do penance, grow in the Catholic Faith.

"So how could anybody who is a Catholic NOT KNOW that the Catholic Church has the "fullness of truth" and is the one true Church?"

They can't not know it, really.

"Paul, in your initial answer, you said there were "many" Catholics such as this. So the Church teaches that it is a mortal sin to leave the Church, and people do not KNOW this? So Catholics who do not know this and leave are excused from sin????"

They know it. They might just not admit it. Or, they rationalize it away. But they know it in their heart. And they're guilty, and they need to get right with the Church again. It is an absolute requirement before the lights go out on that person's life. Deathbed conversions certainly do happen, but they can't be planned.

"One has to wonder how many other mortal sins are kind of "out there" that Catholics might be unaware of."

Learning what mortal sin consists of is easier than reading the directions on the back of a bag of instant oatmeal.

People can achieve the most amazing things; look around you. It's amazing what people can accomplish. But when it comes to the Faith, all of a sudden... they act as if it were all so far above their heads. But the Faith is so simple. They're merely deceiving themselves.

If that doesn't help, whack me upside the head and I'll try harder.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), January 07, 2005.


Emerald, I didn't say a person has to specifically know that the Catholic Church teaches a certain act is gravely immoral in order to be guilty of mortal sin. I simply said that a person has to KNOW an act is gravely immoral in order to be guilty of mortal sin. Virtually all people of every religious persuasion and no religious persuasion recognize that murder is a grave moral evil. However, not all people recognize that switching to a church they like better is evil in any sense at all. And many nominal Catholics are utterly unaware of virtually anything the Church teaches. Some cradle "Catholics" who sign up for the RCIA course I teach don't know what a "sacrament" is. The term "Eucharist" is new to some of them. They don't have any idea what an "apostle" is. Or "mortal sin". Or "gospel". Or "crucifix". Let alone knowing that the Catholic Church is the one true Church founded by Jesus Christ as the means of salvation (what's that?) for all mankind!

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 07, 2005.

Emerald;
Groan on, beat your breast;
That Scripture doesn't refer to child pornographers, abortionists, homosexuals, fornicators, bad lawyers, evil businessmen, warmongers, apostates, heretics, schismatics, adulterers, ambitious polititians, corrupt clergy...

Let me see: Quite a few homosexual, corrupt priests exposed only today were ordained in the 1950's. Also was the apogee of Mafiosos. That was way before the aggiornamento. In the 19th century the world loved to fornicate; men kept mistresses in our Catholic cities. Lawyers screwed widows & orphans, as did most bankers (and how!) Only a ''few'' adulterers? Well; at least in my own family.

Not as much abortion, of course; but facism, wars? Don't even ask. Where did you see child labor laws in the good old days? Bootlegging, black AND white slavery and death; all before the 2nd Vatican Council. As for heretics, even in the 1500's they weren't the first. They go back 2000 yrs; don't blame your Church of today.

Schism? You are always flirting with it; and what's more you incite dissidence against Church and faithful, from the Pope on down. Charity isn't your strong suit, Elitists. You're not even here for anything but raining on somebody's parade. A faithful Catholic, Emerald, is never mirthless and pessimistic. Nor is he judgmental. You mostly are; and now you have a cohort. The cheerful Mr. Smith, come to denounce his enemies. With friends like the two of you, our Church needs no bashers.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 07, 2005.


And how is Judge Smith? Keeping tabs of all sins; but notice: all other peoples' sins.

''If you are indeed 67 years of age you must have first hand experience with the church of Pius XI and Pius XII. You were adult enough to notice the devout attention at Mass,''

True. Do you wonder I never complained? I never complain today either; like you do. Matter of fact, I pay my own devout attention during Mass. I don't spy on the others; it's not what God expects of us. If it irks you that too many are going to Holy Communion, well; the devil can't be happy either. He doesn't want ANYBODY receiving. It makes him jealous.

And why must you, of all people-- patrol the confessionals? People who make a stink about OTHER folks need to confess make one wonder. Why the fixation on Other People's sin?

We are commanded to mind our own souls, and not judge others. --Jesus had a problem with Scribes & Pharisees who accused Him and His disciples of sin. They never saw the plank in their own eyeball. He called them a brood of vipers. Whitened sepulchres.

They thought were the only worthy ones. They ended up sending Him to die on the cross. Don't be like them, Smith. Love the brethren God gave you; don't despise us.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 07, 2005.


Mr. Chavez;

I do not despise you or anyone else. I also never judge the condition of anyone's soul. However I can rightly judge someone's obvious actions. The recent elections are an example of what I mean. John Kerry was, and is a public abortionist, but he goes to communion in a Catholic church in front of the world. Is it a safe bet to think that he is receiving in mortal sin? Worse yet the clergy keep giving him and his ilk the Holy Eucharist. They are worse than he is because they are encouraging like action among many Catholics.

Any wonder that annulments are now (with a wink) called Catholic divorces. Mr Chavez, you want to be so righteous that you aare willing to let this indifferent attitude grow worse year by year.

Please look around outside of your own church building and see the faith dying among so many Catholics.

robably the best example of a high clergyman in blaant heresy is Cardinal Roger Mahoney. The man is a disgrace to the Chuurch but Rome does not even censure him, much less remove him.

He is a blatant abortionist that supports abortion candidates over good pro lifers. You say that I am judgemental.Indeed I am when such a disgraceful man gets away with it. He is even wose than Kerry. I would bet that you would never condemn him for thata because you do not want to be judgemental. Mr. Chavez, in your do gooder mode you are helping to destroy the Church. There are also mortal sins of omissin too.

-- John Smith (A@A.com), January 07, 2005.


Ok Paul. I apologize for reading you wrong.

Hey David, I missed your St. Vianney quote the first time through. Thanks.

Gene, I or John Smith can't defend ourselves against the charges of spying our neighbors in Church, or patrolling the confessionals, or concentrating on everyone else's sins. How could we? I don't know who John outside this thread, but he sees something I see and many more see as well. That's what the conversation revolves around... the unwillingness of so many today to just come out and speak the Catholic truth without blushing.

Doing as much has little if anything to do being Pharisaical. Somebody somewhere along the line has to stand up and tell the hard truths. People that want to know the truth actually want to hear the hard stuff.

Note that the Pharisees were holders of office. We aren't. But many of the prelates who do hold legitimate office do not themselves adhere to the Catholic Faith, and would desire to throw us trads out while they burden the faithful with their errors, ommissions and offenses against the Catholic Faith in the course of being legitimate office-holders.

That would be proper identification of the modern Pharisee in type: those who hold legitimate office, but who have themselves lost the Faith, who would want to tossed out of the Church those subject to them who actually do hold the Faith, while they deem themselves to be still safe inside.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), January 07, 2005.


Here's what I find interesting.

It's not that individuals such as Emerald or John or myself are judging other people and their "right" to salvation..saying that WE have the authority to say who is saved and who is not..or that WE have the authority to say what is mortal sin and what is not..as Eugene appears to think..

It's that the CHURCH as the AUTHORITY on earth given to it by God has that COMPLETE AUTHORITY and used to have zero difficulty voicing it to it's people or anyone else, now seems to have all kinds of problems communicating.

Bishops who do not wish to upset people by speaking out against politicians? They might give the media fodder for not liking what the Church teaches??????????????????? They might possibly alienate people within the church? Speaking the truth would cause problems and so the truth isn;t spoken?

Catholics in Paul M's classes never heard the term EUCHARIST???????? or SACRAMENT??????????? Where have they been??

And Eugene, here you are having a problem with Emerald and John..yet when Paul M says that a "nominal Catholic" can indeed leave the Church and not be in mortal sin..you say you disagree, but not in any strong way..it's as if as long as Paul M says it, it's OK..

Where's your fire for this subject?

More and more and more, I'm hearing "it's all good"..The CHURCH has the athority to say, "IT'S NOT ALL GOOD"..it used to be quite specific about what was good and what was evil..the answers here, of saying that the Church used to be draconian and now is not, lead to people thinking that God is some kind of fuzzy teddy bear God who will forgive anybody anything as long as you hug Him enough..rubbish.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), January 07, 2005.


"It's that the CHURCH as the AUTHORITY on earth given to it by God has that COMPLETE AUTHORITY"

A: Exactly! It never ceases to amaze me that this reality is invariably pointed out by those who are most critical of the Church's current teaching! Which is it? The Church HAD complete authority? Or the Church HAS complete authority? If the Church HAS complete authority, dissenters would do well to submit to that authority.

"Catholics in Paul M's classes never heard the term EUCHARIST???????? or SACRAMENT??????????? Where have they been??"

A: Exactly! Where they have been is obviously NOT in the Catholic Church, even though they claim to be Catholic. Which is exactly my point. How can we hold someone accountable for acceptance of Catholic teaching when they have been raised without any contact with that teaching?

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 07, 2005.


Okay, I was reading last night both the communication of the Holy Office and Pius XII in the Boston case (1949) and reading some more of Pius XII.

Emerald, you certainly have a point. Pius made it clear that those who separate from the Catholic Church "by their own unfortunate act" are in a precarious position; and even those non-Catholics who are invincibly ignorant yet have a certain unrecognized longing to be one with the Church "cannot be certain" of their salvation.

In short, if your point is that we *assume* anyone and everyone can be saved outside the fulness of Catholicism, and thus have lost our zeal to bring in souls to the fulness of the faith, under the successor of Peter as Christ intended--well, you are right.

Father Feeney made an error that put him "extra ecclesiam" for a while, but on the other extreme are folks who act as though it isn't important to be a Christian in the Catholic Church. It seems to me that, in today's climate, the latter is much more of a problem, because people get blinded by their own foolish opinions and stubbornness, and won't listen to the steward of the Great Shepherd, i.e., to the Holy Father.

In answer to David's original question, it seems safe to say that, if we can lovingly convince fallen away Catholics to return, they will have access to that Grace which will give them much greater opportunity of salvation. We are not God, and God knows that most people today in their business are ignorant: He alone can judge the measure of guilt or woe resulting from our bad choices. (May He be merciful!) Yet, we can do our part to try to convince fallen away Catholics to come back.

In short, it is *not* safe for a Catholic to remain away from the fulness of the Catholic Church.

-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), January 07, 2005.


This thread's exploding with responses and I can't keep up. First, a word to ''John Smith''.
Addressed to me: ''In your do gooder mode you are helping to destroy the Church. There are also mortal sins of omissin too.''

It's for this kind of hype that I reproach folks like yourself, Sir. You outwardly seem devout, but follow with character assassination. So, Mahoney's an ''abortionist''. I am into destroying the Church, and by my ''ommission'' guilty of mortal sin.

I must examine my goody goody conscience If you were right in your judgment, I should confess.

Now-- Are you by chance a man given to road rages? Is your car or truck one of those lethal weapons we often see in the freeway, furiously approaching or passing? (Yes, Gene. You attacked the messenger, you phony Cathoic.)

Let me just say your post tells the story better than I. it's bloated with indignation. God is secondary to your example of a Catholic; it's your fury that beats up on your brother Catholic. God may be merciful to sinners. What does GOD KNOW!

We're all aware of the many bad apples in the Catholic Church, Smith. You didn't have to point out Kerry and a soft prelate. Nor did it require your hatred to make me examine my own conscience. Yes; I will. I love the clergy, the Church, my fellow worshippers. I don''t want to sin by ommission.

But for every bad one I see a thousand earnest, faithful and hard-trying Catholics. You never seem to become attached to them; much less clergy or Cardinals. It makes no difference, God loves you so much more than He loves them.

You're on your sure way to Him, with no problems. We will be suffering in Purgatory ever so long after you are crowned in heaven. I really mena it. Thanks for beating up on our measly evil Church. We needed that.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 07, 2005.


and that's THE point Paul..

since the Church HAS the absolute Authority to speak in God's name and HAS in the past had zero problem doing so, with none of this "we don't have the answer" or "we don't want to offend anyone WITH the answer" , or "only God REALLY knows" or "maybe God will, in His infinite mercy forgive everybody"..what's the deal with the current teachings being APPARRENTLY different from the OLD teachings??

On the forum, when I said I was taught that if you were a Catholic and left the Church you were absolutely in mortal sin, people posted that that was "draconian" teaching..and that nowdays, if people are merely "nominal" Catholics and unaware that they are putting their very souls in jeopardy, there is NO SIN.

Since Catholics have been leaving the Church in droves over the years, WHY do we not hear of this MORTAL SIN from the bishops..from the pulpits, in the Catholic newsletters..from ANYWHERE????????? Somebody show me the hue and cry where the Church has informed it's people in any significant manner that leaving the Church is a MORTAL SIN???

It is the Church's responsibility to educate it's people spiritually. How can it be that there are "many people" in the Church who do not know what is a sin and what is not?

How can it be that my good friend who attends mass every Sunday and has for the past 30 years, thinks it is OK and a matter of personal conscience to use contraceptive devices? Because she BELIEVES this to be true, it is not a sin for her??

How can it be that so many Catholics now seem to think that the Church teaches that:

"If you don't believe in a particular teaching of the Church, and you really truly in YOUR OWN HEART don't believe it is a sin to do "x", then it's not a sin..it's a matter of personal conscience..it's between you and God.God knows in your heart that you are a good person trying to do good and will judge you accordingly." God is infinetly merciful. The "Old church was full of rules and regulations..we don't have to follow blindly any longer.

If a person comes along and says "Wait a minute..it is a mortal sin to do this or that." they are accused of being Pharisees only wanting to adhere strictly to the letter of the law and not having any consideration for the mercy of God.

The Sacrament of Reconciliation has a purpose. The lines for this sacrament USED to be so long one had to plan ahead to receive it. Where are the people??? Relying upon the mercy of God? Relying upon their "personal conscience"?

To say that there IS something very wrong nowdays is not to attack the foundation of the Church..the foundation is and always will be solid. And whenever someone questions the difference between the "modern" teachings and the "older" teachings one reads on the forum that the poster had better stop looking at old dusty parchments from the Middle Ages and get with the program. It leaves a person with a sense of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and some kind of inherent modern disgust for the historic Church.

The Church is a continuum, not something just recently discovered.

One wonders what the Apostles Peter and Paul would have to say about the concept of "nominal" Catholics who left the Church. People who have heard the truth and went on to believe what, in their times, could only have been called "heresy". Can we conceive that they would have taught that "partial truth" being revealed to these people would have been unfortunate, but acceptable for their salvation? Or that Peter and Paul would have said "Oh well, it's up to the mercy of God."

They had no problem telling people what was sin and what was not.They had no problem with the "media" of their day, wondering if their comments would offend or cause problems with the politicians. For the next several hundred years, Catholics ALL knew clearly what was mortal sin and what wasn't.

And now they don't?

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), January 07, 2005.


I do not know how to express this any more but here is an excerpt of Father Malachi Martin's. Please Mr. Chavez, open your eyes;

When we read the news headlines today concerning the evil acts of numerous Catholic priests and even bishops against children, we can not help think about what Fr. Malachi Martin prophesied six years ago. Fr. Martin also said that the "Third Secret of Fatima" concerned the apostasy of the Roman Catholic Church. He said that the essential message seems to be about Satanists lurking in the shadows, from the heart of the Vatican down to the local parishes, manipulating events and putting great effort to subvert the Roman Catholic Church. He said that these Satanists are in league with Zionists and what he called the “Universal Assembly”, a Masonic group of Western plutocrats and the Illuminati.

Fr. Malachi Martin also spoke about a shadowy evil character he described as the “Cardinal of Centurycity,” who bears a strange similarity to Cardinal Roger Mahoney of Los(t) Angeles. Presently, there is a growing tide of people calling for his resignation due to the Archdioceses cover-up of the Satanic homosexual pedophile crimes against children.

And where does Pope John Paul II stand in all of this? Pope John Paul II has stated that we are definitely in the end times. He says that "the signs are clear"! The Pope has expressed concerns that his successor will be "the final pope" and the "anti-pope". The anti- pope is a person who will betray true Catholicism and Christianity as part of a pact with "Lucifer" and a future world government.

* * * * * * *

-- John Smith (A@A.com), January 07, 2005.


Lesley needs a little more reassurance. Let me say first; he/or she? is clearly a very faithful Catholic. Of that I'm convinced.

Only, it leaves me wondering why the blanket statements; about our CHURCH as the AUTHORITY on earth given to it by God' and ''used to'' have zero difficulty voicing it to its people or anyone else, ''now seems to have all kinds of problems communicating.'' --??? This is not a definite up-down fact. It's a common perception, but only a half-truth, to me.

Who is it refuses to see the authority of the Catholic clergy, and our Pope? NOT Catholics at large. The proper place for priests to exercise authority isn't in the newspapers or TV; dumping on a politician. And in fact, John F. Kerry's bishop went VERY public, and told the world all about the sin of support for abortion. It's documented. He imposed authority.

In the CONFESSIONAL, where one relates the sins on our conscience; that's the place where true authority means something. A priest is authorized to dictate THERE. Does that answer your question, Lesley?--

''Bishops do not wish to upset people by speaking out against politicians? They might give the media fodder for not liking what the Church teaches??????????????????? --'' -- I love it when bishops preach. But the media makes it out to be bigotry and right-wing politics. Why would any Catholic want the media branding us all that way? And then go back to bashing the lot of them as pedophiles?

''what the Apostles Peter and Paul would have to say about the concept of "nominal" Catholics who left the Church.

People who have heard the truth and went on to believe what, in their times, could only have been called "heresy". Can we conceive that they would have taught that "partial truth" being revealed to these people would have been unfortunate, but acceptable for their salvation?''

In what Catholic church or meeting or publication is this ''taught''--? ? ? Who is FOR that ''concept''--? ? ? Are you serious? Nobody ever taught heresy or mortal sin was ''acceptable.'' Give us a BREAK!

''Or that Peter and Paul would have said "Oh well, it's up to the mercy of God.'' -- Would have said. Suppose they ''would have said, ''Now that you've sinned, heretic or whatever; NO MERCY for you! God washes His hands, and so does Christ's Church.'' Would that become the Holy Gospel according to the apostles? No redemption for sinners, and no forgiveness if we repent?

I suspect you, and Emerald and Smith didn't think this thing out. You're so ready to slam the door to our faith SHUT. And, most of all to our separated brethren, protestants. They make your skin creep, don't they?

Dirty heretics! We have just become too much like protestants; and look around you --says Smith. See your own church building. And see the faith dying among so many Catholics. Dying and looking so (ugh) PROTESTANT! How can God STAND them? Hahaha! --OK;

They don't deserve to be loved. I don't either, because they haven't become as lepers to me! We're going to hell!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 07, 2005.


Dear Mr. Smith:
You've accused me of attacking the messenger. Sometimes i do that, since a message can be so over-the-top it truly isn't worth an answer, and the messenger comes here,

Actually interested in affecting us with BALONEY. Such as the Malachi Martin screed. A pile of steamed horse excrement. How else can a faithful Catholic respond, except to feel sorry for such a messenger; and react sarcastically? Do you want to be identified with Malachi Martin????? Why not ask Gore Vidal what he thinks of Jesus and Saint Paul? You'd go bananas reading HIM.

Malachi Martin is no authority on any Church. Enough about fraud, how about you, our messenger?

Do you actually KNOW what the 3rd ''secret'' of Fatima said? Or are you buying fanatical 2nd-hand stories out of dubious publications?

I should have known. OK-- You argued in favor of heaps of reconciliation, going to confession; and probably go to confession quite frequently. Which is excellent.

