Is Catholicism A Democracy?

[Brennan_Doherty]

I’m starting to think that no one arguing for the ‘Traditionalist’ (I use that term loosely, extreme really seems to be more the case) ideas here, has any understanding of the philosophy behind our faith or any of the true Doctors of the Church, it’s great Saints or the teaching Magisterium, which have all given us a richer understanding of the Christian message as the centuries progress and their insight into the riches of our faith deepens.

And what’s more surprising is that you all continually quote philosophers such as von Hildebrand and seemingly don’t even ‘get’ philosophy in general, which is apparent by your total lack of understanding of someone such as St. Francis, one of many I dare say.

If you don’t get the big picture, or the philosophy of Christianity, you will forever be stuck in extreme thoughts and unable to move forward with the Church. This is truly a waste of precious time and energy since there is much to be done and lived in trying to win this world for Christ.

You continually quote people, and yet don’t get the totality of their teachings at all, this is what JR is trying to convey, in very clear and simple terms and yet it seems to be lost on you.

This is very much like arguing with Fundamentalist Protestants, who keep going back to the same one or two verses of scripture, almost always taken out of context, and certainly not interpreted in the* light of all scripture*, to drive home a point that does not mesh with the totality of the Bible and the Christian message as we all know it, as has been handed down and worked out through the centuries until now.

It doesn’t matter how many refutations you can reasonably and logically put forth, they keep hanging onto those same two verses come %$&^ or high water, never hearing a word you say. It then becomes pointless to continue the conversation.

The Church is moving forward, with or without you. You can grudgingly waste your precious years on this planet in mourning over something you have no power or authority to change, or you can choose to be obedient to the authority of the Church and pray for it’s leaders without murmurings against them, which is what we are all exhorted to do by the Apostle Paul. If any of you think that murmurings and strife are going to get you any rewards on the other side, I feel very very sad for you, how you are misguided.

Even if you are convinced that the Church is in error and going down the wrong path, what one of you has been placed in any position of authority to do anything about this? I dare say not one. In this case, you are instructed by the scriptures to pray for those in authority over you and to love and obey, as obedience is better than sacrifice and love covers a multitude of sins. Let the Holy Spirit use your prayers to place the right people where needed to do the correcting, this is not your job.

I just don’t get the whole thing, how you think you can be doing the Body of Christ any good with all this strife. It creates an unhealthy organism to be constantly against the one you say you love.

Since I am the one who quotes von Hildebrand (not DD) maybe you can give me some examples of what I have written where I demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of the philosophy behind our faith.

The reason I point to writers such as von Hildebrand, Cardinal Ottaviani, Dom Alcuin Reid, Fr. Brian Harrison, Fr. Aidan Nichols, or Fr. George Rutler is that they are true children of the Church and understand liturgy and philosophy quite well and have written on the very issues which concern traditionalists and anyone concerned with the liturgy.

So, if you want to critique “The Case for the Latin Mass” by von Hildebrand be my guest.

Or perhaps you can demonstrate how their writings are mere “murmurings” and they are just wasting their time on this planet writing about such things since they really don’t have the authority to change anything.

I might say that one of the reasons we have the Motu Proprio regarding the TLM is precisely because traditionalists and others concerned about the Church have made those concerns known and the Pope has responded to them.

 

[DustinsDad]

If you believe that I’m so bold and boorish, you have an easy choice. Don’t come onto this post or if you choose to do so, ignore my posts.

I thought about that, but was encouraged be another here not to go that route. It’s not about you personally, it’s all about doing my best to present the traditional Catholic response to what I see as oftentimes dangerous or erroneous modernist positions that do much damage the faith of many. And I will be persistant at times in trying to get you to answer a direct question in an effort to get some specificity out of you - and perhaps, just perhaps, find some common ground.

