Enter your email address to receive updates by email:

subscribe in a reader like my facebook page follow me on twitter Image Map
Podcast Message Line: 512-222-3389
Logos Catholic Bible Software

« Coverage Of The New JFK Film | Main | How Do You Like Your Calamari? Large, Extra-Large, Giant, Or Colossal? »

February 23, 2007

Comments

bill912

"We're trying to make the Faith easier for people" always seems to come across as "We're trying to tell people the Faith isn't all that important".

Bernard

I'm in England and I'm pretty sure the Immaculate Conception *isn't* a Holy Day of Obligation. I'm not sure about Mary Mother of God and St Joseph either.

According to http://www.catholic-ew.org.uk/liturgy/Calendar/Holydays.html :
From the 1st Sunday of Advent 2006 the Holydays of Obligations for England and Wales changed. They are:

* Every Sunday
* Birth of the Lord (25 December)
* St Peter & St Paul (29 June)
* Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary (15 August)
* All Saints (1 November)

The following celebrations have been transferred to the nearest Sunday:

* Epiphany of the Lord
* Ascension of the Lord
* Body and Blood of the Lord

Perhaps -- just perhaps -- the Orthodox have it right on obligations. While it is true the Church can and does indeed have them, they are not a necessary component of the faith -- they are an aid. They worked real well and do work real well in certain kinds of societies; capitalistic ones, however... no.

Mary Kay

Bill, what you said sums it up.

Barbara

Well, as me Irish grandmutter use to say, tis a bunch o malarchy, I tell ye.

Lower the bar, and people will always sink even lower.

Jordan Potter

In the Middle Ages, the Church insisted on holy days of obligation, and even created new holy days of obligation, to prevent lords and employers from overworking their serfs and employees. Today, the Church says, "Oh, people just can't make it to Mass because of their work schedules. Let's abolish these holy days and move them to Sunday."

Quite a difference in what is important to society. Today even our bishops teach by their actions that work and money are more important than Jesus.

Kris

This is a result of what I believe to be one of the saddest developments in the modern Church: much of the hierarchy as lost faith in the faithful. Perhaps equally sad is how the faithful have lost faith in the hierarchy.

Salve Regina sine originali concepta, ora pro nobis.

Fr Tim Finigan

Holy Mary, Mother of God, Immaculate Conception, and
St Joseph are not Holydays of Obligation in England and Wales.

There has been considerable disquiet over here at the decision to tranfer Epiphany, Ascension, and Corpus Christi to the nearest Sundays. The change will not really help anyone and has only annoyed practising Catholics who put themselves out to attend Mass on the Holydays.

The "Consultation" referred to is a joke. This consisted of the Councils of Priests in some Dioceses being asked their opinion. As these bodies are dominated by older "baby boomer" priests, the prospect of abolishing Holydays was welcomed by the majority of such bodies. The laity were not consulted nor were the majority of priests. As soon as the news of the proposed abolition was leaked in the Catholic press, with the hint of a concerted protest being organised, the decision came through immediately as a fait accompli.

The net result will be an increase in popularity of the traditional Roman Rite since many priests will ask for permission to celebrate the old rite on the traditional holydays. Birmingham Oratory is one example of a parish that did this for the feast of the Epiphany.

David Wallace

In medieval Christendom, as was noted in a comment above, there were many more holy days and feasts which severely decreased the workload of the average peasant. Despite what "modern scholarship" wants to say about the Middle Ages, life was not so hard relatively speaking, and it would have been uncommon to work a 40-hour week as we have in America since holy days and feasts made up a significant portion of the annual calendar. Sunday also had much greater significance since work continued on Saturday, i.e. there was no "weekend." (My apologies as an American to all good French Catholics... I'm sorry you have "le weekend.")

True, we no longer live in the greatest of centuries. With our society the way it is, it would be impossible to maintain a job if one got a "free day" one or more days per week. However, under the reign of Pius XII, concession was made to celebrate Mass after 1pm, thus extending the availability of assisting at Holy Mass to those who live in such non-Christendomized societies like our own (and now, regrettably, most of the world). And since this whole "we're Saturday Mass goers" started in the 1960s along with "anticipated" Masses the evening prior to a feast, why, oh why, are our bishops and episcopal conferences removing holy days of obligation or moving them to Sunday, etc.? Many times it happens that a person has a great devotion to a certain feast of Our Lord or one of His saints but unfortunately that feast has been demoted from being of obligation. Now, what happens is that there is no extraordinary celebration of the feast and, as such, the availability of Masses celebrating this feast is diminished.

In sum, the Mass, while being a source of immense grace and forgiveness for mankind, is also, and primarily, the means whereby man can render due homage to the Blessed Trinity and give glory to Him by a direct participation in the perfect sacrifice of Christ. When we remove obligatory feasts, we remove another time in which we can come together and give all glory and honour to Almighty God.

bill912

Perhaps the faithful should consider hitting the bishops where it will hurt the most: in the pocketbook. Along with the lessening of contributions should go a note saying something like: "My contributions will be decreased in direct proportion to your watering-down of the Faith."

Realist

Looks like the Canadian Catholic Church is following the conclusions of the historical Jesus exegetes. Or is it the winter conditions of Canada snowbounds the general population for six months?

BillyHW

Or is it the winter conditions of Canada snowbounds the general population for six months?

It's that our bishop is one very, very busy man.

Thank you for posting the Winnipegstatementland list, Jimmy.

Steve Cavanaugh

Tagging along with David's ideas, when a feast is demoted in status, the opportunity for lay people to go to Mass decreases. How many parishes offer Mass before or after working hours for the solemnities of St. Joseph, Sts. Peter and Paul, or St. John the Baptist?

In a related problem, how many churches offer additional Mass times during Advent and Lent. In my neighborhood south of Boston, Mass., almost every church offers daily Mass at 9 am only. A few have an earlier Mass, but I'd say 80% have that 9 am slot. Which is great if you're retired or work shifts, but for the average 9 to 5 worker, Mass attendance becomes impossible. I remember when I was in high school, the convent had a 6:30 am Mass which I often served, and during Lent also held a Mass at 7 pm...which was packed. In my search for churches to attend Mass for this Lent, I found only one that added Masses to their schedule.

Most of the pastors will probably shrug and say, "See, no one comes. Why should we have more Masses?"

Elijah

Instead of 'hitting the bishops where it will hurt the most: in the pocketbook' by limiting what we give to the Lord, why don't we begin by not spending money at businesses on Sundays? After we take Sundays back then let's worry about the extraordinary holy days.

*gasp* You mean don't go out to lunch or shopping after mass?!

Eh...yeah, that's what I mean.

Esau

What's the deal with Holy Days of Obligation anyway??? They serve no purpose at all! What???

Are these Holy Days supposed to bring us into a greater, deeper spiritual relationship with Christ or something??? The world needs less Church than more -- especially since we already live in such an awesome and perfect world as it is!

John Thayer Jensen

I was impressed by how many are left in the UK. In New Zealand we have:

Christmas

Assumption

B-b-b-that's all, folks!

Christmas is still a public holiday; since becoming a Catholic I always try and take the 15th of August on annual leave if I can get it approved (usually can, if I ask well in advance). My understanding is that we ought to treat Holy Days of Obligation as like Sunday - avoid unnecessary work, devote the day to the Lord, etc.

It is true that for many getting the day off is out of the question; for some, even attending an evening Mass might be very difficult.

jj

Dr. Eric

Why not move 'em all to Sunday!?

I don't see how people can't make it to a HDoO Mass. Those who can't make it, as opposed to those who won't make it, are excused from the Obligation in the first place! The people who don't(won't?) go to a HDoO Mass are the same people who wouldn't show up on a regular Sunday Mass anyway! (But they would go to Ash Wednesday! :-p)

I have a big problem with all the dummying down of the Faith and Praxis in our modern Novus Ordo Church.

*HDoO= Holy Day of Obligation

Esau

(But they would go to Ash Wednesday! :-p)

and

I have a big problem with all the dummying down of the Faith and Praxis in our modern Novus Ordo Church.


Dr. Eric,
Your comments here ring so true!

Although, with regards to the former, I would hope that the reason why the Church is so packed during the time we attend Ash Wednesday Mass is due to its limited availability; plus, on Sundays, it would actually be difficult to judge who really attends Mass since the one we're attending at the time is but only one of a number of other Masses in the Parish schedule.

John

My question is simply how could the so called "baby boomer priests" and the church on up to the Pope, started by John XXIII and culminating in Paul VI who basically continued with the wrecking ball-who are men in charge of the deposit of faith and tradition as handed down as well as being responsible for the salvation of 1B Catholics-take it upon themselves to change everything, change customs (can someone please show me where receiving our Lord in the hand is documented in the original document on the liturgy and why it is allowed? (not talking about the GIRM)and basically reinvent the church as they saw fit?

My aunt refuses to abstain or follow most church teachings, believes in woman priests, birth control, you name it, goes to church every sunday, does not observe fasting or meat on Fridays during lent-Because she says over and over how when she was growing up all she was told from the priests and nuns that doing "______" was going to make you go to hell and then overnight everything changed after Vatican II and now all of the things she was told she could not do is now OK. Would anyone ever expect the Cardinal of England and Wales to approve of homosexual adoption and hold "gay" masses as is now being promulgated?

A return to sound teachings and unwavering tradition and reverence is the only answer

Esau

Tim J.:

Must we continue to suffer the stench of manure from these hobby horses?

I need to remember: Lent, Lent, Lent...

FR RP

*sigh* when the Son of Man comes will he find any faith?

WE have lowered the bar so many times we should've hit the molten core of the earth by now.

Esau

*sigh* when the Son of Man comes will he find any faith?

WE have lowered the bar so many times we should've hit the molten core of the earth by now.


Now, THAT is a TRUE STATEMENT!

EVERYBODY is GUILTY of this -- TOO MANY COMPROMISES!


Heck, instead of Lent, for the CONVENIENCE of everybody in the Church, let's just have "SELF-IMPROVEMENT" Month and place the SPOTLIGHT on US and NOT CHRIST!

Also, I think SUNDAY MASS itself is an INCONVENIENCE &, above all, OPPRESSIVE!

We should only attend Mass on CHRISTMAS ONLY!
Most people come to Church only ONCE a year anyway and that's on Christmas!

Who Does God think He is anyway???? Just because He's God, Sent His Only Son to Save Humanity by SUFFERING & DYING FOR US; that doesn't mean HE should mean ANYTHING to US!!

Esau

Oh yeah, while we're at it, since people do whatever they want in church anyway, let's upgrade them:

1. For the convenience of people who actually chew gum in church; let's be accomodating and install gum vending machines on each entrance to the church. Actually, we might want to distribute a stick of gum in addition to the Eucharist. Perhaps some day, we might get it right and distribute a stick of gum instead of the Eucharist since the Eucharist is only a symbol anyway!!

2. For those who love talking in church; we who are so inconsiderate that we actually pray in church instead would like to take this time now to sincerely apologize to y'all.

To make up for our rudeness, let's propose we install live chatrooms in church so that during the Mass, we don't have to be bothered with the empty ritual that's happening there and spend our time doing something more worthwhile like engaging in deep conversation regarding something profound like talking about the television show Desparate Housewives!