Next time discuss the letter of fatima with the priest in reconciliation. Explain what's about to happen when John Paul II dies, and the catastrophe ''prophesied'' in the 3rd secret. Either an anti-Pope, and anti-christ, or the ''end'' of the catholic faith. You know; hell in a hand-basket.

DO IT; consult with a good Catholic priest, and tell him all you've told me in the previous post. Ask him what he thinks.

Then; if you are an intellectually HONEST and devout Christian Catholic, with nothing to apologise for,

Come back here and tell us what your confessor said about all that. ONLY what HE says-- without any embellishments or alterations. Be honest, Mr. Smith, for your OWN good.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 07, 2005.


Eugene..Catholics at large recognize the Church's authority?? Ya think? I live 2 hours away from St. Louis, so we get their news here in the boonies. Archbishop Burke since he came to St.Louis has been rather contantly in the news..why? Because the Catholics in that city don't seem to like him. HURRAH for Archbishop Burke! Too bad we don't have many more just like him.

THIS holy man isn't afraid of the media and what they think of him..not one bit. Nor is he afraid of what the "nominal" Catholics think either. Like it or lump it, he tells the TRUTH. And in return? One Catholic parish calls the TV crews weekly for them to cover an ongoing argument they're having with the archdiocese..

over Christmas, we were treated to two women, representatives from the Catholic Elementary Teachers of St. Louis who had called the TV station to accompany them while they marched over to Archbishop Burke's office to present him with a lump of coal for Christmas. This blatant display of an official insult was to embarass him because he was silent on the subject of unionizing the school teachers. On camera, one teacher happily called him "a disgrace".

The St. Louis Post Dispatch newspaper has been having a veritable field day with numerous articles related to church-bashing. Archbishop Burke continues to be soft-spoken and adamant about preaching and teaching the TRUTH. He stands as a living pillar of light in the community, yet the ones attacking him the most are his OWN CONGREGATION..amazing. I've never seen anything quite like it in all of my life. A priest whom we know called him a "bumbling fool who lives in the past, stirring up nothing but trouble."

NEVER in my life did I ever think I would see the day when such disrespect was shown an Archbishop, in public or private, by Catholics. One parish has hired an attorney to SUE the archdiocese..that's how much repect for the Church's authority is shown nowdays..

When Bishops ignore the Pope and do what they please, when priests ignore their bishops and do as THEY please, can anyone wonder why the people think THEY can do as THEY please?

It truly didn't used to BE this way people..Honestly. No wonder there is such confusion as to what is sin and what isn't..who is running the Church?

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), January 07, 2005.


I sympathize with you. There have to come days when everybody gets discouraged. I said you needed reassurance, and I'm right. But as soon as I counsel patience and understanding; or simple FAITH in Our Lord and the Holy Spirit (Who is, after all, with His Church)

You react with more anecdotal examples of why I am blind, I haven't SEEN these bad people, I have no reason to be happy in the Church. It must be because my Church; the Novus Ordo Missal and Liturgy, our priests-- the whole Vatican II Ball of Wax--

Is dishonorable, defective and unholy. That's the answer you'll accept. But I'm not going to give you that. You see; hard as it might be to believe; I converse daily with Jesus Christ. We communicate spiritually; He listens. I listen to Him.

He isn't telling me the things you say. He isn't telling me we're all Hunky Dory, but He wants FAITH from all of us; unwavering faith. He will never let us down. --He KNOWS what to do. We think we know; He knows.

We know this: the church is holy; no matter what a disappointment some people are to her, and to us. We enter the Church for the grace, the blessing of Our Lord; not to go back out feeling upset with another Catholic. If you only knew the love and consolation Jesus gives a soul determined to please ONLY HIM. Just Him, adored on our knees, without contrary distractions.

Maybe you see nothing but shame and disrespect. I see brothers and sisters and kids. They make me happy; because all of them have come for Jesus; not against Jesus. All could easily NOT have come; or instead entered the Baptist Church, to sing gospel music and clap hands. They COULD, but they love Him, in the Blessed Sacrament. (They still sing some awful songs. But He loves them despite it.)

I ask you lesley: Why can't you be like them? Instead of upset and bitter? Do it. Come to Him with faith; with JOY. I'm doing it, and you won't shake my faith or happiness in Holy Mass. You see, I'm every bit as Catholic as you or Smith or Emerald. And I'm not crazy, I know what I'm telling you.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 07, 2005.


If it's any consolation, the Church has survived through extremely tough times. There were even parallel hierarchies during the Arian heresies with many bishops leaving the faith. We can look to times even more recent than that in the writings of St. Francis and Catherine of Siena. They are eye opening, in this regard. These saints lived in times when many priests lived scandalous lives. If the Church could survive through those times, she will surely make it through the sins and apathy of Catholics today. Got to keep the big picture.

I've been blessed to see a return to orthodoxy in the parishes I've been in. A return to daily Mass, orthodox Catechism, Eucharistic adoration, and the Rosary. It will take time, but hearts will change.

Don't forget that this is the Year of the Eucharist. Let's not waste it!

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), January 07, 2005.


Mr. Chavez;

I hope that we can agree on this;

Sola salus, Servire Deo

God bless you in your sincerity.

-- John Smith (A@A.com), January 07, 2005.


hmmmmm. I don't think I feel "bitter"..more like "frantic" to have a return to the sanity of having things as they were..don't get me wrong please..this is not a diatribe against Vatican II..when I say the way things were, I mean a sense of general unity within the Church..

I do not understand nor feel the least bit comfortable going to mass in one city and having it be so different from mass in another city.. it used to be all the same..as in "identical" down to the last gesture, prayer, intonation, hymn, whatever.

Catholics all knew all of the rules and regulations of the church by heart..if you were in the 3rd grade or were 93 years old..it was all the same. Priests were called "Father" not Chuck or Harry. Nobody in their right minds questioned a Bishop..

and if your marriage was having problems, the FIRST person you spoke with was your parish priest.

Vatican II didn't cause all of this..I've said that before.

Perhaps I am bitter though..don't know. I'll pray about it. Thank you.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), January 07, 2005.


Ask Mary. She never lets anyone down.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), January 07, 2005.

Lesley;

Don't be discouraged. I went through the same thing until someone turned me on to the old latin mass. The indult is non existant in my area, but I have a choice between one traditional mass center and a church that celebrates the eastern rite. I alternate between the two.

I couid not take anymore of the far out actions at my local churches, so I figured that if I had to travel to find a devout mass, I might as well time travel to 1950. I am glad that I did as the people are very devout in both places.

I suppose that everyone has to make a choice and hope for the best. God bless you ,and all on this web.

-- John Smith (A@A.com), January 08, 2005.


Lesley:
Without joy, and without love for our brothers & sisters in Christ, our assistance at Holy Mass is superficial, no matter if it's comforting or sensational. God is Love. We have to gather with Jesus and our sisters and brothers for love's sake.

It was Our Saviour who commanded me and you. ''Love one another as I have loved you.'' We must always partake of His Holy Body and Precious Blood as ONE; united in love for one another together with Him. Not as individuals. We are His CHURCH, --Christ's Mystical Body offered up in worship to his Almighty Father every time we celebrate Holy Mass. He can still love us individually, but our offering to the Father Almighty is the New Testament, Christ's sacrifice from which we EAT and DRINK! Not just me. Nor you; not a lot of believers. The whole CHURCH! United in Jesus Christ.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 08, 2005.


one thing that has struck me about this thread is the pejorative use of the word "pharisee".

the real problem with the pharisees was that they "...were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else....": St Luke 18:9-14.

but, in and of itself, the fact that they otherwise lived extremely pious lives - where their Book required a fast, they fasted twice, and so on - was not culpable.

if, therefore, anyone in this thread, regardless of how many [if any] Rosaries they can fit into their day, is sure of their own righteousness and/or looks down upon others as being less righteous, then they might well be considered a modern pharisee. i haven't seen any evidence that anyone here thinks they are better than anyone else - which is why i struggle to understand why the word has appeared here so many times.

in **general terms**, one might come across a group of Catholics who will argue that the Church may have reneged on its own infallible teaching - a point of view that can be argued on merit by looking at said teaching. and if that teaching is found to be "elitist" or "judgmental", it is the Church, and not the believer, that is the pharisee.

one might also, here and there, stumble across the contrary view, but to brand a point of view as old-fashioned, stick-in-the-mud, nostalgic, overly-rigid, unkind, or whatever, could be equally pharisaic.

i think this is just religious political correctness, and it is political correctness as much as anything these days, that is damaging the Church and organised religion in general.

after all, what every Catholic must still agree upon is that all those religious people [Jews, Moslems, protestants, Orthodox, etc - and, especially, their leaders] who participate in ecumenical events with the Church are [unless they slept throughout] no longer in "invincible ignorance" and are, therefore, damned unless they convert. there - said it. i'm a pharisee, and we are all pharisees - if you apply someone else's set of standards.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 09, 2005.


incidentally, the parable of the pharisee and the tax collector might tell us something about how we should try to approach our God, including at Mass.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 09, 2005.

Ian: What if you're right, ''all those religious people [Jews, Moslems, protestants, Orthodox, etc - and, especially, their leaders] who participate in ecumenical events with the Church are [unless they slept throughout] no longer in "invincible ignorance" and are, therefore, damned unless they convert. there - said it. i'm a pharisee,''

Will not one Catholic be saved after letting a protestant in the front door? Will that Catholic lose his salvation, because he extended a hand to the brother who lives outside?

I've seen a number of ''traditionals'' declare the Church has been heretical, corrupted, because we gave non-Catholics a sign of peace. And YES; what do they declare except pharisaical exclusiveness? Love?

No matter how you sigh and moan: Jesus Christ said, ''Other sheep have I, not of this fold, and them also I will call.'' Jesus is the Catholic Church. The Pharisees weren't all silly and prejudicial. We know all about Gamaliel, and others.

But even Saint Paul did injustice before Jesus appeared to him on the Damascus road. Saul the Pharisee was not favored because Jesus liked pharisees. He was loved for his potential to become a saint, with God's grace. You and I have that. John Henry Newman, a great protestant priest had it, and so have others. They are not so few outside the Church today, who have potential.

And you-- you'd would assume they're already damned; because they REJECT the Catholic Church? OK; but at least give some the benefit of the doubt. Wait until they PROVE they can't be converted. Jesus told us with God nothing is impossible. (By the way: the many traditionals who flatly say nobody is coming from the other churches as Vatican II hoped they would, are lying. First, because they can't know another heart's interior feelings; second, because they're denying the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit has power to convert, either you believe that or you don't. But He works through you and me, in the Church. Conversions aren't all wrapped up and delivered on order. They have to be cared for and cultivated. They come by work and faith. What kind of faith is it, to declare like a pharisee: '' They are no longer in invincible ignorance and therefore, damned unless they convert. There - said it. I'm a pharisee,'' Just leave that part [damnation of sinners] to God. We're committed only to faith, hope and charity.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 09, 2005.


"What kind of faith is it, to declare like a pharisee:....."

Eugene,

not my concept, sir. i am repeating the **softened** version of an Infallible definition by a Pope. please don't blame the messenger: but blame, if you will, Pope Eugene IV and, of course, the Holy Ghost. are they pharisees, too? and, if so, am i not in the best kind of company?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 10, 2005.


I'm sorry, but I happen to not be a catholic. I don't believe ANY one religion has all the right answers. I see Christ as my savior, but I don't see the Catholic religion as my way to Him. I belive, no, I KNOW that God and His Son love ALL of us! No matter what church (or not) that we worship Him in!!!

-- Crying_Flutterby (UcAnTkNoW@DUH.com), January 10, 2005.

Ian,
Your last post is ridiculous. Keep saying ridiculous things and soon we will stop communicating. You're being intellectually dishonest.

You can't name a Pope who ever stated: ''All religious people [Jews, Moslems, protestants, Orthodox, etc, especially, their leaders] who participate in ecumenical events with the Church are [unless they slept throughout] no longer in invincible ignorance and are, therefore damned unless they convert.''

That comes straight out of your imagination. There are hardly any ''ecunemical events'' held to convert somebody. There were reforms in our own liturgical and external customs. These were to encourage outsiders to come home to their Catholic roots. Not force them to convert! Events indeed!

Many might in fact be damned. But what does that have to do with the singular case of a soul truly in invincible ignorance? your objections don't place a single impediment on God. If He wishes to save a lost soul, why not just pray for that soul, like a real Christian?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 10, 2005.


Dear -- Crying_Flutterby,
What you may privately believe is your business. What Christ taught us all is the Gospel, where Christians are offered the gift of faith. But free-lance Christians don't live by the New Covenant Jesus has given the world, ratified in His precious blood. By remaining an opponent of the one Church He founded for all Christians, you gamble with your salvation. Your personal faith is not the faith of the apostles. We'll all pray for you to come to the faith; which was the Catholic faith of your blessed ancestors, before any ''reformations.''

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 10, 2005.

>"I don't believe ANY one religion has all the right answers."

A: How do you reconcile that belief (or lack of belief) with the words of Christ Himself, that the Holy Spirit would guide HIS Church [and no other] to "ALL truth"? Jesus says He will. You say He doesn't. Who should i believe? You? Or God?

>"I see Christ as my savior, but I don't see the Catholic religion as my way to Him".

A: So you accept Him as Savior on your own terms, rather than on His terms. He says He founded one Church for all mankind. You say that rejecting the Church He founded and joining manmade institutions teaching conflicting doctrine is perfectly all right with Him. Could you direct me to a Scripture to back up that idea??

> "I belive, no, I KNOW that God and His Son love ALL of us! No matter what church (or not) that we worship Him in!!!"

A: Of course He does. He loves every person perfectly, and therefore equally. He loves those who reject His Church just as much as He loves those who obey Him. He loves heretics just as much as He loves orthodox Christians. He loves those on the road to hell just as much as He loves those on the road to heaven. But that is not a good reason to reject that which He calls us to do.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 10, 2005.


Eugene

you say: "Your last post is ridiculous."

the Holy Ghost says: "The sacrosanct Roman Church, founded by the voice of our Lord and Savior ....

...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" [Matt. 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 practiced, 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."

extracted from Papal Bull "Cantate Domino" of 4 February 1441

repeat: "..no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, 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".

that's a Pope, that's Infallible. we might not like it, but it's ***de fide***.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 10, 2005.


Ian,

Really makes you weep for the now-in-Hell Archbishop LeFebvre and the rest of the sspx'ers who are formally adhering to his schism, doesn't it? Bummer when people put their preferences over obedience to Christ and His Church.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 10, 2005.


Ian:
I ask that you explain what the Papal Bull you're quoting has to do with anything I said. For some odd reason you have damnation and nothing but damnation on your mind. This makes you unable to see the true doctrines of the Catholic faith; which as I've explained up here, teach the whole truth about Holy Baptism. I repeat; of the Catholic faith, not my faith or anyone else's. The Church teaches us about Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood.

When a soul has received baptism, that soul is a member of the Catholic Church. That soul will be saved as a member, not outside the Catholic Church. Not damned; OK? --Can anybody make it any clearer to Ian, PLEASE?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 10, 2005.


You know, the beating around the bush here is just incredible, Gene.

-- Emerald (em@cox.net), January 10, 2005.

Ian is correct. Today's soft,"everybody is saved " Catholicism is not helping anybody.

Cantate Domino said it clearly and unambiguously.

It sounds heartless but it is not. You do non Catholics no favor by making them comfortable in their error.

-- John Smith (A@A.com), January 10, 2005.


"Anyone who has received the Sacrament of Baptism but remained away from the Catholic Church is never prepared to obtain eternal life. Such a person, even if he is very generous with almsgiving and even pours out his blood for the name of Christ, because of the fact that in this life he has not held tightly to the unity of the Catholic Church, he will not have eternal salvation. [...] Hold most firmly and never doubt that any heretic or schismatic whatsoever, baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, if he will not have been gathered into the Catholic Church, no matter how many alms he may have given, even if he shed his blood for the name of Christ, can never be saved." (To Peter on the Faith

-- John Smith (A@A.com), January 10, 2005.

Can someone please explain then how can invincible ignorance save their soul? Such things listed here like baptism and alms-giving would suggest their heart was in the right place. I'm just trying to understand where the teaching is coming from.

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), January 10, 2005.

There is no such thing as invincible ignorance. The gospel of John says that God enlightens every man(and woman) who comes into the world. What does that mean? I don't know but I will speculate that everyone has the natural law as part of their genetic makeup.

If the heart is right, God will come to them in some way or other. If they need watr, they will get water. If they need the sacraments, they will ge the sacraments. We have to become as little children trusting their father.

The Jews would not listen and walked away from salvation. They did not believe in the body and blood. "This is too hard to believe". So they walked away. The Lord let them do it .

We have to stop filling in the blanks of the mysteries.

-- John Smith (A@A.com), January 10, 2005.


Hopefully, I can post on this topic.

If the new understanding of the dogma of Baptism is that ALL baptised Christians,whether they were baptised into the Catholic faith or a non-Catholic faith, are ACTUALLY truly members of the Catholic faith (even if they don't recognize that)..since ALL Christian faiths originated from the Catholic faith..

Then why can't a Catholic get married in another Christian church and have it be a recognized marriage by the Church? I mean, since the Catholic Church says that all baptised Christian Church members are actually Catholics essentially, and that is how they can be "in the church" and thus achieve salvation, then why can't one baptised Christian marry one another in any Christian Church and have it be valid?

Isn't that the new understanding of the dogma? That other baptised Christians are NOT "outside of the Church"?????

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), January 10, 2005.


Ian isn't correct John. His interpretation of the doctrine is faulted; because all he knows is the form and matter; water etc., He isn't interested in knowing anything else.

Not once have we seen a word here about God's love for all of us. The only thing being argued is will only Catholics be saved. An intolerant and petty idea. No Pope ever forwarded that teaching.

But I've shown us why all who come to baptism are saved; never denied the need to receive it. Only YOU limit baptism for selfish purposes; as if the water was saving souls. But water is merely MATTER used in the formulary. Not the GRACE merited by Christ on the cross. It is CHRIST who saves. Not the Church. The Church receives from Him grace for her children; and baptism is His sacrament to send souls. He sends it in the three types: as water baptism, baptism of Desire and baptism of Blood. This is Catholic belief; not Greenspun belief.

I advised for Ian to inquire of his confessor, to find out if I've misled him. Has he done that? Has Emerald; have you, John Smith?

No. You'd better, because others will be misled here by your errors. You are spreading un-Catholic error.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 11, 2005.


Baptism is a Catholic sacrament no matter who performs it. Yes, a Protestant baby is a Catholic until it is old enough to have full understanding of the Church and it's sacraments. If they, at that point refuse to become Catholic, the baptism can no longer protect them. If they commit a mortal sin and do not feel sorrow for it they cannot be saved. They are obliged to become Catholic.

-- John Smith (A@A.com), January 11, 2005.

Dear Lesley: Here you asked, ''Isn't that the new understanding of the dogma? That other baptised Christians are NOT "outside of the Church"?????--

Answer-- NO. And what ''dogna'' are you speaking of? Baptism is not a dogma. It's the sacrament of RE-BIRTH, re-birth in Christ.

It has the added benefit for souls of admitting them into the kingdom of heaven, namely Christ's Church on earth. A Catholic beginning. That starts at baptism. However, ONE single mortal sin separates you from that kingdom. Whether you're Catholic or anything else. Heresy is such a sin.