For example, I will indeed go through this post and adress all the quotes from Et Unum Sint. As such, I will read and address them, however difficult in may seem, in light of all that went before. It can be done. You see, as a person struggling to be a faithful Catholic by the grace of God, I have not the liberty to take one encyclical in a vacuum and subsequently turn centuries of Apostolic Tradition on its head. It’s Scripture, Tradition AND Apostolic Tradition after all. We are still Catholic, no?

On the other hand, I challenge you to take your perspective and your interpretation of Et Unum Sint and likewise harmonize the past with the present. Truth doesn’t change after all. If you are up to it, then please do the same for my earlier quotes from Mortalium Animos.

As to your using Francis to represent your position on Ecumenism, if Francis were alive he would have read Et Unum Sint and would have followed the Holy Father’s teachings in that document, especially where it says

Speaking of the lack of unity among Christians, the Decree on Ecumenism does not ignore the fact that “people of both sides were to blame”

I would say that too - and it has nothing to do with my position on the modern approach to Ecumenism.

Sure, there were bad folks and bad behavior in the Church then, just as there are now. Sinners in the church, however, doesn’t diminish the reality that Outside the Church there is No Salvation. It doesn’t negate the fact that there is One True Church. It does not negate the need for conversion to the Church Christ established for the salvation of one’s soul.

I will say that you seem to take this line from Decree on Ecumenism to the extreme - as was warned about in Pascendi:
"If they treat of biblical questions, it is upon Modernist principles; if they write history, they carefully, and with ill-concealed satisfaction, drag into the light, on the plea of telling the whole truth, everything that appears to cast a stain upon the Church.
(Pascendi, 43)
Or as Pius XII “prophesied” when he was still Cardinal Pacelli:
“…I hear all around me innovators who wish to dismantle the Sacred Chapel, destroy the universal flame of the Church, reject Her ornaments and make Her feel remorse for Her historical past.”
(Pope Pius XII, quoted in Msgr. Roche, Pius XII Devant L’Histoire, pp. 52-53.)

And then again, we do have this from report of the St. Francis/Sultan interaction:
Sultan Maleek Al Kameel (during the V Crusade): “Your Lord taught in his gospels that evil must not be repaid with evil, that you should not refuse your cloak to anyone who wants to take your tunic, etc. (Mt 5,40): All the more Christians should not invade our land!”.

St. Francis of Assisi answered: “It seems to me that you have not read the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ in its entirety. In fact it says elsewhere: “if your eye causes you sin, tear it out and throw it away” (Mt 5 , 29). With this, Jesus wanted to teach us that if any person, even a friend or a relative of ours, and even if he is dear to us as the apple of our eye, we should be willing to repulse him, to weed him out if he sought to take us away from the faith and love of our God. This is precisely is why Christians are acting according to justice when they invade the lands you inhabit and fight against you, for you blaspheme the name of Christ and strive to turn away from his worship as many people as you can. But if you were to recognize, confess, and worship the Creator and Redeemer, Christians would love you as themselves instead”."
(“Verba fratris Illuminati socii b. Francisci ad partes Orientis et in cospectu Soldani Aegypti”, Codex Vaticanus Ott.lat.n.552)
And speaking of the modern approach to ecumenism, from St. Boneventure’s account, and contrary to your rendering, we see that St. Francis was only interested in an extened “dialogue” if the Sultan would convert:
If you wish to be converted to Christ along with your people, I will most gladly stay with you for love of him. But if you hesitate. . .then command that an enormous fire be lit and I will walk into the fire along with your priests so that you will recognize which faith deserves to be held as holier and more certain."
(fromSaint Bonaventure’s The Major Legend of Saint Francis, Chapter 9)
(continued…)

 

[DustinsDad]

(Continued from above…)

Regarding matters of Salvation, it is important to remember the infallibled words of Holy Mother Church - at least thrice defined by my count…
“One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (IV Lateran Council, A.D. 1215)