3. For those who love blasting their cellphones in church; we'll provide you with speakers so that during the Mass, you can play all your ringtones in surround sound so that everybody in church and also outside can hear it!

4. For those who love to race out of the church even before the Mass ends; we'll have NASCAR-like competitions to see who's out of the church in split-second timing before the priest even pronounces the blessing!

5. For those church choirs who love to embellish the Novus Ordo Mass by providing such spectacular groovy music; we'll be certain to provide you with a concert stage along with all tambourines and drums and bass you want!

6. For more entertaining liturgies, we'll be certain to get all the acrobat performers and other such acts to perform at Mass so that we can groove to the funky beat!

7. For all rogue clergies out there who want to be cool and hip, we'll hand you out some Fonzie leather jackets and some cool shades for you to wear at Mass so that your parishoners know how cool you really are!

8. In place of the Eucharist, since it's a symbol to certain Catholics anyway; we'll instead hand out Oreo cookies since people much prefer those over stale bread anyway!

Have I missed anything?

So you think the Orthodox have no faith because they have none of these obligations? They really lowered the ball?

ts

Esau - totally awesome!!

There is an old expression for those who sneak out of church early (your #4) - the Judas Shuffle, in memory of Judas's early departure from the Last Supper. Maybe if the church bulletins noted this fact every week, people would be embarrassed to do it.

And that reminds me of one you missed -

9. Since so many people prefer to read the bulletin during Mass instead of taking it home afterward - and probably only read it because there is nothing else (cereal box, whatever!) - there should be one of those things like they have at airports so as you come in you can pick out a newspaper or magazine of your choice to read!

John

Esau Once again could not resist taking a personal swipe instead of addressing my posts content when he stated

"Tim J.:

Must we continue to suffer the stench of manure from these hobby horses?

I need to remember: Lent, Lent, Lent"

Esau-when curing someone with a disease such as cancer, one can not cure them without going back to the root problem, in the case of cancer possibly a tumor

The same goes for the church and her problems that have escalated into a complete loss of faith, morals , customs and belief. Inthis case, one simply needs to go back to 1962 and the reforms that were basically something never seen in chuch history. I still did not see your reply how the council if guided by the holy spirit could make a statement as it pertains to Islam in which Catholics are instructed to "hold it in high esteem".

And as far as you assertion of "Rad Trad"-if those that worship in the Traditional Faith before Holy Days were done away with or combined with Sunday Mass as fullfillment of ones obligation-then you and others here are saying that the church was "Radical" before 1962 when it was just plain old Catholic, and today it is something quite possibly else

A.Williams

"Have I missed anything?"


We might want to change the wine to "Buds". Wine is way too formal, and we don't want to appear 'square', 'uppity' or 'offensive' in anyway!

And you know everyone loves 'Bud'.. so this should be the perfect 'inclusive' choice for a liturgical beverage! Go's well with the dancing also!

Furthermore, the beer mugs and pitchers they currently use in the diocese of LA should be a model for all other parishes...with little adaptations. It's perfect for the buds and now only needs to be made a church 'norm'.

And the Vatican could harness Sheryl Crow as a papal envoy.(kinda like a modern St. Catherine of Siena!)She's a woman, she likes Bud 'early in the morning' which is good for 6:00a.m. masses, and I think she might be a Catholic. However, if she's not a Catholic it shouldn't matter, due to all the possible ecumenical benefits it should provide. It might even attract Tom Cruise and Katie Holms back to the Church, with such totally 'updated' and 'cool' modifications!?

But you should not use Oreo's...but rather 'Tostito's'(white corn). Also, maybe be an indult can be aquired to use 'Corona's'...and maybe even 'guacamole'... on certain feast (ie.,BBQ) days!

Otherwise, Esau, I think you are on the right 'liturgical' track, and these are excellent proposals in keeping with our ever changing modern times!!

A.Williams

On a more serious note....

I think everyone should be interested in this Catholic News Update:


Vatican official acknowledges liturgical crisis

Feb. 23, 2007 (CWNews.com) - In an unusually candid conversation with the monthly Inside the Vatican, the secretary of the Vatican’s Congregation for Divine Worship concedes that liturgical reform after Vatican II “has not been able to achieve the expected goals,” and indicates that Pope Benedict XVI (bio - news) is determined to address the crisis in Catholic liturgy.

In a lengthy interview, Archbishop Albert Malcom Ranjith Patabendige Don told the Inside the Vatican that a revival of the Catholic liturgy is essential to counteract the decline in practice among the faithful, particularly in the Western world.

[The full text of the interview is available on the CWN site, courtesy of Inside the Vatican]

“Undoubtedly there have been positive results” from the post-concilar liturgical renewal, the Sri Lankan prelate told interview Anthony Valle. But he quickly added that “the negative effects seem to have been greater, causing much disorientation in our ranks.”

Pope Benedict fully recognizes the crisis in the liturgy, the archbishop says, and the time has now come “with the help of the Lord to make the necessary corrections.”

Questioned about the prospects for a motu proprio in which Pope Benedict XVI would allow wider use of the pre-conciliar Latin liturgy, Archbishop Ranjith indicated that the document should be expected, although he would not predict when it would appear or exactly what it would say. “With regard to the timing and nature of the motu proprio,” he said, “nothing yet is known. It is the Holy Father who will decide.’

The challenge that the Pontiff faces, Archbishop Ranjith said, is “not so much a matter of the Tridentine Mass or of the Novus Ordo. It is just a question of pastoral responsibility and sensitivity.” He added that “if the Holy Father so desires, both could co-exist.” Wide use of the old Mass, he said, would not require abandoning the post-conciliar liturgy. “But in the interaction of the two Roman traditions, it is possible that the one may influence the other eventually.”

The fundamental challenge, the archbishop said, is stop what he called “freewheeling” liturgical innovation, and to recover the sense of the sacred. Steps in that direction, he said, would bring Catholics back into more active practice of the faith.

Archbishop Ranjith was unsparing in his analysis of the crisis facing Catholicism today. Noting the decline in active Mass attendance, he said: “We have to ask ourselves what happened in these churches and then take corrective steps as may be necessary.”

The archbishop refused to accept some common explanations for the decline in Catholic practice. “I do not think that this situation is attributable to secularization only,” he said. “A deep crisis of faith coupled with a drive for meaningless liturgical experimentation and novelty have had their own impact in this matter.”


Mary Kay

John, the comment about stench was not a personal swipe. There is an unpleasant odor to your comments. Your comments are distinctly malodorous when you repeatedly smear the Pope and the Magesterium.

a complete loss of faith, morals , customs and belief

Talking about taking a personal swipe. A "complete loss" would include every single person who attends a Novus Ordo Mass. Are you saying that I have a loss of faith, morals and belief?

I still did not see your reply how the council if guided by the holy spirit could make a statement as it pertains to Islam in which Catholics are instructed to "hold it in high esteem".

John, please, please, please cite a source when you make comments such as this one. Then it would be possible to actually have a discussion with you.

Jordan Potter

Anonymous said: "So you think the Orthodox have no faith because they have none of these obligations?"

The Orthodox don't have OUR obligations. They have their own obligations, and they are far more numerous and extensive than Catholic obligations.

Skygor

"The laity were not consulted nor were the majority of priests."

The laity always have a say by means their priest. If one doesn't have a close personal relationship with their pastor that actualy includes a spiritual aspect, and avoids telling him what is going wrong, then there is issue. Plus last time I checked the Church still isn't a democracy. Also occasional "good job" or "thank you Father" just for basic encouragement
wouldn't hurt either.

Post Scriptum: as for complaint of less work without HDoO, pastors still have to Daily Mass regardless.

Jordon,

Do you really know about the Orthodox? They do not have obligations. In fact, they see the Western idea of obligation an indication of the legalistic mindset that people in the West get caught up with.

bill912

Anonymous ignorance speaks. Jordan, of course, was right.

A.Williams


Regarding John's frequent complaint about the orthodoxy of the present Church, of which his ideology is only one of the many varieties that can be found amongst the various modern movements in the Church, whether they be those of the far right, or the far left, I thought I would point you folks to a statement made by Pope Benedict XVI,made yesterday on this very topic. That is, on how to deal with and try to reconcile the many varying charisms, ideologies and movements-- some authentically inspired by the Holy Spirit, and some erroneous, sinful and damaging to the Church -- currently affecting and influencing the Church today. Here's what he says:


Pope Lists 2 Rules for Movements to Grow

Respect Charisms, Remember That Church Is One

VATICAN CITY, FEB. 23, 2007 (Zenit.org).- For ecclesial movements to flourish, new charisms and the unity of the Church must be respected, says Benedict XVI.

The Holy Father made this comment Thursday, the feast of the Chair of St. Peter, during a question-and-answer session with the Roman clergy in the Hall of Blessings.

Father Gerardo Raúl Carcar of the Schoenstatt Fathers, a native of Argentina working in a parish in Rome, asked the Holy Father how movements can work together with the hierarchy of the Church.

In his answer, Benedict XVI presented two rules for a successful relationship between the two. First, quoting St. Paul's first letter to the Thessalonians, he said: "Do not extinguish charisms."

The Holy Father said: "If the Lord gives us new gifts we must give thanks.... And it is something beautiful that, without an initiative of the hierarchy ... new forms of life are born in the Church, as they were born in all the centuries."

"Movements have been born in all the centuries," the Pope said. "They integrate in the life of the Church, though at times there is no lack of sufferings and difficulties." As an example, he said that when the Franciscans and the Benedictines were founded, they were also new movements.

"Thus, also in our century, the Lord, the Holy Spirit, has given us new initiatives with new aspects of Christian life: On being lived by human persons with their limitations, they also create difficulties," the Holy Father added.

Born to serve

Commenting on the unity of the Church, the Pontiff said: "If the movements are really gifts of the Holy Spirit, they integrate and serve the Church, and in the patient dialogue between pastors and movements a fruitful form is born, in which these elements become edifying elements for the Church of today and tomorrow."

Benedict XVI continued: "This dialogue takes place at all levels. Beginning with the parish priest, the bishop, the Successor of Peter, the search takes place for the appropriate structures: In many cases, this search has already borne fruits. In other cases, it is still being studied."

The Holy Father gave as an example the process of approving the statutes of the Neocatechumenal Way: "It has been a long way, with many complications which are still occurring today, but we have found an ecclesial way which has much improved the relationship between the pastor and the Way. And so we go ahead!"

"The same is true for the other movements," he added.

On summarizing the two fundamental rules, the Pope suggested that both the movements and parish communities continue with "gratitude, patience, and acceptance of sufferings, which are inevitable."

Benedict XVI continued: "Also in a marriage there are sufferings and tensions. And yet, they continue, and thus true love matures. The same happens in the community of the Church: Together, let's have patience."

"Let us be obedient to the voice of the Spirit," the Pope added, "but let us also be clear when it comes to integrating these elements in life: This criterion serves, in the end, the concrete Church and in this way, with patience, courage and generosity, the Lord will guide and help us."


Tim J.

"...they see the Western idea of obligation an indication of the legalistic mindset that people in the West get caught up with."