Heretics are living as our separated brethren. (Teaching of the Catholic Church. If they are helped to repent, re-enter, and stay Catholics, they don't require any second baptism. God forgives their sins and they are saved. Their good standing in His Church is restored.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 11, 2005.


Ok Eugene, so far I'm with you..

where I get lost is when I read that there is NO salvation outside of the Catholic Church (in older Church documents..it's rather emphatic)..

and then, as you just said, IF people repent and return to the Church, they can be saved..

yet other people on the forum, and yourself too have said that even if other Christians do NOT ever return to the Catholic Church, they can achieve salvation because God is merciful.

I have zero problem with God being merciful. For the sake of my own soul I am quite glad that He is.

My total confusion arises in that since God Himself said that "He who rejects you rejects ME" is a pretty bold statement. When one looks at the EARLIER papal writings on this subject and reads that there "is no salvation outside of the Church" ..Since that was DECIDED BY THE CHURCH then what changed it?

And if it changed, where exactly is the clarification that it changed? I have read the Vatican II documents, and I cannot find anything to contradict earlier statements. All I see is a firm desire to have all Christians be as "one" and that is wonderful..but I don't see anything which is specific to contradict the earlier writings that there IS NO salvation outside of the Church.

THIS is why I am so confused. Of course all Christians are validly baptised.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), January 11, 2005.


Part of the problem, Lesley, is that the older understanding of "Church" is being modified or understood in a new light. It is now taught that there are degrees of communion with the Catholic Church. Some are closer, some farther away; some are in full communion with the Church, others in partial communion, others not in communion.

This is true even within the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church, e.g., you might actually be in closer fellowship with a devout Lutheran than, say, Charles Curran who is theoretically "in" the Church but yet is heretical in belief.

It used to be easy to understand: you're either "in" or "out". But there were degrees even then, you could be "in the soul" of the Church even if you weren't in the official "body" of it.

I mean, consider the Old Testament saints--they were not Catholics, yet they were saved in light of Christ's upcoming sacrifice. St. Justin Martyr taught that even righteous pagans like Socrates were taught by the pre-incarnate Christ, the Logos who scattered seeds of wisdom throughout the world even before His birth.

Perhaps Paul M. is more educated in the "degrees of communion with the Church" concept than am I. But a friend of mine who is a conservative, by-the-book, faithful Catholic Canon Lawyer assures me that this is the new understanding.

-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), January 11, 2005.


By the way, John Smith,

You are incorrect about there being "no such thing" as invincible ignorance. Pope Pius IX taught this, look also in the Catholic Encyclopedia which is on-line.

-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), January 11, 2005.


Thank you Michael, but I prefer books written 2 or 3 hundred years ago. That was the time of saints and martyrs.

-- John Smith (A@A.com), January 11, 2005.

Lesley,

If I may edit your above post by one word, I think it will be more accurate:

yet other people on the forum, and yourself too have said that even if other Christians do NOT ever return to the Catholic Church, they ***MAY*** achieve salvation because God is merciful

Baptism is required for salvation, BUT, there has always been a "second pathway" of sorts recognized by the church so that unbaptised babies, etc., may have a chance at salvation as well, as they through no fault of their own wouldn't (we hope) be damned forever. But the key word is MAY. Non-Catholics MAY achieve salvation, we hope so, and think a merciful God will allow this, but OTOH, they MAY not. The only *guaranteed* road towards salvation is Baptism and membership in the Catholic church. Similarly someone who leaves the Catholic church MAY achieve salvation, but in my own opinion, they are in a far graver situation than someone who has never heard of the church -- they had the gift and discarded it.

This is not a post-VatII change btw, here is one statement on the subject, and I'm sure I've read similar from the middle ages as well leaving the *possibility* of salvation open to non-Catholics as well, nonwithstanding the constant barrage of the Pope Eugene quote the sspx schismatics keep throwing around.

"We must hold as of the faith, that out of the Apostolic Roman Church there is no salvation; that she is the only ark of safety, and whosoever is not in her perishes in the deluge; we must also, on the other hand, recognize with certainty that those who are invincible in ignorance of the true religion are not guilty for this in the eyes of the Lord. And who would presume to mark out the limits of this ignorance according to the character and diversity of peoples, countries, minds and the rest? [Blessed Pope Pius IX, Allocution of December 9th, 1854"

Link to source

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 11, 2005.


There is no question in the mind of anyone who innocently and chastely reads the writings and utterances of Pope Pius IX but that he believed, without any qualification, the fundamental doctrine that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. In the year 1863, when he was faced with all the arguments which the liberals were pushing against him concerning the poor ignorant native who through invincible ignorance must be saved outside the body of the Church, Pope Pius IX, in his encyclical, Quanto Conficiamur, declared that he knew, about this ignorant native, all the arguments in favor of his deliverance from eternal damnation, he had heard all about this invincible ignorance — about which the liberals were so hopeful — but despite all this, he held that, unless this ignorance in a person of good will were dissolved and clarified by the light of Faith, it could not bring him to salvation. . . .

The modern liberals of our time in Catholic life have never paid any attention to anything else which Pope Pius IX has said except this little half-bow of charity toward the ignorant native. And, that the Holy Father knew that the liberals of his own day were misunderstanding him, is made clear by the Syllabus of Errors, which was issued in the following year, in which he sets down, without qualification, that it is condemned even to hope for the salvation of such men without the Faith.

-- John Smith (A@A.com), January 11, 2005.


"Half bow of charity" indeed! Another word for charity is love. I don't think most of us here disagree it is important to become or remain within the bosom of holy Mother Church, in full communion. But we are talking about a God who loves us, not one who is *looking for excuses* to damn us.

-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), January 11, 2005.

John,

Thank you Michael, but I prefer books written 2 or 3 hundred years ago. That was the time of saints and martyrs

That's foolish, John. You might as well say you only want to see what the church fathers said, being that much closer to Christ, or stopping your faith at the words of Jesus Himself, becoming a sola scriptura Christian.

The Catholic church is LIVING, and our faith and understanding now is BUILT on what came before. If you stop your reading several hundred years ago, you are *turning your back* on everything the Holy Spirit has revealed to the church since then. Deliberately turning away from the Holy Sprit's guidance is one step away from schism, IMO.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 11, 2005.


The Holy Spirit doesn't want John Smith and his like to understand. He's much like the self-absorbed Jew; unwilling to make a move toward any Messias not of the Kosher brands. A literal withdrawal of the Holy Spirit maintains that blind eye until the fulness of the gentiles will have entered. Rom 11: 25, and :32, ''For God has shut up all in unbelief, that He may have mercy on them all.'' The same thing appears to affect so- called ''trads'' who object vehemently against any progress. But let's have hope for John. The Holy Spirit will soon allow him to trust once more. It might be the reason he came into this forum. If not much else, we can move him to greater charity.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 11, 2005.

I don't have charity? I pray the Consecration of the human raceto the Sacred Heart of Jesus < Ordered by Pius XI. For the Jews, Muslims etc,

Also Litany of the Sacred Heart, and the litany for the poor souls in purgatory.

I don't like even having to tell you this, but I want to set the record straight.

How many of you pray these prayers?

You offer these poor souls apple pie when they need spinach.

Any wonder that indifferentism has entered the church?

-- John Smith (A@A.com), January 11, 2005.


Christ's gift to us IS apple pie John! You didn't do anything to earn it, and all the sprititual spinach you eat isn't going to allow you to EARN your salvation.

If saying litanies makes you more Christlike, by all means continue. OTOH, if it makes you like the Pharisee who goes into the Temple and says, "see how much better I am than this Publican, Look what I do", then you should probably quit saying them and move to some form of works that will NOT cause you to think you are better than your fellow man.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 11, 2005.


Frank..THANK YOU a million times over.

Your link along with your reply has cleared up this entire issue for me. The question and answer provided in the LINK was what I needed to make it crystal clear (Finally) in my own mind.

Bless you..

I appreciate the rest of you for trying..your efforts were helpful as well.. Thank you all very much. I "get it" .

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), January 11, 2005.


You're welcome.

Perhaps now you can explain it to me. Would you?

Thanks in advance.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), January 11, 2005.


Dear John:
We all know you're trying to please God. That's all you're trying to do; in the way you see as traditional and holy. Well, I myself love the holiness of the church and her ancient traditions. I'm not one to throw that immense spirtiual wealth awy.

But I'm taught by my Church in the 21st century; the Pope and our bishops, that as long as Christians are separated the Body of Our Lord lies wounded; and we must bind up His lesions. We must do all that it takes to recover our lost Christian brethren.

Our Church has children who went astray. We KNOW them; they live amongst us all. A loving mother will run up and down all the streets following after her children, afraid to lose them forever. That's what the Church has been doing now, over forty years of stop-and- go ecumenism. It's what the Holy Spirit has urged her to do.

Do not mistake the changes after our 2nd Vatican Council for indifferentism or corrupted values. We are in the loving care of his Holy Spirit. External things are sacrificed for the sake of regaining the trust of so many sectarian Christians. We have the Mass in the vernacular, to start, and on-going dialogue. No essential feature of apostolic tradion will be sacrificed; we have our saints, the Blessed Virgin Mary, our Creed, sacraments; all of our faith.

And you haven't found ONE article of faith or dogma downplayed here by me or any other Catholic. The one thing we disparage in anyone is pride. Perhaps lack of sufficient faith. And I said just one thing about you: You MUST be moved to greater charity. Love for your neighbor. If it seems to you and to others that you have sufficient, then do MORE. God demands more and more. Love until it hurts. Jesus Christ set us the example.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 11, 2005.


If it makes you feel better thinking that I am a pharasee, so be it. I don't want to rain on your parade. So enjoy. But please pray these souls into salvation, dont just "wish" them in.

Please say a quickie for the aborted babies also.

-- Jihn Smith. (A@A.com), January 11, 2005.


Syllabus of errors ; CONDEMNED

Divine revelation is imperfect, and therefore subject to a continual and indefinite progress, corresponding with the advancement of human reason. -- Ibid.

So much for your "better understanding of doctrine".

It won't do any good to read what this pope says. You will somehow twist it to suit yourself. Like, yes it is perfect but we now have all those years behind us".

OK you win.

-- John Smith (A@A.com), January 11, 2005.


Nobody has disputed a divine revelation. Go back and re-think your strategy, John.

We have given much attention in these threads to the statements of a Pope or two, not a divine revelation. What the Pope says is relevant and not to be taken lightly. But it can be understood better if we try. And nobody here is changing what they said, or ''twisting'' it. That's a false accusation.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 11, 2005.


Divine revelation is imperfect, and therefore subject to a continual and indefinite progress, corresponding with the advancement of human reason. -- Ibid.

So much for your "better understanding of doctrine".

Why not start by assuming you DON'T fully understand what you read? Again, no one is saying divine revelation is *imperfect*, it is OBVIOUSLY perfect. Our UNDERSTANDING of it however is ALWAYS going to be imperfect as we are imperfect. If this were not the case, what would the purpose of the church be except to deliver the sacraments? Why would any pope's ever say anything especially ex cathedra? If everything were understood perfectly in AD100, why have a catechism or anything else? Sorry, but the errors you think you see aren't there, it's just the Devil trying to tempt you away from Christ's living church for a shadow of the church from the past.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 11, 2005.


"And you haven't found ONE article of faith or dogma downplayed here by me or any other Catholic."

Let me just toss a very current possibility out there for consideration. Now you said this:

"We have the Mass in the vernacular, to start, and on-going dialogue."

Now if someone just happened to have actually read the canons of the dogmatic Council of Trent, they would have come across Session 22, Canon 9:

"If any one saith, that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or, that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only; or, that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice, for that it is contrary to the institution of Christ; let him be anathema."

Now don't have a fit and say that I believe you ought to be held anathema. I would merely ask, how would you respond to this, Gene?

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), January 11, 2005.


"Why not start by assuming you DON'T fully understand what you read?"

I would ask you, Frank, to do the same.

"If everything were understood perfectly in AD100, why have a catechism or anything else?"

You seem to be under the impression that to hold something by Faith is somehow related to understanding it. This is not the case. We hold the doctrines of the Faith without understanding them. If we could understand them, we wouldn't need to hold them by Faith. And technically, no, you don't need a catechism. They're supposed to be helpful, and some indeed are, but they aren't necessary.

And yes, we know no more or no more deeply than the Christians of 100 A.D.

"Sorry, but the errors you think you see aren't there, it's just the Devil trying to tempt you away from Christ's living church for a shadow of the church from the past."

I've noticed, with little exception, that those who do the accusing are always guilty of the exact same things which they accuse others of. From charges of private interpretation to charges of hypocracy, of being pharisee-like, of judgmentalism, even disobedience and dissent.

Who the heck are you, Frank, to posit that "hey, it's the devil, and he is leading you out of the Church".

Answer: nobody. You can't do that.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), January 11, 2005.


I hope that my question here is relevant to the thread of discussion. I am 61 years old and I come from a community that was converted from Hinduism to Christianity three to four generations ago.

My daughter went to study medicine in Ireland and in her first year faced the hardship of losing a close friend and mentor, a final year med student, who died of meningitis. My husband and I spent a year with her in Ireland helping her to cope with her grief. This was a time when she wanted to leave Ireland and even stop her studies. She was a good practising catholic until then. Perhaps it was my fault that I encouraged her to revive the Christian Student's Society during the year that she took off from her studies to deal with her grief. Most of the students were non catholic christians and one of them managed to convince her that the Catholic Church was ritualistic and following ancient babylonian rituals, praying to idols and worshipping Mary who according to them was "just one like us".

Every Sunday when I go to church, I am searching for a reason as to why Rosanna (our daughter) had to leave the church. When she returns home for the summer vacation, we find that she does not come with us to church. If she does so out of fear that I would be upset, she would refuse to stand or kneel during the mass.

Last Sunday I was suddenly faced with the thought that in the first commandment God did not want us to bow to any image or idol.

There are some Catholics in my country in Asia, who touch the statues of Mother Mary and the saints, kissing them and taking back flowers that have touched the statues etc. How far have these catholics deviated from the written word of the Bible and the Ten Commandments as revealed to Moses?

I myself do not approach the statues as often as I used to do previously. I also do not actively pray the rosary as I was used to doing when my parents were alive. Instead I meditate on the Passion of Christ as laid out in the fifteen prayers of St. Bridget of Sweden.

My heart aches for my child as I do not want her to be regarded as a ost soul by the church and I really wish to know that she too would be united with us in beholding the Beatific Vision in our after life.

I also wonder sometimes why our human minds should wander so far from the simple teachings laid out for us by the apostles in the New Testament. Could you as a community help me with your answers?

-- Rita Gregory (gregnraji@yahoo.com), January 11, 2005.


"I also do not actively pray the rosary as I was used to doing when my parents were alive. Instead I meditate on the Passion of Christ as laid out in the fifteen prayers of St. Bridget of Sweden."

If anything could adequately describe the Rosary, it would be exactly this: meditation on the Passion of Christ.

You want your daughter back, then say it every day for her until she comes home to the Catholic Church. Meditate on the Passion of Christ, especially, if you can, through the eyes of the Blessed Virgin. If you can come to understand the blood-less suffering of the Blessed Virgin, then you will then best know the bloody sacrifice of Christ through the eyes of the human being who love Him most.

Probing those depths will relate intrinsically to how you feel about your daughter's situation as well as provide the solution to it. Take confidence, pray the Rosary, gain hope, have Faith and never quit. Remember St. Monica, the mother the greatest Catholic theologians of all time, St. Augustine. There would have never been a St. Augustine had not his mother begged for his conversion first. Took her a good long time and a lot of suffering, too, but she never gave up and was ultimately a lot more than merely successful. She left us a legacy of a theological giant.

Take heart, pick up your Rosary and get to it.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), January 11, 2005.


You're a victim of your own fanaticism, Emmie.

Let's take your example of one ''change in doctrine''.

''Now if someone just happened to have actually read the canons of the dogmatic Council of Trent,'' --as valid material for rebutting us, -- Nothing you counter is ample enough to suppress an authorised Holy Mass in the vernacular. Much less bring on anathemas. The 2nd Vatican Council augments past councils; it was just as holy as Trent was. Go back and dig up twenty more anathemas; they won't limit or cancel any subsequent Church Council convened in the Holy Spirit.

In fact your quote allows vernacular Masses along with the Tridentine counterpart. It's all in the reading. Wonder if you knew the Holy Spirit can read? Yes. And, BTW-- I always loved the Tridentine Mass. I served as acolyte in that liturgy; ''qui laetificat juventutem meam,'' No one here is opposed to Latin in Church. But neither do I look down on Novus Ordo. You find me perverse, I guess.
--Ciao; stay out of trouble, Gemstone.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 11, 2005.


"Last Sunday I was suddenly faced with the thought that in the first commandment God did not want us to bow to any image or idol".

A: The first commandment certainly does not forbid a gesture of respect or reverence for another person, including a person represented by an image. Bowing is such a gesture of respect. The First Commandment forbids the WORSHIP of an image, or someone represented by an image, and so does the teaching of the Catholic Church. Therefore you are correct in saying that God does not want us to bow before an IDOL, for the definition of an idol is something or someone other than God, to which WORSHIP is offered. Idolatry in every form is specifically forbidden by Catholic teaching. However, you are incorrect in suggesting that a mere gesture of honor and respect given to a holy saint while viewing their image is inappropriate.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 12, 2005.


Would this include genuflecting before a statue?

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), January 12, 2005.

"You're a victim of your own fanaticism, Emmie."

Actually, no. I don't think I'm a victim, I don't like thinking like victims do, and I don't appreciate people who do think that way. You're merely hellbent on working it out to look victimhood. You set it up that way so you can knock it down. It's a variation of the strawman. It's nothing more than distraction from a valid topic of conversation.

"Let's take your example of one ''change in doctrine''."

Did I call it a change in doctrine? No, I did not call it a change in doctrine. You're assuming this, like you assume most everything. To disallow the Mass in the vulgar tongue is not a doctrine. I just asked you what you thought of that canon in light of the virtually universal presence of the vulgar tongue in the Roman Rite. I wanted you to respond to a valid question in order to point out your style of response.

It worked. There are any number of responses that could have been made by one who claims to have been around the block several times, is faithful as all getout, and stuff. Instead, you go on the defensive, and assign motive.

"Nothing you counter is ample enough to suppress an authorised Holy Mass in the vernacular. Much less bring on anathemas."

Why not just point out how many of the other valid rites of the Church make use of the vulgar tongue?

"The 2nd Vatican Council augments past councils; it was just as holy as Trent was."

It augments past councils? Can you explain exactly what you mean by this, and give references in support of it? I want to be sure this isn't just another private interpretation you offer here. I want to make sure that the Church actually teaches that the Second Vatican Council augments past councils. Sounds like your own idea.

At any rate, I thought I would throw the question out there in open format, ask your opinion of it, and see what the faithful one offers in response. Most of it is mere assigment of motive. Nothing I can sink my teeth into, though. Note, however, that I merely asked the question, not positing any position of my own. I just asked. That's it.

"In fact your quote allows vernacular Masses along with the Tridentine counterpart. It's all in the reading."

It isn't my quote; it belongs to Trent, but at any rate: it's all in the reading? You mean, in the interpretation of it? Is it really true that this 500 year old quote is actually really "allowing vernacular Masses", as if my eyes were deceiving me?

