W
Walking_Home
Guest
Could be they have been waiting for a re-interpretation or a new understanding of “wide and generous application of the directives already issued some time ago by the Apostolic See” to be done by the ITC.
- Status
Could be they have been waiting for a re-interpretation or a new understanding of “wide and generous application of the directives already issued some time ago by the Apostolic See” to be done by the ITC.
B
bear06
Guest
No, it doesn’t always. This has been done for Mass reversions in the history of our Church and those people didn’t all get a piece of paper with “Marriage Sanated” on it. Contact a canon lawyer and ask them if every sanation gets a piece of paper with it. I’ve already done it and I’ve already quoted the canon that says it can happen even if both parties are unaware of it happening. Not only that, I’ve provided documentation from Ecclesia Dei on the matter.
A
AlexV
Guest
The Church does not leave people in doubt.
The Church has never decreed that the marriages of the SSPX are invalid in the first place.
I DO know a couple that DID receive a decree of sanation. Fancy that. There were specific circumstances in their case.
Let’s not quibble.
Anytime the subject is marriage, there are many complicating factors.
The Church has never decreed that the marriages of the SSPX are invalid in the first place.
I DO know a couple that DID receive a decree of sanation. Fancy that. There were specific circumstances in their case.
Let’s not quibble.
Anytime the subject is marriage, there are many complicating factors.
B
bear06
Guest
Nobody said they couldn’t receive a decree of sanation and many do for many situations - not all. Mass reversions are one where they wouldn’t. Again, check with a canonist. Let’s not say that marriages are valid when there is only proof to the contrary. This could be harmful to some who can’t see why they shouldn’t marry in an SSPX chapel.
The facts are:
- Ecclesia Dei says SSPX marriages are invalid because of lack of faculties. (see above link)
- Canon law says that neither party need know of the sanation (see above link)
- People involved with mass reversions have not all received a piece of paper saying that their marriages were sanated. They were. (See a canonist. I’ve already seen a few!)
C
Cat
Guest
Pax ex caritas,
The main thing that Catholics get accused of is saying that all who are outside of the Catholic Church cannot be saved and are going to hell.
I tell them that the Catechism says that if they are baptized, they are Christians.
But they come back and tell me that their Catholic friends say, “No, those outside of the Catholic Church are heretics and going to hell.”
The main thing that Catholics get accused of is saying that all who are outside of the Catholic Church cannot be saved and are going to hell.
I tell them that the Catechism says that if they are baptized, they are Christians.
But they come back and tell me that their Catholic friends say, “No, those outside of the Catholic Church are heretics and going to hell.”
P
Pax_et_Caritas
Guest
You must have misunderstood my question. I am aware of all of the arguments against the Catholic Church put forward by Protestants. That’s not what I was asking. Cat said that these Protestants had been told by other Catholics that the Church teachings certain things, which Cat said the Church doesn’t really teach. I was wondering what the other Catholics told these Protestants that Catholics believe.
P
Pax_et_Caritas
Guest
That’s a great question.
The reason for the change in the Church’s stance on usury is due to the a change in the nature of money itself, which has become more of a comodity. The Church has always allowed a type of “interest” (but not exactly interest) on the use of comodities. Since money has now become more like a comodity in our day, the teaching against usury has been adjusted.
But religious liberty is an enirely different matter. Firstly, by saying religious liberty is an error does not mean that others should be forced to convert to the Catholic Church. Nor does it mean that the State cannot tolerate false forms of worship. That’s not what it means. Religious liberty is an error because no one has the “right” to violate God’s law.
Why has the Church condemned religious liberty as an error? The “first and greatest commandment” prohibits false worship, and false religions. Since our rights come from God; and since God gives no one the right to violate His commandments, it follows that no one has the “right” to practice a false religion (which is a violation of the first commandment), any more than they have a “right” to violate the 5th commandment by committing murder, or abortion.
see next post
P
Pax_et_Caritas
Guest
continuation of last post…
Many has a free will, and can chose to obey or disobey God, but since man’s rights come from God, he only has the right to obey God, not to disobey Him.