What is legalism, Anonymous? Please define your terms.

And if the West is too "legalistic" in your view, what is the East? More "spiritual"? Perhaps we in the West might criticize Eastern spirituality as too amorphous and insubstantial.

I once spoke with a lady who writes Icons. She carefully explained the deep meaning of every step in the process of Icon writing, which she learned from a Russian Orthodox gentleman. She gushed about the depth of Orthodox spirituality... which is fine, except that she is not a Christian, at all (by any meaningful definition of the word) but a New Ager, and she saw nothing necessarily Christian about the meaning of Icons, and furthermore thought that belief in Christ had no impact whatsoever on a person's capacity to grasp the deep symbolism of both Icons and Orthodox spirituality.

Now, we see our share of kookiness in the West, but don't start criticizing the spirituality of others unless you are willing to look hard at the pitfalls of your own idiom.

John

Mary Kay asked:

" still did not see your reply how the council if guided by the holy spirit could make a statement as it pertains to Islam in which Catholics are instructed to "hold it in high esteem".

John, please, please, please cite a source when you make comments such as this one. Then it would be possible to actually have a discussion with you."

http://www.rc.net/rcchurch/vatican2/nostra.aet

[NOSTRA AETATE]

DECLARATION
ON THE RELATION OF THE
CHURCH TO NON-CHRISTIAN
RELIGIONS

"3. The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself, merciful and all-powerful,
the Creator of heaven and earth who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes great pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet.

Since when does the Catholic Church have high esteem for those who worship false gods and practice false religions? This statement alone is blasphemy and idolatry.

The Catechism of the Catholic [Conciliar] Church, 1992: “841. ‘The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims… together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.’

Very confusing to one as myself Mary Kay

Can we have a discussion now?

John

Who is the liar, but he who denieth that Jesus is the Christ? This is Antichrist, who denieth the Father, and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father.” (1Jn. 2:22-23)

The Catholic Church who is the interpreter of God’s Word teaches the following:

Pope Sixtus III, Council of Ephesus, 432: “5. If anyone dares to say that Christ was a God-bearing man and not rather God in truth… let him be anathema [which means condemned].”

So I am confused about this departure from scripture, from past teachings and beliefs about those that clearly deny Jesus, is questionable if they adore the same God as we do (they consider calling him the Father blaspheme-go ask Scott Hahn on that one) and now the new catechism is teaching that they can be saved? I am not judge by anymeans, just a confused student who was taught no pope or council can reteach or redefine anything that was clear and part of church teaching and belief. The purpose of a council is only to clear up a matter of confusion, such as Vatican I in Papal Infallibility and so on. If something is retaught it is pastoral in nature only

Tim J.

You mean, should we allow this combox to turn into yet another "debate" (and I use that term loosely) on whether the post-conciliar Church has gone apostate?

Oh, I can hardly wait.

On second thought, I think I'll go perform an unnecessary root-canal on myself without benefit of anaesthesia.

While listening to an old Barney tape.

Bernard

John, your quotation contradicts you. There is a difference between "holding Islam in high esteem" (what you claimed Vatican II said) and "regarding Muslims with esteem" (what Vatican II really said). Catholics should 'esteem' Muslims insofar as faithful Muslims love God deeply, are very dedicated to prayer, etc. Obviously, Vatican II is not here approving the teachings of Islam which contradict those of the Church, as the context (i.e. the whole document & the other VII documents) make abundantly clear. How saying that we should esteem the many good qualities that many Muslims have amounts to "idolatry and blasphemy" is a mystery to me.

The Ephesus canon you cite is not relevant, as this was imposing an ecclesiastical sanction on Christians who departed from the true faith. It was not addressing the question of other religions.

A.Williams

John,

I think when dealing with 'ecumenical' issues with the Moslem religion we should proceed even as Pope Benedict teaches. In such teachings we are not trying to 'condemn' the Moslems...but rather to help convert them to the Sacred and Most Loving Heart of Jesus Christ.


I can only highlight the fact that Jesus came "not to condemn but to save"..and yes, this includes all the Moslems, and all other pagans, sinners, idolators, athiests etc..out there too. And if the Church says it 'esteems' the Moslems in any way..it is because it esteems ALL creatures of God, and animals also (read St. Francis on this, who called all things 'brother'). We are all made in "the image of God" and ALL are to be respected in this general, universal and very holy, sense.

That the Moslems also believe in God, and further yet..in the God of Abraham..this is really a great thing. It is a place to begin talking to them!

But you might say: No!! We MUST condemn them!! They're wrong!! They are sinners! They are heretics!! They teach WRONG things!!!

And, of course we know that they are wrong! Even as the prodigal son was wrong! But do we condemn them and shove them off as you would have us do...or do we wait for them...looking to the horizon for a change of heart? Even as is said in the same mentioned parable...the Good Father waiting for the return of his errant son.

The Holy Church is a representative of this same Loving Father, and likewise (as sons of such a Father) should be extremely loving and patient with all who are in error. And then when one of these comes back..it should "slaughter the fatted calf" in thanksgiving! Even as Jesus teaches in the Gosple! This is the TRUE heart of Our Religion, and the true spirit of the ONE TEACHER of us all...JESUS CHRIST!

The Church must never assume to be more than Jesus Himself...of which we are the Body of Christ! We must therefore study the humanity of Christ, all of his actions, all of his dealings with others... sinners, pharisees, samaritans, traitors, adulterers,the ignorant, the Romans....all that He met in this life! We must study Jesus and all of His techniques, aspirations and ways!

The other option is to follow the zeal of James and John, who were truly zealous for the Lord! They said " Lord, should we call down 'fire from heaven' to destroy them?? Being so hateful that anyone would think of 'denying' or respecting, their beloved Master?

But how does our Lord and Teacher respond to these his beloved and fiery - but misguided - disciples?:

"55 And turning, he rebuked them, saying: You know not of what spirit you are." Luke 9

Furthermore, the disciples met others, preaching and doing "wonders' in the name of Jesus and were scandlized by these things! They thought.."Hey, what on earth are these idiots doing...they have NO authority to preach anything! We are THE APOSTLES!!STOP! In the name of Jesus OUR LORD...we command you to stop doing what you are doing!

Do you not think these zealous and loving apostles were startled by unauthorized preachers, that were copying them, in their works and mission...and doing so without any mandate or 'call' from their beloved Master??

But how does "the Teacher"..yes 'OUR Teacher' respond?:

"38 But Jesus said: Do not forbid him. For there is no man that doth a miracle in my name, and can soon speak ill of me." Mark 9

So John, in all things we need to listen to and study the teachings of Our ONE Teacher and Master..our Lord Jesus Christ. We can see that He did not condemn His enemies, or unauthorized disciples to Hell!..at least NOT in THIS WORLD! In this world, we can only see His tolerance, love and incredible patience...in all things.

Now..is this Liberal? Am I being too soft? Am I not defending the severe truths proposed by the Church of Christ, and neglecting all of it's condemnations?? No. On the contrary I am supporting the Church, who is teaching in the manner that Jesus taught...and that is with Wisdom, Love, Compassion, Patience and True Desire for Conversion!The Church in all ages has had the ability to react even as the Lord readted in this world..and according to the specisfic 'pastoral' needs of the times. Yes...to loose sometimes, and to bind..sometimes, also! However, it does all with the wisdom and guidence of the Holy Spirit, and also with much charity and patience! In this it always tries to faithfully follow the ways of our Lord and Master especially when he teaches:


"47 And if any man hear my words, and keep them not, I do not judge him: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world." John 12

And also:

"36 Which of these three, in thy opinion, was neighbour to him that fell among the robbers? 37 But he said: He that shewed mercy to him. And Jesus said to him: Go, and do thou in like manner." Luke 10:36-37

John

Tim

One must, when looking at the problems that confront the church of today look at the root cause of the problem and not run away from it. Trying to discuss the problems within the church on blogs such as this without discussing the most divisive council not to mention the council that reformed and changed everything that Catholics took for centuries as being Catholic and then were told they were mistaken is like trying to discuss the cause of cancer without knowing ones biology.

Now if you would rather go get a root canal feel free to do so. There have been thousands of words written on the subject from clerics and theologians ranging from the council being heretical to just implemented wrong but for the most part most agree something was not done correct here

And Bernard

Your reply is sort of like Bill Clinton and asking what the real meaning of the word "is" is

It is quite clear in Nostre Aetate what is said, that though the Moslems deny Jesus we are to hold them in high esteem, and the word high is right in the council documents

Church fathers for centuries denounced them, yet today we are told otherwise. This is a clear departure from scripture.

Whether we are to hold them in "esteem" or "high esteem", can we even hold a discussion or meet with those in good faith knowing they are taught in their Koran:

Koran, Book V, verse 19/17: “Infidels are those for sure who say: Allah is the Messiah, Son of Mary.”

Koran, Book IX, par. 30: “The Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before, may Allah destroy them, how they have turned away.”

I have a hard time totally believing that the Holy spirit, the third part of the Holy Trinity, being blasphemed in this way by the Koran, would guide men to write Nostre Aetate while it is being blasphemed

A.Williams

John,

Here are some current answers to questions relating to ecumenism, as posted on Zenit as of yesterday.

The Ecumenical Adventure

Interview With Expert on Interreligious Affairs

WASHINTON, D.C., FEB. 23, 2007 (Zenit.org).-

Ecumenical and interreligious dialogue doesn't mean that Catholics have to compromise their beliefs, actually, quite the opposite is true, says Father James Massa.

Father Massa is the executive director of the U.S. episcopal conference's Secretariat for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs.

In this interview with ZENIT, he discusses the particular challenges and benefits of ecumenical dialogue in the United States.

(selections)

Q: Is apologetics a key element of ecumenism? Do Catholics have to be better formed in their own faith before engaging in ecumenical dialogue with Protestants? Or does ecumenism come "from the top down," for example, through agreements made among Church leaders like the document on justification signed some years ago by Lutherans and Catholics?

Father Massa: That's a very interesting question. Let me refer you to my answer to the second question. I would also say, however, that while being informed about and committed to one's own faith is essential for participation in ecumenical work, apologetics is not the same as ecumenical dialogue.

If the Catholic's contribution were to be cast in overly polemical terms, then the dialogue breaks down. John Paul II said that ecumenism is about "the sharing of gifts," and unless we are prepared to receive a "gift" from the other-whatever that might be -- we are not suited for this type of engagement. ..

...Then there is dialogue, which requires that all the participants be knowledgeable and fully committed to the tenets of their own religious tradition.

If the Catholic participant is conflicted about this or that particular teaching of the Catholic Church, then he or she is not an adequate representative of the tradition. Dialogue becomes a farce. I have been in attendance at such meetings, and they are not terribly edifying.

I keep in mind no. 36 of the John Paul II's encyclical: "With regard to the study of areas of disagreement, the council requires that the whole body of doctrine be clearly presented. At the same time, it asks that the manner and method of expounding the Catholic faith should not be a hindrance to dialogue with our brothers and sisters.

..."Certainly it is possible to profess one's faith and to explain its teaching in a way that is correct, fair and understandable, and which at the same time takes into account both the way of thinking and the actual historical experiences of the other party."

