Defend our Church

[cathmonarchmom]

We need to understand that Joseph,Mary and yes Jesus, before the Last Supper and his death on cross did keep the old Jewish traditions. Then, Shazaam, everything changed. Christ died, Christ resurrected and if you do not accept those things and accept that he is the Messiah then you are wrong. The old traditions are no more and if you are celebrated the old customs, you are wrong. Remember, outside Church there is no salvation. Also, B.C. 156 " Of what sin are persons guilty who put firm belief in religious or other practices that are either forbidden or useless?
A: Persons who put firm belief in religious or other practices that are forbidden or useless are guilty of superstition.

B.C. 166 Are all obliged to belong to the Catholic Church to be saved? A: All are obligedto belong to the Catholic Church to be saved.

If anyone forgot what the B.C. stands for it is the Baltimore Catechism.

Don’t be so obtuse, after the death and resurrection of Christ you can bet your life the Blessed Virgin never stepped foot in a synagogue and to say different would be blasphemy!! :banghead:

 

[Lazerlike42]

cathmonarchmom:

We need to understand that Joseph,Mary and yes Jesus, before the Last Supper and his death on cross did keep the old Jewish traditions. Then, Shazaam, everything changed. Christ died, Christ resurrected and if you do not accept those things and accept that he is the Messiah then you are wrong. The old traditions are no more and if you are celebrated the old customs, you are wrong. Remember, outside Church there is no salvation. Also, B.C. 156 " Of what sin are persons guilty who put firm belief in religious or other practices that are either forbidden or useless?
A: Persons who put firm belief in religious or other practices that are forbidden or useless are guilty of superstition.

B.C. 166 Are all obliged to belong to the Catholic Church to be saved? A: All are obligedto belong to the Catholic Church to be saved.

If anyone forgot what the B.C. stands for it is the Baltimore Catechism.

Don’t be so obtuse, after the death and resurrection of Christ you can bet your life the Blessed Virgin never stepped foot in a synagogue and to say different would be blasphemy!! :banghead:

Actually, the BVM, the Apostles, and all early Christians worshipped on Saturday in the synagogues along with all the other Jews until the other Jews told them they weren’t welcome anymore. At that point they started gathering on Sundays and eventually the Church (Apostles at the time) decided we would worship on Sunday in memory of the Lord’s resurrection.

 

[Della]

Don’t be so obtuse, after the death and resurrection of Christ you can bet your life the Blessed Virgin never stepped foot in a synagogue and to say different would be blasphemy!!

I’m sorry to destroy your poor head and your argument, but this is simply not true, you know. The Christians continued to meet in the synagogues until they were asked to leave. Paul preached Christ in synagogues across Asia Minor. Don’t overlay later decisions onto the early Christians. It only weakens your position.

And the Church does not teach that Jews will definitely be saved by being faithful to their covenant. They may be saved, but only because of the redemption of Christ covered all of mankind, not just those who explicitly believe the teachings of the Church. Salvation is in Christ and his Church. Everyone who will be saved will be save through that means and no other, but not everyone will have understood through whom they will be saved.

It is a fine difference, I know, but it is the difference between saying the grace of God is limited verses God’s grace is poured upon all mankind. Some will most certainly be saved by doing what they believed right by the grace God gave them, be they Jews or Buddhists or anything else. Their salvation will be very much harder for them than for us who have all the sacraments available to us, and we ought to preach Christ to them to give them every advantage, but for the invincibly ignorant and those with insurmountable obstacles, God’s grace is still there if they take advantage of it BECAUSE of Christ’s redemption not in spite of it.

 

[Constantine312]

This conversation has gotten off the point of the original post, but two things: 1. To say that Mary would STOP practicing her religion because of her Son’s death is ridiculous. It was for her also that He came and for her people. If anything He would have encouraged her to continue to be a good Jew.

1. The issue of Vatican II came up. An ugly truth has been brought up that I thought I was the only one to notice. Vatican II hopelessly liberalized the Church. I find it disgusting. Anyone in agreement?

And btw, I was born 20 years after V2. Not to make anyone feel old but I think that says something when even a person born in more ‘politically correct’ times acknowledges the disgrace of V2.

Am I alone here?

 

[Lazerlike42]

Constantine312:

This conversation has gotten off the point of the original post, but two things: 1. To say that Mary would STOP practicing her religion because of her Son’s death is ridiculous. It was for her also that He came and for her people. If anything He would have encouraged her to continue to be a good Jew.