“We declare, we say, we define, and we pronounce that it is wholly necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. The Lateran, November 14th, in our eighth year. As a perpetual memorial of this matter.” (Unam Sanctam, A.D. 1302)

Pope Eugenius IV, A.D. 1431-1447, at Council of Florence “It [the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that none of those outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but neither Jews, nor heretics and schismatics, can become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life they have been added to the Church; 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 practised, even if he has shed [his] blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” (Cantate Domino, A.D. 1442)
That being said, let’s proceed…

“It follows that these separated Churches and Communities, though we believe that they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and value in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.[12] (Chap I Parr 11)

I’ve already addressed this. In short, the only way to understand this is that the Holy Spirit uses the elements of truth within these false religions to bring them (i.e. to lead them to conversion into) into the One True Church before they die…or one could also say that for the invincibly and inculpably ignorant, the elements of truth in the false religions can help these poor folks outside the visible Church be united to the soul of the One True Church.

In the latter case, these folks are in extreme peril as it is - even if their ignorance in not their fault- since they do not have access to the Eucharist and the Sacrament of Confession (sometimes even Baptism) - the very means of grace given to us by Our Lord to help us get to heaven. And we’ve already heard what St. Francis said about the Eucharist and Confession.

True Charity requires that these truths be preached to those outside the Church - not muffled, not watered down, not ignored, not put under a bushel basket. Whether they reject them or not is between them and God. Our job is to preach it. With words or without. And when you celebrate “Franciscan” protestants, you preach without words (since nothing is really said explcitly it seems in your camp) that the Eucharist and Sacramental Confession is optional. And that my friend, is heresy.

The separated brethren also carry out many of the sacred actions of the Christian religion. Undoubtedly, in many ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community, these actions can truly engender a life of grace, and can be rightly described as capable of providing access to the community of salvation". (Chap I Parr 13)

Same as above, with the twofold ways salvation can be found…by these “actions” leading them into the Church, or by helping the invincibly and inculpably ignorant to be joined to the soul of the Church.

It’s hard, but it can be read in light of tradition. No formal error there at all…and it can be taken as a somewhat oddly worded part of the whole - with all that went before.

(continued…)

 

[DustinsDad]

(Continued from above…)

You always quote the writings of previous popes. Here is another encyclical. One encyclical is as good as another, is it not?

Not really. Some popes are better writers than others. More clear and what not. But they all have to be taken and accepted - and harmonized where faith and morals are concerned of course.

Nor do I wish to overlook the Day of Prayer for Peace in Europe, especially in the Balkans, which took me back to the town of Saint Francis as a pilgrim on 9-10 January 1993, (Cahp II Parr 76)

In 1986, at Assisi, during the World Day of Prayer for Peace, Christians of the various Churches and Ecclesial Communities prayed with one voice to the Lord of history for peace in the world. That same day, in a different but parallel way, Jews and representatives of non-Christian religions also prayed for peace in a harmonious expression of feelings which struck a resonant chord deep in the human spirit. (Ibid)

Yes. I agree and accept that happened. And I accept (obviously so) that Pope John Paul II was very much for “ecumenism”. I don’t think he was very much for “religious indifferentism” though. But alas, as previous popes warned, it is an unfortunate side effect of the new modern “approach”, and all the optimism and good intentions in the world, now it is apparent, can’t change it.

The Brothers welcomed the Holy Father and the other pilgrims to the Mother House of their Order as St. Francis would have done, not in opposition to his wishes…

I am not familiar with the details, but two obvious things just from what you write here immediately come to mind. For one thing, the Franciscans weren’t going to refuse the pope if the request came from the him. For another, I don’t have the details, but there is no guarnatee that religous orders are completely free from modernistic influences…as Pope St. Pius stated in Pascendi:“They are to be found among the laity, and in the ranks of the clergy, and they are not wanting even in the last place where one might expect to meet them, in religious communities…”
(Pascendi, cf 43)

Where there is a sincere desire to follow Christ, the Spirit is often able to pour out his grace in extraordinary (Chap III Parr 84)

This is why Franciscans accept their Franciscan Brothers in the Anglican and Lutheran churches. They trust the sincere desire to follow Christ on the part of these Brothers and in the power of the Holy Spirit to pour out his grace upon them. The unity is based on faith in the power of the Holy Spirit to reunite them someday.