Mary Kay

Can we have a discussion now?

Yes! Thanks for the citing your source, John.

Bernard and A. Williams beat me to it, so I'll probably repeat some of what they said. Bernard
was right that the quote from Ephesus was addressing a different situation. For one thing, Islam didn't even exist in 431.

As someone said in an earlier thread, ecumenism refers to non-Catholic Christians, "separated brethren" who "invoke the Triune God and confess Jesus as Lord and Savior." The quote is from the first paragraph of Unitatis Redintegratio, which was the Vatican II decree on ecumenism.

To address non-Christians, those who don't believe in the Trinity, was Nostra Aetate, the "Declaration on the Relationship of the Church to Non-Christian Religions."

Since I think in sections, I'll continue this in a new box.

John

Mary Kay

To say that Islam didnt exist in 431 is all wonderful, but I do think that as Catholics we can take the leap of faith and apply what was said at this council to all Faiths that deny Christ-but I do need a clarification as I am confused as to your thought process and beliefs:

Are you then saying that we should then hold all faiths who deny Christ "in high esteem"? And also do you feel and belive as as Catholic that those who deny Christ, where scripture is clear on this subject-can be saved? I await your answer


"Better that only a few Catholics should be left, staunch and sincere in their religion, than that they should, remaining many, desire as it were, to be in collusion with the Church’s enemies and in conformity with the open foes of our faith.” St. Peter Canisius

A.Williams

John,

I think you might have missed this phrase above:

..."I keep in mind no. 36 of the John Paul II's encyclical: "With regard to the study of areas of disagreement, the council requires that the whole body of doctrine be clearly presented.

(THAT BEING THE WHOLE ORTHODOX CATHOLIC TEACHING BEING DISCUSSED AND DEBATED)

..At the same time, it asks that the manner and method of expounding the Catholic faith should not be a hindrance to dialogue with our brothers and sisters."

I really feel that you want the Cathlic Church to imitate the worldly and impious methods that most of the radical Moslem groups use ( and ancient Jews also!..ie. Pharisees, etc.. of Jesus' times)...which is to blanketly condemn everyone that doesn't agree with our faith as an unworthy and immediately damnable heretic, with no further study or commentary needed. Lets just start the war and kill, or crucify them all!( recognize the unconverted St. Paul anywhere here?) Let's call down that fire from heaven, as Sts. John and James so eagarly wanted!

John, I repeat, I think you might have the same spirit as John and James...but the Lord corrected them in the Gospel, as noted above. The Lord's way was different! He met with the Jews, Romans, Adultresses, Samaritans and other "Sinners"...and peaceably and lovingly taught His "Gospel".

Haven't you read the Gospels??

"52 And he sent messengers before his face; and going, they entered into a city of the Samaritans, to prepare for him. 53 And they received him not, because his face was of one going to Jerusalem. 54 And when his disciples James and John had seen this, they said: Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them? 55 And turning, he rebuked them, saying: You know not of what spirit you are.

56 The Son of man came not to destroy souls, but to save. And they went into another town."

Or....don't these sayings of the Lord have any meaning?..or spiritual significance??

And as for a further emphasis on the role of true and charitable methods of preaching and teaching the Gospel of Christ, as compared to just condemning everyone who doesn't believe in the first moment of preaching....take another look, and read carefully what St. Anthony Mary Claret said about this topic:

THE VIRTUE OF LOVE OF GOD AND NEIGHBOR


438. Love is the most necessary of all the virtues. Yes, I say it and will say it a thousand times: the virtue an apostolic missionary needs most of all is love. He must love God, Jesus Christ, the Blessed Virgin Mary, and his neighbors. If he lacks this love, all his talents, however fine in themselves, are for nothing. But if, together with his natural endowments, he has much love, he has everything.273

439. Love in a man who preaches the Word of God is like fire in a musket. If a man were to throw a bullet with his hands, he would hardly make a dent in anything; but if he takes this same bullet and ignites some gunpowder behind it, it can kill. It is much the same with the Word of God. If God's Word is spoken only naturally, it does very little; but if it is spoken by a priest who is filled with the fire of charity-- the fire of love of God and neighbor--it will wound vices, kill sins, convert sinners, and work wonders. We can see this in the case of St. Peter, who walked out of the upper room afire with the love he had received from the Holy Spirit, with the result that through just two sermons he converted 8,000 people, three in the first sermon and five in the second.274

440. The same Holy Spirit, by appearing in the form of tongues of fire above the Apostles on Pentecost, showed us this truth quite clearly: an apostolic missionary must have both heart and tongue ablaze with charity. One day the Venerable Avila was asked by a young priest what he should do to become a good preacher. His ready answer was, "Love much.''275 And both experience and the history of the Church teach us that the greatest preachers have always been the most fervent lovers.

441. In truth, the fire of love acts in a minister of the Lord in much the same way that material fire acts in the engine of a locomotive or a ship: it enables them to move the heaviest cargo with the greatest of ease.276 What good would either of these two huge machines be without fire and steam to move them? None at all. What good is a priest who has finished all his studies and holds degrees in theology and canon and civil law if he lacks the fire of love? None at all. He is no good for others because he is like a locomotive without steam. Instead of being a help, as he should, he may only be a hindrance. He is no good even for himself. As St. Paul says, "If I speak with human tongues and angelic as well, but do not have love, I am a noisy gong, a clanging cymbal."277

For more reading, copy and paste this link:

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:K3fny6NIvY8J:www.claret.org/documentos/en/autobio-claret.rtf+autobiography+of+St.+Anthony+Mary+Claret&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=34

Mary Kay

One of the reasons IMO for Vatican II was that communications and travel were about to speed up tremendously. Television was just becoming commonly in households, same with air travel. Society was about to make vast changes and the Church was with her people in the face of those changes.


I have a copy of the book form of the documents of Vatican II with commentary, published in 1966. A Fr. Graham commented on Nostra Aetate. He said that it started out being on Catholic-Jewish relations. However "the bishops of the most populous parts of the world" were preoccupied with the other religions present in their country. Fr. Graham notes that a few bishops thought this document did not address essential questions and "confined itself to making polite remarks."

So Bernard's comment that the document says Muslims are esteemed is basically because they seeing the good in others. Not saying that Islam has a fully correct understanding, but seeing the good that is there.

As A. Williams say, Jesus came not to condemn but to save.

Someplace in Crossing the Threshold of Hope John Paul II said that it is possible to reach out to others without compromising one's own beliefs.

Mary Kay

Cross posted because I was writing in between something else. Let me re-read your last post.

Mary Kay

I do think that as Catholics we can take the leap of faith and apply what was said at this council to all Faiths that deny Christ

John, that is your private interpretation. An interpretation not shared by Church teaching.

Are you then saying that we should then hold all faiths who deny Christ "in high esteem"? And also do you feel and belive as as Catholic that those who deny Christ, where scripture is clear on this subject-can be saved? I await your answer

"Better that only a few Catholics should be left, staunch and sincere in their religion, than that they should, remaining many, desire as it were, to be in collusion with the Church’s enemies and in conformity with the open foes of our faith.” St. Peter Canisius

Taking both paragraphs together, you seem to think that esteeming someone, that is being nice to them, is equal to "be in collusion with the Church's enemies." I disagree with your view. It is entirely possible, even necessary, to be polite, that is to "esteem" others whether or not they believe as I do.

Those who deny Christ... I believe that God offers many opportunities for people to accept Him. I pray for others but it's not my job to obsess over whether or not they are saved. Not only is that between them and God, but also, I have enough to do to keep my own house clean.

Jordan Potter

"Do you really know about the Orthodox?"

Yes.

"They do not have obligations."

Do you really know about the Orthodox, Anonymous? What religion doesn't have obligations?

"In fact, they see the Western idea of obligation an indication of the legalistic mindset that people in the West get caught up with."

Meanwhile, Western Protestants see Orthodoxy and Catholicism as legalistic.

I am aware, of course, that there is a pronounced tendency in Orthodoxy to misunderstand and mischaracterise Catholicism and "Western ideas" so as to create or to overemphasise real or perceived differences.

Anyway, whoever you are, anyone with even a passing knowledge of Orthodoxy could only smile (or even bust a gut laughing) at your claim that Orthodoxy does not have religious obligations. Their moral and liturgical discipline is generally more intensive than Catholic moral and liturgical discipline. It wasn't always that way, of course, but Catholicism has gotten pretty lax and easy-going lately, as evidenced by, among other things, our bishops moving holy days to Sundays. Case in point: formerly Catholics abstained from meat for all of Lent and every Friday of the year, but now abstain only on the Fridays of Lent. Again, Catholics used to fast four times a year for the Ember Days, but today most Catholics would say, "Huh?" if you mentioned Ember Days. Again, recently the Church began allowing female altar boys, an innovation that would provoke violence in much of Orthodoxy if any bishop dared to try to introduce it. Orthodoxy has commendably retained its ancient ascetical disciplines, whereas modern Catholicism has all but lost its understanding of ascesis. So please don't try and claim that Orthodoxy has no concept of moral obligation. These days Orthodoxy is a far more rigorous religion than Catholicism is (and I say that in praise of Orthodoxy and reproach my religion).

Jordan

Nice equivocation. We are talking about holy days of obligation here. Stick with the point. The Orthodox do not have them and think there is something legalistic to require them. Are they less faithful because they don't have obligations? You have not answered the question.

bill912

"Are they less faithful because they don't have obligations?"

Talk about leaps of illogic!

Answer the question.

A.Williams

Anonymous,

"The Orthodox do not have them and think there is something legalistic to require them. Are they less faithful because they don't have obligations? You have not answered the question."


Do you have any idea at all about the Christian Faith? Do you know that there is a difference between the different Christian Faiths today and the 'legalistic' ancient Jewish faith of the times of Jesus?

You make it sound like the Catholic faith is a reincarnation of ancient Judaism, with all it's regulation's, precepts, Mosaic laws etc.. Is this what you're trying to get across?

And do you want to prove that this is so, by using the Orthodox against the overly 'legalistic', 'pharisaical' Catholics?

So what if the Catholic Church has developed certain customs and 'norms' for liturgical rites etc.? So what if because of a desire to have the members of the Church united in faith, at certain notable dates within the liturgical year, it encourages, indeed requires, all to participate in mandated activities..and such activities can be changed and adapted by individual dioceses and Bishops. Is this a big deal?

Or rather, is the Church NOT a LIVING organization?... composed of REAL HUMANS, in REAL FLESH, BREATHING REAL AIR, and having REAL HUMAN NEEDS?

And yes...Needing REAL HUMAN ORGANIZATION, REAL HUMAN PLANNING and REAL PHYSICAL PLACES AND REAL TIMES and DATES FOR ASSOCIATING AND PRAYING TOGETHER? Need I mention that we REALLY COMMIT SINS? ..and need REAL SACRAMENTS and POWER from CHRIST and his CHURCH HIERARCHY to forgive those REAL SINS? Not to mention REALLY CHANGE BREAD AND WINE INTO THE REAL EUCHARISTIC FLESH AND BLOOD OF OUR LORD, JESUS CHRIST?