1. The issue of Vatican II came up. An ugly truth has been brought up that I thought I was the only one to notice. Vatican II hopelessly liberalized the Church. I find it disgusting. Anyone in agreement?

And btw, I was born 20 years after V2. Not to make anyone feel old but I think that says something when even a person born in more ‘politically correct’ times acknowledges the disgrace of V2.

Am I alone here?

VII didn’t liberalize the Church. It WAS used wrongfully as a tool of those who wanted to liberalize it. speaking from someone who’s looked into it and from someone who’s seen a number of presentations on it on EWTN (especially a program which is devoted to reading through the VII documents), I can tell you what happened.

In 1,500, everybody was Catholic and had the truth. Then came along the reformation. Now, all those who would join the reformation were already Catholic and just plain should have known better. They were being insincerely, in a certain sense, converted away from the truth by those who should have known better.

Fast forward to 1960. In 1960, people are being born both Catholic and also being born into Protestantism. Protestants are growing up thinking they have the truth. They aren’t being drawn away, they are being raised to think they have the truth just like Catholics were raised to think they had the truth in 1000. That’s really why a person thinks he has the truth: he’s brought up that way. The vast majority of Protestants, other than those who had been presented the facts about Catholicism and simply had hard hearts, were not ignoring or leaving the truth but living it as best they knew.

In 1960 to today, we also have a world where society looks upon disagreeing with another’s religion as some horrible thing. People are brought up to think that. Today, flat speaking the truth directly as in the past wouldn’t help bring people around, it would push them further away. This isn’t the right attitude, but unfortunately everybody now have been conditioned to believe that it is, so we have to work around that and to a CERTAIN degree go about preaching our faith based on that principle. We mustn’t just sell out to it and submit to it, but we have to consider it.

So VII comes along, and they write up some documents which teach this unfortunate truth, but always, always asserting that the same orthodox truths that had always been taught MUST be held and must not be abandoned as they are obviously still true.

Then comes the hippy movement. This starts to permeate our enture culture to varying degrees. A lot of the people going into the seminaries are people who were influenced by it.

They become Priests and start preaching “I’m ok, you’re ok, everybody’s ok.” They start taking down the crucifixes in churches and replacing them with Jesus-less crosses. They start preaching that we are all fine and every religion is fine and whatever you want to do is fine.

So in part, it’s just coincidence that VII came before this stuff started happening.

What else happened was that all those ecumenical statements of VII then started to be taken and cited out of context by these hippy priests to support their views. You have some faithful Catholic come and say, “Father why are you teaching this?” and the priest says, “Well Vatican II says I must.” This simply wasn’t true, and if the priests had quoted entire passages or entire documents, they would have had to quote the parts affirming that the orthodoxy was still true and to be taught, and that the ecumenicism had its boundaries and was a disciplinary adaptation to the world but not a change in teaching.

Also, a lot of these hippy priests didn’t just take it out of context, but they read the documents and truly thought they saw these teachings there because they wanted to, and as you know we tend to read what we want to out of things.

This is changing, because in the 80s and 90s, JPII, and especially now with B16, a lot of reforms were put in to make sure the seminaries taught things properly, and to weed out the hippy priests from formation.

I happen to know a few folks from the seminaries, and believe me the future is INCREDIBLY bright.

 

[Mystophilus]

cathmonarchmom:

A person I was having a conversation, someone who is becoming a deacon in the Evangelical Church, made a comment that they are more circumspect at their service than we are at Our Mass.

That can happen, but it does not mean either that it always happens or that their service is more right than your Mass. It would merely suggest that, in your friend’s observation, episcopalians are more serious-minded, on average, than Catholics.

The kicker was when I have to answer why the Pope was recently seen praying at the Jewish synagogue. He was praying with them. He was rather scandalized by this. His point being that as an Espicopalian he would never attend a Jewish prayer service because they do not accept Jesus as the Messiah.

While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew’s house, many tax collectors and “sinners” came and ate with him and his disciples. When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and ‘sinners’?”

On hearing this, Jesus said, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners." (Matthew 9:10-3)

The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and “sinners.” ’ But wisdom is proved right by her actions."(Matthew 11:19)

I could keep going on this for a long time. Let’s just say that I would suggest that your friend ought to consider re-evaluating his attitude towards others. Quickly.