Catechism of Modernism by Pope Pius X

[Samboyant]

I have a question that I do NOT mean to offend with. This is purely on my search for truth, but:
Why study what is unecessary to study? According to the church, following the “natural law” is all that is needed to achieve heaven. I see the previous, hateful posts have been deleted, and I appreciate that. I know not all traditionalists are like that. But what is the purpose in this? What is the purpose in maintaining old ways of thinking? Is the church NOT a living church? Is not the constitution a living document? I feel that so much is lost when a maniacal devotion to old ways is practiced.

 

[SouthpawLink]

I have a question that I do NOT mean to offend with. This is purely on my search for truth, but:
Why study what is unecessary to study? According to the church, following the “natural law” is all that is needed to achieve heaven. I see the previous, hateful posts have been deleted, and I appreciate that. I know not all traditionalists are like that. But what is the purpose in this? What is the purpose in maintaining old ways of thinking? Is the church NOT a living church? Is not the constitution a living document? I feel that so much is lost when a maniacal devotion to old ways is practiced.

Without the habit/virtue of faith, no one can be saved. The Catholic Church does not teach that one can simply follow the natural law and be saved. At the absolute least, one must have divine faith (which includes belief in the Blessed Trinity and in the Incarnation of the Son of God) and make an act of perfection contrition, desiring to do all that God wills to be done for salvation.

The Catholic Church is a living entity, but she is also grounded in the Faith committed to her by Christ the Lord and His apostles. Catholic doctrine cannot change because it is true, and what was true 2,000 years ago remains true today (e.g., two plus two still equals four). All truth has its source in God, Who is the Truth par excellence, and we know that God does not change. Neither then can truth change.

Your analogy to the U.S. Constitution is flawed because it can be changed and even abolished, whereas the Catholic Faith cannot change nor be abolished. What’s more, the Constitution was composed by men (deceived by the errors of the Enlightenment, no less), whereas the Catholic Faith has been given to us by God Himself.

 

[Bl_Pope_Pius_IX]

I have a question that I do NOT mean to offend with. This is purely on my search for truth, but:
Why study what is unecessary to study? According to the church, following the “natural law” is all that is needed to achieve heaven. I see the previous, hateful posts have been deleted, and I appreciate that. I know not all traditionalists are like that. But what is the purpose in this? What is the purpose in maintaining old ways of thinking? Is the church NOT a living church? Is not the constitution a living document? I feel that so much is lost when a maniacal devotion to old ways is practiced.

First off, it was my belief that you left the thread. Guess not?

Secondly, I must ask that you give some sources for your claim that “According to the church, following the “natural law” is all that is needed to achieve heaven.” as I was not aware of this doctrine.

Thirdly, without those “old ways” this society and this modern Church would never be born, and frankly, I’d take the Church of the mid to late 1800’s any day. It just seemed more strong, outspoken, and courageous.

Fourthly, what is lost by devotion to the old(er) ways of the Church? And how is it maniacal?

Without the habit/virtue of faith, no one can be saved. The Catholic Church does not teach that one can simply follow the natural law and be saved. At the absolute least, one must have divine faith (which includes belief in the Blessed Trinity and in the Incarnation of the Son of God) and make an act of perfection contrition, desiring to do all that God wills to be done for salvation.

The Catholic Church is a living entity, but she is also grounded in the Faith committed to her by Christ the Lord and His apostles. Catholic doctrine cannot change because it is true, and what was true 2,000 years ago remains true today (e.g., two plus two still equals four). All truth has its source in God, Who is the Truth par excellence, and we know that God does not change. Neither then can truth change.

Your analogy to the U.S. Constitution is flawed because it can be changed and even abolished, whereas the Catholic Faith cannot change nor be abolished. What’s more, the Constitution was composed by men (deceived by the errors of the Enlightenment, no less), whereas the Catholic Faith has been given to us by God Himself.

I must agree with this, as well.

 

[Samboyant]

I left the thread due to one poster, who, as you can see, has been removed. And unfortunately the older Catholic Church was more bigoted and hateful than could be imagined -look at how “heretics” were treated! The Catholic Church of today is much kinder and loving than the old church. It actually cares about its followers. All religions have some grains of truth. Christianity and Buddhism and Islam are some of the most loving religions there are, and I think they should stay that way. Any true “devoutness” is usually the result of some psychological disorder, and it leads to things like, for example, Al Qaeda.

