What do the jews and muslims hate about the TLM?

  • Thread starter Thread starter 6glargento
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
BobP123 said:
Oh, you’re on THAT bandwagon. Great.:rolleyes:

How about that the TLM more closely follows the Sacrifices of the High Priest, or more emphasis on the Tabernacle, both having roots in the Old Testament?
Click to expand...
We must be reading different articles or you missed my point. I was referring to the part of the article on all those conspiracies against traditional Catholics including the “international Jewish conspiracy” (see also freemasons, communists, liberalism, democracy, Freud, Einstien etc). For some reason those ideas go hand in hand with those traditional Catholics who miss singing about those “blind perfidious Jews” (in latin), who think “the Jews” killed Yehoshua bar Yosef and that “the Jews” are eternally cursed (their bible tells them so) Oh by the way, I’m also rolling my eyes
 
The_Iambic_Pen said:
More than two, really, if every dissenter group can consider itself a “Church of Christ” church “SUBSISTING” in the “catholic” religion.
Click to expand...
From Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium:

"8. Christ, the one Mediator, established and continually sustains here on earth His holy Church, the community of faith, hope and charity, as an entity with visible delineation (9*) through which He communicated truth and grace to all. But, the society structured with hierarchical organs and the Mystical Body of Christ, are not to be considered as two realities, nor are the visible assembly and the spiritual community, nor the earthly Church and the Church enriched with heavenly things; rather they form one complex reality which coalesces from a divine and a human element.(10*) For this reason, by no weak analogy, it is compared to the mystery of the incarnate Word. As the assumed nature inseparably united to Him, serves the divine Word as a living organ of salvation, so, in a similar way, does the visible social structure of the Church serve the Spirit of Christ, who vivifies it, in the building up of the body.(73) (11*)

This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, (12*) which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd,(74) and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority,(75) which He erected for all ages as “the pillar and mainstay of the truth”.(76) This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him,(13*) although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity."

I realize that some here take issue with use of the phrase “subsists in” regarding the Chuch of Christ/Catholic Church, but it seems to me this excerpt from Lumen Gentium is clear that the distinguishing of the Church of Christ from the Catholic Church is in light of the traditional teaching that it is possible for those to be saved who are outside of formal communion with the Church in this life and in invincible ignorance but are seeking to do God’s will.

The excerpt makes it clear that the Church of Christ is the one governed by Peter’s successors and the hierarchy of bishops and priests in communion with him, the Catholic Church. However, if there are people outside its visible structure who have a certain but imperfect communion with it, such as validly-baptized protestants, or Orthodox, then they are indeed part of the Church. This does not mean there is more than one Church.

For these reasons, I think it is disingenuous to try and claim that Vatican II created some new teaching that there are two or many churches of christ or any other such thing.
 
chosen_people said:
We must be reading different articles or you missed my point. I was referring to the part of the article on all those conspiracies against traditional Catholics including the “international Jewish conspiracy” (see also freemasons, communists, liberalism, democracy, Freud, Einstien etc). For some reason those ideas go hand in hand with those traditional Catholics who miss singing about those “blind perfidious Jews” (in latin), who think “the Jews” killed Yehoshua bar Yosef and that “the Jews” are eternally cursed (their bible tells them so) Oh by the way, I’m also rolling my eyes
Click to expand...
Oh, yeah, the Judeo-Christian Masons! Great fiction, sure. Lodges set up in your local communities. Who makes these up, really? Harry Potter, move over!

And how did Yosef promote the Catholic Mass? What was your point again?

My point was to show a possible (though not very viable) solution. Sorry if you insist on looking for all the negatives.
 
CollegeKid said:
From Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium:

…This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him,(13*) although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity."

I realize that some here take issue with use of the phrase “subsists in” regarding the Chuch of Christ/Catholic Church, but it seems to me this excerpt from Lumen Gentium is clear that the distinguishing of the Church of Christ from the Catholic Church is in light of the traditional teaching that it is possible for those to be saved who are outside of formal communion with the Church in this life and in invincible ignorance but are seeking to do God’s will.

The excerpt makes it clear that the Church of Christ is the one governed by Peter’s successors and the hierarchy of bishops and priests in communion with him,** the Catholic Church**. However, if there are people outside its visible structure who have a certain but imperfect communion with it, such as validly-baptized protestants, or Orthodox, then they are indeed part of the Church. This does not mean there is more than one Church.
…
Click to expand...
OK, so are the SSPX, SSPV, CMRI, Peter/Michael Dimond, Sedevacantists, Semi-Sede’s **"**indeed part of the Church"? Is that what you’re saying? Or did you leave these out for a purpose?
After all, there are a host of Protestant sects that believe Catholics are hellbound & the pope is an antiChrist and preach it constantly.