"Wonder if you knew the Holy Spirit can read? Yes."

No, I didn't wonder that. I do, however, why you would ask a bizarre question, let alone take it upon yourself to... answer it?

"And, BTW-- I always loved the Tridentine Mass. I served as acolyte in that liturgy; ''qui laetificat juventutem meam,''"

So what. You always loved the Tridentine Mass, and so now since you never go there, I'm supposed to believe that you loved it, and not go there anymore either?

"No one here is opposed to Latin in Church."

I don't recall asking anyone if they were. Nor can I recall sitting here and thinking that people were opposed the Latin language. Nor did I actually think that Latin itself is what all the fuss is about.

"But neither do I look down on Novus Ordo. You find me perverse, I guess."

Actually, no I don't. I simply wonder why you can't focus on a discussion without instead taking a catty focus on posters, and casting aspersions, and assigning motives. It doesn't offend me. It's just irritating, that's all. Someone originally asked a question about what happens to people who lose their Faith. Exactly how far afield are we now, anyways? Did I do that, or, did you do it? Far as I can recall, I gave pretty darn clear and pointed answer.

"--Ciao; stay out of trouble, Gemstone."

I'm not going anywhere. I'm going to stick around and wait patiently for your explanation of the vernacular thingy. A real, honest, and thoughtful explanation. I'd like to hear it.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), January 12, 2005.


For Eugene and Someone [emphasis added].

“Now this supernatural revelation, according to the belief of the universal church, as declared by the sacred council of Trent, is contained in written books and unwritten traditions, which were received by the apostles from the lips of Christ himself, or came to the apostles by the dictation of the holy Spirit, and were passed on as it were ***from hand to hand until they reached us***.”

“For the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed is put forward not as some philosophical discovery ***capable of being perfected by human intelligence***, but as a divine deposit committed to the spouse of Christ to be faithfully protected and infallibly promulgated.”

“Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and ***there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding***. “

“May understanding, knowledge and wisdom increase as ages and centuries roll along, and greatly and vigorously flourish, in each and all, in the individual and the whole church: ***but this only in its own proper kind, that is to say, in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding***”

“If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church ***which is different from*** that which the church has understood and understands: let him be anathema.”

the question, therefore, is how did Pope Eugene understand Cantate Domino? and how do we now understand it?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 12, 2005.


quotes are from Vatican I, see here: http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Valley/8920/churchcouncils/Ecum20. htm

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 12, 2005.

The Catholic Church cannot be in error..ever.

Only the human beings who APPLY it's teachings erroneously.

Vatican II never said that the Mass should be said "only in the vulgar languages"..Vatican II said that it CAN be said in the vernacular wherever individual bishops felt that doing so would be beneficial to the people. Even in the days of Trent, this had been permitted, albeit in a limited fashion.

The key here is "only"..celebrated ONLY in the vulgar languages.

When that door was opened, that it was the CHOICE of bishops..then most bishops in the USA immediately decided that it WOULD be beneficial to have the Mass in the vernacular. Unfortunately, the MESSAGE was erroneous..the MESSAGE was that it was the DIRECTIVE FROM THE VATICAN THAT LATIN WAS OUT AND THE VERNACULAR WAS IN.

Many things concerning Vatican II and their meanings have been misinterpreted and misapplied. This can be laid at the door of the HUMAN BEINGS who are responsible for guiding the faithful..NOT the Church itself.

Is there sacrilege within some individual parishes? Yes. Is there false teaching going on within some individual parishes? Yes. Are there bishops who ought not to be? Yes. Has this ever happened before in Church history? YES !!

Is there heresy within Vatican II? No.

The difficulty in understanding this is that within our OWN lifetimes, we used to have stability within the Church. Complete stability. The world may have been insane, but one could go to Mass and breathe a sigh of relief..THERE nothing had changed in hundreds of years. God was SURELY there. His precense was palpable. One became uplifted..and the EXTERNALS were incredibly meaningful..each and every one of them. (see the Council of Trent's comments upon the necessity of externals).

And along came Vatican II..the Mass became less beautiful. Now all of you younger folks, hold your horses here and don't go nuts over this statement. It is TRUTH. I didn't say "less significant" or "less important" or "less in spiritual value"..I said LESS BEAUTIFUL.

I can compare it to your daughter getting married..In one instance, she wears a lovely gown, veil and carries a bouquet of roses..the Church is full of candlelight..the wedding guests are dressed in their best..the groom is in a tux..the organ plays splendidly. While the priest and her groom wait at the altar, you are overcome with happiness for her.

In another scenario, she wears a plain white dress, has no flowers, the church is bare..people wear blue jeans and tee-shirts, there is no music, and while the priest and her groom (wearing his work clothes) hang out at the "table" , you are happy she's getting married.

The sacrament of marriage is STILL full of grace. The MASS is STILL the MASS, yet one ceremony is more beautiful than the other.

As Catholics, it is imperative that we not beat each other up . To long for the Tridentine Mass, with all of it's inherent beauty and history and style of worship is NOT A BAD THING. People ought to be encouraged to attend the Trindentine Mass. It's an APPROVED Mass. So why not embrace those who love it? Why not go out of your way yourselves and attend one??????? LOve your fellow Catholics.

And those Catholics who do not feel comfortable with the "New " mass..why chastise those who do? These Catholics are not responsible for individual parishes who may be in error. If there are 200 parishes who are teaching falsely, that doesn't mean that the entire Church is in error. The "New mass" IS The mass..as is the old.To deny either one is to deny the Church.

To pick one another apart is so sad. Surely WE can be one.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), January 12, 2005.


Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I find the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass no less beautiful today than in earlier times. No less beautiful than it was at the Last Supper. Sure, some of the great marble altars were very beautiful. Others were downright ugly. But the altar is not the Mass. Music played on a great pipe organ can be beautiful and inspire reverence. Or not, depending on the ear of the beholder. Likewise with more modern music. But the music is not the Mass. A Mass celebrated without music is still the Mass, in all its glory and beauty.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 12, 2005.

Emerald,
What's this? ''your explanation of the vernacular thingy. A real, honest, and thoughtful explanation. I'd like to hear it.''

since your first four paragraphs were fairly distracted, between those and this last request you pretend to have taken the high ground, (fat chance,) why waste so much bzzz-bzzz? Such a tiresome display of your braggadocio. What about the vernacular? OK, you make it seem something that offends God. FINE,

But Jesus probably didn't speak Latin; a smattering of Greek, they think. His vernacular was Aramaic. Do you call Latin superior to Aramaic? Of course you don't. Why should you fuss about English or Spanish, or an Irish brogue at Holy Mass? Are you still the Elitist, who can't understand? What else about that thingy is bothering you? --

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 12, 2005.


Emmie:
You say you didn't quote from Trent. But you did.

This is one part. What I stated, ''it's in the reading''; wasn't about interpreting it. It's actually written, in your direct quote: ''or, that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only;'' and you haven't read the word ONLY.

The Novus Ordo Liturgy is just the new one, but it isn't the only one. We kept the Tridentine Liturgy; so it's not ONLY the vernacular in use today. There's a departure from that, to be sure. In many places; not in Rome. And a good thing; since vernacular liturgy helps in participation of the faithful. In 8th century Catholic churches the common language, though not ''vulgar'' as you like to scorn us, was Latin. Participation was no problem to them. Now it's changed. God can survive that, don't you suppose?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 12, 2005.


Emerald,

Since you've chosen to answer for John Smith, I'll answer:

"Why not start by assuming you DON'T fully understand what you read?" I would ask you, Frank, to do the same.

I most certainly do, Emerald. I think I'm wrong every day, and do NOT think I've got the *true* understanding of church documents, especially those written several hundred years ago dealing with a different culture for a different specific situation. Can you say the same?

You seem to be under the impression that to hold something by Faith is somehow related to understanding it. This is not the case. We hold the doctrines of the Faith without understanding them. If we could understand them, we wouldn't need to hold them by Faith. And technically, no, you don't need a catechism. They're supposed to be helpful, and some indeed are, but they aren't necessary

This response is irrelevant to the discussion. John was stating that the church was in error, I pointed out it wasn't. No one said anything about accepting articles of faith, of course we do that. The part about the catechism is to show how our *understanding* of the truth has progressed, or at least been clarified for our times. For a guy who quotes the popes from the middle ages in almost every post you write, it strikes me as very odd that you suddenly are saying how we don't need any of this accumulated wisdom of the church! Don't argue just for the sake of arguing, Emerald.

And yes, we know no more or no more deeply than the Christians of 100 A.D

Oh really? When was the canon of the Bible put together? The structure of the Trinity? The ability of the Pope to speak infallibly? There's a REASON the Holy Spirit keeps guiding our church.

"Sorry, but the errors you think you see aren't there, it's just the Devil trying to tempt you away from Christ's living church for a shadow of the church from the past."

I've noticed, with little exception, that those who do the accusing are always guilty of the exact same things which they accuse others of

Well, this is obviously an exception, lOL! Our church exists TODAY, we should love what the Christ and the Holy Spirit are telling us NOW. If you think the Devil is telling you to try and follow Christ and His church, you are very confused indeed.

Who the heck are you, Frank, to posit that "hey, it's the devil, and he is leading you out of the Church".

Answer: nobody. You can't do that.

Of course I can do that, not that it's binding, but I've got my opinion, and it's reasonably grounded. For example, the sspx founder was found by the pope to be in schism, as are all his followers in formal adherence to his schism, as you well know. Pope Eugene's quote that you love shows he should be in Hell for it, assuming there was no deathbed repentence. Disobedience to the church for whatever reason is NOT a good thing, and has serious consequences. Therefore, anyone espousing a similar belief should be warned that they could be in similar jeopardy. Seems pretty straightforward to me. The same goes for people on the left wing of the church.

"If any one saith, that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or, that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only

See, this is EXACTLY what I mean about reading, but not understanding. What was Latin to the church *and Europe* when it STARTED being used for the mass instead of Greek, and what was Latin to the church and Europe when this was written? What is Latin today, compared to the above? Emerald, we already know what you want. Since it is NOT the direction the church went, either the church is wrong, or YOU are wrong. For my soul, I'm sticking with the church. Doesn't it bother you that the Pope and Magesterium have said mass in the vernacular is fine, but you object? What does their leadership MEAN to you?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 12, 2005.


Dear Someone

"If everything were understood perfectly in AD100, why have a catechism or anything else?"

this is one reason why you should read the extracts from Vatican I posted above. this is one reason why i posted them.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 12, 2005.


Ian,

I didn't miss them, I got busy and had to return to work. I was not NOT answering them, and didn't mean to offend you.

May understanding, knowledge and wisdom increase as ages and centuries roll along, and greatly and vigorously flourish, in each and all, in the individual and the whole church: ***but this only in its own proper kind, that is to say, in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding***”

“If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church ***which is different from*** that which the church has understood and understands: let him be anathema

My reading of these selected quotes is that we are not to say that previous generations *misunderstood* something, but that we may well *more fully* understand something than they did. For historical examples, the clarification by the church of which books of the Bible were inspired, and which weren't, and what really IS the composition of the Trinity? On more modern topics, is there a required rite of mass, or language it should be said in where the right wing schismatics fell down? Or what can you NOT change from a mass to keep it from becoming not a mass anymore like the left wing has fallen on (such as not using bread or wine for the consecration of the host) and what is the correct response for them?

No one is saying our current wisdom proves the previous understanding of God's word to be WRONG, for the Holy Spirit does not guide the church astray, but again, it's foolish to say we don't have a *better* understanding of what the truth is than people did previously. If we did NOT have the Holy Spirit's guidance, the church would be pretty worthless other than to administer the sacraments, wouldn't it? God's truth is in its completeness beyond our understanding, and while we're here on Earth, it always will be. Hopefully though we don't get to the point of saying there's no way we can progress farther!

Frank

-- someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 12, 2005.


"I most certainly do, Emerald. I think I'm wrong every day, and do NOT think I've got the *true* understanding of church documents, especially those written several hundred years ago dealing with a different culture for a different specific situation. Can you say the same?"

No.

"The part about the catechism is to show how our *understanding* of the truth has progressed, or at least been clarified for our times ... For a guy who quotes the popes from the middle ages in almost every post you write, it strikes me as very odd that you suddenly are saying how we don't need any of this accumulated wisdom of the church!"

Read:

"It remains for Us now to say a few words about the Modernist as reformer. From all that has preceded, it is abundantly clear how great and how eager is the passion of such men for innovation. In all Catholicism there is absolutely nothing on which it does not fasten. They wish philosophy to be reformed, especially in the ecclesiastical seminaries. They wish the scholastic philosophy to be relegated to the history of philosophy and to be classed among absolute systems, and the young men to be taught modern philosophy which alone is true and suited to the times in which we live. They desire the reform of theology: rational theology is to have modern philosophy for its foundation, and positive theology is to be founded on the history of dogma. As for history, it must be written and taught only according to their methods and modern principles. Dogmas and their evolution, they affirm, are to be harmonized with science and history. In the Catechism no dogmas are to be inserted except those that have been reformed and are within the capacity of the people. Regarding worship, they say, the number of external devotions is to he reduced, and steps must be taken to prevent their further increase, though, indeed, some of the admirers of symbolism are disposed to be more indulgent on this head. They cry out that ecclesiastical government requires to be reformed in all its branches, but especially in its disciplinary and dogmatic departments They insist that both outwardly and inwardly it must be brought into harmony with the modern conscience which now wholly tends towards democracy; a share in ecclesiastical government should therefore be given to the lower ranks of the clergy and even to the laity and authority which is too much concentrated should be decentralized The Roman Congregations and especially the index and the Holy Office, must be likewise modified The ecclesiastical authority must alter its line of conduct in the social and political world; while keeping outside political organizations it must adapt itself to them in order to penetrate them with its spirit. With regard to morals, they adopt the principle of the Americanists, that the active virtues are more important than the passive, and are to be more encouraged in practice. They ask that the clergy should return to their primitive humility and poverty, and that in their ideas and action they should admit the principles of Modernism; and there are some who, gladly listening to the teaching of their Protestant masters, would desire the suppression of the celibacy of the clergy. What is there left in the Church which is not to be reformed by them and according to their principles?"

End quote. 1907. Less than 100 years ago, Pope St. Pius X in Pascendi Dominici Gregis. I left the italics off so that you wouldn't get the impression the Pius X was, well, leaning to far to the right or something.

But his description of what he doesn't like about modernism? That's where the Church is now. The Church, generically, fits to a T the very description of what he doesn't like about modernism. He's describing the way you guys think through and through, over a broad array of topics, from science to salvation to liturgy to politics to devotion.

I said "And yes, we know no more or no more deeply than the Christians of 100 A.D" and then you said "Oh really? When was the canon of the Bible put together? The structure of the Trinity? The ability of the Pope to speak infallibly?"

That's correct, none of those things constitute a new understanding. In fact, a pope's invoking of his authority Ex Cathedra never has been construed to produce a new understanding, but rather, the action of infallible declaration only ever meant that he was excercising his office to make absolutely clear that which had already and always been known by the Church but which, for whatever reason, had become the subject of doubt or debate, and he's going to definitively call doubt and debate to a close, by his authoritative and clear pronouncement. You guys still seem to have this concept of the office of the papacy that seems to entail the pope dreaming up new stuff by the power of the Holy Ghost. You make it sound like the Pope was the chairman of the Fed, making adjustments and moving markets.

"Emerald, we already know what you want. Since it is NOT the direction the church went, either the church is wrong, or YOU are wrong."

I can't be wrong. I've got the pope's blessing and approval, and the bishops have been ordered by the Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church to provide me with a Latin Mass. They are under pain of obedience to get me my Latin Mass.

"For my soul, I'm sticking with the church. Doesn't it bother you that the Pope and Magesterium have said mass in the vernacular is fine, but you object? What does their leadership MEAN to you?"

No, it doesn't bother me at all. Like I said, I've got the Pope's endorsement. "rightful aspirations", he calls it. Do you disagree with the Pope here or what?

What does their leadership mean to me? Proximately, it means they need to obey Pope John Paul II and provide us all with the Traditional Mass. I'm lucky here... our modernist bishop at least obeyed the pope; got to at least hand it to him for that.

But deeper, though. Deeper: what does their leadership mean to me? Well, in principle, it means that they are to adhere entirely to the Deposit of Faith as it has been handed down, intact, to us from the Apostles. And they are supposed to encourage the flock in holiness and virtue and all kinds of neat stuff like that.

You know, all the stuff most of them never seem to get around to doing.

But you think I've gone off in the wrong direction, even though I've got the Pope's blessing and approval, eh?

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), January 13, 2005.


"The Catholic Church cannot be in error..ever."

Of course not.

"Only the human beings who APPLY it's teachings erroneously."

Right. One of the all-out most common ways Catholics do this today is by carrying around ideas which they claim are teachings of the Church, or doctrines or dogmas, which actually really are not. Or, they claim things aren't teachings that really are teachings.

"Vatican II never said that the Mass should be said "only in the vulgar languages"..Vatican II said that it CAN be said in the vernacular wherever individual bishops felt that doing so would be beneficial to the people. Even in the days of Trent, this had been permitted, albeit in a limited fashion."

It is only through a very long and arduous debate with most Catholics that you will finally get them to admit that assisting at a Latin Mass is perfectly permissable. Before any such conversation, they'll tell you quite confidently that Rome won't permit it, or that to the desire to attend one is wrongheaded, disobedient, or dissident.

This idea is instilled in their heads by laity and clergy who want people to think that. I know this for a fact, because I've talked with many of them personally. It is an absolute fact that they want it suppressed, and encourage people to believe that it is in fact forbidden or at least suppressed or discouraged. This is because they are more or less imbued with the revolutionary ideas which Pope St. Pius X spoke out against in Pascendi Dominici Gregis and Lamentabili Sane.

"The key here is "only"..celebrated ONLY in the vulgar languages. When that door was opened, that it was the CHOICE of bishops..then most bishops in the USA immediately decided that it WOULD be beneficial to have the Mass in the vernacular. Unfortunately, the MESSAGE was erroneous..the MESSAGE was that it was the DIRECTIVE FROM THE VATICAN THAT LATIN WAS OUT AND THE VERNACULAR WAS IN."

Right. Right right right right right. Yes!

"Many things concerning Vatican II and their meanings have been misinterpreted and misapplied. This can be laid at the door of the HUMAN BEINGS who are responsible for guiding the faithful..NOT the Church itself."

Right. But don't forget to notice how the built-in ambiguity of those documents carved a path for anyone who wanted to depart from the clarity and precision of the Deposit of Faith, and walk off in a direction which favors their own private interpretation. Most of their interpretations can be said to be of the revolutionary ideals of the Enlightenment, modern philosophy, democratic government, "progress", materialism, and humanism. In other words, any interpretation will be chosen which would make the Catholic person slide in easily with the thoughts and lifestyles of the rest of the non- or anti-Catholic society. The ambiguity and imprecision allow for this.

"Is there sacrilege within some individual parishes? Yes. Is there false teaching going on within some individual parishes? Yes. Are there bishops who ought not to be? Yes. Has this ever happened before in Church history? YES !!"

I agree.

"Is there heresy within Vatican II? No."

The documents have this very unique character about them, that in most cases allow for either a traditional view or a progressive view. That's the power of ambiguity, and of course, people walk off with whichever take on them which they prefer.