And let me start by saying I almost KNOW you are not what I would call devout. I don’t mean that as a bad thing though and I hope you do not take offense. I consider devoutness to be willing to do anything to further their religion or the supposed goals of their religion.
Like I’ve said before, I WANT to be Christian.

 

[Bl_Pope_Pius_IX]

I left the thread due to one poster, who, as you can see, has been removed. And unfortunately the older Catholic Church was more bigoted and hateful than could be imagined -look at how “heretics” were treated! The Catholic Church of today is much kinder and loving than the old church. It actually cares about its followers. All religions have some grains of truth. Christianity and Buddhism and Islam are some of the most loving religions there are, and I think they should stay that way. Any true “devoutness” is usually the result of some psychological disorder, and it leads to things like, for example, Al Qaeda.

And let me start by saying I almost KNOW you are not what I would call devout. I don’t mean that as a bad thing though and I hope you do not take offense. I consider devoutness to be willing to do anything to further their religion or the supposed goals of their religion.
Like I’ve said before, I WANT to be Christian.

Well, first off I don’t care if you think of me as devout. I don’t do what I do for you (other than pray for you), I do it for God and His Church. I don’t care what you think of my Faith. I also want some sources for your claim that “devoutness” is a psychological disorder.

Secondly, I don’t take it kindly that the Church (especially the Church of the last 200 years ) is “bigoted”. I really don’t think She was. I pray the prayer of “reparation” for the conversion of

all bad Christians; of all heretics, schismatics, Mohammedans, Jews and idolators

I pray that in the name of the Sacred Heart, but also for the welfare of the Holy Mother Church. I pray it out of love, not hate.

Our Holy Mother Church has been the target of TRUE hate for many many years. People forget WE were tortured and thrown to the lions by the Romans. WE were the pilgrims being beheaded by the Muslims, and WE were the ones with our Faith being so brutally nattacked by militant atheism and secularism. People so often forget the great and holy Martyrs of the Vendee, the Catholics martyred by the huguenots, the Irish massacred by the Protestant British, President Moreno of Ecuador, the evil of the Risorgimento, etc.

People forget this and only show the Catholics as the bad guys. The Catholics as the ones who suppress other faiths, and that is false. The “old Catholic” Church did care about Her followers, please back up your claim.

 

[RevertAlan]

I have a question that I do NOT mean to offend with. This is purely on my search for truth, but:
Why study what is unecessary to study? According to the church, following the “natural law” is all that is needed to achieve heaven. I see the previous, hateful posts have been deleted, and I appreciate that. I know not all traditionalists are like that. But what is the purpose in this? What is the purpose in maintaining old ways of thinking? Is the church NOT a living church? Is not the constitution a living document? I feel that so much is lost when a maniacal devotion to old ways is practiced.

Welcome back! It is good to seek the truth in the Catholic Church. However, as you know there are still sinners that are Catholic. The Catholic Church was founded by Jesus. I am not sure what you mean by the ‘natural law’ is all that is needed to achieve heaven. What I do know is that baptism is necessary for salvation. As is repentance of sin, we must desire to love God and remain free of sin. The sacraments of the Catholic Church are gifts of grace from Jesus to assist us reach heaven, as God desires for everyone. The best way to heaven is with the Catholic Church. The Church does recognize that other religions have portions of the truth, though they don’t have the fullness of truth. Only the Catholic Church possesses the fullness of truth revealed by Jesus Christ. If you want to be Christian then I recommend you prayerfully consider what Jesus Christ did for you during the passion and cross.

I am not sure what you mean by old ways of thinking. Yes the Church is a living church because it is the body of Christ on earth and it is alive and visibly present as a light to the world. However, dogma does not change, as God does not change. The fullness of what we need to know to get to heaven has been publicly revealed and is closed. The teaching authority of the church, the pope and bishops have the authority to update how revelation is taught as society changes and new scenarios develop. However this does not mean that there is permission to change what Jesus and the Apostles has instructed and passed on through Sacred Tradition through the generations. The Church also must protect this instruction from errors of heresy, such as Modernism. I don’t know what you know of Modernism, though it is a thinking that denies God revealed Himself to mankind. This is not factual and must be denied.

 

[RevertAlan]

I left the thread due to one poster, who, as you can see, has been removed. And unfortunately the older Catholic Church was more bigoted and hateful than could be imagined -look at how “heretics” were treated! The Catholic Church of today is much kinder and loving than the old church. It actually cares about its followers. All religions have some grains of truth. Christianity and Buddhism and Islam are some of the most loving religions there are, and I think they should stay that way. Any true “devoutness” is usually the result of some psychological disorder, and it leads to things like, for example, Al Qaeda.