So you think that acting like there is already unity will lead to unity “someday.” Rather, I encourage you, think logically. “Acting” like there is already unity when there is no unity will lead those involved (and everyone looking in from the outside) to think there already is unity when there is none. That’s pan-Christianity.

In fact, when like St. Francis says, that souls are “damned” for refusing to accept the truth of the Eucharist and Sacramental Confession, to pretend otherwise is just about the most uncharitable thing you can do.

1. Associating himself with Peter’s threefold profession of love, which corresponds to the earlier threefold denial, his Successor knows that he must be a sign of mercy. His is a ministry of mercy, born of an act of Christ’s own mercy. This whole lesson of the Gospel must be constantly read anew, so that the exercise of the Petrine ministry may lose nothing of its authenticity and transparency. (Parr 93)

The Holy Father speaks of the connection between his ecumenical mission and Christ’s mercy. Francis would have had no objection to any act of mercy toward the separated bretheren.

I’ve got no problem with mercy or paragraph 93 of course. And the paragraph in context shows that conversion to the unity of the One True Church was the pope’s intent here:
Associating himself with Peter’s threefold profession of love, which corresponds to the earlier threefold denial, his Successor knows that he must be a sign of mercy. His is a ministry of mercy, born of an act of Christ’s own mercy. This whole lesson of the Gospel must be constantly read anew, so that the exercise of the Petrine ministry may lose nothing of its authenticity and transparency.

The Church of God is called by Christ to manifest to a world ensnared by its sins and evil designs that, despite everything, God in his mercy can convert hearts to unity and enable them to enter into communion with him.
(Ut unum sint, 93)
Thing is, in practice, the approach led a muffling of the truth - silence in the call to conversion. And mercy separated from truth isn’t merciful. Perhaps it’s expecting to God to do it all “mysteriously”, without our (name removed by moderator)ut - sort of “putting God to the test.” Ah, but sometimes is really is necessary to use words.

In its most extreme practices, it misleads. And it is not merciful to mislead.

I’m sure Pope John Paul II, ever optimistic, didn’t intend this and hoped such good intentions would eventually lead to mass conversions and a strengthening of the Church and never intended the efforts to mislead. Unfortunately, reality has been quite the opposite of what Pope John Paul II hoped so much for, what he had invested so much of his life in.

But then, I would say there are others who, thwarting and twisting JP2’s efforts, have now go so far as to say that conversion isn’t really necessary after all, that is outmoded and outdated, “just be good protestants and you’ll be fine.” That sort of nonsense.

That my friend is religious indifference. And it’s condemned by the Church.

As a final note. Once again, you cited a document out of context. The document that you sited from St. Francis was written as the rule for the Secular Franciscan Order, The Letter to the Faithful.

Addressed specifically to “To all Christians, religious, clerics and laymen, men and women, to all who dwell in the entire world,” - and read by the faithful everywhere. Are you saying now that truth is not only relative to what partiuclar religion you happen to choose - but also within the religion itself?

There were no Protestants in Francis day,

Nope. So we have to go by what he did write - not by what we think he might have written. Quote from me anywhere St. Francis said anyone (Christian or otherwise) could reject Our Lord in the Eucharist and not be damned. Anyone. In fact, if you could quote from me anywhere St. Francis said one could be saved outside Holy Mother Church, it would be much beneficial in your effots to prove me wrong.

only Muslims, Jews and Orthodox.

Yes, and as we have seen…he tried to convert them to the One True Church with much zeal and much charity, and they respected him for it. Some, as we’ve also seen, got their heads cut off for their efforts. All for the glory of God…my guess is the martyrs won many, many souls for the Lord.

