Letter from the Devil on the Assisi gatherings

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mickey_Jackson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
What did I say that was offensive? I love women especially ones who know their place. Big deal!!! I never defined what “that place” is/was. My other statments are true and are good Catholic teaching. I dont agree with the Pope praying with pagans, kissing the Koran, allowing communion in the hand, letting heretical Bishops stay in place etc…what am i guilty of?
 
It’s simple common sense folks -
  • The article in the original post actually did some condemning of its own - in a subtle and slick way, it condemned the One True Church, as if it was on the Devil’s side up until, oh, about 30-40 years ago.
  • The Vicar of Christ shouldn’t *invite *folks to break the First Commandment.
  • The Devil likes it when humans pray to false gods.
  • When the Vicar of Christ - even if with the best of intentions - invites humans to pray to false gods, the Devil likes it even more. Scandal is a one of his favorite weapons.
  • There are folks here have never read the older Encyclicals. They refuse. They have a “that was then this is now” mentality. The past doesn’t matter one whit. They’ve been taught and educated by modernists. Pray for them.
  • The folks who haven’t read the older Encyclicals will usually never admit that they haven’t read the older Encyclicals.
    Further, there is a reason for alot of this nonsense is coming to the tradtional catholic sub-forum. There’s a sense of panic among the liberal minded folks. People are starting to wake up to the crisis and to the emptyness of the esoteric platitude laden novelties that “liberal catholicism” preaches. If they didn’t feel the “threat” of tradition growing within the Church, they wouldn’t be spending so much time in here belittling tradition and traditional concerns.
It’s actually a good thing. Frustrating, but a good sign nonetheless.

DustinsDad
 
It’s simple common sense folks -
  • The article in the original post actually did some condemning of its own - in a subtle and slick way, it condemned the One True Church, as if it was on the Devil’s side up until, oh, about 30-40 years ago.
  • The Vicar of Christ shouldn’t *invite *folks to break the First Commandment.
  • The Devil likes it when humans pray to false gods.
  • When the Vicar of Christ - even if with the best of intentions - invites humans to pray to false gods, the Devil likes it even more. Scandal is a one of his favorite weapons.
  • There are folks here have never read the older Encyclicals. They refuse. They have a “that was then this is now” mentality. The past doesn’t matter one whit. They’ve been taught and educated by modernists. Pray for them.
  • The folks who haven’t read the older Encyclicals will usually never admit that they haven’t read the older Encyclicals.
    Further, there is a reason for alot of this nonsense is coming to the tradtional catholic sub-forum. There’s a sense of panic among the liberal minded folks. People are starting to wake up to the crisis and to the emptyness of the esoteric platitude laden novelties that “liberal catholicism” preaches. If they didn’t feel the “threat” of tradition growing within the Church, they wouldn’t be spending so much time in here belittling tradition and traditional concerns.
It’s actually a good thing. Frustrating, but a good sign nonetheless.

DustinsDad
True it is so obvious that the previous Holy Father made huge mistakes, and it is also apparent (no offense) that catholics like Mickey truly dont understand Catholic teaching. They fall under this “Pope worshiping” spell where the Pope can do absolutley nothing wrong. Shame!!! They also cant even face the fact that Protestants, and other non-Catholics (according to Catholic teaching) are at a great risk of eternal damnation.(they will come up with all kinds of excuse and arguments to try to dissuade themselves and others from the truth) It is all about human respect, and unfortunatley on judgment day they will have to anser to God for not speaking the hard truths about hell and damnation. Jesus(and so did the great saints of old) did , and they should too.

Question for Mickey and others. Do Protestants run the risk od eternal damnation because they are proffessing beliefs that are contradictory to truths the Catholic church teaches? (please dont say that we all run the risk of hell even Catholics–I understand that, but a true Catholic runs the risk of going to hell for sins of the flesh not for rejecting dogma)
 
Question for Mickey and others. Do Protestants run the risk od eternal damnation because they are proffessing beliefs that are contradictory to truths the Catholic church teaches? (please dont say that we all run the risk of hell even Catholics–I understand that, but a true Catholic runs the risk of going to hell for sins of the flesh not for rejecting dogma)
It’s a shame that as a seminarian you don’t even know the Catechism.
818 “However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.”
819 “Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth” are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: “the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements.” Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity.”
let me remind you that this is the official teaching of the Church I am member of, not necessarily a church you are member of. Call me what you want, I’ll just stick to teaching authority of the Magisterium.
 
