Controversy Concerning Vatican II New RCC

  • Thread starter Thread starter DragooML
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

DragooML

Guest
Hello, everyone. My name is Michael and I’m new to the forum. I’m also new, in the fact that I will be starting RCIA, in one week.

I have read the new Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church from cover-to-cover. I understood every word of it. It has been very beneficial to building up my faith.

I was adopted from Catholic Charities and baptized, as an infant. However, my parents did not raise me Catholic. So, for 38 years of my life I went from Jehovah Witness to non-denominational Christian to Assembly of God to Methodist and back to non-denominational. I understood and accepted Jesus into my life, when I was six years old, and God has miraculously healed me of brain damage and allergies not long after my acceptance of him. I have seen God work in my life many times, even when I chose to go my own way, many times. God never let me get too far, and the Holy Spirit always reeled me back in (I love Him for that). I have always and do love to study the Word of God. As a 12-year old, my only request for Christmas was a leather study bible.

Anyway, about a year ago, I felt the Holy Spirit leading me to become a member of the Catholic Church. I dismissed it, at the time, thinking I wasn’t hearing that right; after all (I thought, as I was taught), “The Lord wouldn’t want me to become Catholic, because they worship Mary and the Saints and are full of error.”

This year, the Holy Spirit was nudging me harder and harder, to go to the Catholic Church. Now, knowing it wasn’t an idle feeling I once had, I approached my wife, who readily supported my decision, once she started seeing that I was under conviction to go. I told my pastor, whom I was hesitant to tell, because I knew his stance. Although he was very cordially with me, he told me that he didn’t believe I heard from God, and why the Catholic church is in heresy (“four pillars of Fundamentalist Contention” - I like to call it - Papal Infallibility, Assumption of Mary (everything about Mary), Praying to Anyone Other Than the Trinity, and Sol Scriptura). You might count a fifth one - Purgatory, but I think it’s minor, compared to the other four.

So, I took my minor persecution and moved on to the present.

In my readings and following various articles and forums, I noticed that there appears to be strong feelings of resentment over the outcome of Vatican II, amongst Catholics. Below, is a cut and paste copy of my question and response from a “Traditionalist Catholic” (so he claims). He did not answer all my questions, and I was wondering if anyone could please elaborate on his comments (especially the new RCC containing errors) and answer all of the questions I posted. Thank you, and God bless.
DragooML wrote:
Please explain Papal Infallibiliy? Can or has a Pope contradicted an earlier Pope who has made an Infallible declaration? If so, how is he able to change an earlier Pope’s declaration? Does it mean that the earlier Pope was wrong?

I guess I’m also asking (besides the details of Infallibility), why is there so much controversy within The Catholic Church (as you all have expressed through the forum) over Vatican II?

Is the New Catechism of the Catholic Church (book) considered infallible by your definition (that you present to me) of Papal Infallibility? I did read the book in its entirety.
Satan=modernist responds: on September/19/06 at 3:47pm

newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

You should stay away from the new catechism of the rcc because it contains error.

If you can buy one of these, if not all

h ttp://angeluspress.org/index.php?act=warehouse&info=400 1
angeluspress.org/index.php?act=warehouse&info=708 7
angeluspress.org/index.php?act=warehouse&info=300 6
catholic.net/baltimore_catechism/template_channel .phtml?channel_id=14

Edited by Satan=modernist on September/19/06 at 3:47pm

O Sacrament most holy! O Sacrament divine! All praise and all thanksgiving, be every moment Thine!​

 
The internet can give a false idea of the general opinion of Catholics. Very small minorities can sound much louder and in bigger numbers. The fact of the matter is, for pretty much every single Ecumenical Council, there had been a minority who have resented its outcome and have gone off to do their own thing. The “Old Catholics” hated Vatican I, the Nestorians hated Ephesus, the Iconoclasts hated Nicea II, the Brescians hated Lateran II, and so forth and so on.