Some, however, can be argued to be heterodox. There's absolutely nothing un-Catholic in saying this. Pastoral texts of this character do not, and never have, come under the umbrella of those things which speak with dogmatic or infallible pretext. In order to qualify as dogmatic or infallible declarations, the documents need to assume a certain specified formality, something which the documents of Vatican II self-admittedly do not possess.

Perhaps two years ago now, I asked "what are the new teachings of Vatican II". To date I have received no answer.

"The difficulty in understanding this is that within our OWN lifetimes, we used to have stability within the Church. Complete stability. The world may have been insane, but one could go to Mass and breathe a sigh of relief..THERE nothing had changed in hundreds of years. God was SURELY there. His precense was palpable. One became uplifted..and the EXTERNALS were incredibly meaningful..each and every one of them. (see the Council of Trent's comments upon the necessity of externals)."

Absolutely the truth.

"And along came Vatican II..the Mass became less beautiful. Now all of you younger folks, hold your horses here and don't go nuts over this statement. It is TRUTH. I didn't say "less significant" or "less important" or "less in spiritual value"..I said LESS BEAUTIFUL."

Agreed.

"As Catholics, it is imperative that we not beat each other up.

Yes. In fact, the essence of schism actually consists principally of sin against charity. Heresy is a sin against the Faith. But schism is a sin against charity.

"To pick one another apart is so sad. Surely WE can be one."

It is sad. It'll be that way until the Blessed Virgin Mary gets around to fixing it.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), January 13, 2005.


Frank

Thanks for getting back. This post is a bit waffly, but I am trying to work through some stuff in my head.

You say: “My reading of these selected quotes is that we are not to say that previous generations *misunderstood* something, but that we may well *more fully* understand something than they did.”

Well, this is why I posted this: “Now this supernatural revelation, according to the belief of the universal church, as declared by the sacred council of Trent, is contained in written books and unwritten traditions, which were received by the apostles from the lips of Christ himself, or came to the apostles by the dictation of the holy Spirit, and were passed on as it were ***from hand to hand until they reached us***.”

In practical terms, this means that had the Council of Jerusalem been convened to consider the false teachings of Arius or Luther, the Apostles would have given the same Dogmatic definitions that were in fact given by Nicaea or Trent.

It’s probably true to say that the **lay Catholic** now understands these matters better, because we only see the Dogma when the Church reveals it to us. However, the current Church knows no less than the Apostles would have known.

That does not mean that every single bishop knows all the Dogma. That is why, so it seems from the Councils etc, that the Bishops and/or the Pope deliberate(s) over prior teachings of the Church, thereby drawing on the Church’s collective memory – and relying upon the Holy Spirit to make them “get it right”.

I have tried to stress-test this – for example, might the Apostles have known of the Assumption? Well that might depend upon when Mary died, before or after the Apostles, or it could have been known to them all from the earliest time that Mary would be drawn up into Heaven? Feasible. Stress-test passed.

The filioque – where did this come from and why was it considered a **new addition** to the Creed? That’s a real tricky one for me.

The filioque appears from history to have originated in Spain and other Roman territories affected by Arianism. That does not, btw, rule out is having been passed to the local bishops from the Apostles.

But it was not included in the original creed, which had been refined several times in Council sans filioque, and finally entrenched at Ephesus.

I guess that we must look at that in the context of the Dogma of the Church – ie, as you argue, this may be a “better understanding” because it clarifies what we all believe – that Christ is God: BUT without changing the sense of the Dogma of the Trinity which is what the creed protects and defines. The alternative would have been to amend the creed so as to accept Arianism – and that would have denied the Divinity of Jesus, a real shift in the sense of the Dogma of the Trinity.

Well, this is tricky because the addition of the filioque is an addition and a better understanding, but it is slight in many ways and does not change the substantive sense of the Trinity. I would not lose a great deal of sleep here, I guess.

However, cutting to the chase, isn’t there a real shift in the sense of EENS, from Cantate Domino to modern thoughts that the Church of Christ, and Salvation, subsists non-exclusively in the Catholic Church? Or that salvation is not exclusively for Catholics in the Church and subject to the Pope? This is more than a “tweak to correct a heresy” – it stands the teaching on its head.

The same goes for Baptism by Desire or Blood, when the Pope clearly instructed the repatriated Churches of the East in the form of Baptism at Florence. There is not even a whisper of Baptism other than by Water. There are various Dogmatic teachings that the Sacrament fails without Water. Children are to be baptised as a matter of urgency.

My concern is not directly related to EENS or Salvation – to be absolutely clear on that point. This conundrum speaks about the whole integrity of Mother Church. Do I now reject Catholicism in toto, because there is actually no infallibility attached to the Church, and without the Dogma, where are we? If EENS is wrong, what about the Trinity? The Marian Dogma? The Real Presence? The Church becomes a large society that is just fumbling about as blindly as any protestant pastor, trying to make sense of the Faith.



-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 13, 2005.


here's the second part of an inteview given just recently by the Cardinal of England to the Catholic Herald, an English. sorry its so long - i had to scan it as i could not find a link. the most interesting parts are right at the end but i thought the whole context would avoid any misleading.

Q: Jesus instituted the sacraments to communicate divine grace to his followers. Is it conceivable that we can have a revival in the Church without a rediscovery of the sacraments, particularly the sacrament of reconciliation and the sacrament of the Eucharist?

A: You can't divorce the revival of the Church from the celebration of the sacraments. Remember, the sacraments are celebrations of faith. So we're talking about, how do you renew faith? Faith is renewed by prayer, by the Word of God in Scriptures, by witness to the faith. When this happens, the celebration of the faith becomes more reverent.

Naturally, I regret if there is any lack of reverence, especially towards the Holy Eucharist. I've just written a letter on the Holy Eucharist, coinciding with the Year Of the Eucharist, to encourage people to understand more deeply the gift of that sacrament, to celebrate it more reverently and to realise that the day of the Lord is the day of the Lord, that Sunday is a special day.

“At Your Word, Lord” [the pastoral renewal programme of the Archdiocese of Westminster] is particularly connected with people reading the Gospel and nourishing their faith, which enables them to celebrate the sacraments more worthily, I think.

The sacrament of reconciliation is something we will need to pay attention to. The celebration of this sacrament has varied a lot over the course of the Church's history. Bishops, priests and lay people must continue to reflect on how they celebrate the forgiveness of Christ given through the Church in this sacrament.

Q: So, the present form of confession might not be appropriate for our age?

A: I’ve got to keep asking myself: "Why is it that people are not frequenting the sacrament as often as perhaps they should?" When I was a boy we went to Confession once a week, or once a month anyway. Now, a lot of people only a once or twice a year, if that. I think that the Church must continue to urge people to frequent this sacrament and find ways of celebrating it that actually reflect the needs of the people for forgiveness of sins. It's a big question... I'll think I'll leave it like that.

Q: Many people in this country, including Christians, are confused about what the Church teaches about life after death. To judge from films and fantasy novels, the people of our time have an intense interest in the afterlife. And yet, if they were to go to a Catholic church, they would be unlikely to hear a homily about heaven, hell and purgatory. Has the Church lost the confidence to proclaim that there will be a final reckoning after death?

A: The four last things death, judgment, heaven - and hell - are realities. They should be preached I do so myself, particularly in November, at the time of the feasts of All Saints and All Souls. If there is any reluctance - and I wouldn't necessarily accept that there is - then I would be sorry about that, because we are bound to believe, and we do believe, not only the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, but in our own resurrection at the last

With regard to purgatory, all I can say is that most of us feel that when we die, we are not ready for the beatific vision. And, however God is going to purify us, the Church expresses that through its doctrine on purgatory.

I often tell people to read or listen to The Dream of Gerontius, that wonderful poem of Newman, where, Gerontius is confronted by God as he is dying and wants to be prepared for the Beatific Vision. It's beautifully expressed in words - I don't think I could do it better.

Q: And hell?

A: We're not bound to believe that anybody's there, let's face it. But certainly in the Scriptures there's a stark' confrontation between heaven and hell.

But when Jesus talks about hell, it's also exhorting people to repent, to turn away. It is in the context not of "you will be damned", but "repent and turn to God". I believe that hell exists and it is really the absence of God.

Q: What do you think heaven is like?

A: Well, I have not seen nor yet heard what God has prepared for those who love him, as St Paul says. Heaven for me is communio. It's communion with other people, communion with the infinite beauty and blessedness of God, communion with myself in a new, strange way. And it's a communion that gives everlasting joy.

I cannot think of heaven without thinking of being in communion with all the saints and with all the people I've loved on this earth.

Q: It is sometimes said that there will be a separate heaven for Bavarians because they would not be in a state of eternal happiness if they had to share heaven with the Prussians. Will Catholics and Protestants be together in heaven?

A: I hope they won't be separate. I think that the divisions manifest here on earth will be reconciled in some mysterious way in heaven. I'm not thinking just of Catholics and Protestants, but people of other faiths and people of no faith. We are all children of God.

Q: So we shouldn't be surprised if we were to meet in heaven someone who was a Muslim or an atheist on earth?

A: I hope I will be surprised in heaven... I think I will be.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 13, 2005.


Emerald,

Read my response to Jake on This thread. I'll pray for you, and I hope you'll do the same for me. I've had enough of this stuff for now.

Ian,

In practical terms, this means that had the Council of Jerusalem been convened to consider the false teachings of Arius or Luther, the Apostles would have given the same Dogmatic definitions that were in fact given by Nicaea or Trent.

I agree 100%. The guidance of the Holy Spirit will always give the same answer, because there is only one *true* answer.

My point is that each generation has its own issues to deal with, and what was NOT understood as universally true in the past is taken for granted today. So we are getting more refined, even if nothing technically *new* is discovered, it sure seems that way to us living IN the problem at the time. In proof of this, at each definining of a truth, this was either in response to a heresy that was present, or ended up causing a schism (for example the Arians and Old Catholics respectively) The church doesn't just define things for the heck of it.

It’s probably true to say that the **lay Catholic** now understands these matters better, because we only see the Dogma when the Church reveals it to us. However, the current Church knows no less than the Apostles would have known.

I would disagree with this, some heresies were quite widespread, and I do not think it would be unfair to say that some untrue or unsound practices were/are firmly believed by a reasonable number of the clergy as well as their flock, with more issues of basic misunderstanding centuries ago, and more issues of disobedience or willful misunderstanding today, perhaps. The Holy Spirit will always guide the church, but individual clergy (or the faithful) can go astray. In reading your next paragraphs, I think you may agree with this, otoh, you may not :-)

isn’t there a real shift in the sense of EENS, from Cantate Domino to modern thoughts that the Church of Christ, and Salvation, subsists non-exclusively in the Catholic Church? Or that salvation is not exclusively for Catholics in the Church and subject to the Pope?

Oh, I think you can find your modern-day leftist schismatic who will say that just like it wouldn't have been hard to bump into an Arian in the 300's. But that doesn't mean the *church* is promoting this, just that some of its clergy are. The truth is still the truth. Remember also that in the 1400-1500s it was easy to say the whole world had heard the Gospel, when the explorers started coming back, from places outside Europe, it was easy to show that this was not the case, causing the church to rethink how it spoke and thought.

The same goes for Baptism by Desire or Blood, when the Pope clearly instructed the repatriated Churches of the East in the form of Baptism at Florence. There is not even a whisper of Baptism other than by Water. There are various Dogmatic teachings that the Sacrament fails without Water. Children are to be baptised as a matter of urgency.

I've always liked the good thief as proof of the baptism of desire. Christ didn't get down off the cross and baptism him with water, and yet said he would be with Him that day in Paradise. How could this be if there was no possibility of salvation without water baptism?

This conundrum speaks about the whole integrity of Mother Church. Do I now reject Catholicism in toto, because there is actually no infallibility attached to the Church, and without the Dogma, where are we? If EENS is wrong, what about the Trinity? The Marian Dogma? The Real Presence? The Church becomes a large society that is just fumbling about as blindly as any protestant pastor, trying to make sense of the Faith.

Oh, I understand this completely. And if you can't trust the church, why bother trusting the Bible either? Try and put yourself back in time when one of the Big heresies was occuring. Your pastor, and even Bishop may have been teaching you falsehood! Since at that time people didn't travel much, if at all, and for the most part couldn't even read, it's quite possible that if born in the wrong spot could live your whole life believing a non-truth. The church however, was still teaching the truth, even if you didn't benefit from it. The error would not be yours, nor would the responsibility for it, but would belong to those who taught you. In the end, these errors were corrected, and the church continued. The way I look at it is it doesn't really matter how widespread the heresy is, the Holy Spirit has promised to stay with the church, and sooner or later it will be corrected.

So we shouldn't be surprised if we were to meet in heaven someone who was a Muslim or an atheist on earth?

A: I hope I will be surprised in heaven... I think I will be.

LOL, this guy's last line sums up this philosophy too!

Frank



-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 13, 2005.


''. . . we shouldn't be surprised if we were to meet in heaven someone who was a Muslim or an atheist on earth ? ? ?

There's no way for the unrepentent atheist to enter rheaven. He dies in his sins, to all intent and purposes. A muslim has the advantage of acknowledging the sins he commits and even from his bad start, (Islam) imploring God's mercy and forgiveness. It's no big job then; for God to see if the poor soul was innocent of rejecting Jesus Christ. Because he was doing so unwittingly. He might find forgiveness.

I always stress the concept of this invincible ignorance; as well as the baptismal reality he would be granted with forgiveness of sins. Not more nor less than was granted the repentent Thief on the cross. He was included in that number called the Catholic Church.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 13, 2005.


Eugene and Frank,

if hanging yr hats (Baptism of Desire) on St Dismas, please explain the following:

--- St Dismas was promised that he would be in Paradise with Jesus "TODAY": yet Jesus, according to our creed, descended into Hell, and did not actually Ascend into "Paradise" for some period.

--- and by that same token, when did the Old Law terminate? St Dismas would have been circumcised, most likely, as a Jew, as Jesus was. surely Jesus could not have fulfilled the Old Law until His Death? was that not when the New Law of Baptism really kicked in. [cf St Matthew 5:17-19]

--- furthermore, isn't it quite something else for Jesus to forgive a man personally, Jesus being God, and the Church yet having to be fully constituted with its Sacraments and it Dogma at Pentecost. could the Church become the Mystical Body of Christ before the Sacrifice was completed by His Death on the Cross?

--- and St Disma was, of course, alive when he repented. he did not die in Original Sin in the same way as anyone, suffering from Invincible Ignorance, who seems to be able to repent and desire Baptism after death in this new Baptism of Desire. Cantate Domino requires communion with the Church pre-death.

....and if any of these sound silly (surely not!), well, if you are looking for a concrete Divinely Inspired steer on Baptism, try the Bible and Trent - "If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema."

Eugene,

why do you draw this distinction between Atheist and Moslem? it is false, imho. both deny Jesus' Divinity. the Gospel requires faith in Jesus. the Moslems regard Him as a prophet. you can be an Atheist just by being ignorant of God, or having no particular view either way. there is no need to actively and passionately deny God's existence. therefore, if you look at this in the sense of fault, as seems to be the case, can you really fault any young atheist (sense: indifferent, ignorant, mal-informed) growing up in the modern world to atheist parents and surrounded by atheist standards? IE isn't this how invincible ignorance leads to universalism - where a Catholic Cardinal can relegate Hell to an absence of God, and seems to consider it to be empty in any event [and then wonders why no-one is pitching up for Confession]. he also btw, presumes his own salvation, the issue that saw the Pharisee trumped by the Tax Collector.

thanks, btw, for yr time. i'll read the rest of yr posts in more detail.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 13, 2005.


Emerald,

I previously thought that you attended masses at SSPX chapels, but now I'm confused. Does the bishop "allow" you to assist at SSPX masses or do you attend an indult mass?

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), January 13, 2005.


I draw no such distinction. I refer to the sins they commit. It is sin that bars the way to heaven. And there is repentence; even before Christ. But not forgiveness, since it's God's to grant, and only through his Holy Son.

A Muslim may repent deeply of his every conscious sin. He can't repent what he doesn't know for a sin. By calling Christ an ordinary prophet, he sins unwittingly. That's ignorance. He has believed another set of doctrines as if they were true. What is that but a clean conscience? Here is where God alone is our judge.

But innocence of that sin isn't forgiveness for all the sins he commits in a lifetime. He is bound by conscience to confess and repent of them all. If not, invincible ignorance of the Gospel won't help. He will be damned. He will die in his sins. Just as the atheist dies; since how can he confess? Therefore, we maintain (in the Catholic Church) that invincible ignorance PLUS-- forgiveness of all sin may yet save a soul. Not invincible ignorance per se.

As for the Good Thief on the cross; yes; you may try to cover over facts. But Christ clearlt forgave him at the hour of death, and he wasn't baptised. Or-- did Christ baptise Him (spiritually) on the spot? God is LOVE, not ANGER.

But NO! You and your experts on theological brain-twisters have taken the letter of the law; a document--

To mean Jesus Christ could not accomplish that without water. ''It says here . . .'' --only shows YOU are in invincible ignorance yourselves. Because the Bible is replete with passages that tell us you're wrong. Christ prayed quite literally: ''Father, forgive them for they know not what they do.''

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 13, 2005.


"As for the Good Thief on the cross; yes; you may try to cover over facts."

not true Eugene. i merely asked some direct questions that you are free to answer. the main point, however, was that to use St Dismas as Scriptural support for Baptism of Desire is speculative to say the least. that's what the questions tell me, anyway.

the further contradiction is this: you use the quote "''Father, forgive them for they know not what they do."

well, why in that instance does Jesus beg forgiveness from the Father, as if He were an Intercessor rather than God? that quote does not sit easily with the notion that Jesus dispensed forgiveness Himself to St Dismas. i think that this is why we have the Church and its Dogma and why the Church has lasted so long. the Bible is a very confusing Book. no person can interpret it: God does that for us via His Church.

we leave it to the protestants to build whole theories around single verses.

but as for the distinction between an Atheist and a Moslem that you make - you are OK with the Moslem for not accepting Jesus as God, because he doesn't know better - but, really, he does not accept God as God then, does he?

..and why therefore condemn the atheist who too doesn't know better.

...not least because every human being, of any or no religious persuasion, experiences regret. why therefore be legalistic and confine salvation to those that regret sin, but aim it at a god or frame it as repentance to a god?

Einstein believed in God, you may know, but not a god that any Christian or Moslem might recognise. in fact, i can't even begin to explain or understand it myself - but this god was basically something that wasn't remotely interested in us, nor could we ever get even close to it.

i don't know if he directed his regret at his failings towards this god or if he considered that a waste of time. but, whichever, he's no different, if we base salvation upon our own personal take on fault and liability, from a Jew or a Moslem or an Atheist or an Agnostic, surely?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 13, 2005.


Nothing personal Ian,
But what a foolish man you're proving you are. Go on believing you're more just than God. ''We leave it to the protestants to build whole theories around single verses.'' Single verses??? I've tried to explain a Catholic teaching. Not my theory. It's God who taught us; the Son of God. You didn't pay attention to all His words.

You stick to a single sentence out of a Papal bull; and it over-rides the infinite wisdom of God, for your taste. (Not even theory, just taste.) Haven't you supported everything you THINK is true, using only ONE, or what? phrases from Trent? You are NEVER uncertain, because you cling to that model of Holy Baptism on grounds of ONE sentence. But baptism isn't taught that way in Catholic theology. It definitely includes Baptism of Desire, Blood and of course in the ordinary way, water.