The order of man’s rights and duties is as follows:
God has all Rights. Thus, God can command anything He desires from man. Man then has the corresponding duty to obey what God commands. Lastly, man has the right to the means necessary to fulfill his duties toward God. So the order is 1.) God’s Rights; 2.) Man’s corresponding duties; 3.) Man’s rights to the means necessary for fulfill his duties toward God.
The liberals, however, invert this order by making man’s rights supreme, and by granting man false “rights” which in reality are mere license, since they contradict the law of God.
Religious liberty has been condemned repeately as a modern error of the liberals, and the reasons given by the Popes are the reasons I mentioned above.
Pope Leo XIII: *"To make this more evident, the growth of liberty ascribed to our age must be considered apart in its various details. And, first, let us examine that liberty in individuals which is so opposed to the virtue of religion, namely, the liberty of worship, as it is called. This is based on the principle that every man is free to profess as he may choose any religion or none.
“But, assuredly, of all the duties which man has to fulfill, that, without doubt, is the chiefest and holiest which commands him to worship God with devotion and piety. This follows of necessity from the truth that we are ever in the power of God, are ever guided by His will and providence, and, having come forth from Him, must return to Him. Add to which, no true virtue can exist without religion, for moral virtue is concerned with those things which lead to God as man’s supreme and ultimate good; and therefore religion, which (as St. Thomas says) “performs those actions which are directly and immediately ordained for the divine honor,”[7] rules and tempers all virtues. And if it be asked which of the many conflicting religions it is necessary to adopt, reason and the natural law unhesitatingly tell us to practice that one which God enjoins, and which men can easily recognize by certain exterior notes, whereby Divine Providence has willed that it should be distinguished, because, in a matter of such moment, the most terrible loss would be the consequence of error. Wherefore, when a liberty such as We have described is offered to man, the power is given him to pervert or abandon with impunity the most sacred of duties, and to exchange the unchangeable good for evil; which, as We have said, is no liberty, but its degradation, and the abject submission of the soul to sin” (Libertas)*.
The essense of liberalism is that it seeks to “liberate” man from God’s authority. One of the means used is, as explained above, to focus all attention on the “rights of man” to the exclusion of his duties towards God. And further still, to convince man that he has “rights” which are contrary to the law of God.
Pope Leo XIII: “If when men discuss the question of liberty they were careful to grasp its true and legitimate meaning, such as reason and reasoning have just explained, they would never venture to affix such a calumny on the Church as to assert that she is the foe of individual and public liberty. But many there are who follow in the footsteps of Lucifer, and adopt as their own his rebellious cry, “I will not serve”; and consequently substitute for true liberty what is sheer and most foolish license. Such, for instance, are the men belonging to that widely spread and powerful organization, who, usurping the name of liberty, style themselves liberals” (Libertas #14).
If you have some time, you ought to read the above encyclical. It is excellent and shines the light of truth on the misty confusion of our day. Here’s the link: 209.85.165.104/search?q=cache
T6qwfhEUekJ:www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13liber.htm+Libertas+leo+XIII&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us
Many has a free will, and can chose to obey or disobey God, but since man’s rights come from God, he only has the right to obey God, not to disobey Him.
The order of man’s rights and duties is as follows:
God has all Rights. Thus, God can command anything He desires from man. Man then has the corresponding duty to obey what God commands. Lastly, man has the right to the means necessary to fulfill his duties toward God. So the order is 1.) God’s Rights; 2.) Man’s corresponding duties; 3.) Man’s rights to the means necessary for fulfill his duties toward God.
The liberals, however, invert this order by making man’s rights supreme, and by granting man false “rights” which in reality are mere license, since they contradict the law of God.
Religious liberty has been condemned repeately as a modern error of the liberals, and the reasons given by the Popes are the reasons I mentioned above.
Pope Leo XIII: *"To make this more evident, the growth of liberty ascribed to our age must be considered apart in its various details. And, first, let us examine that liberty in individuals which is so opposed to the virtue of religion, namely, the liberty of worship, as it is called. This is based on the principle that every man is free to profess as he may choose any religion or none.