…He already had a good relationship with these groups.

And I take it the good relationship would include only the brothers with their heads still attached.

That’s all for now.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[stmaria]

=JReducation;3480251]DD
]]In 1986, at Assisi, during the World Day of Prayer for Peace, Christians of the various Churches and Ecclesial Communities prayed with one voice to the Lord of history for peace in the world.

That same day, in a different but parallel way, Jews and representatives of non-Christian religions also prayed for peace

in a harmonious expression of feelings which struck a resonant chord deep in the human spirit.

JR, I have always wanted to ask someone this question. When the following religious groups went to their rooms to pray for peace, to what god did they pray?
·
·Room B Buddhism
·Room C Sikhism
·Room D African Traditional Religions
·Room E Hinduism
·Room F Tenrikyo
·Room G Shintoism
·Room I Zoroastrianism, Janinism and Confucianism

 

[catharina]

[/INDENT]Thing is, in practice, the approach led a muffling of the truth - silence in the call to conversion. And mercy separated from truth isn’t merciful. Perhaps it’s expecting to God to do it all “mysteriously”, without our (name removed by moderator)ut - sort of “putting God to the test.” Ah, but sometimes is really is necessary to use words.

In its most extreme practices, it misleads. And it is not merciful to mislead.

I’m sure Pope John Paul II, ever optimistic, didn’t intend this and hoped such good intentions would eventually lead to mass conversions and a strengthening of the Church and never intended the efforts to mislead. Unfortunately, reality has been quite the opposite of what Pope John Paul II hoped so much for, what he had invested so much of his life in.

But then, I would say there are others who, thwarting and twisting JP2’s efforts, have now go so far as to say that conversion isn’t really necessary after all, that is outmoded and outdated, “just be good protestants and you’ll be fine.” That sort of nonsense.

That my friend is religious indifference. And it’s condemned by the Church.

DustinsDad

Pope John Paul II, ever optimisitic?
Or, more likely, ever graced as the Holy Father, ever learned, ever suffering, ever prayerful?

I’m able to wonder how many more have entered heaven based on the teaching and preaching of Pope John Paul II alone. Have there been those who, receiving only personal contempt and dispargement from the Catholics in their lives, have been able nonetheless to answer “yes” when asked if they felt capable of loving and following John Paul II if he were the only Catholic known to them? if he were, as the sultan said to Francis, most typical of all Christians?

As for this: “And mercy separated from truth isn’t merciful. Perhaps it’s expecting to God to do it all “mysteriously”, without our (name removed by moderator)ut - sort of “putting God to the test.” Ah, but sometimes is really is necessary to use words.” Even as we pray and work to evangelize, we are called to know with certainty that Almighty God is indeed the primary and final Mover in calling people to conversion. We can be used by God in the process or we can get out of God’s way. We cannot substitute argumentation, sarcasm, divisiveness and taunting for God’s love and mercy.

Those who look to today and state: “Unfortunately, reality has been quite the opposite of what Pope John Paul II hoped so much for, what he had invested so much of his life in,” are sort of whistling in the dark since we know nothing of those who were called and saved at the moment of death. That John Paul II gave a magnificent example of loving those he led - and others in the world as well - it’s quite premature to call for a “final count” and find the numbers to be small. While we (as Roman Catholics) can hope and pray for many more conversions, we have to understand and accept that the grace of conversion and is from God. To pretend that a Pope “accidentally” stood in the way of conversions is far removed from charity - and far removed from our graced duties as members of the Church.

 

[JReducation]

JR, I have always wanted to ask someone this question. When the following religious groups went to their rooms to pray for peace, to what god did they pray?
·
·Room B Buddhism
·Room C Sikhism
·Room D African Traditional Religions
·Room E Hinduism
·Room F Tenrikyo
·Room G Shintoism
·Room I Zoroastrianism, Janinism and Confucianism

Hi St. Maria

The organizing committee, which included Catholics and non Catholics used the term God of the Universe. This was agreable to all the participants and consistent with Catholics, Jewish and Muslims, who are monotheistic.