It’s a shame that as a seminarian you don’t even know the Catechism.
819 “Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth” are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: “the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements.” Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation
Because Protestant communities {remember they **can not **call themselves “churches”} may have a ‘means’ of salvation they do not have the ‘necessary means’ of salvation.
A Protestant has a greater chance of damnation because they do not have the sacraments of penace, confirmation and the Eucharist. Where does a Protestant receive the grace necessary to fight off temptation?
Also notice how the catechism uses the word ‘Church’ which can **only refer to the Orthodox **and" ecclesial communities " which refers to the Protestants. It goes on to say, '“Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth” are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: “the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements” Christ’s Spirit uses these **Churches **and ecclesial communities as means of salvation…

All of the above are found in the Orthodox Church but which of the above are found in the Protestant communities? What elements of sanctification are found in the Baptist community? The written word of God which they interpret to their liking? What "interior gifts and visible elements "are found in the Assembly of God or Church of Christ or Jehova Witness or Brother Bob’s First Church of the Apostles?

The Holy Spirit uses ‘means’ of salvation by bringing these folks to the necessary means of salvation found only in the Catholic Church. Only the invincibily ignorant have an excuse for rejecting the grace that the Holy Spirit is providing these folks to bring them to the truth.
 
Because Protestant communities {remember they **can not **call themselves “churches”} may have a ‘means’ of salvation they do not have the ‘necessary means’ of salvation.
A Protestant has a greater chance of damnation because they do not have the sacraments of penace, confirmation and the Eucharist. Where does a Protestant receive the grace necessary to fight off temptation?
Also notice how the catechism uses the word ‘Church’ which can **only refer to the Orthodox **and" ecclesial communities " which refers to the Protestants. It goes on to say, '“Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth” are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: “the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements” Christ’s Spirit uses these **Churches **and ecclesial communities as means of salvation…

All of the above are found in the Orthodox Church but which of the above are found in the Protestant communities? What elements of sanctification are found in the Baptist community? The written word of God which they interpret to their liking? What "interior gifts and visible elements "are found in the Assembly of God or Church of Christ or Jehova Witness or Brother Bob’s First Church of the Apostles?

The Holy Spirit uses ‘means’ of salvation by bringing these folks to the necessary means of salvation found only in the Catholic Church. Only the invincibily ignorant have an excuse for rejecting the grace that the Holy Spirit is providing these folks to bring them to the truth.
Well said. You took the words right from my mouth. It is a shame that people don’t actually read what the catechism says or if they do twist and force it’s meaning. The catechism never says those who reject (provided they are culpable and not invincibly ignorant) Catholicism and die in that state can be saved. That is the meaning of “No Salvation Outside the Church.” They just dont want to accept the hard truths, and on judgment day they will be held accountable no matter how “nice” and “cuddly” they are…Tons and tons of Popes and councils have repeated said that those who die outside the Church cannot be saved. Those who are invincibly ignorant and have no other mortal sins on their soul can be saved, but as Catholics we dont know who is invincibly ignorant, and who is not ,so we should go out and try to convert every single person to the one true faith. Because they run the risk of damnation if they dont enter it before their judgment.
 
your question was:
Do Protestants run the risk od eternal damnation because they are proffessing beliefs that are contradictory to truths the Catholic church teaches?
I see nothing in this question about those who reject (provided that they are culpable and not invincibly ignorant). Just general question about protestants, to which I responded by quoting the Catechism (which addresses this particular question perfectly) without any interpretation from my side, and yet you somehow concluded that we “ignore” what catechism really says or “twist” and “force” it’s meaning, that we don’t accept hard truths etc… I agree with stmaria (although she too seemed like she needed to somehow “correct” my understanding of the quotes without knowing my understanding), and remember, all I did was copy and paste the relevant CCC paragraph, without any interpretation.

Seems like if we don’t produce stupid enough answer for you to refute, you will make it up for us anyway :rotfl:
 
What did I say that was offensive? I love women especially ones who know their place. Big deal!!! I never defined what “that place” is/was. My other statments are true and are good Catholic teaching. I dont agree with the Pope praying with pagans, kissing the Koran, allowing communion in the hand, letting heretical Bishops stay in place etc…what am i guilty of?
lack of charity

so you know the rules, big deal. clubbing people on the head with them isn’t going to save them. let people know they are in error, but with kindness and charity.
 
What did I say that was offensive? I love women especially ones who know their place. Big deal!!! I never defined what “that place” is/was.

So define it now, I’m curious. Would it be ok for me to say I love men especially the ones who know their place? You do realize making such a statement is extremely dated and if used today with a serious tone causes bad feelings/rancor. That phrase has a history. I believe men stopped using said statements after WWII when women began working in factories to make aircraft and weapons for men to use to fight with. You are either a troll looking to get people upset or you’ve been living in a cave for the last 50+ yrs.
My other statments are true and are good Catholic teaching. I dont agree with the Pope praying with pagans, kissing the Koran, allowing communion in the hand, letting heretical Bishops stay in place etc…what am i guilty of?
 
let me remind you that this is the official teaching of the Church I am member of, not necessarily a church you are member of. Call me what you want, I’ll just stick to teaching authority of the Magisterium.
CCC 818 “However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.”
And this is so often taken the wrong way - especially when you read it outside of the light of the Tradition.