I cannot do an entire treatise of the errors of so-called traditionalists right now, but let me say that I used to fall in that camp. And then I studied ALL of Tradition and history. I came to the conclusion that they have a VERY narrow, limited, and skewed view of Tradition and history. They also often misunderstand the things they don’t like. They are also notorious for taking things out of context.

Anyway, if you have any specific issues they bring up or allege as errors that are causing you doubt, feel free to PM me 👍.
 
Here is some specifics, from the user “Satan=modernist”. How do you answer these charges?

I didn’t answer the rest of your question because the link I provided explained and answerd you entire question. As for my remark about the doctrinal errors in the new RCC, From reading Genisis315’s post here is all I have to say. General Opinions mean nothing if that General Opinion is false. The General Opinion of most “Catholics” today is this, The Church exists outside of the Catholic Church, Religions such as Buddism and Hinduism are willed by almighty God and can bring salvation to souls. That Christ is only spiritually present in the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist. I could go on and on and if you wan’t direct quotes I will supply them. One Thousand some years ago the General Opinion amoung “Catholics” was that Arius was correct on the nature of Christ. We know that was a heresy and those who recognized it fought it like the devil himself. What now seems like the Catholic Church is only a shell. Sure the names there, but as for the faith who really needs it now that all religions are willed by God. As for quotes taken out of context, Please show examples of traditionalists taking quotes out of context, and if we did provide the quotes. This is where the problem lies, sure Neo-Catholics like those at Catholic answers can claim that Traditionalists use quotes out of context, but why can’t they come up with evidence of this happening?

Edited by Satan=modernist on September/20/06 at 1:20pm
O Sacrament most holy! O Sacrament divine! All praise and all thanksgiving, be every moment Thine!
 
They love throwing around the word “neo catholic.” I’ve been called that when using the exact words of Pius XII and Pius XI and Gregory X among others (without citing them). I’ve studied all 21 Ecumenical Councils and around 200 papal writings from over 50 popes as well as their historical context. The errors alleged just don’t hold up.
 
DragooML said:
Please explain Papal Infallibiliy? Can or has a Pope contradicted an earlier Pope who has made an Infallible declaration? If so, how is he able to change an earlier Pope’s declaration? Does it mean that the earlier Pope was wrong?
Click to expand...
Papal infallibility is a special charism that protects the Pope from error when he is defining an article of faith or morals to be believed by the entire Church.

Papal Infallibility was defined as a dogma of the Church at the first Vatican Council. It defined that the Pope is protected from error when the following four conditions are met:

1.) It must concern faith or morals;

2.) He must be intending to define it as a doctrine;

3.) It must be issued by the Pope “from the Chair” as successor of St Peter as Head of the Church and its Supreme Teacher;

4.) It must be addressed to the whole Church, not just a portion of the Church (such as the Church in America).

If those four conditions are met, the Pope will be protected from error. If the Pope does not meet those four conditions, he is not protected from error. As such, it is certianly possible for a Pope to teach contrary to an infallible dogma defined by a previous Pope, and thus to fall into heresy. That is why many theologians have speculated on what would happen if a Pope fell into heresy.

There is another teaching called “ordinary infallibility”. This basically means that when a Pope, or the Bishops, are teaching what the Church has previously defined to be true, or has always taught, it is to be assumed that they are speaking infallibly, even though the above conditions are not being met at the time.

Ordinary infallibility does not mean what some think it means: It does not mean that the Pope and Bishops in union with the Pope are protected from error in all that they teach regarding faith and morals. Individual Popes and individual Bishops can and have taught erroneous things. It is rare (or at least it used to be rare), but it does happen.
Is the New Catechism of the Catholic Church (book) considered infallible by your definition (that you present to me) of Papal Infallibility? I did read the book in its entirety.
Click to expand...
The new Catechism is a catechism, not a doctrinal definition. Therefore it is not protected from error by Papal infallibility.
 
Thank you for your charity in answering my questions, everyone.
 