“But, assuredly, of all the duties which man has to fulfill, that, without doubt, is the chiefest and holiest which commands him to worship God with devotion and piety. This follows of necessity from the truth that we are ever in the power of God, are ever guided by His will and providence, and, having come forth from Him, must return to Him. Add to which, no true virtue can exist without religion, for moral virtue is concerned with those things which lead to God as man’s supreme and ultimate good; and therefore religion, which (as St. Thomas says) “performs those actions which are directly and immediately ordained for the divine honor,”[7] rules and tempers all virtues. And if it be asked which of the many conflicting religions it is necessary to adopt, reason and the natural law unhesitatingly tell us to practice that one which God enjoins, and which men can easily recognize by certain exterior notes, whereby Divine Providence has willed that it should be distinguished, because, in a matter of such moment, the most terrible loss would be the consequence of error. Wherefore, when a liberty such as We have described is offered to man, the power is given him to pervert or abandon with impunity the most sacred of duties, and to exchange the unchangeable good for evil; which, as We have said, is no liberty, but its degradation, and the abject submission of the soul to sin” (Libertas)*.
The essense of liberalism is that it seeks to “liberate” man from God’s authority. One of the means used is, as explained above, to focus all attention on the “rights of man” to the exclusion of his duties towards God. And further still, to convince man that he has “rights” which are contrary to the law of God.
Pope Leo XIII: “If when men discuss the question of liberty they were careful to grasp its true and legitimate meaning, such as reason and reasoning have just explained, they would never venture to affix such a calumny on the Church as to assert that she is the foe of individual and public liberty. But many there are who follow in the footsteps of Lucifer, and adopt as their own his rebellious cry, “I will not serve”; and consequently substitute for true liberty what is sheer and most foolish license. Such, for instance, are the men belonging to that widely spread and powerful organization, who, usurping the name of liberty, style themselves liberals” (Libertas #14).
If you have some time, you ought to read the above encyclical. It is excellent and shines the light of truth on the misty confusion of our day. Here’s the link: 209.85.165.104/search?q=cache
T6qwfhEUekJ:www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13liber.htm+Libertas+leo+XIII&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us
A
AlexV
Guest
There have been no “mass reversions” of the SSPX.
P
Pax_et_Caritas
Guest
That is what I thought you were going to say. What does the Church teach on this point?
The Church teaches that there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church. That has been defined as a dogma and taught consistently throughout the Church age. I could fill your computer screen with quotes from Popes, councils, saint and doctors of the Church teaching exactly this. I will only incllude this one infallibele quote:
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia productive of eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
And I could also fill you screen with quotes from Popes saying that belief in the contrary is an error. So the other Catholics are telling them the truth.
Now, the reason for the “confusion” over this DOGMA (which all Catholics are bound to believe) is that there can be exceptions, just as there can with almost everything else in life. The new Catechism places a lot of emphasis on the exceptions.
However, the exception does not nullify the rule… and the rule is what the other Catholics told these Protestants - that there is no salvation outside the Church.
I will end with another quote from a Pope:
Pope Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter Studio, May 27, 1832: "Finally some of these misguided people attempt to persuade themselves and others that men are not saved only in the Catholic religion, but that even heretics may attain eternal life… You know how zealously Our predecessors taught that article of faith which these dare to deny, namely the necessity of the Catholic faith and of unity for salvation… Omitting other appropriate passages which are almost numberless in the writings of the Fathers, We shall praise St. Gregory the Great who expressly testifies that THIS IS INDEED THE TEACHING OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. He says: ‘The holy universal Church teaches that it is not possible to worship God truly except in her and asserts that all who are outside of her will not be saved.’ Official acts of the Church proclaim the same dogma. Thus, in the decree on faith which Innocent III published with the synod of Lateran IV, these things are written: ‘There is one universal Church of all the faithful outside of which no one is saved.’ Finally the same dogma is also expressly mentioned in the profession of faith proposed by the Apostolic See, not only that which all Latin churches use, but also that which… other Eastern Catholics use. We did not mention these selected testimonies because We thought you were ignorant of that article of faith and in need of Our instruction. Far be it from Us to have such an absurd and insulting suspicion about you. But We are so concerned about this serious and well known dogma, which has been attacked with such remarkable audacity, that We could not restrain Our pen from reinforcing this truth with many testimonies.”