I don't reject the Popes. I try to understand them, in the contexts proper to their times. You have one over-riding fetish: pessimism. Hell is all you preach; for the others.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 13, 2005.


Ian,

that quote does not sit easily with the notion that Jesus dispensed forgiveness Himself to St Dismas. i think that this is why we have the Church and its Dogma and why the Church has lasted so long. the Bible is a very confusing Book. no person can interpret it: God does that for us via His Church.

we leave it to the protestants to build whole theories around single verses.

EXACTLY! Trust the church to use the Holy Spirit's guidance to tell you the right answer, and don't try and say you know better than the church about what is dogma and what isn't. If the church says baptism of desire or blood is possible, use the wisdom you've shown above and trust them.

Re-look at all the posts above, and apply that wisdom to your own concerns. If you don't understand something, ask "what does the church say is true?" and accept that as the truth. Leave the schism and heresy to others.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 13, 2005.


"I previously thought that you attended masses at SSPX chapels, but now I'm confused."

I don't.

"Does the bishop "allow" you to assist at SSPX masses or do you attend an indult mass?"

Rome itself finally had to admit that it was ok to assist at the SSPX masses, that it fulfilled one's Sunday obligation, and that you could even drop a couple bucks in the collection basket if you wished.

But that's old news. I don't know if you've had a chance to follow the news recently, but get this: Rome itself isn't even so sure anymore that the SSPX is in schism. They're trying to redefine it now, not as schism, but as imperfect union or some type of irregular status, or some other watered down lingo. In other words, they not even sure themselves anymore.

Basically, they're already backing off their original claim of schism. The truth will prevail eventually.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), January 13, 2005.


"But what a foolish man you're proving you are. Go on believing you're more just than God."

Gene, stop trying to be God. Quit judging people.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), January 13, 2005.


For an SSPX apologist, Emerald does not attend SSPX Masses. He certainly does not practice what he preaches.

-- J. Greene (jtg878@hotmail.com), January 14, 2005.

How ironic, Emmie. I told Ian he believes he is more just than God. With reason.

You say I'm judging Ian? He believes none are saved except when HE judges them baptised. I maintain God should make that judgment. Not Ian or me or you. but he read a Pope's words. That means God can no longer interfere? But I wonder why?

Didn't Christ say that nothing is impossible with God?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 14, 2005.


"How ironic, Emmie. I told Ian he believes he is more just than God. With reason."

Without just reason.

"You say I'm judging Ian?"

Yes.

"He believes none are saved except when HE judges them baptised."

No he doesn't.

-- Emerald (em@cox.net), January 14, 2005.


"If you don't understand something, ask "what does the church say is true?" and accept that as the truth."

That's exactly what he has been doing all along, that you haven't been doing.

From what I've seen of Ian, he's one of the few people that has actually been doing exactly what you say he ought to be doing.

Both of you, Frank and you Gene, are so upside down in these discussions that you're actually guilty of every fault you levy against others, while they are actually for the most part blameless.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), January 14, 2005.


With reason."
Without just reason.

"You say I'm judging Ian?"
Yes.

"He believes none are saved except when HE judges them baptised."
No he doesn't.

Haven't you left out one answer, Emerald? To this?
''Didn't Christ say that nothing is impossible with God?''

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 14, 2005.


Emerald,

thanks for the kind words. sticks and stones!

Eugene,

forget about me/ your views of me: they are irrelevant. let's talk about St Dismas. i have given you reasons why St Dismas may have been saved. the best, probably, is that he lived under the Old Law. do you still think that this short verse supports Baptism by Desire?

as for the "a single sentence out of a Papal bull" OR "using only ONE, or what? phrases from Trent?" OR "that model of Holy Baptism on grounds of ONE sentence", well look back up this thread and you will see that this is plainly untrue. there is a whole gamut of teaching, in multiple Councils through the ages. remember, Councils tend to consider specific issues of the Faith and produce Dogma, detailed explanations of matters that must be believed. look at the Canons on Baptism or the Sacraments in General in Trent. read them through, Eugene.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 14, 2005.


Ian,

Just to be clear then, in your opinion every baby that dies before baptism, everyone in China who has never heard of Christianity, they all go straight to Hell with no chance of salvation?

Do not simply quote something, I'm asking here if YOU believe that is the meaning of what the church teaches.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 14, 2005.


well Frank, for starters, figuring out what a Catholic SHOULD believe is the real challenge for me. if i have given the impression that i am trying to force an agenda, i apologise. i am looking for help/ ideas.

..and if i can be absolutely blunt with you, i see Dogma of the Church that is self-explanatory, and i see these whisty repostes that are just far too nebulous and ambiguous. i can only be honest with you.

as to what i "think" is the correct belief - well, Limbo gave us something to hope for. it is what i confidently hope for my my child, and my niece, both of whom died in the womb. that does not stop me hoping or praying for more, though.

i am going to Hell - always, and for good reason, my working assumption - so i might well get to see them both.

the same goes for Cantate Domino. Pope Eugene condemned many to the "everlasting fires of Hell", but again we know that the punishment there is a function of the worthiness of the person's life [my layman-speak]. i think i can hope for the best, and for a little better, and remain Catholic.

as for EENS and related issues, in and of themselves, they are really just sideshows. but they are also litmus tests of orthodoxy. that's how i see it. show me if i'm wrong.

....does that answer the question adequately?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 14, 2005.


I suppose so. As far as I know, Limbo doesn't exist, nor does the church say people end up there. It was just a speculation. You either end up in Heaven or Hell. Therefore, if I'm understanding you correctly, you interpret church documents to mean that any unbaptised babies who die before the possibility of baptism will end up in eternal torment ABSOLUTELY, without even a chance of having a loving and merciful God intervene for them.

I can see why you'd have problems with the Catholic faith. If I thought that way, I'd have problems with it too.

As an aside, what did Jesus' suffering and death for our sakes do for these children who did not sin of their own volition, ever, and bear only original sin? Nothing at all?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 14, 2005.


Ian,
It's good to know now, you are looking for help. Ideas.
Because our aim is to keep you thinking, to save you from becoming altogether hidebound, as some here became. To offer you more common-sense ideas about doctrine.

Emerald is hidebound; unable to think over anything any longer; and his last post suggested only ''trads'' really think there's no salvation outside the Catholic Church.

For years I've tried to explain to him; we are traditional; all present members of the Church. None of us is about to jettison the holiness of the Church for modernism. The fact we'e all sinners doesn't make us less traditional than he or you. Traditionists of pre-Vatican II sin too.

There really cannot be salvation outside the Catholic Church. I agree. Yet, by God's love and His grace some good souls can be admitted into her, as ''stowaway converts''. The ones who appeal to God one-on-one, so much that their desire to be united with Him is tantamount to a baptism of Desire.

This doesn't run counter to long-established Catholic belief. I can quote from sources so traditional one could call them reactionary. What they teach is orthodox indeed, Catholic bedrock. Water baptism takes first place to sure. Nevertheless, second and third consideration is clearly given to the baptism of Desire and of Blood. Many years prior to the reign of John XXIII. So, what we've brought forward here is no radical change in dogma, no upsetting of the traditional baptism. FAR from saying there is any alternative to salvation in the Catholic Church.

Add to that the many and diverse proofs from the words of Christ in the gospels. I only cited one that's obvious, ''Them also I must bring, and they shall hear MY VOICE, and there shall be one fold and One Shepherd.'' (John 10, :16.)

You take issue with one anaolgy, the good Thief's salvation.

Well; we can contemplate that one. He was certainly not saved on account of the mosaic Law, because he din't keep the Law. If he had, why would the saint confess he was about to die crucified, as he deserved ? No; he owed his last-minute salvation entirely to God's MERCY. The same way baptism of Desire is obtained. There are so many examples in the New Testament and Old; of Mercy and reconciliation between men and God; that disputing a possibility of some repentent soul's admission into the Church by DESIRE for baptism is unworthy of a Catholic.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 14, 2005.


Frank

as you will know, Limbo is what the Church has thought for eons, but not as Dogma. now, even in the CCC, where Limbo has been swept under the carpet, there is expressed but a hope that the Mercy of God will prevail. that's not really very different from Limbo or what i have said? why do you think it is different? how does the new teaching offer anything greater to these children? at least with Limbo, there was a hope of perfect natural happiness; and we are allowed to pray for miracles, aren't we?

Pope Innocent III: "The punishment of original sin is deprivation of the vision of God, but the punishment of actual sin is the torments of everlasting hell." "As an aside, what did Jesus' suffering and death for our sakes do for these children who did not sin of their own volition, ever, and bear only original sin? Nothing at all?"

i don't know. the CCC doesn't know.

and, moreover, are you saying that Original Sin is irrelevant? why does it ever need to be forgiven if it is irrelevant to Salvation? what is justification?

aren't we all completely undeserving specks of worthless dust. Salvation is a gift -- that we could never, ever earn or deserve. its consequences for the saved are way beyond our comprehesnsion. do the normal rules of moral barter apply? can we reason around salvation in this way? can we demand salvation from God because we think He owes us?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 14, 2005.


Eugene

"This doesn't run counter to long-established Catholic belief. I can quote from sources so traditional one could call them reactionary."

do it, pls.

"Add to that the many and diverse proofs from the words of Christ in the gospels."

..which the Councils had to hand.

"If he had, why would the saint confess he was about to die crucified, as he deserved ?"

because he was the tax collector and not the pharisee?

Eugene, i am earnest in this. but it's over to you.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 14, 2005.


Ian,

Limbo was and is a *speculation*, not a church dogma. For someone who is bound and determined to find the letter of the law, I'm rather surprised that you are talking about Limbo at all! LOL, you object to the idea of God's mercy for innocents, but support the ***man-made*** concept of Limbo. What's up with that?

there is expressed but a hope that the Mercy of God will prevail

No action a Catholic can perform can let them EARN a place in Heaven, we are ALL hoping for the Mercy of God. I have the same hope for others, but obviously despair of those who are deliberately turning away from Christ's church.

Pope Innocent III: "The punishment of original sin is deprivation of the vision of God, but the punishment of actual sin is the torments of everlasting hell."

You've got to post a link for a one-liner like this so that the context can be evaluated, especially something you think damns people to Hell. For example, in this quote,

"but the punishment of actual sin is the torments of everlasting hell"

This is true, ONLY if the sins are unforgiven. If all one's sins are confessed and forgiven, we assume that as baptised Catholics, Christ truly has forgiven us, and we should be o.k. But to just read this quote, since all of us sin, you'd say we all are DEFINITELY going to Hell. If that were true, there wouldn't be much point of faith or religion, would there? OTOH, if you back up and say, "wait, maybe I don't understand this, maybe this isn't speaking about Christ's forgiveness and Mercy, then it makes more sense: Adults DO have the possibility (even though we are all sinners) of getting to heaven, and so do the unbaptised *with water*. Not that they deserve it, but through the Mercy of God.

Or to think of it another way, if you are using this quote to say that all people with original sin are denied God, don't you also have to use it to say anyone who has sinned is going to Hell?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 14, 2005.


Good work, Frank-- Hello--? Ian?

Saint Dismas wasn't saved by the Law of the Old Testament. He was an admitted criminal on his way to hell, and an act of faith in Jesus served to earn Dismas Christ's absolution. (His Mercy-- granted Dismas this private ''Baptism of Desire''. He was born again. Otherwise he would not have been going with Jesus anywhere.

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

Here's a straight excerpt from the 4th revised edition, 278 thousand issued in Ireland, as of 1954- -

''Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine,'' by Reverend Archbishop M. Sheehan, a Course of Religious Instructions for Schools and Colleges, Germia, Republic of Ireland--

Chapter XI, BAPTISM. --First in the summary:
I. The solemn teaching of the Church.
II. Baptism defined. --How it is conferred. --Solemn and Private Baptism. --Its Minister and its Subject.
III. Its effects: Grace and the Sacramental Character. --The ''revival'' of Baptism.
IV. --It is absolutely necessary for salvation either in fact or in desire. --The Baptism of the Holy Ghost. --The Baptism of Blood.
V. Baptism directly instituted by Christ. --Note: The office of sponsor.

I go now to: IV, Where the absolute neccesity of Baptism is reviewed in detail.

The Substitutes For Baptism. --''The words of Christ Himself show us that He accepts the Baptism of the Holy Ghost and the Baptism of Blood as substitutes for the Sacramental Baptism of water.''

The Baptism of the Holy Ghost.---------''By the Baptism of the Holy Ghost we mean an act of perfect contrition or perfect charity made by an adult who has not received Sacramental Baptism. It is termed Baptism by analogy, or comparison, because it resembles the Sacrament in producing Sanctifying Grace in the soul and in blotting out Original Sin and grave actual sin.

It is Catholic doctrine that it has this power, as is proved from the words of Christ: ''He that loveth me shall be loved by My Father and I will love him,'' (John 14 :21) . . . and of Mary Magdalene He said, ''Many sins are forgiven her because she hath loved much,'' and turning to her He added, ''Thy sins are forgiven thee.'' (Luke 7 :47-8)

After this, the author cites Luke 23, and all about the Good Thief's salvation. It all confirms Baptism of the Holy Ghost; but Desire is an alternative term. He goes on to spell out the various differences this kind of Baptism has from our sacramental water Baptism. Then he covers Baptism of Blood, as well. It's a prolonged explanation which I can reproduce for you. All about martyrdom coupled with repentence of sin; and he calls it clearly Catholic Doctrine.

An interesting point I had yet to realise: ''The Church honors as martyrs enjoying the blessedness of heaven many who were never baptised. among whom, the Holy Innocents massacred by Herod, and several others.'' The author, an Archbishop previous to Vatican II, quotes Saint Augustine: ''It would be an affront to pray for a martyr; we should rather commend ourselves to his prayers.''

Adding as well: ''Martyrdom does not imprint the Sacramental Character, hence an unbaptized martyr could not receive the Blessed Eucharist in his last moments without first receiving Sacramental Baptism.'' and, Note: ''Since the substitutes for Baptism are rightly held to imply a DESIRE (emphasis mine) of its reception, the doctrine of the Church on necessity of the Sacrament can be expressed in a form that excludes all exceptions, viz., the Sacrament of Baptism received in either fact or in desire is absolutely necessary for salvation.''

Ian; I do not paste this, it costs me work to type the whole thing. But I assure you this is the truth; and it pre-dates any sources from Vatican II or later. The book is a 1954 re-edition; a 4th re- print. (Thanks for reading it. It may help you & others to understand better.)

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 14, 2005.


Eugene:

"the 4th revised edition, 278 thousand issued in Ireland, as of 1954- - Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine,'' by Reverend Archbishop M. Sheehan, a Course of Religious Instructions for Schools and Colleges, Germia, Republic of Ireland"

you promised me "sources so traditional one could call them reactionary".

you're kidding me, pal. nice joke. "reactionary"? "traditional"? neither, mate.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 14, 2005.


Frank

if you read yr post and my post more closely, you will see that we are pretty close - but the issue of Original Sin still remains extant. Limbo is a theory that is consistent with Original Sin. that might explain why the Church Fathers, in the main, supported Limbo.

you still haven't responded though - why does the CCC remain so vague on Limbo? the word's abolished, but the concept remains. what do you believe - if you don't mind stepping up to the plate?!?!

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 14, 2005.


I see, Ian:
Even though most of the ordained priests in Ireland; about as conservative as Catholics get, --Had their seminary formation out of that text? Well before the coming of our Vatican II reforms?

I see I've wasted my time for nothing. God give you light, Friend.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 14, 2005.


Even if Ian is past reaching, I urge my other friends in this forum, read the above excerpts from Archbishop Sheehan's textbook on Catholic Doctrine.

I may not have clearly given the date of the publication. The edition I own is from a 4th printing of 278 thousand copies. In 1954, when this was printed, already there had been 3 prior editions. That makes the origins of this book much earlier than 1954. There's no way any explanation of Catholic doctrine it could have been unorthodox. It was published by

M. H. Gill and Son, Ltd.
50 Upper o'Connell Street, Dublin, Ireland.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 14, 2005.


I can see that my plea for Catholics to stop beating upon one another didn't take.

Emerald said the kindest thing to me the other day..He said to pray. I did. A lot. And many things were answered for me. The greatest was that the things which have caused all of this disunity within the Church will be the very things which will bring about it's renewal. As the Protestant Churches move more and more towards secularism the Catholic Church will move more and more back to being more VISIBLY spiritual as it once was. Take a moment and look at what has happened just in the last 50 years in the mainline Protestant Churches. Just today, the Evangelical Lutheran Church leadership has voted to allow it's individual parishes to permit same-sex marriages if they choose to do so. (Do not confuse this with the Missouri Synod Lutherans)..The Anglican Church, the Presbyterians, the Methodists..all have completely done turn arounds on the issue of overt homosexuality, divorce and re-marriage, artificial contraception, etc. More will likely follow over the years.

And the Catholic Church will eventually stand alone as a beacon of truth in a secular Christian world. Externals will return..people need them.The Eucharist will be back on the altar where God belongs. Unity will return, the Holy Spirit will guide us all. The false teachings will fall away.

Meantime, we must trust the promise that was made by God Himself. otherwise, we are "...men of little faith."

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), January 15, 2005.


Lesley, Dear--
What false teachings will fall away?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 15, 2005.

Lol Eugene!!

why not just read these:

1st Council of Nicaea Constantinople One Council of Ephesus Council of Chalcedon Constantinople Two Constantinople Three 2nd Council of Nicaea Constantinople Four Lateran One Lateran Two Lateran Three Lateran Four 1st Council of Lyons 2nd Council of Lyons Council of Vienne Council of Constance Council of Florence Lateran Five Council of Trent First Vatican Council

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 15, 2005.


That is, until the Pope is revealed to be the anti-christ and takes over the world after the rapture... see, all the REAL Christaisn get a free ride, cause God doesnt think anyone shudl acutlly SUFFER for Our Lord, no, you get a fre ticket off...

( Sorry, mean this as a joke, in a weird mood lately, and been reading Chick tracts. My sence of humour merged withthat leads to odd statements, best to ignore.)

I overlal agrre with Leselys sentement though...

Unity coems from settign out differences asie and workign togather. I do nto agree hat Protestants in general are becomign mroe seular. Many, many, many are becomng less so over the eyars, and indeed th fundamentalists, as much as hey are mocked, tend to be the fastest growing lot around. They by far arent becoming mroe and mre seular, and hose that are, such as the anglican communion and the evnagelical Ltherens, pay a steep priced, as they loose adherance to thse Fundamentalists.

so Protestants in geenral arent becoming mre and more secular, only crtan branches, and certian branche in Catholisism are likewise fallign into this. ( Liberal Priests in the Catholci cruhc are pro- Women's ordinition, Pro-Gay marirgae recognised by he Chruch, and pro- fornicaiton, as an example.)

The torible is a lack f good leadership on a local level n many inances, and a Chufrhc level in others. But overall, its nto all hopeless for us poor seperated Bretheren.

That said, I am glad to note that most Chruches, Protestant and Catholic included, seem more cooperatie these days. There is less tension betsween Protestants and Catholcis, andbetween traditional rival chruhces, and more and more we are seing a return to Unity.

I ust hope ithappens fast enouh to avert the cultural crashhat sems inevitable wile peopel spiral out of contorle.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 15, 2005.