The General Opinion of most “Catholics” today is this, The Church exists outside of the Catholic Church, Religions such as Buddism and Hinduism are willed by almighty God and can bring salvation to souls.
Click to expand...
Without presuming to answer as to the “general opinion of most Catholics”, I can say that those who hold such beliefs need to re-read the documents that they misread to give themselves said opinion. Try starting with the Catechism, perhaps?

I don’t recall reading any Church document that suggested anything other than, at most, “If God desires to save someone outside the church, He certainly has the perogative and power to do so.” (which is supported in the cannonized Catholic scriptures, btw). Nothing about the efficacy of other religions or heretics’ systems. Granted, a sloppy or intentionally biased assessment of such a statement will allow someone to mistake its meaning, not unlike other issues floating about in current events. But, in hazarding an opinion and observation regarding the general opinion mentioned earlier; from what I have seen personally, those who take up such a variant reading of the Church’s doctrine have already left the Church.
 
From what I have read from Traditionalist Catholics these are issues they bring up
  1. Elitism of the visible Catholic Church was given by God, so only through it can mankind be saved (pride is the problem if you ask me).
  2. Changes brought about by VC2 are contradictory to the "T"radition & teaching of the Church (in reality they fight to maintain "t"raditions and customs they are used to)
Any ways thats what I gather from what I have read.
 
DragooML,

Hello and welcome to the Catholic Answers Forums! I hope you have a blessed and fruitful time here.
DragooML said:
I have read the new Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church from cover-to-cover. I understood every word of it.
Click to expand...
You are WAAAAYYYYYYY ahead of me.😃
  • Liberian
 
For me, I read all the modern Catholic apologists, authors, and books by clergy. But I sensed something was not right about the New Mass. I asked my mother if she had any Pre-Vatican 2 books that my father had, since he was in the seminary in the '50s. She did, and I started reading them and I asked myself, “what is this Latin stuff?”, to make a long story short, after that, I attended my first Traditional Latin Mass in Feb. of 2002. Have not been back to the Novus Ordo Missa since.

Gloria in excelsis Deo!
 
Although I enjoyed going to a latin mass myself, there is a bit more awe and reverence… I believe that overall this exludes rather than includes people. Don’t get me wrong, I would not object if some one asked me to go again but a mass should balance between awe/reverence versus community/relationship.

Some people love looking at God in his transcendence as a being infinitely greater than ourselves. Others love being able to see a God that walked the earth as one of us, extending his love to us as brothers, as “equals”. Both views are correct and both major schools of mysticism derived from taking these opposite stands to view God. Some like to look from the earth to the heavens and others from the heavens to the earth.
 
BJRumph said:
The General Opinion of most “Catholics” today is this, The Church exists outside of the Catholic Church, Religions such as Buddism and Hinduism are willed by almighty God and can bring salvation to souls.
Click to expand...
Without presuming to answer as to the “general opinion of most Catholics”, I can say that those who hold such beliefs need to re-read the documents that they misread to give themselves said opinion. Try starting with the Catechism, perhaps?

I don’t recall reading any Church document that suggested anything other than, at most, “If God desires to save someone outside the church, He certainly has the perogative and power to do so.” (which is supported in the cannonized Catholic scriptures, btw). Nothing about the efficacy of other religions or heretics’ systems. Granted, a sloppy or intentionally biased assessment of such a statement will allow someone to mistake its meaning, not unlike other issues floating about in current events. But, in hazarding an opinion and observation regarding the general opinion mentioned earlier; from what I have seen personally, those who take up such a variant reading of the Church’s doctrine have already left the Church.
Click to expand...
Like our Lord, the Church has a body and soul. The body and soul together form the one Catholic Church. But unlike a human being, it is possible for a person to be united to the soul of the Church without being united to the visible body. This is the exception to the rule, and probably rare, but it is possible.

A child, for example, who has been validly baptized in a heretical Church is a member of the soul of the Catholic Church and will remain such until they grow up and embrace the heresy taught by their sect. At that point, not only will they not be a member of the visible body of the Church, but, as a result of their heresy, they will cease to be a member of the soul of the Church.