The laws of the Church are meant to unite, and help support, all of her members. These laws can change as the leaders of the Church sees fit, according to times, places and circumstances in the life of the Church itself. The Pope and the leaders in Rome have been given the task by Jesus, to orchestrate and coordinate HIS CHURCH, to the best of their HUMAN abilities...and with the help and guidence of the HOLY SPIRIT.

And He promised that the 'GATES of HELL' shall NOT prevail against it.

What the Orthodox Church decides to do is it's own business. They are brother's in the Catholic tradition and faith, and the 2 Churches are currently trying to unite. Pope Benedict's visit last Fall is just one such attempt.

Both have their particular liturgies, rules and regulations. Making a big deal about the differences between these two Churches is pretty much a waste of time. If saw fit, the Pope could adapt the entire Catholic Church to the Orthodox liturgy, customs and festivals...no big deal. He can have us worship in Latin, or Chinese or any other language he chooses...no big deal.

The big deal is : THE GOSPLE OF JESUS CHRIST. THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS CHRIST. THE SACRAMENTS INSTITUTED BY JESUS CHRIST. AND THE HOLY SPIRIT SENT TO US BY GOD THE FATHER THROUGH THE SACRIFICIAL MERITS OF JESUS CHRIST!

These are the important things...the little details such as the Date of Christmas or Easter, the length of the Eucharistic celebration, the length of penitential fasts, the composition of the liturgical practices...all of this is 'way' secondary to the doctrine and practice of the Faith of Christ.

Just curious why you put so much attention on these little organizational rules and procedures which are inherent in any type of REAL, and ordered, human community?

Sure it's easy to fantasize that we only need a bible in front of our faces to 'be saved'! And maybe Jesus indeed will save such a soul in certain of these types of circumstances. However, He, Our Lord and Master, chose to found and order His Church on REAL PEOPLE...Like St. Peter, for instance. It is a LIVING CHURCH filled with Living saints and sinners alike... and it has a LIVING, GOVERNING BODY, named THE HOLY SEE.

And thanks be to God that He has given us such a Church...and not left us disorganized and lacking the cohesion of the Protestants, Buddhists, Moslems, Evangelicals,New Agers, Hindus, Atheists and all other types of world religions 'out there'!

AMEN!

Jordan Potter

"Nice equivocation. We are talking about holy days of obligation here."

Well, most of us are. You, however, made the ridiculous claim that the Orthodox don't have any concept of "obligation" in matters of religious practice.

"Stick with the point. The Orthodox do not have them"

Yes they do. They may or may not claim that they don't, but I hear quacks and I see waddles.

"and think there is something legalistic to require them. Are they less faithful because they don't have obligations? You have not answered the question."

So the Orthodox believe that the individual Christian may disregard the Lord's Day at his own whim, or ignore the Pascha feast or their period of Lenten preparation for Pascha? That's news to me, and would be news to anyone who is Orthodox. Obviously then, not only do the Orthodox have moral and religious obligations, contrary to what Anonymous asserted, but they also have an understanding that Christians have a moral "obligation" not to forsake the assembling of ourselves together on Sunday and Pascha, etc. The Orthodox DO have religious obligations, so Anonymous' question about whether or not they are less faithful not to have religious obligations is gobbledygook.

I should also point out that, even granting the claim that Orthodox Christians don't have any concept of religious obligation, it's still got nothing to do with the current trend in Catholicism of transferring holy days to the nearest Sunday. If Anonymous is trying to make an analogy between a purported absence of "obligation" in Eastern Orthodoxy and the current trend of moving holy days of obligation to Sunday, then the analogy is inapt, because Sunday is the first and most ancient of all Christian holy days of obligation and remains so in Catholicism. The Church isn't going to abandon her divine right to bind and loose, even if every non-Sunday holy day of obligation is abrogated.

Jordan Potter

By the way, Jimmy asks all posters here to use a screen name. Leaving the name blank ist verboten.

Esau

Esau - totally awesome!!


Thanks ts!
Also, I appreciate the info on the "Judas Shuffle", too!
Never quite heard of that before, but definitely makes sense considering what they're doing (not to mention, the term cracks me up)! <=^0
I appreciate your additional proposals! ;^)


You too, A. Williams!!!

Bud & Chips instead of the Body & Blood of Christ! Sounds good! Perhaps maybe then MORE people will come to Mass and take it as seriously as they do the SuperBowl!

GOD BLESS YOU TS (ts) AND A. WILLIAMS! ! !

Esau

Esau Once again could not resist taking a personal swipe instead of addressing my posts content when he stated

"Tim J.:

Must we continue to suffer the stench of manure from these hobby horses?

I need to remember: Lent, Lent, Lent"


Personal swipe, John????

Oh please --

If you carefully took a look at my post, it wasn't insulting you but your usual CALUMNY!

I don't even want to engage in your usual monologues since that's all they are.

A conversation (such as that of a "dialogue") takes two people not only talking but hearing what the other party is actually saying!

We've covered these topics in the past.

I don't want to waste time with your usual trash -- especially since you never listen to what others are telling you but only talk, talk, talk!

Esau

John...There is an unpleasant odor to your comments. Your comments are distinctly malodorous when you repeatedly smear the Pope and the Magesterium.


MARY KAY, YOU'RE ALWAYS SUCH A SWEETHEART!!!

God bless you, my lady! May Lent bring you great spiritual renewal!

RC

IIRC, Immaculate Conception is a holy day of obligation in the US because that's the patronal feast of the country.

If that's the case, I assume St Patrick's day is a holy day in Ireland. Don't know about England and Canada.

Dr. Eric

The Orthodox are very legalistic (paradoxically for them) view of their fasting requirements.

Some monks have even have gone so far as to say that if a person doesn't fast (meaning the Orthodox Fast) he/she is not a Christian.

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/prayer_feasts_fasts.aspx

The quote is from St. Seraphim of Sarov who said that a person who does not fast is not a Christian.

Once again, the context is that of holy days of obligation; the discussion is the Orthodox view of them. Are they less faithful because they do not have them? Everything else has not dealt with this question.

Esau

Once again, the context is that of holy days of obligation; the discussion is the Orthodox view of them. Are they less faithful because they do not have them?


Anon:

That's just it -- just because you would like to take this on a purely "legalistic" level and depend on the citing of specific language (i.e., "holy days of obligation") does not necessarily negate the fact that such obligation does actually exist in the Orthodox Church though it may not use the same language as the Western Church but, instead, the obligation exists regardless in one form or another.

You seem to depend on the usual court tactic of a "Yes/No" question that lawyers typically employ in order to twist the perception of the jury to their perspective in the matter.

bill912

You guys do realize that you are attempting to penetrate an irrational mind with rationality, don't you. It can't be done.

A.Williams

Anon,

If you want my humble opinion to your rediculously persistent question: "Are they less faithful because they do not have them?", I would say.....maybe!

As the Catholic Church is led by the succession of Popes from St. Peter, down until this present day, whatever the Hierarchy of the Holy Catholic Church decides in regards 'norms' for liturgical celebrations and Sacraments is in accord to the 'mind of Christ' whose Holy Spirit infallably leads and guides the Lord's BODY, His Church, here on Earth, both now and until the end of the world.

So the decisions of Rome are the Decisions of Christ. "Those who here you, hear Me."

Now regards the Orthodox? We know that they are currently in a state of "schism", from the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. And of course this is NOT a good state to be in. Is it less faithful? Of course it is! Who will say that a schizmatic soul is more faithful to Christ than devout and obiedient soul united to the One holy Magisterium of the ONE Holy, Universal Church that Christ founded??

But you want to be particular...and ask if it is the lack of having a "holy day(s) of obligation", as we know it in the Roman Catholic world, that indeed makes them less faithful?

Again. Maybe and maybe not! Of course the Decisions of the Roman Church are the decisions of Christ. "What you loose on Earth will be loosed in Heaven..etc..". So if the Orthodox Church doesn't teach the same doctrines or 'norms' that the Roman Catholic Church..it is "probably" deficient in some way or other.

Might we also wonder why the Roman Catholic Church has significantly spread throughout the entire world, where as the Orthodox Church is largely relegated to Northern Europe and the Middle east?

But are they LESS Faithful exactly because of the lack of Holy days of obligation? Maybe! or even ...Probably! If we look at 'circumstantial evidence', the results of such deficient 'liturgical norms and regulations', that is 'lacking' such norms as "holy days of obligation" might conclude that they lacked or failed ot utilize organizational skills which are essential and essential to spreading the faith to the entire world..even as the Lord wants: Luke 12

" I am come to cast fire on the earth; and what will I, but that it be kindled?"

and

" And this gospel of the kingdom, shall be preached in the whole world, for a testimony to all nations, and then shall the consummation come."

So...If the Orthodox fail to use all of the organizational skills necessary for accomplishing such goals, or if they lack the will to try to achieve these goals of Christ..then this might indeed signify that they indeed ARE "less faithful".

However, this of course is just speculation. Really it's pretty much a waste of time debating such nonsense.

It's much better to pay attention important items..such as this admonishment:

"And he said to them: Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature."

So again...the answer to your question is: Maybe. Probably!

But that's just my humble opinion, of course!

And since it is, as I said, a 'humble' opinion...I will accept enlightenment, if I err in any way in this matter... from any of those who are more inspired and intelligent than I, in these assumptions adn speculations... especially those who love and serve the Lord with all their hearts, and are also completely Faithful to His ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH!

Amen!


John

Mary Kay stated(and this can apply to Esau and Tim J):

"Those who deny Christ... I believe that God offers many opportunities for people to accept Him. I pray for others but it's not my job to obsess over whether or not they are saved. Not only is that between them and God, but also, I have enough to do to keep my own house clean."

You have not answered the question

The early martyrs of the church, including all but 1 of the Apostles died a martyrs death rather than subscribe to paganism, faiths which Nostre Aetate (Guided by the Holy Spirit??) all but embraces as it tells us that these pagan faiths (Hinduism & Buddhism) in all of the council mumbo jumbo that those who believe in these faiths acquire perfect liberation" and "supreme illumination".

So am I to believe that the Holy Spirit, knowing true well of the deaths of these Apostles and thousands of martyrs afterward up until the early 18th and 19th century in North and South American (and today in Iraq where Christians are being killed for being Christian at the hands of those Moslems)took place.

Shrines can be visited here in NorthAmerica where pagan Indians burnt alive and ate in some situations depending on the tribe Catholic missionaries trying to spread the word of Jesus in trying to convert them -are you saying that these men and woman were wrong in their belief and should have looked for what was right in these pagans instead of spreading the word of Jesus as the Gospels tell us to do?

Why would not the Holy Spirit have revealed to them in 1800 years or so of missionary activity areas of the world that also included Hindus and Buddhism that they were wrong? Why would not the church have told them to stop?

Was the Holy Spirit only guiding these men at Vatican II to believe that Hinduism and Buddhism along with Islam is OK for Catholics to approve of anything that is "true" in these religions? Let it be known that these missionaries and Apostles for the most part and martyrs were almost all saints at a later time period of cannonization.