The above is true when the individuals you speak of are validly baptized and are inculpable for their ignorance or rejection of the Catholic church. The second one culpably rejects even one aspect of the Truth, they reject it all. The above states that they are not culpable for the initial sin of separation - but there is still an objective sin in remaining separated. Now the erroneous assumption is that if one is born outside of the One True Church, there is no necessity of Conversion. The Devil loves that one I’m sure.

Converting those born outside of the One True Church was especially true in the early years and even centuries of the Church - and true every time the Church ever sent a mission to a non-Christian land. These folks were born separated, raised separated, and when they heard the Gospel, they had to overcome the errors of what they were taught since birth and accept the Truth of the Gospel. It’s tough, but it is made possible by God’s grace - and this requires us within the Church cooperating with that God’s grace as well…issuing the call to conversion to His Church, preaching the fullness of the Gospel.

It was true then, and it’s true now. No matter how difficult it may seem. CCC 819 “Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth” are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: “the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements.” Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity.”
And again, the above can be true only for two groups of folks.
  • Those not culpable for their ignorance or rejection of the Catholic Church, or
  • for those whome these elements eventually lead them into the Catholic Church.
    Both of the above statements, written as they are, are easily misread. Read in the light of Tradition (including all official magesterial proclamations that have come down the pike since day one), one can see through the ambiguity to the truth.
Read apart from the light of Tradition, one can be lead to believe that all Christian religions (sometimes even non Christian religions) are “more or less” praisworthy and can save. Hence the notion that Protestants just have to “be good Protestants”, muslims just “be good Muslims”, etc. and all will be well and good. Well, that will win you alot of kudos and pats on the back from the world - and probably a promotion within your local masonic lodge. But if these souls are lost, I wouldn’t want to have to answer for making them more comfotable on their ride to perdition.

The intention to “not offend” has the unintended side effect of leading to religious indifference - one of the biggest problems facing the Church today. And a problem we were warned explicitly about in the centuries leading up to VII. Would that we would have listened.

Too many choose to read the present and ignore the past, when in fact, we as Catholics are supposed to read the present in light of all that has been taught since day one…in light of the past, in light of Tradition.

DustinsDad
 
Two more articles for you to peruse. Terrill, if you want to question the authenticity of my Catholic faith, that’s your right, but at least read the articles I post so you know where I’m coming from:

A Response to (and Befuddlement Over) Criticisms of the Second Ecumenical Gathering at Assisi

A Defense of the Ecumenical Gathering at Assisi (Ecumenism in St. Thomas Aquinas

After you’ve read them, together with the EWTN article on what the Fathers taught regarding salvation outside of the Church, then we can begin to have an intelligent discussion.
 
JR I’d love to get you on the telephone so I could give about 1000 quotes from Popes and councils that show you are terribly wrong. I agree that they are “means of salvation.” That doesnt mean they are saved because of those churches. The term “means of salvation” cant mean anything other than God uses those “churches” to bring people to the one true church. This teaching must be interpreted in light of the traditionally teaching of the church. SORRY JR NICE TRY!!!
I suggest you do two things.
  1. Read the entire document.
  2. I’ll tell you what, get your degree in theology and then you can call me. I’ve already been there, done that and have been in ministry for many years.
I don’t know if you are a secular seminarian or a religious, in either case, you need to tone down your attitude and your response to others. Most of our holy priests are very simple and kind. They’re the most effective. Check out Cardinal O’Malley, OFM Cap, Archibishop Chaput, OFM, Cap, Bishop Lori, Fr. Benedict Groeschel, CFR, Fra. Regis Scanlon, TOR, and Archbishop Jose Gomez all excellent theologians, who speak very gently and kindly to others.

JR 🙂
 
Nope I love women. Especially ones who know thier place in life.😃
Ok, then you have a grave disrespect for women which has no place in the Christian’s life, and absolutely no place in the Catholic Christian’s life; the Blessed Virgin is a woman, in case you didn’t have an understanding of that. 🤷

This poor demeanor won’t serve you well in future ministry.
 
I suggest you do two things.
  1. Read the entire document.
  2. I’ll tell you what, get your degree in theology and then you can call me. I’ve already been there, done that and have been in ministry for many years.
I don’t know if you are a secular seminarian or a religious, in either case, you need to tone down your attitude and your response to others. Most of our holy priests are very simple and kind. They’re the most effective. Check out Cardinal O’Malley, OFM Cap, Archibishop Chaput, OFM, Cap, Bishop Lori, Fr. Benedict Groeschel, CFR, Fra. Regis Scanlon, TOR, and Archbishop Jose Gomez all excellent theologians, who speak very gently and kindly to others.