If I’m not mistaken the idea comes from St. Paul who pointed to the statue of the unknown god that he found in a Gentile town and pointed to it and used it to teach about Jesus.

Hopes this works.

JR

 

[JReducation]

Hi everyone

I want to thank everyone who has joined and posted on this thread since it was founded. We have had many interesting discussions and I believe that we have all learned from them, even if we do not agree.

I am moving on to a new thread that I woud like to see run on CAF on saints and the Church today.

Thanks to all of you who have been supportive and so helpful in so many ways.

God bless each of you!

JR

 

[Jeanette_L]

Hi everyone

I want to thank everyone who has joined and posted on this thread since it was founded. We have had many interesting discussions and I believe that we have all learned from them, even if we do not agree.

I am moving on to a new thread that I woud like to see run on CAF on saints and the Church today.

Thanks to all of you who have been supportive and so helpful in so many ways.

God bless each of you!

JR

It’s been an interesting study on the human equation - in our diversity of viewpoints and opinions in the Catholic world. Look forward to the next one.

 

[DustinsDad]

…If I’m not mistaken the idea comes from St. Paul who pointed to the statue of the unknown god that he found in a Gentile town and pointed to it and used it to teach about Jesus…

Actually, this doesn’t work at all. I don’t recall Paul inviting them to continue praying to the statue after he preached the gospel. In fact, upon his preaching the gospel - the “times of ignorance” were over for them. No more “winking.”
Acts 17:30-31
And God indeed having winked at the times of this ignorance, now declareth unto men, that all should every where do penance. Because he hath appointed a day wherein he will judge the world in equity, by the man whom he hath appointed; giving faith to all, by raising him up from the dead
Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[Jeanette_L]

Actually, this doesn’t work at all. I don’t recall Paul inviting them to continue praying to the statue after he preached the gospel. In fact, upon his preaching the gospel - the “times of ignorance” were over for them. No more “winking.”
Acts 17:30-31
And God indeed having winked at the times of this ignorance, now declareth unto men, that all should every where do penance. Because he hath appointed a day wherein he will judge the world in equity, by the man whom he hath appointed; giving faith to all, by raising him up from the dead
Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

St. Paul was building bridges in order to some day convert them. Same with our beloved JPII.

Of course, maybe neither St. Paul nor JPII had the wisdom to understand that this approach is a waste of their time, they were so ignorant is seems.

 

[stmaria]

Hi St. Maria

The organizing committee, which included Catholics and non Catholics used the term God of the Universe. This was agreable to all the participants and consistent with Catholics, Jewish and Muslims, who are monotheistic.

If I’m not mistaken the idea comes from St. Paul who pointed to the statue of the unknown god that he found in a Gentile town and pointed to it and used it to teach about Jesus.

Hopes this works.

JR

I am not speaking of Muslims or Jews.
At Assisi in 1986 and again in 2001 the following prayed for peace at the request of Pope John Paul. To what god did these religions pray?

Room B Buddhism
·Room C Sikhism
·Room D African Traditional Religions
·Room E Hinduism
·Room F Tenrikyo
·Room G Shintoism
·Room I Zoroastrianism, Janinism and Confucianism

 

[catharina]

I am not speaking of Muslims or Jews.
At Assisi in 1986 and again in 2001 the following prayed for peace at the request of Pope John Paul. To what god did these religions pray?

Room B Buddhism
·Room C Sikhism
·Room D African Traditional Religions
·Room E Hinduism
·Room F Tenrikyo
·Room G Shintoism
·Room I Zoroastrianism, Janinism and Confucianism

maria, only Almighty God can answer that question.
If you have a need to know, you might want to ask Him.