Finally, “it is possible for those to be saved who are outside of formal communion with the Church in this life and in invincible ignorance but are seeking to do God’s will.”
If the SSPX, SSPV, CMRI, Peter/Michael Dimond, Sedevacantists, Semi-Sede’s are acting with a good conscience (which you can only assume they are), same as my above type of Protestants (that believe the pope is an antiChrist and the Chair is vacant or held by a manifest heretic), are they also in the way of salvation?
 
TNT said:
OK, so are the SSPX, SSPV, CMRI, Peter/Michael Dimond, Sedevacantists, Semi-Sede’s **"**indeed part of the Church"? Is that what you’re saying? Or did you leave these out for a purpose?
After all, there are a host of Protestant sects that believe Catholics are hellbound & the pope is an antiChrist and preach it constantly.

Finally, “it is possible for those to be saved who are outside of formal communion with the Church in this life and in invincible ignorance but are seeking to do God’s will.”
If the SSPX, SSPV, CMRI, Peter/Michael Dimond, Sedevacantists, Semi-Sede’s are acting with a good conscience, same as my above type of Protestants (that believe the pope is an antiChrist and the Chair is vacant or held by a manifest heretic.), are they also in the way of salvation?
Click to expand...
Yes, I am definitely saying that it is indeed possible for every person and group you listed to be saved and that they are part of the Church.
 
CollegeKid said:
Yes, I am definitely saying that it is indeed possible for every person and group you listed to be saved and that they are part of the Church.
Click to expand...
Thank You.
I love honesty & logical conclusions.
Now, if they are in the way of salvation, should we still try to convince them to be Formal members in union with the pope?
If so, what is the necessity if any?
For instance, the SSPX or SSPV member who goes to a TLM Mass every Sunday & receives Communion after a good confession to an SSPX /SSPV priest?
Or an E-Orthodox who does the same in their D-Liturgy?
Or a “churches of Christ” sect member that goes to church twice on Sundays & receives a biscuit & grape juice but would never go to confession? For them, would it be the Sacrament of Confession that compels any urgency?
 
TNT said:
Thank You.
I love honesty & logical conclusions.
Now, if they are in the way of salvation, should we still try to convince them to be Formal members in union with the pope?
If so, what is the necessity if any?
For instance, and SSPX or SSPV member who goes to a TLM Mass every Sunday & receives Communion after a good confession to an SSPX /SSPV priest?
Or an E-Orthodox who does the same in their D-Liturgy?
Or a “churches of Christ” sect member that goes to church twice on Sundays & receives a biscuit & grape juice?
Click to expand...
Of course we should convince them to become formal members of the Church in full communion with the Pope. Evangelization is the duty of every Catholic. The Catholic Church is the one and only ark of salvation.
 
And to elaborate on the “what is the necessity if any” part, I’d just say that salvation is a lot easier when you have recourse to the sacraments, especially the Eucharist and Confession.
 
CollegeKid said:
Of course we should convince them to become formal members of the Church in full communion with the Pope. Evangelization is the duty of every Catholic. The Catholic Church is the one and only ark of salvation.
Click to expand...
By the “one & only” do you mean that those I mentioned are in or out of the ark if not formal members in good conscience? What could be better than to be in the way of salvation already where they are?
If it’s the only ark, then they must already be in it to be in the way of salvation. Right?
 
CollegeKid said:
And to elaborate on the “what is the necessity if any” part, I’d just say that salvation is a lot easier when you have recourse to the sacraments, especially the Eucharist and Confession.
Click to expand...
Very well and good.
However, I’m not so convinced that “salvation is a lot easier”.
Remember, many sects have nowhere near the moral comprehensive requirements that the Catholic Church has.
For instance, the sects firmly hold to valid divorce+remarriage, and Artificial Contraception (e-Orthodox as well), or skipping worship on a Sunday, let alone a Holy Day of obligation.
Then there’s the fasting & abstinence, homosexuality, and on and on.
I mean, a lot of behavior restraints go with formal membership.
Easier may not be the best word.
I mean, there are many many more ways to engage serious sin if one is a formal member, than if one is not, but still in the ark anyway.
 
TNT said:
By the “one & only” do you mean that those I mentioned are in or out of the ark if not formal members in good conscience? What could be better than to be in the way of salvation already where they are?
If it’s the only ark, then they must already be in it to be in the way of salvation. Right?
Click to expand...
Let’s put it this way-they’re part of the way in. However, to be saved, you need to be all the way in. The fact is that these people, if they are operating in good conscience or under invincible ignorance, won’t be all the way in until their moment of death and they become part of the Church Suffering in Purgatory.
 