This is important Mary because if so, then the church is not the One True Church , we can be saved by any means, and it is something you should be concerned about because then either those before Nostre Aetate were lying, died in vain, or were possessed by some other horrible means and were cannonized as saints incorrectly which can not happen -or this document and then the other 15 documents of this council are pastoral and not be be adhered to. There is a contradiction here.

I cited by source as well-I wait for an answer as I am confused


http://www.rc.net/rcchurch/vatican2/nostra.aet
[NOSTRA AETATE]
DECLARATION
ON THE RELATION OF THE
CHURCH TO NON-CHRISTIAN
RELIGIONS


"2. From ancient times down to the present, there is found among various peoples a certain perception of that hidden power which hovers
over the course of things and over the events of human history; at times some indeed have come to the recognition of a Supreme Being, or even of a Father. This perception and recognition enetrates their lives with a profound religious sense.
Religions, however, that are bound up with an advanced culture have struggled to answer the same questions by means of more refined concepts and a more developed language. Thus in Hinduism, men contemplate the divine mystery and express it through an inexhaustible abundance of myths and through searching philosophical inquiry. They
seek freedom from the anguish of our human condition either through ascetical practices or profound meditation or a flight to God with
love and trust. Again, Buddhism, in its various forms, realizes the radical insufficiency of this changeable world; it teaches a way by which men, in a devout and confident spirit, may be able either to acquire the state of perfect iberation, or attain, by their own efforts or through higher help, supreme illumination. Likewise, other
religions found everywhere try to counter the restlessness of the human heart, each in its own manner, by proposing "ways," comprising
teachings, rules of life, and sacred rites.

The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. "

Jordan Potter

"Once again, the context is that of holy days of obligation; the discussion is the Orthodox view of them. Are they less faithful because they do not have them? Everything else has not dealt with this question."

Well, this is obviously going nowhere. You persist in your erroneous belief that the Orthodox do not have holy days of obligation, even though we have established that the Orthodox do have holy days of obligation, whether or not they call them that or whether or not they admit they do. Since the underlying premise of your argument is false, there is no rationality in your question of whether or not the Orthodox are less faithful for not having something that they have.

And with that I think there is nothing further to be said to Anonymous on this subject.

Esau

Mary Kay & Tim J.:

Please don't dignify John's post above with a response, even though he demands from you an answer.

We've already covered this ground in past threads with him ad nauseam.

It's pointless.

A.Williams

John,

I really think you state the truth when you say:

"I wait for an answer as I am confused".

You most definitely ARE confused. I think that you have never REALLY studied the life and personality of Jesus...that is 'The Gospel' of Christ. You must have skipped over all of the details, all the mannerisms and even all of the apologetic responses of Jesus in the preaching (and miracles) of His Gospel.

You, I think, prefer philosophy and logic, and the glory of being on 'the winning team'(...even as the Jews thought they were in Jesus' time), over the witness, word and spiritual teachings of Christ. And in not having studied the humanity of Jesus closely, and most probably, not having practiced what he admonishes, you are discombobulated and truly confused about the nature of not only the Catholic Church,(the body of Christ).. but most other, spiritual things.

You talk about Saints. But the Saints weren't confused, because, they listened to Jesus, they prayed to Jesus, they 'communed' with Jesus, they 'knew' Jesus. And this is what we are all called to do. And without knowing the Lord, and obeying Him personally when He teaches us to "love one another', 'be merciful to our neighbor', 'first remove the beam from your own eyes.." "Do not judge", " give and you shall receive" "no greater love has a man than to give his life for his neighbor"...etc...we can never UNDERSTAND HIM!

Ever wonder why there are NO apologetics, canon law or philosophy included, outside of the homily, in the liturgy and sacrifice of the Mass? Because it is the Gospel and teaching of Jesus Christ that is important!" My words are spirit and life". And then it is the 'Communing' and being made ONE with this same Christ, in the receiving of the Holy Eucharist. Hence: JESUS is the focus! EVERYTHING is CHRISTO CENTRIC!..focused on both His HUMANITY and His DIVINITY!

Now you want to complain about how the Church can say something good about the pagans! For you, pagans are ENEMIES! They are damned 'Rebels of God!' But do you forget that Jesus sends his church out into the world to preach the 'GOOD NEWS' to these same pagans? These Hindus, Bhuddists, Anamists and yes, Moslems too? You, I think want to change the accent from 'Good News' to 'Hell News'...that is, first highlight the negative in people, and show how they will surely be burnt in the Fires of Hell, very shortly! What ever happened to Jesus teachings, here...of OUR GOOD FATHER, waiting for his beloved wayward sons to return home?? Jesus didn't make parables such as: "And when the Father saw His son a far way off, he quickly called his servants and commanded them to stoke the fire pit, for shortly they would be burning alive a traitorous wretch, a vile pagan sinner, and enemy of God... who should be happy to receive such a generous welcome!"

You need to re-read the Gospels and note how Jesus treats the Pagans! Does he shun and run away from such filthy creatures, even as the scribes and pharisees of his times do?? Have you ever studied the parable of the 'Good Samaritan"? Do you note that it is one of the 'pagans' who is called.."good"?..and not the 'priests' and pharisees..who could care less for the critically wounded neighbor?

And is this why you are confused...because you can't accept the fact that indeed there are people out there, like the same 'Samaritan', which Jesus used in the parable, that are ignorant and waiting for the true teaching and light of Christ to reach them? Again, I think your problem is that you want to generalize and lump all people together under one classification, either Catholic or 'devil worshipper'...and thus cannot see that Jesus sends us out to "Preach the 'GOODNEWS' to all creatures"!I think you cannot accept that it is indeed "GOODNEWS".

Thank God the Church imitates Jesus! And not the Pharisees and Saducees and Lawyers of His day...which you seem to want to copy! Thank God, Jesus didn't condemn the 'Adulterous woman', call fire down upon the Roman centurian, the one which he said he had not found such faith "in all of Israel"!.. and kick the woman who was a sinner(St. Mary Magdalene) out of the house of Simon, because she was a 'filthy prostitute'...even as all the others wanted him to do, and were surprised, indeed, that Jesus not only didn't kick her out...but honored her and forgave all of her sins!!

So, John, You do not IMITATE Christ's charity! The Catholic Church does! The Catholic Church is patient with pagans and sinners, even as Jesus was!

And furthermore, if you can't find one thing good about any pagan, then why were so many of the same early saints that you mention, so knowledgable and learned in pagan Greek philosophy? Why does St.Thomas Aquinas look so favorably on the teachings of Aristotle? And for that matter, why does the Church teach such philosphy to it's seminarians even to this very day, and even before it teaches them sacred Theology??

Don't you see, that if there was something good in the VERY PAGAN Greeks, there might also be something good and agreeable in the Bhuddist or Hindu faiths also? Or are you blind, lopsided and so biased as to only think that one type of Pagan might have something worth studying, in the Church, and that being the GREEKS only?!

Rather, read CLOSELY the very document that you posted above! It makes TOTAL sense! It teaches the real manner in which Christ taught both the 'Pagans and the Sinners' in His times. Now, we only need to be obedient to God, when He said on the Mount of the Transfiguration:

"THIS IS MY BELOVED SON, IN WHOM I AM WELL PLEASED: HEAR YOU HIM."

John

Esau

Lets have an intelligent discussion here, if you have supposedly discussed this before with me, maybe you can pull one of those cut and past jobs of all of my posts you keep so handy as you are infactuated with me

Well I am asking what is a clear contradiction in Nostre Aetate and John Paul II in his teachings on Islam and salvation, where they are telling us to accept these false faiths, and later on this was taken a step further where John Paul has taught they these persons can indeed be saved.

This has been clearly taught by past councils EX CATHEDRA as well as by Papal Bulls that there is NO salvation outside of the Catholic church, even for Protestants-so why is the church teaching this error now-and why cant Mary Kay or you Esau not know this??


At the Council of Lateran (649), whose canons were approved and confirmed by Pope Martin I (649-653), it was solemnly declared:

If anyone does not profess in accordance with the holy Fathers, properly and truthfully all that has been handed down and taught publicly to the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of God, both by the same Fathers and by me approved universal Councils, to the last detail in word and intention: he is condemned, (canon 17)

At the Council of Trent (1545-63) it was solemnly declared that one must hold that:

Our Catholic faith, without which it is impossible to please God (Heb. 11:6), must remain in its purity, sound, unshaken, and free from errors. (Session V, Intro.)

At Trent it was solemnly declared concerning the doctrine of justification that: this Catholic doctrine of justification -which, unless he faithfully and firmly accepts it, no one can be justified. (On Justification, 16)

Therefore, No one can be justified if he rejects the Catholic teaching on justification. Of course if some one isn't justified, then they cannot be saved (i.e. enter heaven), and Protestants reject the Catholic teaching on justification. Thus, they cannot be saved as they are in rejecting this, or any dogma of the Church.

So why is this infallible teaching being distorted and why can you seem to answer this?? And if the documents of V2 a reteaching an infallible piece of church dogma, then it is pastoral and if one item is pastoral all is pastoral

Esau

Lets have an intelligent discussion here

That's just it John.

Our several attempts (and I don't just mean me but Mary Kay, bill912, Tim J., Innocencio, Ryan C., David B., et al) at intelligent discussions with you often displays the lack thereof on your part, as we have visited, re-visited, and re-re-visisted these topics ad nauseam.

Also, your homosexual tendencies might be the very reason why you are so infatuated with all the priest sex abuse scandals out there since you, most likely, have a fixation on such things!

John

Catholics clamor for the mass of the past

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bal-te.md.latin25feb25,0,2322551.story?coll=bal-local-headlines

Realist

From the actual article: "Dozens of people gather every Sunday morning in the Gothic sanctuary of St. Alphonsus Roman Catholic Church to pray for the future of a tradition that's deeply rooted in the past."

i.e. Dozens hardly constitutes "Catholics Clamoring"!!!!

Vatican II did the necessary "root canal" and the "pew peasants" will be forever grateful.

Tim J.

Thanks a lot, Realist.

In the words of Jed Clampett, "Stop helping me, boy..."

John,

Where in Nostre Aetate does it say that Muslims, Buddhists, etc... are "saved"? Unless I am completely brain-fuzzed on the issue, the Church has consistently taught that not even all Catholics are assured of salvation (there's always that little necessity of dying in a state of grace).

Nostre Aetate presents outlines of Buddhist, Hindu and Muslim thought in more-or-less their own words as BACKGROUND material, and is not in any way endorsing these beliefs or presenting them as valid alternate religious systems.

Since when is holding someone in "high esteem" equal to saying that their religion is true, or that they are saved?

Saying that the plan of salvation includes the Muslims is only to say that salvation is open to them as much as anyone. God's desire is that all should be saved, though this does not mean that all will be saved. The Muslim belief in the God of Abraham, truncated though it is, can serve as a window, an opportunity, for belief in the deeper revelation of the Trinity and of the Divine nature of Christ.

The Muslims believe in the One God and reject all others, and in that we agree with them. As far as that aspect of their faith goes, they are right.

Hinduism, on the other hand, is a religion so complex that almost nothing can be truly asserted about it. There are many kinds of Hinduism, and no Hindu magisterium. It is crowded with gods minor and major. Gods who compete with one another, etc... in this sense, it is right to acknowledge that the Muslims are closer to the Truth with belief in the One God than Hindus are with their vast galaxy of deities. But even they are closer to reality than a confirmed materialist.