JR 🙂
Terrill, JR hit the nail on the head. You’re perfectly free to disagree with JR, but you have no moral or intellectual right to be so smug regarding his credentials.
 
Great news.

I just saw on EWTN, the first prayer for the Canonization of John Paul II has been released. It’s beautiful. I believe one of the nuns recorded it, but am not sure of that.

But it is public now, for use by all.

Isn’t it awesome!

🙂
 
Great news.

I just saw on EWTN, the first prayer for the Canonization of John Paul II has been released. It’s beautiful. I believe one of the nuns recorded it, but am not sure of that.

But it is public now, for use by all.

Isn’t it awesome!

🙂
Yes! I saw that also. Beautiful.
 
Terrill, JR hit the nail on the head. You’re perfectly free to disagree with JR, but you have no moral or intellectual right to be so smug regarding his credentials.
Sorry Mickey, JR has been proven wrong on so many facts and so many theolgical premises on these boards it isn’t even funny. “Credentials” have to be demonstrated here - not self-proclaimed.

Couple of things always flushes out the one who is not ready to discuss these things reasonably and honestly, and hence loses credibility…
  • the refusal to look at anything specific prior to VII in any detail whatsoever.
  • the constant paraphrasing everything in their own words (and plenty of 'em…as if the shear number of words in a given post can make up for the lack of substance therein) and rarely* if ever* providing exact quotes even of recent documents.
    Now when backed into a corner, these type of folks only have a couple of ways of dealing with it…
  • accusing folks of not being “educated enough” to understand the finer points of their view of the “modern church”.
  • when the above fails, then accusing folks of not being “mystical enough” to understand the finer points of their view of the “modern church”.
  • When neither of the above accusations work to cower the faithful catholic into submission, then silence is then employed toward their challengers. Otherwise known as “putting one’s head in the sand”, or perhaps “putting one’s fingers in one’s ears”.
    It’s pretty predictable. Heck, Pope St. Pius X laid out as much about a hundred years ago…
    There is no species of insult which they do not heap upon them, but their usual course is to charge them with ignorance or obstinacy. When an adversary rises up against them with an erudition and force that renders them redoubtable, they seek to make a conspiracy of silence around him to nullify the effects of his attack. This policy towards Catholics is the more invidious in that they belaud with admiration which knows no bounds the writers who range themselves on their side, hailing their works, exuding novelty in every page, with a chorus of applause. For them the scholarship of a writer is in direct proportion to the recklessness of his attacks on antiquity, and of his efforts to undermine tradition and the ecclesiastical magisterium.
    *Pope St. Pius X, [Pascendi Dominici Gregis (http://www.fisheaters.com/pascendidominicigregis.html), cf *42
    Alas, the challenges to such folks is more to demonstrate to the passerby, the reader, the errors therein. Getting one who has been “educated” and steeped in such a mentality and philosophy to recognize the errors of what they’ve been told is difficult. But heck, God’s grace can penatrate even the most stubborn and ill informed mind…so we pray for 'em anyway.
    Finally, there is the fact which is all but fatal to the hope of cure that their very doctrines have given such a bent to their minds, that they disdain all authority and brook no restraint; and relying upon a false conscience, they attempt to ascribe to a love of truth that which is in reality the result of pride and obstinacy.
    Pope St. Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, cf 3
    All for now. See ya,
DustinsDad
 
…If Christ has used the Reformation churches as a means of salvation, then one is not in danger of going to hell because one is Protestant, but because one is a bad Protestant.
INFALLIBLE: Ex cathedra:
One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (IV Lateran Council, A.D. 1215)

***** INFALLIBLE *: Ex cathedra:
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)

INFALLIBLE: Ex cathedra
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)
**
-----------

First Vatican Council, Chapter 4. On faith and reason

14. Hence, too,that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.

First Vatican Council, Canon 4, On faith and reason
3. If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from that which the church has understood and understands: let him be anathema.

Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. “For in one spirit” says the Apostle, “were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free.” As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. And therefore, if a man refuse to hear the Church, let him be considered - so the Lord commands - as a heathen and a publican. It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.
*Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi, 22
*
…Being Catholic is not a passport to Heaven,
Sure it is. We gotta use the passport sure - but that’s what it is.
…holiness is.
False dichtomy. The need for holiness is why the Lord instituted the One True Church - to make us holy.
…Check out the Liturgy of the Hours for today. Read what St. Catherine of Siena has to say.
What? No quotes?

DD
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top