Ian,

But Ian, Limbo is as you say, a THEORY. A man-made theory. I wouldn't give credence to is. Now I don't think YOU stepped up to the plate really in what you believe, but I'm willing to:

Having children of my own, I understand to the degree I'm able how our Father loves us. Therefore, while I have to "trust to God's mercy" to save these infants, I'm not very worried about it. Condemning an innocent to everlasting fire? That's not what I would expect a loving Father to do to thier children.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 15, 2005.


Eugene: False teachings by individuals within the various parishes.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), January 15, 2005.

Dear Lesley:
When you see or hear something false being given to the faithful, stand up. Call it false publicly, without indignation or pride in your own manner.

That's all I do, really. You've seen me come quickly to refute a falsehood, when I have the truth. It strikes a few people here as unchristian, rude, impetuous or being a bully. They tell me so here in this forum. That's the price we must pay.

It's not enough to copy-paste a few documents from out of another website. They're sometimes irrefutable, sure. But they aren't the last word of our mother Church; because artificial arguments don't compete fairly. They seem incontestable but in reality, there's little real conviction to back them up.

One must be willing to compete. You believe in the Holy Spirit; show it.

Individuals are human. You can guide some, others will get mean and vindictive. This forum is a tiny microcosm of Catholic faith. Because we're human it will never seem peaceful. But the Holy Spirit can overcome anything, any perverse enemy. Have faith; remember the words of Jesus: ''Fear not.''

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 15, 2005.


"Condemning an innocent to everlasting fire? That's not what I would expect a loving Father to do to thier children."

Amen, Frank.

As dads or mums, we pray for our kids. we pray for our parents, and our siblings, and everyone we know and that we don't know.

we pray for the best, we think the best, we do our best.

these are things that all Catholics should find agreeable. on that, we are on all fours.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 15, 2005.


Eugene

are you interested in pursuing your "St Dismas theory"? if so, let me know. i still haven't gotten any expanded answers to the "objections" i posted. if it's water under the bridge, then fine. otherwise, i'd be interested in yr further explanation.

...and/or if that conversation is not on offer, then maybe we could get into a conversation about Limbo? that might be one that Frank would be interested in?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 16, 2005.


Ian:
What would I have to discuss with a man who doesn't recognize Catholic doctrine when it's clearly given him? When I quoted directly from the work of an Irish archbishop who lived in the reign of Pope Pius XII, absolutely faithful and correct; you wouldn't respect it.

In fact, the archbishop includes Saint Dismas in the same treatment of this Catholic doctrine; I left that out since we covered it excellently before, up on this thread. He corroborates what we stated. So, just scroll back up to that and read it again. I GAVE you enough expanded exegesis on the Good thief. Your objection to it is based on your false premises.

As for the concept of Limbo; in the past I've argued in its support; but since we aren't obliged to believe in a conjecture, we might as well change concepts. Give God His due; and commend unbaptized infants to his mercy. (I hope you don't object?)

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 16, 2005.


Lesley,

I like your take on the Catholic Church going through a kind of restoration as many protestant groups unravel. I pray you are correct!

As Zarove says, however, not all is bleak amongst protestants. The United Methodist Church is becoming more traditional over the years, and there is hope in that.

A note of clarification: the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America hasn't *officially* approved either same-sex unions or ordination of such individuals. They are voting on that this August in Orlando. Yet it must be said that some bishops ignore their present church teaching, and go ahead and ordain practicing homosexuals anyway. It is truly a shameful time for a once-mighty group of Christians.

-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), January 16, 2005.


"As for the concept of Limbo; in the past I've argued in its support; but since we aren't obliged to believe in a conjecture, we might as well change concepts."

What I've been trying to tell you all along is that the concept fo the baptisms of blood and desire alone are not doctrines, but are being brandished as such. They are in fact in the category, theologically, of theological theories or speculations, in a manner very much the way you characterize the concept of limbo as. Whether you put limbo in the same category rightly or wrongly... that's another matter and another discussion.

If one only took the time to honestly look into the matter throughout all the ages of the Church, and while equipped with a proper understanding of theology and theological method, they would find this statement to be the truth: they are not doctrines, but theological theories.

You have to understand exactly what theology is, what its function is, and how it works according to St. Thomas Aquinas.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), January 16, 2005.


''Honestly look?'' Oh, you're supposed to look?
You look. We have always been taught in the Catholic Church that Baptism is ritually incorrect without form and matter. Ritually. But the doctrine has always made room for another aspect of the sacrament. It is a mystery, after all. We fulfill the first aspect with little thought to God's unseen presence and action. Only a rite. We can't see the re-birth, and we aren't supposed to.

You think a Baptism of Desire isn't plausible because you don't see God's presence or His actions. Why a double standard, if all is mystery? Archbishop Sheehan (see above,) explains it well. It isn't the Church's fault you've denied doctrines she taught since early times. As I stated to somebody; you're just hidebound. (No offense, it's just too plain.)

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 16, 2005.


Eugene;

Please quote that doctrine. Thank you.

-- John Smith (A@A.com), January 16, 2005.


Better yet, I'll paste up what I quoted before, and my source:

''Saint Dismas wasn't saved by the Law of the Old Testament. He was an admitted criminal on his way to hell, and an act of faith in Jesus served to earn Dismas Christ's absolution. (His Mercy-- granted Dismas this private ''Baptism of Desire''. He was born again. Otherwise he would not have been going with Jesus anywhere.'' (My statement.) Below the doctrine's explanation by a prelate of the Catholic Church, circa pre-Vatican II (50's Catholic text) certainly qualified to teach. It is HIS textbook, ------------------------------- ------------------------------------- -------------------------------- ---------------- Here's a straight excerpt from the 4th revised edition, 278 thousand issued in Ireland, dated 1954- - ''Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine,'' by Reverend Archbishop M. Sheehan, a Course of Religious Instructions for Schools and Colleges, Germia, Republic of Ireland--

Chapter XI, BAPTISM. --First in the summary: I. The solemn teaching of the Church. II. Baptism defined. --How it is conferred. --Solemn and Private Baptism. --Its Minister and its Subject. III. Its effects: Grace and the Sacramental Character. -- The ''revival'' of Baptism. IV. --It is absolutely necessary for salvation either in fact or in desire. --The Baptism of the Holy Ghost. --The Baptism of Blood. V. Baptism directly instituted by Christ. --Note: The office of sponsor. I go now to: IV, Where the absolute neccesity of Baptism is reviewed in detail. The Substitutes For Baptism. --''The words of Christ Himself show us that He accepts the Baptism of the Holy Ghost and the Baptism of Blood as substitutes for the Sacramental Baptism of water.'' The Baptism of the Holy Ghost.---------''By the Baptism of the Holy Ghost we mean an act of perfect contrition or perfect charity made by an adult who has not received Sacramental Baptism. It is termed Baptism by analogy, or comparison, because it resembles the Sacrament in producing Sanctifying Grace in the soul and in blotting out Original Sin and grave actual sin. It is Catholic doctrine that it has this power, as is proved from the words of Christ: ''He that loveth me shall be loved by My Father and I will love him,'' (John 14 :21) . . . and of Mary Magdalene He said, ''Many sins are forgiven her because she hath loved much,'' and turning to her He added, ''Thy sins are forgiven thee.'' (Luke 7 :47-8) After this, the author cites Luke 23, and all about the Good Thief's salvation. It all confirms Baptism of the Holy Ghost; but Desire is an alternative term. He goes on to spell out the various differences this kind of Baptism has from our sacramental water Baptism. Then he covers Baptism of Blood, as well. It's a prolonged explanation which I can reproduce for you. All about martyrdom coupled with repentence of sin; and he calls it clearly Catholic Doctrine.

Adding as well: ''Martyrdom does not imprint the Sacramental Character, hence an unbaptized martyr could not receive the Blessed Eucharist in his last moments without first receiving Sacramental Baptism.'' and,

Note: ''Since the substitutes for Baptism are rightly held to imply a DESIRE (emphasis mine) of its reception, the doctrine of the Church on necessity of the Sacrament can be expressed in a form that excludes all exceptions, viz., the Sacrament of Baptism received in either fact or in desire is absolutely necessary for salvation.''

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 16, 2005.


"You think a Baptism of Desire isn't plausible because you don't see God's presence or His actions."

No no no. No. You think that you have to posit such a speculation as if it were doctrine, because you don't see God's presence or His actions.

Think long and hard on that one. Eventually, with a little honesty, it may (it just may) become apparent who it is that is really doubting that "with God all things are possible", and who it is that really doesn't doubt it.

If there is a truly justified man on a desert island who lacks all known contact with the Faith, I do not doubt that God can provide for him the real sacramental matter and form, even though we may deem it impossible.

Now do you see? This way of thinking 1. denies no doctrine, and 2. does NOT limit the omnipotence of God.

One can never go wrong taking God at his absolute word. Never.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), January 16, 2005.


1954 was a full 6 years after the shenanigans in Boston had already boiled over.

This issue was the entry point as well as the pathway to the second Vatican Council. This doctrine, in the minds of the modernists, had to be compromised before preceeding any further with the conciliar experiment.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), January 16, 2005.


Have it your way; YOUR way or the highway.

I decline to follow you in your trifling and self-absorbed ways. If Catholic doctrine is only defined as narrow, uncharitable and brain-dead,

In other words by your standards, then the above archbishop wasn't a servant of God. You may think the whole Church was corrupt in the middle of the last century; I don't. (And she isn't today.) I believe in Baptism of Desire and Blood. As well as the Catholic Rite. I do so with good reasons; not the least of which archbishop Sheehan cites above: the holy words of Jesus Christ.

''. . . as is proved from the words of Christ: ''He that loveth me shall be loved by My Father and I will love him,'' (John 14 :21)

. . . and of Mary Magdalene He said, ''Many sins are forgiven her because she hath loved much,'' and turning to her He added, ''Thy sins are forgiven thee.'' (Luke 7 :47-8)

After this, the archbishop cited Luke 23, --The Baptism of Desire that effected the Good Thief's salvation. There is no disputing it, Sir; it's Catholic doctrine.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 16, 2005.


"Have it your way; YOUR way or the highway. I decline to follow you in your trifling and self-absorbed ways. If Catholic doctrine is only defined as narrow, uncharitable and brain-dead,"

Ah see, now you're going to go with the attitude angle. You're not going to take anything under consideration which conflicts with your own personal point of view. It's all attitude, Gene.

"You may think the whole Church was corrupt in the middle of the last century; I don't. (And she isn't today.)"

Now you're putting thoughts in my head and text on my keyboard. Did I ever say that the whole Church was corrupt? No.

"There is no disputing it, Sir; it's Catholic doctrine."

I like how you pick and choose. Limbo isn't, but this is.

Sorry, you're wrong. Baptisms of blood and desire alone are not doctrines, but theological speculations. But of course, you never take anything seriously if it requires too much effort beyond what you think you know.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), January 16, 2005.


And for the 500th time, Dismas the good thief was an old testament character.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), January 16, 2005.

Bishop Sheehan, good man though he may be cannot make dogmatic declarations on baptism of desire. You have to do better than that Mr. Chavez.

At Pentecost the Apostles went out and baptized 3000 people. That is when water baptism bgan. It just was not there for Dismas, Moses, thhe Holy Innocents etc etc. What was not yet started could not be procured.

Philip appeared to the Ethiopian out of nowhere. He, or an angel, or someone can appear to the man on the desert island.

The only thing that I can agree with you is that those who desire it will get it. Not by some magic words but in actuality.

You Mr. Chavez are the one limiting God's power and not Emerald or myself.

I also received for you today. It was a beautiful and devout Mass.

-- John Smith (A@A.com), January 17, 2005.


You may shake your pumpkin heads; but the good archbishop relayed in his work an accepted Catholic truth about Baptism. Doing so, he upheld in holy faith the core teachings of Christ and His Church. The doctrine on Holy Baptism as clearly understood and TAUGHT by the Church long before these inane complaints that you have about the 2nd Vatican Council. That's why you're at a loss now. You hoped to associate 1.) Baptism of Desire, 2.) Invincible ignorance, 3.) Any possibility of salvation for non-Catholics;

With the reforms of Vatican II. But you are disarmed.

You're disarmed and your motives are transparent. Now it's plain you have chosen schism in place of honest discernment. All for the sake of an elitist class in the Church that dishonors the Holy Spirit.

I truly believe the words of Archbishop Sheehan. Just as I trust in the last Popes of the Catholic Church with the Holy Spirit. I believe these Catholics, and not you poor sinners.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 17, 2005.


"Now it's plain you have chosen schism in place of honest discernment."

But see, now you've done gone and placed yourself in the Chair of Peter as Pope Eugene V, declaring Mr. Smith to be in schism, and without just cause whatsoever. So who really does play holier-than- the-pope and who doesn't?

This is theologically accurate:

"The only thing that I can agree with you is that those who desire it will get it. Not by some magic words but in actuality."

In saying so, Mr. Smith upheld in holy faith the core teachings of Christ and His Church, to borrow your words.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), January 17, 2005.


Eugene:

here's another Irish bishop in action: http://atheism.about.com/b/a/122412.htm. http://www.changingattitude.org/news_u_c_ireland_rcbishop_killaloe.ht ml

what are the odds that, 100 years from now, someone somewhere may be posting his words and using the arguments that you are using Eugene.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 17, 2005.


Here are a couple discussions negatively regarding the theological speculation of Baptism of Desire:

Arguing Baptism of Desire

The Fate of Unbaptized Infants

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), January 17, 2005.


You meet with opposition right at the top of the first paragraph; the notion forwarded surreptitiously, right past your attention:

''The THEORY'' of Baptism of Desire.

Notice how archbishop Sheehan never said it was theory, but Catholic Doctrine. I didn't say that, a prelate of the Catholic Church said that, and backed it up immediately, citing the undying words of the Son of God.

That's good enough; --no, it's OFFICIAL; the doctrine of our holy faith defines Baptism of Desire as a truth. Just as those words of Jesus Christ are truth; and the salvation of unbaptized souls can be seen in New Testament scripture. The archbishop points out the martyrdom of the Holy Innocents, whose feast day was on December 28th, just weeks past. (What caused the Church to keep the feast of unbaptized infants for nearly 2000 years; if they aren't in heaven?)

You bluebloods of the faith, elitists all, may not believe this truth; but Catholic bishops DO-- and they are the authority. So-- Go polish your sword with crumbs, John; you too Emerald. Eat your cakes and ale and forget your careers in theology.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 17, 2005.


"Go polish your sword with crumbs, John; you too Emerald. Eat your cakes and ale and forget your careers in theology."

Notice how you make this comment directly after you yourself take it upon yourself to determine the theological status of this issue. You move to declare: yes, it is official doctrine. Eugene has spoken, and this is where the "theological careers" of others cease, and yours begins? A double standard.

Basically you have taken it upon yourself to determine that one bishop citing two Scripture verses which have nothing really to do with desire and blood baptism, consitutes by your decree, an official doctrine of the Church, traceable you say, directly to the words of Christ Himself. Even though Christ never spoke of three different baptisms, but one, and verily-verilied the necessity of it.

"Notice how archbishop Sheehan never said it was theory, but Catholic Doctrine. I didn't say that, a prelate of the Catholic Church said that..."

Yeah, but that's not where Catholic doctrine comes from, Eugene. Heck, we have Cardinal Kasper telling us that the Jews need not convert because they're convenant was good enough. "As you know, the old theory of substitution is gone since the Second Vatican Council." Cardinal Kasper said this:

"I wish to say that the document Dominus Jesus does not state that everybody needs to become a Catholic in order to be saved by God. On the contrary, it declares that God's grace, which is the grace of Jesus Christ according to our faith, is available to all. Therefore, the Church believes that Judaism ... is salvific for them [Jews], because God is faithful to his promises."

According to your thinking, Gene, if Cardinal Kasper, being a prelate of the Catholic Church said that, then it must be doctrine. Son of a gun, Gene, that's ridiculous, It has never, ever been the job of the prelates of the Church to bend the Deposit of the Faith at their whims, and then stand make and say hey, we said it, so it is doctrine. Not a chance. The magisterium is not a person; every seems to think that "the magisterium" is people or a person. This has never been the way we were to relate to the hieracrchy of the Church, or them to us.

In fact, what Cardinal Kasper thinks and says is just plain heresy, that's all. The real answer is this: God's grace is in fact available to the Jewish people, should they choose to accept it; a grace called prevenient grace can move them towards the Church while they are yet outside it, and once inside it, they can avail themselves of the Sacraments.

"[Sheehan] backed it up immediately, citing the undying words of the Son of God."

You mean, those two verses you cited above? Those in no way whatsoever support the baptism of blood and desire. That's nothing more than private interpretation of Scripture, and it certainly not the official interpretation of the Catholic Church on the matter.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), January 17, 2005.


Emerald:
We aren't arguing about heretical bishops. Kasper or anybody.

The prevailing doctrine of water baptism isn't changed or limited in any way by the truth of Baptism of Desire, or of Blood. Archbishop Sheehan in his textbook proclaims it essential in our sacramental rite. Leave it to you and the rest of our malcontent Catholics, to imply with such GALL, that the archbishop foments a heretical teaching!

He does not. He explained in depth the approved doctrine of the Catholic Church as he received it, and only what the Church has been teaching all along. You dismiss the fact he wrote long before the 2nd Vatican Council. You'd eagerly call anything since then spurious; but NOW you even deny a teaching which proves this point coming from long before your phobic likes and dislikes. Shame on you. Don't you know Rev. Archbishop Sheehan said every one of his Masses in Latin, My Boy?

You conveniently pass over Our Lord's declarations, as well as the Holy Innocents; a gospel truth. Is there no bottom to your ignorance?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 17, 2005.


"Archbishop Sheehan in his textbook proclaims it essential in our sacramental rite."

Well, he was wrong. Look how far we've come, from his perhaps very innocent musings to Cardinal Kasper's downright slaughtering of a fundamental doctrine of the Catholic Faith.

"Leave it to you and the rest of our malcontent Catholics, to imply with such GALL, that the archbishop foments a heretical teaching!"

Ah, this is just emotional hysterics on your part. As if we were bad, evil people. Look, St. Thomas Auqinas himself made innocent and well intended errors regarding the later defined dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Do you see me or anyone else rending our hairshirts and spitting "heretic" at the Angelic Doctor St. Thomas?

No. Perhaps a little more level-headedness is in order. He just got the theological details wrong, that's all. Who knows what Sheehan's disposition was in thinking or writing this. Could have been bad, could have been an innocent mistake. But when Kaspers states what he states, he knows what he's doing. He's a revolutionary. What are they doing? They are exploiting theological speculations, and exploiting theological errors and glitches. They press innocent failings and errors into the service of a new theology.

"You dismiss the fact he wrote long before the 2nd Vatican Council."

Long before? From what I gather from you, this is 1950's text. Gene, Pius IX and Leo XIII were already on top of this one in the mid to late 1800's, and by 1907, Pope St. Pius X was taking swift and decisive action to stem the tide of a modernism which was already infesting the Church from top to bottom. Dismiss the fact? Absolutely.

"You'd eagerly call anything since then spurious; but NOW you even deny a teaching which proves this point coming from long before your phobic likes and dislikes."

Nah, you see, you're approaching this all wrong. You're acting is if I or others actually believe you can draw a clear line at V2, and declare before as good, and after as bad. I never thought that. Noone else here seems to be expressing that. Some traditional Catholics might think that way, but I would call it shallow thinking. But when you say I think that way? Well I don't.