And let me start by saying I almost KNOW you are not what I would call devout. I don’t mean that as a bad thing though and I hope you do not take offense. I consider devoutness to be willing to do anything to further their religion or the supposed goals of their religion.
Like I’ve said before, I WANT to be Christian.

Samboyant,

Maybe you have observed those Catholics who call themselves ‘Traditional’ Catholics, and witnessed a form of Triumphalism, which comes with an attitude that is not regarded as evangelistic. While the Catholic Church does possess the truth as conveyed by Jesus, Catholics should not act better than those who don’t understand this and have a conversation that appears demeaning. The goal of all Catholics should be aligned with the will of God, which is that all will come to the truth. However, we are all sinners and we all are struggling with our human weakness. You should not judge the church by those who don’t take the truth to heart and allow God to transform them, though look at the saints. God Bless you on your journey of Truth. I also request that you ask Jesus to reveal himself to you in prayer.

 

[RevertAlan]

Good morning to you as well!

His Holiness, Paul VI used to be a man of great detestment in my mind. mainly because I believed he had been the one that caused all the abuses, all the trouble. However, as I read of him, the more I grow to admire him. He inherited a rough spot in time. He was caught in a complicated scenario that needed to be finished. But sadly, the abuses that were caused (indirectly) from Vatican II occured practically immediately, as shown in the following letter from an American Priest to His Holiness that I have read twice and it struck me both times.

latinmass-ctm.org/pub/archive.htm

Now, the authority of the Vatican II documents seemed, to me atleast, be reaching out rather then in. Albeit they were ecumenical, which makes sense since it was an ecumenical council afterall. I serve at both the EF and the OF, but I prefer the EF.

Subsequent popes are certainly valid, I am not a sedevacantist and I love all the Holy Father’s (except Pope Stephen VI). Sedevacantist is a radical idea, some have even elected their own Popes. For example there is a fellow out in Kansas or somewhere that goes by the name Pope Michael I, he was elected by his mom, dad, and a couple friends I think.

The infallibility of the Supreme Pontiff is only in regards to Doctrines concerning faith and morals, and has only been carried out once since 1870, and that was to deal with the Assumption of Mary (many argue it was also carried out in 1846 when Blessed Pius IX defined the Immaculate Conception).

I must also agree about the interpretations of the Pope’s. Ours is not to reason why. Out of obedience we are to accept. However, constructively questioning is not beyond our limits, and I believe it is a healthy thing to do and should be encouraged.

I must also thank you for the dialogue as well. it was fun and at a couple points I felt I was beat. Good discussion regardless.

Good day, and God bless you.

Friend, I am learning that the Vatican II council was congruent with previous teaching. It was those darned ‘liturgical experts’ who had been negatively influenced by heresy of different philosophies of the last century that abused the teachings and documents of vatican II by saying what they were doing was in the spirit of Vatican II. What baloney. Unfortunately, it didn’t seem that American Bishops at the that time followed Vatican II, though I would guess there were exceptions in certain dioceses. These ‘liberal’ folk gave Vatican II a bad name. One way to compare the effect of our Church and Vatican II is to see that while the Catholic Church has struggled it has grown, while mainstream protestant churches have declined dramatically. The Catholic Church has better adjusted to the challenges of the last century of various heresies and the influence of world conflicts on the thoughts of secular man.

Carol Wotilja, bishop of Krakow at the time of Vatican II was faithful to Vatican II and there was a fruitful renewal in Poland.

The more I learn about Catholicism, the more I see the work of the Holy Spirit in protecting the Church against the gates of hell (death). Thank God for not leaving us orphans.

 

[Phyllo]

Thank you sir! And yes, I’m pretty sure I’m 16. Though when I was growing up, my mother would say I was a “60 year old trapped in a kids body”. But if you ask me a question about math or science, I doubt I’d be able to answer you correctly! One must be reminded of the child Jesus in the temple with the scholars and the rabbi’s in Luke:

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not claiming to be on the same wavelength as Jesus, but that one verse should inspire all young people to excel academically, but especially theologically.

I must thank you for the fruitful discussion, I have really enjoyed it.

God bless you!

I am just lurking around here and I enjoyed the discussion too… Thanks to the two of you.