B
bear06
Guest
You’re in one such group. Not only that, more are coming every day.
S
Seminarian_Matt
Guest
The Church has always taught that there is no salvation outside of the Church. However, those who have never heard the Gospel can still be saved because they are unknowingly and mystically part of the Church. This exception, however, does not apply to those who willingly embrace other denomations and religions. We are called to bring all people into the One Church of salvation, the Catholic Church.
Some Papal Documents:
“There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.)
“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)
“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)
acatholiclife.blogspot.com/2006/08/can-non-catholics-be-saved.html
Some Papal Documents:
“There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.)
“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)
“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)
acatholiclife.blogspot.com/2006/08/can-non-catholics-be-saved.html
A
AlexV
Guest
The John Vianney group in Brazil was most certainly NOT SSPX.
M
mdstanzel
Guest
Pax et Caritas
Sorry, I missunderstood he question.
Seminarian Matt
(SNL: Remember the Church Lady on Saturday Night Live or were you still in diapers?
)
BTW: I like the TLM. I also feel uncomfortable with the eccumenical inclusion issues you speak about that are being taught from Rome. You see, we’re used to condemning others to eternal damnation - nothing new to us. But we submit to the Church authority not my own hardened hearts.
Sorry, I missunderstood he question.
Seminarian Matt
I asked this question several times just to make sure I received the correct answer. I’ve read and reread etc. This is NOT what the Church taught. the first part is correct. However, the second part appears to have been assumed. So if what you say is true, then our parish priests are lyers. The Bishops are lyers, the Pope is a lyer. That’s what you’re implying with this statement. You are rejecting the actual Teaching of the Church. I will follow up on this and try to work through it. But so far you appear to be fighting straw men. I have the Church behind me and you have someone other than the Church behind you. Who else could it be? SAAATAAAAN? :bigyikes:
(SNL: Remember the Church Lady on Saturday Night Live or were you still in diapers? )BTW: I like the TLM. I also feel uncomfortable with the eccumenical inclusion issues you speak about that are being taught from Rome. You see, we’re used to condemning others to eternal damnation - nothing new to us. But we submit to the Church authority not my own hardened hearts.
M
mdstanzel
Guest
Oh yea, in case you don’t know this" Tiber Swim Team" thing has been passed around between former Protestants that have converted to Catholicism. It’s most definitely not pushed or mentioned in our RCIA.
Wife made me delete something I thought was funny. She tells me I have to wear my big boy faith. Awe Shucks.
PAX tecum
Wife made me delete something I thought was funny. She tells me I have to wear my big boy faith. Awe Shucks.
PAX tecum
S
Seminarian_Matt
Guest
What are you talking about? The post at my blog cites documents from pre-Vatican II and post-Vatican II. I have clearly stated the teaching of the Church (acatholiclife.blogspot.com/2006/08/can-non-catholics-be-saved.html)Pax et Caritas
Sorry, I missunderstood he question.
Seminarian Matt
I asked this question several times just to make sure I received the correct answer. I’ve read and reread etc. This is NOT what the Church taught. the first part is correct. However, the second part appears to have been assumed. So if what you say is true, then our parish priests are lyers. The Bishops are lyers, the Pope is a lyer. That’s what you’re implying with this statement. You are rejecting the actual Teaching of the Church. I will follow up on this and try to work through it. But so far you appear to be fighting straw men. I have the Church behind me and you have someone other than the Church behind you. Who else could it be? SAAATAAAAN? :bigyikes:
BTW: I like the TLM. I also feel uncomfortable with the eccumenical inclusion issues you speak about that are being taught from Rome. You see, we’re used to condemning others to eternal damnation - nothing new to us. But we submit to the Church authority not my own hardened hearts.