How can a Muslim be said to have rejected Christ if he has never really heard the true gospel of Christ? He has likely only heard a caricature or a distorted parody of the gospel, if that.

Nostre Aetate affirms those elements in other faiths that align with Christian Truth and that may serve as a bridge to faith in the Holy Trinity and in the saving work of Jesus Christ. It applauds the aims of some other faiths, even as it acknowledges their inability to achieve those aims. It seeks what commonality may be found between Christianity and other faiths in order to use these points of agreement as pegs on which to hang the Gospel, much as St. Paul did.

It is not that hard - at all - to read these passages from Nostre Aetate in this way, and to harmonize them with previous Church documents. What is impossible is to maintain that Nostre Aetate simply makes all religions equal or that that it teaches that all are saved or that there is no longer any need for conversion. That just is not anywhere in the text. You are reading into the text all kinds of things that are not there, perhaps because you do not like the conciliatory tone compared with earlier documents that had a more "hellfire and brimstone" approach.

It is your duty as a Catholic to look at the text honestly and openly, without pre-judging.

Esau

Okay Tim J. and John, if you guys insist in engaging in the same discussions, it may be well to, at the very least, not cover the same ground as we have done in the following threads and end up sounding like a broken record which repeats the same things.


http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2006/11/a_disheartening.html

http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2006/12/more_on_the_fly.html


I'd list even more threads that hashed and re-hased the same arguments, but what's the use?

Also, even if one were to provide a unique argument not said in past threads, I doubt that John would heed it since John hardly even heeds any of the previous arguments presented to him and, further, doesn't read them much lest, even if he did, forgets them and perhaps fails to comprehend them.

Mary Kay

John, the only other person I've heard use the "martyrs died in vain" card was someone who also was strongly anti-Vatican II. So it's a apparently a characteristic of those with anti-Vatican II prejudice and is an opinion that simply does not hold water.

Where did you get the idea that "we can be saved by any means?" It's not what Nostra Aetate says. There's no contradiction and that entire paragraph of yours is full of errors in logic that I might go back to. (Or might not.)

Tim summarized several points that I would said.
-Nostra Aetate does not say that we are "saved by any means."
-It does briefy outline Buddhist, Hindu and Muslim thought from their perspective and is not in any way endorsing these beliefs or presenting them as valid alternate religious systems.
-God desires all to be saved and what is esteemed, what can be held in common, may be a stepping stone to hearing the Gospel.
-"How can a Muslim be said to have rejected Christ if he has never really heard the true gospel of Christ?" That speaks to your repeated statements of those who you say have denied Christ. But to deny something presupposes knowing it in the first place. If they've never heard the Gospel, how can they deny it?

The other objection you had was the sentence, The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions.

maybe I'll do that in a Part 2

AnnonyMouse

I never realized that a lot of people think that Ash Wednesday is a Holy Day of Obligation. Of course, a friend of made the observation that maybe they "did" something on Fat Tuesday or the weekend before so they feel compelled by guilt to attend.
I wonder why Ash Wednesday is more crowded, in our area, than Easter Sunday?

Mary Kay

The other objection you had was the sentence, The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions.

There's this footnote to that sentence in my commentary:
This paragraph presents an understanding that is traditional in the Catholic Church. One recalls, for example, Justin Martyr in the early Church attributing all the truths in non-Christian religions to the Word of God who enlightens every man who enters into this world - a concept found at the beginning of the Gospel according to John.

That says that even in the early Church it was recognized that even non-Christians had some of the goodness of God who they did not yet know.

But then I read the rest of the footnote which shed some light: Through the centuries, however, missionaries often adopted the attitude that non-Christian religions were simply the work of Satan and the missionaries' task was to convert from error to knowledge of the truth. This Declaration (Nostra Aetate) marks an authoritative change in approach.

The only missionary that fits that is the priest in Mexico who likely considered the practice of human sacrifice "the work of Satan." But every other missionary whose lives I've read about esteemed esteemed the people and their beliefs while holding fast to their (missionaries') Catholic faith. Even the North American martyrs who you pulled the "died in vain" card, did so. St. Jean Brebeuf wrote the Huron Carol, which had the most valuable pelts lining the creche.

But even with the "often adopted attitude," the only thing changed was the approach. Core Catholic teaching has never changed.

bill912

Justin Martyr was just a Vatican II type who wasn't a real Catholic. You know that Mary Kay. It doesn't matter that he's *called* a saint. The Anointed know better. Listen to them, because the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven hang from their belts. And don't you ever forget it!

Esau

I never realized that a lot of people think that Ash Wednesday is a Holy Day of Obligation

Annonymouse,
I don't think anybody here is actually saying that Ash Wednesday is a Holy Day of Obligation; but that the Church is often filled (at least, mine is and also Dr. Eric's based on his post above) on Ash Wednesday.

Yet, I don't see how Ash Wednesday NOT being a Holy Day of Obligation should be any reason NOT to attend Church, especially since it is the start of the Lent season.

That's probably the same mindset that has made people so lax in their religious duties since they reduce Christianity to mere procedure (which is not at all the purpose of HDoO, but actually to bring us to an ever into a closer relationship to Christ); thus, since it has become procedure to many, might as well change it to make it "legal" to NOT attend Mass on such days, since they're a mere inconvenience to so many.

Esau

Corrigendum:

...but actually to bring us to an ever closer relationship with Christ...

John

From Catholic Answers, which seems to be the standard here for being Catholic, now teachings the following:


http://www.catholic.com/library/Salvation_Outside_the_Church.asp


The Catechism of the Catholic Church, following historic Christian theology since the time of the early Church Fathers, refers to the Catholic Church as "the universal sacrament of salvation" (CCC 774–776), and states: "The Church in this world is the sacrament of salvation, the sign and the instrument of the communion of God and men" (CCC 780).

Many people misunderstand the nature of this teaching.

Indifferentists, going to one extreme, claim that it makes no difference what church one belongs to. Certain radical traditionalists, going to the other extreme, claim that unless one is a full-fledged, baptized member of the Catholic Church, one will be damned.

The following quotations from the Church Fathers give the straight story. They show that the early Church held the same position on this as the contemporary Church does—that is, while it is normatively necessary to be a Catholic to be saved (see CCC 846; Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 14), there are exceptions, and it is possible in some circumstances for people to be saved who have not been fully initiated into the Catholic Church (CCC 847).

Notice that the same Fathers who declare the normative necessity of being Catholic also declare the possibility of salvation for some who are not Catholics.


It then goes on to talk about St Justin and others where he says:

"We have been taught that Christ is the first-begotten of God, and we have declared him to be the Logos of which all mankind partakes [John 1:9]. Those, therefore, who lived according to reason [Greek, logos] were really Christians, even though they were thought to be atheists, such as, among the Greeks, Socrates, Heraclitus, and others like them. . . . Those who lived before Christ but did not live according to reason [logos] were wicked men, and enemies of Christ, and murderers of those who did live according to reason [logos], whereas those who lived then or who live now according to reason [logos] are Christians. Such as these can be confident and unafraid" (First Apology 46 [A.D. 151])"

As far as I know Justin Martyr does not carry the same weight as the council of Trent or the Secound Lateran Council, both of which infallibly stated that unless one belongs to the Catholic Church one can not be saved

I have again given you sources from past posts as well as above

Catholic answers and Vatican II are teaching error.

The line that "they did not know about Christ" or the church, etc etc as in a Moslem in this day and age of technology is hogwash, does not hold water and is a game being played to be ecumenical and is false and no one can actually belive that those that are not Catholics are so because they did not know about the Catholic church or Jesus


John

Bill

Once again you and others are using Catholic Answers as your source for Catholicism

Justin Martyr is not infallible

For that matter I could pull thousands of statements made by St Thomas and other saints which would blow much of the innoations you so love out of the water

We have two if not more councils teach infallibly that salvation outside of the church is not possible, now we have Vatican II in "Lumen Gentium" subtly insert that word that the entire truth only "subsists" within, as well as CA using Justin Martyr and saints taking their teachings as refered to Greeks as some sort of infallible teaching

False and hogwash again!

Defection from true teachings

Tim J.

Well, John, the Church disagrees with your interpretation of the teaching of the council of Trent and the Second Lateran Council.

It is the Pope and the Bishops who authoritatively interpret the meaning of those documents, and what you are spouting here is not in agreement with them. The documents of Trent and the Lateran council DO NOT mean what you think they mean. Do you really mean to say that it is impossible that you are wrong and the Pope and Bishops are right on that?

I'll go with the Church, thanks.

John

Tim stated:

"
It is the Pope and the Bishops who authoritatively interpret the meaning of those documents, and what you are spouting here is not in agreement with them. The documents of Trent and the Lateran council DO NOT mean what you think they mean. Do you really mean to say that it is impossible that you are wrong and the Pope and Bishops are right on that?

I'll go with the Church, thanks"

Where the 4th Lateran Council (Tim-That is the chruch is it not????????????) infallibly stated:


"Canon 1

There is one Universal Church of the faithful, outside of which there is absolutely no salvation. In which there is the same priest and sacrifice, Jesus Christ, whose body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the forms of bread and wine; the bread being changed (transsubstantiatio) by divine power into the body, and the wine into the blood, so that to realize the mystery of unity we may receive of Him what He has received of us. And this sacrament no one can effect except the priest who has been duly ordained in accordance with the keys of the Church, which Jesus Christ Himself gave to the Apostles and their successors. "

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/lat4-select.html


And then you have Vatican II and Catholic Answers which state"


The Catechism of the Catholic Church, following historic Christian theology since the time of the early Church Fathers, refers to the Catholic Church as "the universal sacrament of salvation" (CCC 774–776), and states: "The Church in this world is the sacrament of salvation, the sign and the instrument of the communion of God and men" (CCC 780).

Many people misunderstand the nature of this teaching.

Indifferentists, going to one extreme, claim that it makes no difference what church one belongs to. Certain radical traditionalists, going to the other extreme, claim that unless one is a full-fledged, baptized member of the Catholic Church, one will be damned."

Misunderstanding???????????

No this is a clear defection which CA once again along with Lumen Gentium have defected from true infalliable church teaching

So Tim-Which "church" are you going to go with? The issue could be cleared up quite easily if those from B16 on down would fess up and state that V2 was indeed a pastoral council and non binding as theologians have been saying for decades, including many so called "liberal" ones

Please explain the above clear contradiction-the Lateran council could not be more clear whether they were talking about gnostics or whomever in the 13the century-it is infallible church teaching that outside of the church there is no salvation

Tim J.

Define "outside", John.

That is the crux of the matter, and the point on which you disagree with the Church.

Heck, even the old Baltimore Catechism leaves room for those who cling to the hull of the Barq of Peter without knowing it.

You say that being "in the Church" means ONLY "being a water-baptized Catholic". The Church disagrees (and has always disagreed) with that narrow interpretation. Baptism is certainly normative, but it is not exclusive. We are bound by the sacraments, but God is not.