It is even possible for an adult to be a member of the soul of the Church without being a member of the visible body. Let’s say a person attended some kind of Protestant Church. During the sermon, he was taught about Jesus, learned all about the Trinity and Incarnation, and firmly believed that Jesus was the Savior. If he was baptized in that condition, without adhering to any errors, he would be incorporated into the soul of the Church. However, if he had been taught that he would be saved by simply accepting Jesus as his personal savior and that his salvation would then be secured, his baptism, although valid, would not communicate sanctifying grace to his soul due to his heresy. Therefore he would neither be in the state of grace, nor united to the soul of the Church. His “common baptism” with the Catholic Church would not proffit him.

The Church has taught infallibly that there is no salvation outside the Church, and that ALL heretics, ALL Schismatics, ALL Jews, ALL muslims, and ALL pagans will go to hell. That is 100% correct and there are no exceptions, which is why the Church used the term ALL.

However, it is possible for a person who attends a heretical or schismatic Church to actually be united to the soul of the Catholic Church, and thus could be saved. But in that case the dogma holds true, since they are then members of the soul of the Catholic Church. This, however, is the exception to the rule and should not be presumed upon. Like Augustine said “if they are of the Church, why are they not with us?”

But the same principle works in reverse. If a person who belongs to the visible body of the Church (attends a Catholic Church) has embraced heresy, they do not belong to the soul of the Church and therefore cannot be saved unless they renounce their error. Even if they went to confession everyday and lived a very good life, they are not a member of the soul of the Church and therefore cannot be saved.

The different effects of heresy and mortal sin: This is something esle that should be understood. Heresy is a sin against faith which completely separates a person from the Church. Mortal sin is a sin against charity, which separates a man from God (the state of grace), but not from the Church. A heretic is not a member of the Church. A Catholicin mortal sin is still a member fo the Church, but they are dead members.

Without being united at least to the soul of the Church, there is no way to be saved. It is impossible. Therefore there is no way for a heretic to be saved unless they renounce thier errors and again become a member of the Church. From this we can see how serious heresy is, and why no heretic will ever be saved.
 
Here is a document from the “Traditionalist” - his points of argument. Forum member, GENESIS315 is tackling each point, and I hope to share this, when it is done.

Anyway, here is the “Tradionalist’s” argument (I have to post in sections, because it is long), taken from a pamphlet or book entitled “The Semi-Catholic Catechism of the Catholic Church” - Angelus Press Edition:

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is a monumental work - arguably the crowning achievement of John Paul II’s papacy. Most welcome is its clear application of sound moral theology to modern situations, such as in vitro fertilization and abortion. Furthermore, the Catechism in several instances aligns Vatican II teaching more explicitly with traditional Catholic teaching. As welcome as these facets may be, however, there are several passages in the Catechism which must invariably strike an instructed Catholic with alarm. I will quote some of these passages with the following clarification of intent: I am not attempting to usurp the Magisterium, but rather to compare the Catechism, which is not issued with the stamp of infallibility, with statements of the Church which carry such a mark. Proof of the lack of infallibility of the Catechism is found in the fact that it has already been revised in a new Editio Typica - a clear concession to certain weaknesses in the first edition.

Here are a few passages in the Catechism which raise immediate questions:

GNOSTICISM

Catechism of the Catholic Church (hereafter CCC), no.618: …in his incarnate divine person he has in some way united himself to every man…

In the Summa (III, Q.4, A.5), St. Thomas answers the question, “Whether the Son of God Ought to Have Assumed Human Nature in All Individuals?” in the negative:

…this would have been derogatory to the dignity of the incarnate Son of God, as He is the First-born of many brethren, according to the human nature, even as He is the First-born of all creatures according to the Divine, for then all men would be of equal dignity.

In other words, if Jesus united Himself with all men in the Incarnation, then all would be united with God and hence automatically divine in dignity - equal with the dignity of Jesus Christ.