 

[stmaria]

maria, only Almighty God can answer that question.
If you have a need to know, you might want to ask Him.

I believe that God has answered that question already.

1 Cor.10 20 “the pagans sacrifice to demons and not to God, and I do not want you to become sharers with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and also the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and likewise the table of demons”

"
First epistle of John 4:2-3 “every spirit that acknowledges Jesus Christ come in the flesh belongs to God, while every spirit that fails to acknowledge him does not belong to God. Such is the spirit of the antichrist”

All of those religions that I listed and “prayed” at Assisi for world peace are false religons. They do not recognize Jesus Christ therefore they do not belong to God. They are the spirit of the ant-Christ.

 

[catharina]

I believe that God has answered that question already.

1 Cor.10 20 “the pagans sacrifice to demons and not to God, and I do not want you to become sharers with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and also the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and likewise the table of demons”

"
First epistle of John 4:2-3 “every spirit that acknowledges Jesus Christ come in the flesh belongs to God, while every spirit that fails to acknowledge him does not belong to God. Such is the spirit of the antichrist”

All of those religions that I listed and “prayed” at Assisi for world peace are false religons. They do not recognize Jesus Christ therefore they do not belong to God. They are the spirit of the ant-Christ.

If you believed you already know the answer, then why did you ask the question? Whether or not individuals prayed according to their own habits or they prayed according to a new inspiration is most certainly unknown to me. Need I add that it’s unknown to you too?

 

[DustinsDad]

St. Paul was building bridges in order to some day convert them…

He was trying to convert them right then and there. Do you dispute this? Telling them the times of ignorance were over, calling them to do penance and accept Christ certainly isn’t a postponed call to conversion.

Of course, we always pray that those who reject Christ will someday, for the salvation of their eternal souls, repent and accept the Savior. But we know not the day or the hour of death. Therefore, if you are going to schedule a “time” for the call to conversion - better make it now. Tomorrow may never come.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[DustinsDad]

If you believed you already know the answer, then why did you ask the question?

I can only assume it was to demonstrate the desparate need for “tradional” catholicism in the Church today. Mission accomplished.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[da_nolo]

As I read through these threads I’m more amazed at the Catholics than at people of other faiths. I understand that if you’re born into another faith you approach Catholicism with many questions regarding Church authority, questions about Vatican II and the decisions and declarations made by the Popes, especially from John XXIII to the present.

That being said, I came to Catholicism from Judaism. I’m a convert. I became Catholic four-years ago. However, Catholicism was not new to me. My father was Catholic and we attended Catholic schools and even Catholic colleges. My brothers and I were the only kids in the Catholic school who were allowed to wear a yarmulke and allowed to sit during mass or stand quietly. The friars who educated us were very kind. They even encouraged my desire to study theology to become a Rabbi, which ended up in my becoming more interested in understanding Catholic spirituality and studying Mystical Theology and Philosophy. After that the rest was easy. I asked a lot of questions and got a lot of answers. Some I liked and some I thought were nonsense.

But there was one reality that I walked away with. Catholicism, much like Judaism IS NOT A DEMOCRACY. The Catholic Church has always operated as a monarchy, both its infrastructure and its theology has always been hierarchical. I don’t understand why Catholics today feel they have the authority to debate whether this pope was right or wrong in separating Archbishop Lefebvre and his society; whether the Pope is right or wrong on birth control, abortion, homosexual behaviour, capital punishment or mass in Latin.

To the best of my knowledge the laity has never had a voice in formulating dogma or canon law. Correct me if I’m wrong. Every contribution that the laity has made to these has always been subject to the approval of the Magisterium… What I gather from these forums is that there are both conservative and liberal Catholics, I hate those terms, who would like to see the Church go their way. It isn’t going to happen.

Also, I find it interesting that this phenomenon is more common among North Americans (including Canadians) and Europeans. In the Southern Hemisphere Catholics simply accept what the Church says or ignore it. They don’t debate it. And they don’t seem bent on proving their point. Their understanding seems more in touch with the reality of what the Church is a theocratic monarchy.