P
Pax_et_Caritas
Guest
If you are talking about the false ecumenism that seeks for a “unity” between the true Church and false religions, then you are in good company feeling uncomfortable with it, for it was explicitly condemned by Pope Pius XI not too long ago. The encyclical is short. You should read it. Here’s a few excerpts:
Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos: *“But some are more easily deceived by the outward appearance of good when there is question of fostering unity among all Christians. Is it not right, it is often repeated, indeed, even consonant with duty, that all who invoke the name of Christ should abstain from mutual reproaches and at long last be united in mutual charity? Who would dare to say that he loved Christ, unless he worked with all his might to carry out the desires of Him, Who asked His Father that His disciples might be “one.” And did not the same Christ will that His disciples should be marked out and distinguished from others by this characteristic, namely that they loved one another: “By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another”? All Christians, they add, should be as “one”: for then they would be much more powerful in driving out the pest of irreligion, which like a serpent daily creeps further and becomes more widely spread, and prepares to rob the Gospel of its strength. These things and others that class of men who are known as pan-Christians continually repeat and amplify; and these men, so far from being quite few and scattered, have increased to the dimensions of an entire class, and have grouped themselves into widely spread societies, most of which are directed by non-Catholics, although they are imbued with varying doctrines concerning the things of faith. This undertaking is so actively promoted as in many places to win for itself the adhesion of a number of citizens, and it even takes possession of the minds of very many Catholics and allures them with the hope of bringing about such a union as would be agreeable to the desires of Holy Mother Church, who has indeed nothing more at heart than to recall her erring sons and to lead them back to her bosom. But in reality beneath these enticing words and blandishments lies hid a most grave error, by which the foundations of the Catholic faith are completely destroyed.”
"… For authors who favor this view are accustomed, times almost without number, to bring forward these words of Christ: "That they all may be one [Ut Unam Sint]… These pan-Christians who turn their minds to uniting the churches seem, indeed, to pursue the noblest of ideas in promoting charity among all Christians: nevertheless how does it happen that this charity tends to injure faith? Everyone knows that John himself, the Apostle of love, who seems to reveal in his Gospel the secrets of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and who never ceased to impress on the memories of his followers the new commandment “Love one another,” altogether forbade any intercourse with those who professed a mutilated and corrupt version of Christ’s teaching: "If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him: God speed you…
“Let, therefore, the separated children draw nigh to the Apostolic See, set up in the City which Peter and Paul, the Princes of the Apostles, consecrated by their blood; to that See, We repeat, which is “the root and womb whence the Church of God springs,”[27] not with the intention and the hope that “the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth”[28] will cast aside the integrity of the faith and tolerate their errors, but, on the contrary, that they themselves submit to its teaching and government.”*
Here’s the link to the encyclical: papalencyclicals.net/Pius11/P11MORTA.HTM
C
Cat
Guest
The Tiber Swim Team thing is just for fun and fellowship! We’re not a schismatic group, honest! I don’t think it’s any “official” organization. I’ve seen a few t-shirts, but as far as I know, there’s nothing U.S. or world-wide.
It’s just for FUN!
It’s just for FUN!
Hey, it seems like the thing to do. Let’s make our own schimatic group. I’m sure the Vatican won’t mind. I’m not sure if SSPX know what fellowship is. Being a cafateria Catholic seems to be in vogue.
M
mdstanzel
Guest
Okay. I have to stop guys. I’m being really bad. Forgive me. Really.
I will read what you’ve pointed out. But I’ve probably read it before since I’ve been reading constantly many of these issues. But the only thing that this will convince me of if you are right is to defect to the Orthodox Church because it would show that Catholics can’t make up their mind what they believe.
I’m sure God doesn’t mind.
I will read what you’ve pointed out. But I’ve probably read it before since I’ve been reading constantly many of these issues. But the only thing that this will convince me of if you are right is to defect to the Orthodox Church because it would show that Catholics can’t make up their mind what they believe.
I’m sure God doesn’t mind.
- Status