Furthermore, would not all men be saved, if the mere fact of the Incarnation united all to God? Certainly God loved us all in the act of the Incarnation, but to unite to us is a different matter altogether. He is not naturally united to us, for we are not God, and are distinct from Him in His act of creating us. (Moreover, we are not created through the act of the Incarnation.) He is not supernaturally united to us, for that is the goal: to reconcile us to Himself through the blood of the Cross, for which purpose He incarnated.

If we are all united to Him already, then our separation from Him is an illusion, as the Gnostics teach, rather than a condition to be actually remedied by the Atonement, as the Church teaches. We find, then, that the Catechism repeats the early heresy of Gnosticism and implies a universal salvation which simply needs to be “realized.”

PROMOTION OF EVOLUTION

CCC, 283: …scientific studies…have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the development of life-forms and the appearance of man.

To speak of the “development of life-forms” and scientific studies surrounding the “appearance of man” is unquestionably to speak of evolution - and to speak of enriching our knowledge of evolution is undeniably to imply that evolution is a fact, since knowledge is of truth, not error. The Catechism thus treats evolution as factual and certain. This approach to evolution, however, was condemned by Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis (36):

Some however rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the fact…and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.

This passage in the Catechism is, then, at minimum a rash transgression.

(Continued)
 
EXONERATING THE JEWS

CCC, 597: …we cannot lay responsibility for the trial [of Jesus] on the Jews in Jerusalem as a whole…Still less can we extend responsibility to other Jews of different times and places, based merely on the crowd’s cry: “His blood be on us and on our children!”

But Scripture says:

The Jews, who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets and have persecuted us, do not please God, and they have become adversaries to all men, to fill up their sin always; for the wrath of God has come upon them to the end (I Thess. 2:14-16).

The destruction of the Temple in 70 AD and the dispersion of the Jews was due to their rejection of the Messiah, a rejection which continues to implicate them as a people unfaithful to God and therefore abandoned (cursed) by Him. St. Alphonsus Liguori writes:

Poor Jews! You invoked a dreadful curse upon your own heads; and that curse miserable race, you carry upon you to this day, and to the End of Time you shall endure the chastisement of that innocent blood! (The Passion and Death of Jesus Christ, p.444).

St. Basil the Great writes:

And such are the prayers of the Jews, for when they stretch forth their hands in prayer, they only remind God the Father of their sin against His Son. And at every stretching forth of their hands, they only make it obvious that they are stained with the blood of Christ. For they who persevere in their blindness inherit the blood-guilt of their fathers; for they cried out: “His blood be on us and on our children” [Mt. 27:25] (On Prayer, Sermon IX).

These statements do not imply “anti-Semitism,” a term which denotes race-hatred; still less did such statements cause the Holocaust, a ritual of human sacrifice which included Catholics such as St. Maximilian Kolbe, carried out by the Masonic-Occult SS members under Hitler, who tried to eliminate Catholicism as well. But to use the Holocaust as a pretext for overturning truths essential to salvation (and the Jews must return to their Messiah to be saved) is worse than the Holocaust, for the first event merely kills the body (admittedly a great evil), while robbing the Jews of the means of salvation consigns their souls to hell (an infinite evil). Hence this seemingly charitable passage about the Jews in the Catechism is in reality an abandonment of all charity for the Jews and a true act of anti-Semitism.

THE OLD COVENANT STILL EXISTS!

CCC, 840: And when one considers the future, God’s People of the Old Covenant and the new People of God tend towards similar goals: expectation of the coming (or the return) of the Messiah.

Extending the above error, this passage is a misleading absurdity, since the Old Covenant no longer exists due to the Jews’ rejection of the Messiah, who has already come! St. Vincent Ferrer writes:

Since His spouse, the Synagogue, refused to receive Him, Christ answered, “This is a harlot!” and gave her a bill of divorce (Sermons).

Scripture declares:

Christ annuls the First Covenant to establish the Second…For, if that First Covenant had been faultless, then there would be no place for the Second. They did not persevere in My Covenant, saith the Lord, and I disregarded them (Heb. 10:9; 8:7-9).