What is in it for us to debate? Why can’t we spend our time and energy understanding how to be good Christians and how to apply the spiritual principles that we have inherited to our daily lives and our dealings with others. It would seem to me that time would be better spent understanding how to be saints, such as the great mystics did.

You don’t see a Teresa of Avila, John of the Cross, Francis of Assisi, Elizabeth Ann Seton, Vincent de Paul, Francis de Sales, Mother Teresa questioning the Church’s position on the issues of their time. They spent their energy on developing a deeper life of prayer, developing their commitment to the poor, trying to see Christ in their brothers and sisters, living closer to the Church despite her weaknesses and teaching others to love the Church.

Francis of Assisi had a vision in which Christ said, “Go rebuild my Church for it’s falling into ruins.” He went out and preached conversion and charity. He didn’t take on the corruption of the medieval Church. In fact he condemned those who would challenge the Church and trusted that the Holy Spirit would repair the damage.

Mother Elizabeth Ann Seton’s last words on her deathbed to her daughters were, “Be children of the Church.” She didn’t tell them to go out and challenge the Church’s every decision or teaching.

I don’t get it.

What so many misunderstood and continue to walk away from is the importance of tradition, importance of involvement, and the notice and impotance of whom is King of this Nation, Our Lord God. Your statement is off though, we are not a monarchy, through few simple reasons. The relations between a monarchy and the Church. Too many see what is done as the only way only because you are trapped in it. Thats monarchy, a forced ruling by one. We are not forced, but loved. True, and I agree with this, these people are trying to change what can not be changed, cause they treat is as a monarchy, open for change. But it’s not open to this change and the only reason anyone is trying to change something is because they are blind through pride, wrath, and other attributes towards sin and this matter.

 

[DustinsDad]

Good things…very good things…

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/images/ppbxibautismo240308.jpg

ROME, Mar 24, 2008 / 09:30 am (CNA).- A day after he was received into the Catholic Church by Pope Benedict XVI during the Easter vigil, Magdi Allam, a widely known Italian Muslim, wrote a letter to his own paper on Easter Sunday in which he issued a twofold call: first to he encouraged other Muslims who have converted to Catholicism to come out publicly and secondly he called on the Church to be “less prudent” about converting Muslims…

…But Allam says that the most decisive factor was his meeting with the Pope “whom I have admired and defended as a Muslim for his brilliance in presenting the indissoluble link between faith and reason as the foundation of true religion.”

He praised the Pontiff for agreeing “to personally give me the Sacraments,” thus launching “an explicit and revolutionary message to a Church up to now too prudent regarding the conversion of Muslims.”

(Full article: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=12129 )

Nothing like an acutal conversion to “set back” modern ecumenism…
…Muslim commentators said Allam’s hostile writings and his headline-grabbing baptism strained relations between Muslims and the Catholic Church and cast shadows over a recently agreed dialogue between Catholicism and Islam…

…Aref Ali Nayed, a key figure in a group of over 200 Muslim scholars that launched the dialogue with the Vatican and other Christian churches, said on Monday the Vatican had turned the baptism into “a triumphalist tool for scoring points.”

“The whole spectacle… provokes genuine questions about the motives, intentions and plans of some of the pope’s advisers on Islam,” Nayed, who is director of the Royal Islamic Strategic Studies Centre in Amman, said in a statement.
news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080325/ts_nm/pope_muslim_dc_1
DD

 

[stmaria]

If you believed you already know the answer, then why did you ask the question?

Whether or not individuals prayed according to their own habits or they prayed according to a new inspiration

It is not unknown to me, according to scripture and Tradtitional Catholic teaching that false religions do not pray to the One True God. You seem confused on this point as you said, " individuals prayed according to their own habits or they prayed according to a new inspiration "
To what god do false religions pray, Catharina?