"Shame on you. Don't you know Rev. Archbishop Sheehan said every one of his Masses in Latin, My Boy?"

That's a lousy argument, because so did Karl Rahner and Martin Luther. So did every one of the modernist priests that St. Pius X was keel-hauling behind the Ark of Salvation in 1907.

"Is there no bottom to your ignorance?"

If not, then according to you, I can be saved because of it.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), January 17, 2005.


Are you very excited, or in convulsions of some kind? I say, ''Archbishop Sheehan in his textbook proclaims it essential in our sacramental rite.'' --Meaning water and the words of the Rite of Baptism. You answer, ''Well, he was wrong.''

It shows your state of mind.

''He just got the theological details wrong, that's all. Who knows what Sheehan's disposition was in thinking or writing this?'' What a nerve. You aren't the judge of any archbishop, or their dispositions while teaching the faithful. YOUR theological details are wrong. But you would argue with Saint Paul, because he wasn't in the right disposition when he cracked the skulls of contrarians like yourself. In fact, you would accuse him of heresy and idolatry were you in Athens as he calls an altar to the ''Unknown God'' a fit object for the worship of our Creator.

You proceed into every argument cock-sure. Here: ''Don't you know Rev. Archbishop Sheehan said every one of his Masses in Latin, My Boy?'' I ask. You immediately associate him with radicals all over again. I said something tongue in cheek; you come back with the identical error in principle you started with. It doesn't strike you just right; so the archbishop must be discredited. Simple self-absorbed ego.

But you can't discredit him. He teaches the truth and you're prejudiced against your own Catholic teachers. by dredging up the worst-case scenario, you reassure yourself. But, thank God, you aren't a theologian. Period.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 17, 2005.


So-- Are you ready to tell us how the Holy Innocents were baptised?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 17, 2005.

"Are you very excited, or in convulsions of some kind?"

No. Why do you ask?

The Holy Innocents were Old Testament souls, Gene. For some reason people keep coming up with examples from before the institution of the Sacraments of the new law. Not sure why.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), January 17, 2005.


They were martyred in place of Jesus, who was born in their district. They prove Baptism of Blood, Emmie. Nothing is Old Testament matter that is revealed to the world in our Church's gospel narratives; the very idea is absurd.

Your lame answer reminds me of one foolish Catholic basher who tried to tell us Jesus asked Peter three times, ''Dost thou love me?'' then told him, ''Feed my lambs,'' each time-- On account of Peter had gone fishing in the sea of Galilee, instead of spreading the Gospel the way he was supposed to. Haha!!! Anything whatever, as long as the truth weren't admitted! But you take the cake. Old Testament souls ! ! ! !

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 17, 2005.


The Church teaches that the souls of the Holy Innocents decended to the Bosom of Abraham, otherwise known as the Limbo of the Fathers, because, get this: the Church also teaches that no one could have entered Heaven before Christ Himself had entered Heaven.

Take a look about both of these canons, which just happen to follow in succession from the 22nd Session of the Council of Trent:

Canon 1. If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law were not all instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ, or that there are more or less than seven, namely, baptism, confirmation, Eucharist, penance, extreme unction, order and matrimony, or that any one of these seven is not truly and intrinsically a sacrament, let him be anathema.

Canon 2. If anyone says that these sacraments of the New Law do not differ from the sacraments of the Old Law, except that the ceremonies are different and the external rites are different, let him be anathema.

It is clear enough from the above that Jesus Christ instituted the Sacraments, and that they differed from the Old Law. Therefore, there wasn't a baptism to be had at the time of the Holy Innocents, not even a sacramental baptism, let alone a supposed baptism of desire. It is theologically impossible for you to say they were baptised in any way according to the New Law.

Christ was an infant Himself at that time, and had not even instituted the Sacraments yet. He instituted them at and after the end of His public ministry: the Blessed Sacrament and the Holy Orders were instituted at the last supper. Confession was instituted after the Ressurection and before the Ascension, as was Baptism.

And Baptism? Baptism was instituted after the Ressurection and before the Ascension.

So no, there was no Baptism to be had at the time of the Holy Innoncents. They were indeed souls who were under the Old Law, and went to the Limbo of the Fathers, or the Bosom of Abraham, a place the existence of which is clearly established in Scripture, which the Jews of old knew well the existence of, but which Eugene Chavez feels to be an optional thing to believe in, while believing that the Holy Innocents were baptised. In blood.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), January 18, 2005.


Dear Emerald:
Christ has made plain, to enter the kingdom of heaven you must be born again.

Even had all Old Testament souls gone to the bosom of Abraham; before coming into heaven they must be baptised. Born again,--

Whether in the Rite, living; or by Desire, with time. Baptism is being born again.

In fact, either desire or the Baptism of Blood qualified these infant souls to be with Our Saviour in heaven. They had been born under the Law, but the Law didn't save them.

We can well see, the repentent Thief was under the Law; but was saved by Christ's own sacrifice on Calvary. It could not have been for keeping the Law of Moses. He was born again and entered that same day into Paradise; not the bosom of Abraham. Please stop your attempts at dialogue. I presented you with the teaching of the Church by a Catholic archbishop. Nothing you say is equivalent to that. --Nice tries; the Church wins.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 18, 2005.


You said they were baptised before Christ instituted the Sacraments the new law. That's theologically impossible.

I presented you with some basic stuff... Trent and the timeframe of the institution of the Sacraments of the New Law. I said, look, Baptism wasn't even instituted yet at the time of the Holy Innocents, but you want to insist they were baptized in a baptism of blood.

You want to pretend like I don't believe that the justified Jews of the Old Law who were detained in the Limbo of the Fathers weren't eventually made participants in the Sacraments of the New Law procured by Christ... but I never said that, did I?

Perhaps instead of a stodgy wave of the hand and your universal attitude of dismissal, take a look at what's being said?

It's a simple as this: baptism wasn't even instituted by Christ yet, so they couldn't have been baptised.

That does not mean that I said that they did not ultimately participate in the Sacraments of the New Law procured by Christ. They did.

You've got it in your head that I'm out to destroy the Church or something goofy or whatever. This is the basis stuff of doctrine and theology, Gene. Have another glass of Merlot; it's no big deal.

"Please stop your attempts at dialogue."

Just trying to be ecumenical.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), January 18, 2005.


Facts are facts. People have entered heaven and never had the Rite. Yet, they are reborn; because Jesus told us they must be. How else are they freed of sin? Let's say ''theologically impossible'' as you know theology.

With God nothing is impossible.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 18, 2005.


"Facts are facts. People have entered heaven and never had the Rite."

Can't say that. Trent Session 7, Canon 2:

"If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost,let him be anathema.

Is this too negative for you? Too much talking about justice and hell and stuff? Try Canon 8:

If anyone says that the fear of hell, whereby, by grieving for sins, we flee to the mercy of God or abstain from sinning, is a sin or makes sinners worse, let him be anathema.

See, that's what a lot of this bickering is about. Your modern Catholic shies away from talking about Hell. You know, souls screaming in eternal torment because they had the chance to love and serve God, but instead they spent there entire earthly lives ignoring His every invite to love and union. People get freaked that so many can or might be lost. Who wouldn't.

Fact of the matter is this: fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. That awareness of the awesome realities of the absolute existence of Heaven and Hell, that recognition that you will absolutely and finally end up in one or the other, even despite a lifelong denial of the existence of either or both... that can be the beginning of the road to eternal happiness, sanctity, sainthood.

I don't see the problem with being frank. (no puns here, please...)

Those two canons I gave upthread? I made a mistake and said they were from Session 22; they are actually from Session 6.

People who know and believe their Catholic doctrines, especially the really tough ones... they start doing really strange stuff. They start eliminating vices and aquiring virtues. They start prayer and doing some penance. They start learning and loving their Faith.

Free-ticket people just live like the rest of the pagans and imagine themselves to be inherently justified and pleasing to God somehow. That's your average so-called Christian right there. "I knew you not".

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), January 18, 2005.


Hey look. The thread's back on topic again.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), January 18, 2005.

that's a fantastic exposition, Emerald. thank you.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 18, 2005.

Emerald,

I don't see what the fuss is about. Once you die, what is time? One might say that the overall experience of an infant who died 10,000 years ago is less than the subjective time you or I will spend in purgatory for our sins waiting to enter the presence of the Lord.

Unless you can find a canon that says differently...

Sorry Emerald, but you seem to go out of your way to be a glass-is- half-empty kind of guy, when following the Lord is *supposed* to be about one's glass overflowing!

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 18, 2005.


Emerald won't budge. He thinks: Can't say that. Trent Session 7, Canon 2: "If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, let him be anathema.''

--means that must be the ONLY proper way to be re-born. --But that Canon refers to the exact method of baptism at the font itself, in the baptismal rite as *administered* by the Church. It's not about an extraordinary soul; as in Baptism of Desire or Blood; administered directly by the Holy Spirit.

Christ's words were: ''water and the Holy Spirit,'' --alternatives. In fact, Archbishop Sheehan correctly says Baptism of the Holy Ghost by definition shall be an extraordinary alternative, and nevertheless correct for some souls. I've used the term ''of Desire,'' he says ''of the Holy Ghost. You'll probably insist they aren't interchangeable, but sorry-- they are. Same valid Baptism and adequate for re-birth of a soul when God wills it. With God nothing is impossible; do we need Canon Law to understand that ?

Presenting the obvious Canons as a rebuttal, Emmie, is disingenuous of you. Don't treat others in such a patronizing manner, please. I'm not a pretend Catholic.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 18, 2005.


Talking down to the other poor slob:

''People who know and believe their Catholic doctrines, especially the really tough ones... they start doing really strange stuff. They start eliminating vices and aquiring virtues. They start prayer and doing some penance. They start learning and loving their Faith.''

''Free-ticket people just live like the rest of the pagans and imagine themselves to be inherently justified and pleasing to God somehow. That's your average so-called Christian right there. "I knew you not".

''Free-ticket, inherently justified,'' --''Somehow.''

What has that to do with Holy Baptism? It's the self-conscious rhetoric of a Big Head, certain of correcting the poor slobs (Sorry; Free- tickets.)

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 18, 2005.


Eugene,

Someone previously said a very similar thing:

The Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector

9To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else, Jesus told this parable: 10“Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11The Pharisee stood up and prayed about[a] himself: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men–robbers, evildoers, adulterers–or even like this tax collector. 12I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’

13“But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’

14“I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”

Of course at this point the tax collecter wasn't baptised...

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 18, 2005.


Emerald and Ian;

Reading your posts and getting answers from Mr. Chavez leads me to a conclusion that I knew but never put into words;

That is; Modernism is such a subtle illness, that the infected one never does realize that he has it.

The modernists have spread their germs in a very efective way.

-- John Smith (A@A.com), January 18, 2005.


Eugene

Canon 2 specifically transverses Sola Fide. you relegate it to a liturgical direction.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 18, 2005.


I don't think that labelling Eugene as a modernist is entirely accurate or fair. What I get from reading Eugene's posts is that he is confident that the Catholic church today is still the same Catholic church built upon the rock in Matthew chapter 16. He is confident in the leading of the pope and the magisterium. He has utmost loyalty for those brothers who are the ambassadors and representatives of the church as a whole, and therefore appeals to you to do the same, trusting their leading much more than his own personal leading.

Although I'm not Catholic, and although I don't always like what Eugene has to say, I must say I deeply respect His loyalty to the church and his commitment to defend it from negative speaking.

In saying this however, I wish to point out that I think that Emerald is also extremely loyal to the church, and particularly to the preservation of truth and practice. I think these two brothers both have the same passion for the church, however it comes from two different angles. Perhaps we can learn from these two brothers who at least stand for something and are not lukewarm about it.

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), January 18, 2005.


Mr. Smith; too far out to ever turn back:

''getting answers from Mr. Chavez leads me to a conclusion that I knew but never put into words;

That is; Modernism is such a subtle illness, that the infected one never does realize that he has it.'' --He didn't hear the first time, ''Physician, heal thyself.''

Yes, the papal bull said modernism was a creeping heresy. Nobody realizes what the Popes were talking about; it just helps them make Modernism the bugaboo; a catch-all word to label those who don't dispute everything around themseves. Especially bishops and parishes they disapprove of. ''Modernism is an illness. These guys are going to go to hell; BUT NOT ME.''

Mr. Smith, Sir. When the Popes spoke of it, Modernism wasn't all what you suppose. They had reason to be alarmed. But you've misunderstood a substantial part of their objections to Modernism. The so-called enlightenment, free-thinkers, illuminati, Freemasonry, revolutionaries, heretics, protestantism, materialism, nationalism, and just plain sin.

For these you're substituting modern-day Catholicism and Vatican II reforms. Some of these are questionable, of course. But so were Fascism, the landed gentry, divine rights of the monarchs, etc., --which weren't considered Modernistic?

The Church is vigilant. I approve of that, like you do. But, stop it with your constant sniffling, won't you? You give me a headache.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 18, 2005.


For these you're substituting modern-day Catholicism and Vatican II reforms. Some of these are questionable, of course.

Mr. Chavez. That is the only concession, (slight as it is), that there is something wrong in the Church today.

I do not want to give you a headache, but if you do, take two aspirins and call the doctor in the morning.

-- John Smith (A@A.com), January 18, 2005.


John,

That is the only concession, (slight as it is), that there is something wrong in the Church today

You might not have thought about this, but take a sec and do so:

There is ALWAYS something wrong with the church! There have ALWAYS been scandals, heresies, schisms, enemies both without and within, you name it. Today's are quite important, but no MORE important than any others. That's where the "be not afraid" comes in. You guys can't stop walking around like the sky is falling. The Holy Spirit is guiding the church, regardless of today's troubles, it WILL prevail. Try trusting in the Lord more, and wringing your hands less.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 18, 2005.


Frank is correct, Sir. Read his post carefully. And try reading what I pointed out about Modernism when the documents you raise were written. You conveniently ignore the modernist trends the Popes were really denouncing; in order to denigrate our present faith. There have been others like you. Read about Savonarola. About Martin Luther. They sounded a lot like you.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 18, 2005.

I have read Frank's post carefully. I shall also see about this SAvarnarola. However you should see what St. Pius said about the modernist infiltration of the church.

There is plenty on the internet if you were interested enough to seek it. Please do not be afaid of what you will find. It will help both you and myself to do a little something about the situation.

If you keep brushing it off as the past problems in the church, you are making a big mistake.

The enemy within is very real, and to deny that they are there is fatal.

-- John Smith (A@A.com), January 18, 2005.


1/ thread now seriously off course;

2/ no one's fault;

3/ original question: "For those who lose their faith in the Catholic faith, but still see the Lord Jesus Christ as their Savior and follow the Bible, do they still have a chance in Purgatory to enter into the Kingdom of our Lord? Or is it hopeless and will not even get a chance?"

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 18, 2005.


Ian,

For those who lose their faith in the Catholic faith, but still see the Lord Jesus Christ as their Savior and follow the Bible, do they still have a chance in Purgatory to enter into the Kingdom of our Lord? Or is it hopeless and will not even get a chance?"

O.k., for me I'd say that we are to hope for everyone's salvation, but they are in the bad position of having the truth and turning their backs on it. Is there a chance that aliens will land tomorrow? Yes. Am I going to stay awake all night waiting? No.

Can Christ save everyone who asks? Yes. Would I instruct anyone to leave the church, the only known means of salvation for us? NO.

What more of an answer can one give? The final decision of who is saved and who isn't is the Lord's.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 18, 2005.


John, You need help.

''The enemy within is very real, and to deny that they are there is fatal.''

I don't deny the Church will be tested. Jesus realises all your cares, John. But there is no ''enemy within.'' That's childish. You read too much junk. Malachi Martin, for instance. I advise you to pray.

What is fatal? Lack of FAITH in God is fatal. The devil is a liar. Whatever he tells us is lies; if he says tomorrow, it was yesterday. You're permitting the devil to destroy your loyalty to the Pope and our bishops. It's EXACTLY what the devil would love to accomplish. You ought to smell a rat immediately, when you hear any rumble about the Catholic Church. The tempest drives men crazy. We are Peter's Bark upon the sea. Jesus is within. Why would He abandon us?

If you believe in Jesus Christ and his promises, there is nothing ''fatal'' to fear. Don't listen to the devil. He wants you to come to him; away from the Church. Where is your faith?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 18, 2005.


Mr. Chavez;

Please do not patronize me. Please deal in concrete facts.

I give you numbers, and you give me a lecture on faith.

Lectures did not buy us our freedom from England. Sacrifice did.

I wonder who really loves the very sick patient. One who takes them for treatment, or one that just tells them tha everything is OK.

You call me a doomsayer. You are a polyanna.

-- John Smith (A@A.com), January 18, 2005.


Mr. Smith,
This isn't patronizing;
You are being deceived by the devil. It's one thing to have a cordial discussion of our faith and the love of God & neighbor. But it's quite another thing to plant the seeds of doubt, without a care for the faith of good Catholics. Those who may believe your silly Jeremiads and quit believing the Church.

Somebody here has to counter-act the harm you're doing in this forum. If it has to be me, then Thank God He's prepared me these many years. I'm going to do it.

I don't argue in favor of sins, presumption or false doctrines. If you had evidence in the least, of malice and deception hiding in the Vatican or misleading our Pope, it would be plain to all of us. The devil is unable to fool EVERYBODY AT ONCE. He fools one or two; the carriers of falsehoods. They take possession of two or three more. Then a parish, or a country. It's how the heretics all multiplied in the past.

You are doing the devil's work by spreading disloyalty to our bishops and the Pope. Repeat: The Devil.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 19, 2005.


Ian,

The Mercy of God is Infinite. We do not know the extent of His Mercy. We cannot put limits on His Mercy. If he chooses to do so, he will admit heretics, schismatics, and apostates into Heaven via Purgatory. Who can stop Him? No one. However, He has clearly prescribed The Way of Salvation through Jesus Christ through the Holy Sacraments of the Holy Catholic Church. If someone is bold enough to jeopardize his/her soul's salvation by not going through God's Prescribed Way of Salvation, then he/she should not blame God in the event he/she does not make it into Heaven. God's Mercy has the final say. If I were you, I would keep things simple, safe, and reliable; I would fully obey the Holy Catholic Church of Pope John Paul II.

-- Edward C. Chavez (edwardcchavez@aol.com), January 19, 2005.


You;; Somebody here has to counter-act the harm you're doing in this forum. If it has to be me, then Thank God He's prepared me these many years. I'm going to do it

Mr. Chavez, not to be unkind but the only thing thaat you have been prepared for is modernism. I may add papolotry too. You are some much in love with the man that you cannot see the damage that he has done in 25 years.

To love my church rather than defend one man? That is ridiculous, but then again so are your remarks to others beside myself.

You dump on people who aare suffering (or at least inconvenienced) for the faith You will not find the faith being nurtured in novus ordo parishes. Maybe yours, but get around a little more and take an objective look, if you are capable of doing that.

No conspirators in the Vatican? Is the word of Paul 6th good enough for you, Or Pius X?

-- John Smith (A@A.com), January 19, 2005.


You have been deceived.
Thank you for your latest derogatory remarks. No use giving you an elaborated repeat of all you've had to read. You saw it; I stand by it. The Church is blessed in her people; Our Lord is in their midst.

That's what infuriates the devil. That he hasn't deceived us all.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 19, 2005.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