Finally, to compare the “similarities” of expecting the Messiah’s first and second coming, when one act implies a rejection of Him, is as ridiculous as comparing the acts of worship of a Satanist and a Catholic, since both are similar in that they are undeniably acts of worship. The obvious rejoinder is that the differences far outweigh the similarities.

INDIFFERENTISM

CCC, 819: Christ’s Spirit uses these [Protestant] Churches and ecclesial communities as a means of salvation…

This statement dignifies heresy as a means of salvation, and flatly contradicts a defined dogma of the Church, that Outside the Church there is no salvation. To quote one example of the Church’s perennial magisterial teaching on this subject:

It [the Church] believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart ‘into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ [Mt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church (Cantate Domino, Bull of Eugenius IV).

(Continued)
 
The heresy taught by the Catechism is known as Indifferentism - that is, the belief that one is free to choose other religions, since salvation can be found in them all.

FALSE ECUMENISM

CCC, 821: Certain things are required in order to respond adequately to this call [to unity]:…prayer in common…fraternal knowledge of each other.

These ecumenical meetings are condemned by Scripture:

A man who is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid, knowing that such a man is subverted and sins, being condemned by his own judgment (Tit. 3:10-11).

If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine, do not receive him into the house nor say to him: “God speed you.” For, he who says to him “God speed you” communicates with his wicked works (Jn. 1:10-11).

Moreover, the Council of Carthage declares:

One must neither pray nor sing psalms with heretics, and whosoever shall communicate with those who are cut off from the communion of the Church, whether clergy or layman: let him be excommunicated.

Of ecumenical meetings, Pius XI declares:

…nor is it in any way lawful for Catholics to give to such enterprises their encouragement or support…To favor this opinion [ecumenism], therefore, and to encourage such undertakings is tantamount to abandoning the religion revealed by God (Mortalium Animos).

This type of meeting, incidentally, merely smuggles into the Church one of the most basic features of the Masonic Lodge: fraternal meetings between people of different religions in a spirit of Indifferentism.

SECULAR COLLABORATION AND COMPROMISE

CCC, 821: …[also required is]…collaboration among Christians in various areas of service to mankind. “Human service” is the idiomatic phrase.

Again, this Freemasonic concept of fraternal association outside of the banner of the Kingship of Christ and His Church has been condemned by Pope St. Pius X in his Apostolic Mandate on the “Sillon,” which was just such an organization. He writes:

We fear that worse is to come…the beneficiary of this cosmopolitan social action, can only be a Democracy which will be neither Catholic, nor Protestant, nor Jewish. It will be a religion…more universal that the Catholic Church, uniting all men to become brothers and comrades at last in the “Kingdom of God.” “We do not work for the Church; we work for mankind!” This organization…has been harnessed in its course by the modern enemies of the Church, and is now no more than a miserable affluent of the great movement of apostasy being organized in every country for the establishment of a One-World Church which shall have neither dogmas, nor hierarchy; neither discipline for the mind, nor curb for the passions…under the pretext of freedom and human dignity.

One might also note that “freedom” and “human dignity,” as well as secular collaboration, are not only trademarks of Freemasonry, but are also hallmarks of the “pastoral” Vatican II Council: a Council which lacked, according to Pope Paul VI, infallibility. As the Pope said:

There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification the Council intended to give to its teachings…The answer is known by whoever remembers the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964: Given the Council’s pastoral character, it avoided pronouncing, in an extraordinary manner, dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility.

We might add that what is not infallible can obviously be wrong - and where it conflicts with prior infallible Church teaching, it simply is wrong.

HOMOSEXUALITY

CCC, 2358: The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They do not choose their homosexual condition…

This statement is indeed difficult to square with the teaching of Pope Alexander VII, who declares:

Sodomy and bestiality are sins of the same ultimate species…

Is it also true that tendencies toward bestiality are not chosen as well? In contrast to the statements of the new Catechism (which clearly panders to the recent propaganda from the homosexual lobby), the Bible puts the entire blame for such sins on the people themselves, who first turn away from God and idolize the things of this world:

Who changed the truth of God into a lie; and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error (Rom. 1:25-27).