If you bump into a former Muslim in heaven (once in heaven, everyone is Catholic), will you wave the documents of the Fourth Lateran Council in Jesus' face and demand they be sent back? Or can He save anyone He pleases?

Esau

John said:

the church on up to the Pope, started by John XXIII and culminating in Paul VI who basically continued with the wrecking ball-who are men in charge of the deposit of faith and tradition as handed down as well as being responsible for the salvation of 1B Catholics-take it upon themselves to change everything, change customs (can someone please show me where receiving our Lord in the hand is documented in the original document on the liturgy and why it is allowed? (not talking about the GIRM)and basically reinvent the church as they saw fit?

Why stop at Vatican II???

Who's to say that the CATHOLIC CHURCH did actually re-invent the WHOLE of Christianity; that is, in your words John: basically reinvent the church as they saw fit I mean, let's look at it from Scriptures -- is the Church we see in the Acts of the Apostles really the Church that we see as the Catholic Church??? Answer me, John, and provide me with proof that the Catholic Church DID NOT, in fact, REINVENT the Church as they saw fit even earlier than Vatican II, but actually did so as early as the time of the Holy Roman Empire!?! You see, it is not only you that can make Vatican II appear as evil incarnate. I can do so as well, but not only with Vatican II, but with the ENTIRE CATHOLIC CHURCH!

Dr. Eric

I'm happy that I could contribute an abbreviation that everyone is now using!

HDoO!

Esau

Who's to say that the CATHOLIC CHURCH didn't actually re-invent the WHOLE of Christianity; that is, in your words, John: basically reinvent the church as they saw fit even earlier than Vatican II but at the time many claimed was the beginning of the actual Catholic Church? I mean, let's look at it from Scriptures -- is the church we see in the Acts of the Apostles really the Church that we see today as the Catholic Church??? Answer me, John, and provide me with proof that the Catholic Church DID NOT, in fact, REINVENT the church as they saw fit even far back as the time of the Holy Roman Empire!?! You see, it is not only you that can make Vatican II appear as evil incarnate. I can do so as well, but not only with Vatican II, but with the ENTIRE CATHOLIC CHURCH!


As for your other comment to Tim J.:
So Tim-Which "church" are you going to go with? The issue could be cleared up quite easily if those from B16 on down would fess up and state that V2 was indeed a pastoral council and non binding as theologians have been saying for decades, including many so called "liberal" ones


Well, in your words, the issue could be cleared up quite easily if those so-called "popes" from after Peter on down would fess up and state that the CATHOLIC CHURCH itself was actually a re-invention of the early Christian church as many of our separated brethren have been saying for decades, including so-called "liberal" ones.

Esau

Who's to say that the CATHOLIC CHURCH didn't actually re-invent the WHOLE of Christianity; that is, in your words, John: basically reinvent the church as they saw fit even earlier than Vatican II but at the time many claimed was the beginning of the actual Catholic Church? I mean, let's look at it from Scriptures -- is the church we see in the Acts of the Apostles really the Church that we see today as the Catholic Church??? Answer me, John, and provide me with proof that the Catholic Church DID NOT, in fact, REINVENT the church as they saw fit even far back as the time of the Holy Roman Empire!?! You see, it is not only you that can make Vatican II appear as evil incarnate. I can do so as well, but not only with Vatican II, but with the ENTIRE CATHOLIC CHURCH!


As for your other comment to Tim J.:
So Tim-Which "church" are you going to go with? The issue could be cleared up quite easily if those from B16 on down would fess up and state that V2 was indeed a pastoral council and non binding as theologians have been saying for decades, including many so called "liberal" ones


Well, in your words, the issue could be cleared up quite easily if those so-called "popes" from after Peter on down would fess up and state that the CATHOLIC CHURCH itself was actually a re-invention of the early Christian church as many of our separated brethren have been saying for decades, including so-called "liberal" ones.

AnnonyMouse

I never realized that a lot of people think that Ash Wednesday is a Holy Day of Obligation.

Esau

Dr. Eric,

Yeah, HDoO is a naturally great abbrev.!

I had decided to use it as well in my post above instead of writing the whole thing out.

Although, sometimes I'm tempted to pronounce it the Homer Simpson way: H-doh!

Tony

Wow! Maybe they can move Sunday obligation to Christmas and Easter. Then we can have practically all Catholic fulfill their Mass obligation. Nothing like hitting the bull's eye by moving the target in the way of the arrow :)

Esau

Wow! Maybe they can move Sunday obligation to Christmas and Easter. Then we can have practically all Catholic fulfill their Mass obligation.

Tony,
Actually, I made a similar proposal on my Feb 23, 2007 7:58:57 PM post above:
We should only attend Mass on CHRISTMAS ONLY!
Most people come to Church only ONCE a year anyway and that's on Christmas!


I also made other such proposals for the convenience of the average Catholic on a Feb 23, 2007 8:34:16 PM post:

Oh yeah, while we're at it, since people do whatever they want in church anyway, let's upgrade them:

1. For the convenience of people who actually chew gum in church; let's be accomodating and install gum vending machines on each entrance to the church. Actually, we might want to distribute a stick of gum in addition to the Eucharist. Perhaps some day, we might get it right and distribute a stick of gum instead of the Eucharist since the Eucharist is only a symbol anyway!!

2. For those who love talking in church; we who are so inconsiderate that we actually pray in church instead would like to take this time now to sincerely apologize to y'all.

To make up for our rudeness, let's propose we install live chatrooms in church so that during the Mass, we don't have to be bothered with the empty ritual that's happening there and spend our time doing something more worthwhile like engaging in deep conversation regarding something profound like talking about the television show Desparate Housewives!

3. For those who love blasting their cellphones in church; we'll provide you with speakers so that during the Mass, you can play all your ringtones in surround sound so that everybody in church and also outside can hear it!

4. For those who love to race out of the church even before the Mass ends; we'll have NASCAR-like competitions to see who's out of the church in split-second timing before the priest even pronounces the blessing!

5. For those church choirs who love to embellish the Novus Ordo Mass by providing such spectacular groovy music; we'll be certain to provide you with a concert stage along with all tambourines and drums and bass you want!

6. For more entertaining liturgies, we'll be certain to get all the acrobat performers and other such acts to perform at Mass so that we can groove to the funky beat!

7. For all rogue clergies out there who want to be cool and hip, we'll hand you out some Fonzie leather jackets and some cool shades for you to wear at Mass so that your parishoners know how cool you really are!

8. In place of the Eucharist, since it's a symbol to certain Catholics anyway; we'll instead hand out Oreo cookies since people much prefer those over stale bread anyway!

Have I missed anything?

To which "ts" and A. Williams (God bless them!) kindly provided additional proposals:


Esau - totally awesome!!

There is an old expression for those who sneak out of church early (your #4) - the Judas Shuffle, in memory of Judas's early departure from the Last Supper. Maybe if the church bulletins noted this fact every week, people would be embarrassed to do it.

And that reminds me of one you missed -

9. Since so many people prefer to read the bulletin during Mass instead of taking it home afterward - and probably only read it because there is nothing else (cereal box, whatever!) - there should be one of those things like they have at airports so as you come in you can pick out a newspaper or magazine of your choice to read!

Posted by: ts | Feb 24, 2007 2:29:39 AM


and

"Have I missed anything?"


We might want to change the wine to "Buds". Wine is way too formal, and we don't want to appear 'square', 'uppity' or 'offensive' in anyway!

And you know everyone loves 'Bud'.. so this should be the perfect 'inclusive' choice for a liturgical beverage! Go's well with the dancing also!

Furthermore, the beer mugs and pitchers they currently use in the diocese of LA should be a model for all other parishes...with little adaptations. It's perfect for the buds and now only needs to be made a church 'norm'.

And the Vatican could harness Sheryl Crow as a papal envoy.(kinda like a modern St. Catherine of Siena!)She's a woman, she likes Bud 'early in the morning' which is good for 6:00a.m. masses, and I think she might be a Catholic. However, if she's not a Catholic it shouldn't matter, due to all the possible ecumenical benefits it should provide. It might even attract Tom Cruise and Katie Holms back to the Church, with such totally 'updated' and 'cool' modifications!?

But you should not use Oreo's...but rather 'Tostito's'(white corn). Also, maybe be an indult can be aquired to use 'Corona's'...and maybe even 'guacamole'... on certain feast (ie.,BBQ) days!

Otherwise, Esau, I think you are on the right 'liturgical' track, and these are excellent proposals in keeping with our ever changing modern times!!

Posted by: A.Williams | Feb 24, 2007 6:19:49 AM


To the latter, I agree:

Bud & Chips instead of the Body & Blood of Christ! Sounds good! Perhaps maybe then MORE people will come to Mass and take it as seriously as they do the SuperBowl!

John

The 4th lateran council is very very clear

I love the way CA lauds anyone who feels that those outside the Catholic church cant be saved as being a "Rad Trad"!!

No-CA is wrong again as it was on Our Lady of La Salette calling "Holding back ones hand" as another "Rad Trad" invention as it was documented by the church, approved by the Holy See and a basicalla built in honor of this apparation by the Popes themselves but you and the church today are trying to distort INFALLIBLE church teachings to suit your modernistic view of the church and it is causing the pews to empty, people to run away in droves as those that actually believe in the past teachings as infallible and adhere to tradition dont feel at home in the church today and are looking at all alternatives.

Esau-when someone like you is actually considered a "conservative" and then the church tries to paint those that actually belive in the Lateran Council and Vatican I as being "radical" as CA tried to do with Mr Karl Keating a Traditional Hating founder of CA-then one has to take hold and look at who has what and what their objectives really are

AnnonyMouse

Esau, they are already doing this in some protestant churches; couches, coffeee, big screen tv, etc

Esau

Esau, they are already doing this in some protestant churches; couches, coffeee, big screen tv, etc

AnnonyMouse:

No way?!?!?!?

And I was just making all this up! ;^)

Esau

AnnonyMouse

Yes WAY!!! with vending machines to boot.

Esau

John,

Again:

Answer me, John, and provide me with proof that the Catholic Church DID NOT, in fact, REINVENT the church as they saw fit even far back as the time of the Holy Roman Empire!?! You see, it is not only you that can make Vatican II appear as evil incarnate. I can do so as well, but not only with Vatican II, but with the ENTIRE CATHOLIC CHURCH!


Further, if it is up to you and those Rad Trads who think they are the authority by which to pick & choose which councils are legitimate and which aren't; then, why follow Traditional Catholic teaching at all as the very thing you propose is outright contrary to it?!?

What you and your Rad Trads are proposing here is a church based on Democracy and not one actually based on Traditional Catholic teaching!

Esau

Yes WAY!!! with vending machines to boot.

AnnonyMouse:

Whoa! Talk about convenience!!!

Then the Catholic Church is actually behind on the times!

Okay, from your previous post about their having couches, coffeee, big screen tv, etc; I say we outdo them and go for plasma TVs in place of the altar and betting booths for those days where a football/basketball game is on in order to collect more funds from the typical $1 Catholic! Also, maybe then we'll get the entire parish to actually attend Mass once we've removed all vestiges of Christ! ;^)

The comments to this entry are closed.

January 2012

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31