(Continued)
 
(Final)

Encouraging people to “accept” within themselves what the Bible calls “shameful affections” but not to “act them out” is simply setting these people up for a future fall. Instead, homosexuals need the clear moral teaching of the Church, prayer, and the sacraments, and they can be transformed as truly as St. Augustine, who gave up a mistress and became a saint.

INTERNATIONALISM

CCC, 1911: Human interdependence is increasing…The unity of the human family…implies a universal human good. This good calls for an organization of the community into nations able to provide for the different needs of men; this will involve the sphere of social life to which belong questions of food, hygiene, education, and certain situations arising here and there.

In Number 7 above, we quoted the condemnation of this concept by Pope St. Pius X. The gravity of this particular passage is that it far surpasses the Sillon condemned by the Pope and clearly endorses World Government. Now, World Government is the age-old dream of Freemasonry. As Fr. Cahill, an expert on Freemasonry, wrote in 1929:

These two fundamental characteristics of Freemasonry, namely, indifference in matters of religion, which means absence of all real religion, and a tendency towards cosmopolitanism and internationalism, which would supplant the Christian duty of patriotism and loyalty to the State by some kind of ineffective international humanitarianism, remain to this day outstanding features of the Masonic spirit. (Freemasonry and the Anti-Christian Movement, p.6).

We saw the first Masonic characteristic - indifferentism - in the Catechism in Nos.3-6 above (there are many other passages as well, which space precludes listing); the second Masonic characteristic - internationalism - is also strongly pronounced in this Catechism as well. Since the Church has condemned Freemasonry in the strongest terms in approximately 200 encyclicals, what are we to make of the Masonic “thumbprints” in the Catechism?

The Masons stated their goal of “the final destruction of Catholicism, and even of the Christian idea…” from 1820-1846 in the documents of the Alta Vendita which were disclosed to Pope Gregory XVI and published by Pope Pius IX. The Masons also stated that, to implement their goal, they would need a Pope according to their needs, who would march with the clergy under the Masonic standard, always believing that they are marching under the banner of the Apostolic keys. With the publication of the new Catechism - as with the documents of Vatican II, the New Mass, Ecumenism, and the pan-religious meetings of Assisi and the Vatican - the Masons have once again set the Pope and the clergy marching under the wrong banner.

Enough has been written in the above excerpts to demonstrate that the Catechism contains, to put it mildly, many teachings which contradict Scripture and Tradition. But how, then, can we make use of it? While the Catechism belongs to the authentic Magisterium of the Church, we must nevertheless conclude that where it conflicts with Tradition - the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the Church - it is simply in error. Furthermore, if these errors mislead us in matters of faith essential to salvation, then we are bound by the ordinary principles of moral theology to avoid the Catechism completely, even if it contains many beautiful teachings and clarifies certain points of morality of particular concern to our times. As St. Paul writes:

But though we or an angel from heaven, preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema (Gal. 1:8).

A much better course would be to take the Catechism of the Council of Trent, issued in saner times, as a course of study. Moral questions can also be clarified by recourse to The Sources of Catholic Dogma, compiled by Denzinger * a standard reference work (now out of print). Finally the Douay-Rheims Bible, uncontaminated by modernist footnotes, should be loved and read by every Catholic. For our instruction in the faith, we have treasures enough - truly Catholic treasures which will help us to reach Heaven. But a “semi-Catholic” Catechism cannot clearly lead us to a “semi-Heaven,” since there is no more such a place than there is a state of “semi-grace.” No matter what the cost, we must follow the instruction of St. Paul and take care of our souls, lest we be found outside the Kingdom for failing to say “Anathema!” to those who would change the Gospel and implement the “outstanding features of the Masonic spirit.” To them all, we must simply say, Anathema!

(End)
 
40.png
USMC:
However, if he had been taught that he would be saved by simply accepting Jesus as his personal savior and that his salvation would then be secured, his baptism, although valid, would not communicate sanctifying grace to his soul due to his heresy. Therefore he would neither be in the state of grace. . .
Click to expand...
USMC,

Could you clarify this statement for us, perhaps by providing your source? I am unclear how a valid baptism would not communicate sanctifying grace.

God Bless,
VC
 
Verbum_Caro said:
USMC,

Could you clarify this statement for us, perhaps by providing your source? I am unclear how a valid baptism would not communicate sanctifying grace.

God Bless,
VC
Click to expand...
Baptism produces a two-fold effect: It infuses supernatural life (sanctifying grace) into the soul, and it imprints an indelible character on the soul. Obviously, the most important of the two effects is the unfusion of supernatural grace which washes away original sin and makes a man a partaker of the divine nature.

Anyone who receives a valid baptism receives the imprinted character; however, a person who adheres to heresy does not receive supernatural grace from the sacrament, even though the sacrament itself was valid.

**St. Thomas: ** "As appears from what has been said above (63, 6; 66, 9) Baptism produces a twofold effect in the soul, viz. the character and grace. Therefore in two ways may a thing be necessary for Baptism.

First, as something without which grace, which is the ultimate effect of the sacrament, cannot be had. And thus right faith is necessary for Baptism, because, as it appears from Rm. 3:22, the justice of God is by faith of Jesus Christ.

Secondly, something is required of necessity for Baptism, because without it the baptismal character cannot be imprinted And thus right faith is not necessary in the one baptized any more than in the one who baptizes: provided the other conditions are fulfilled which are essential to the sacrament. For the sacrament is not perfected by the righteousness of the minister or of the recipient of Baptism, but by the power of God.
Click to expand...

There is another quote from St. Thomas that goes into more detail on this point, but I wasn’t able to locate it. If I find it I’ll post it.
 
Hmm. Ok.

Well, as to the first topic, that it the presumed indifferentism of the post VII Chruch, I think has already been acurrately handled.

As to the second topic, that is Homosexuality; what do they want? The VII church has indicated both that the homosexual orientation is “disordered” (ie wrong), and to act upon that passion is sinful. What else do they expect? Part of even the ultra-trads’ idea of man is that he is inerently disordered/sinful, so how is a homosexual any different from the rest of us in such a manner as to regular participation in the life of the Church? Is homosexuality itself an unforgivable sin, or a sin with a special character different from all other sin, requiring the total excommunication of all homosexuals simply because of their particular/specific manifestation of their own spiritual disorder? Is it really that much more evil than the murderous inclinations of some, or the excessive heterosexual lustings, even if unacted upon, of some that it requires such a separate consideration of them? Granted, those who encourage homosexuality as a legitimate, ordered, “option” are creating scandal, and should be dealt with accordingly, but what is their answer for those who are trying to overcome their personal issues the same as anyone else?

As to the third topic, the masonic infiltration of VII, well, being a mason, and now a Catholic, I will simply state an observation. The ultra-trads cannot see the distinction between “modernizing” and “modernism”, and as they cannot see a distinction between “modernism” and “masonry”, they have the natural, but no less erroneous for it, inclination to over-subscribe everything in VII, which produced a much needed modernizing for the Church, to the efforts of Masons, who, of those actually opposed to Catholicism, are far too certain of their own superiority of position to even bother with the obviously outdated and tyrranical papacy, whose errors are so manifest it confounds them that anyone of intelligence is catholic (should they acknowledge such a being). Most masons I know simply cannot fathom what the Church has against them, and to try and explain is pointless without the element of Grace to assist.

Frankly, the trads are simply refusing to see that VII is simply the continuing breath of their favored VI council. The two councils provided us the limits of opposing extremes that represent the valid teaching of the Church, the first being a conservative, inhalation, action, the latter being the expansive, exhalation, of the living Church. Both councils did much to define the limitations of authentic Christian teaching. It is only when one takes one council at the cost of the other, that one’s religious life begins to die. Ultra-trads sacrifice Vii to Vi; the modernist liberals sacrifice Vi to Vii; the results are that both pervert the truth to their own destruction.

Better to pray for them than argue with them, really.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top