CollegeKid said:
Let’s put it this way-they’re part of the way in. However, to be saved, you need to be all the way in. The fact is that these people, if they are operating in good conscience or under invincible ignorance, won’t be all the way in until their moment of death and they become part of the Church Suffering in Purgatory.
Click to expand...
Good.
So, when you say “to be saved, you need to be all the way in” does that mean you need formal membership in union with the papacy after all?
Or they’ll get put there at death by God? And then go to purgatory, as purgatory is only for those who are saved?
 
TNT said:
Good.
So, when you say “to be saved, you need to be all the way in” does that mean you need formal membership in union with the papacy after all?
Or they’ll get put there at death by God? And then go to purgatory, as purgatory is only for those who are saved?
Click to expand...
No offense, but I feel like we’re going in circles here. I really don’t understand what it is I’m saying that’s unclear. I’m saying that though they need to be all the way in which means full communion with the Pope, they can “be put their at death by God” and then go through Purgatory, which as you noted is only for those who are saved.
 
TNT said:
If the SSPX, SSPV, CMRI, Peter/Michael Dimond, Sedevacantists, Semi-Sede’s are acting with a good conscience (which you can only assume they are), same as my above type of Protestants that believe the pope is an antiChrist and the Chair is vacant or held by a manifest heretic, are they also in the way of salvation?
Click to expand...
As you appear to hold to a much more rigid definition of “Extra Ecclesium Nulla Salus,” than does the modern Church, what is your answer to this question? I’m not attacking your position; I honestly want to know.

God bless!
 
CollegeKid said:
No offense, but I feel like we’re going in circles here. I really don’t understand what it is I’m saying that’s unclear. I’m saying that though they need to be all the way in which means full communion with the Pope, they can “be put their at death by God” and then go through Purgatory, which as you noted is only for those who are saved.
Click to expand...
Good. That makes it clear.
 
TNT said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by CollegeKid View Post
No offense, but I feel like we’re going in circles here. I really don’t understand what it is I’m saying that’s unclear. I’m saying that though they need to be all the way in which means full communion with the Pope, they can “be put their at death by God” and then go through Purgatory, which as you noted is only for those who are saved.

Good. That makes it clear.
Click to expand...
What that sounds like is—leave them where they are at: God will do the work anyway.
 
The_Iambic_Pen said:
As you appear to hold to a much more rigid definition of “Extra Ecclesium Nulla Salus,” than does the modern Church, what is your answer to this question? I’m not attacking your position; I honestly want to know.

God bless!
Click to expand...
Nice to have you here.
Ok, by modern church, I assume there is a difference between it and say, the non-modern church, which I’ll simply call the Traditional Church or T-Church & the M-Church.
In the M-Church, who objectively is OUTSIDE the church in such a way as “Nulla Salus” is their fate?
As best I can ascertain, it is only those who believe the Catholic church to be the One true church or as it was put “the only ark of salvation”, AND refuse to join it anyway. In other words, those who are informed, believe, and refuse (IBR’s).
Personally, I have never met such a person which does not preclude their existence. But, it would be strange indeed for someone to believe something to be true about their salvation and then proceed to reject exercising it.
It would seem like only an imaginary person that no one has made contact with. Now there may be such a person who I would describe as:
Quite evil to the point of wanting to knowingly destroy their own salvation because they are so “in love” with evil, they refuse to let go of it.
So, 3 conditions must exist for the M-church to apply the EENS:
  1. They are informed of the catholic church being the ark of salvation.
  2. Believe that the catholic church is the only true church on earth ie it is that ark.
  3. refuse to join it anyway because they care nothing about their salvation.
    According to the M-church this is Sacred Tradition, found either in the Scriptures or in Apostolic Sacred Oral Tradition. If someone comes across either of these witnesses to the M-church idea of EENS, please post it.
Salvation here being the full rewards of Heaven after death.

The T-Church tells us that no unbaptized person will arrive at salvation: Jn 3:4ff.
Pope St. Innocent, 414 A.D.: “But that which Your Fraternity asserts the Pelagians preach, that even without the grace of Baptism infants are able to be endowed with the rewards of eternal life, is quite idiotic… But those who defend this for them without rebirth seem to me to want to quash Baptism itself, when they preach that infants already have what is believed to be conferred on them only through Baptism.” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 3: 2016.)
And CCC #1257:…“the Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude.”
The T-church also makes it clear that those who are prevented from being informed of the catholic church, will not be put in torment because of that and with certain [4]virtues in constant practice and receiving [2] exterior divine influences, can obtain salvation**: ****Quanto conficiamur moerore,1863.
In part:
**It is known to Us and to you that they who [1]labor in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion and who, [2]zealously keeping the natural law and its precepts engraved in the hearts of all by God, and [3]being ready to obey God, [4]live an honest and upright life, can by [1]the operating power of divine light and [2]grace, attain eternal life, since God who clearly beholds, searches, and knows the minds, souls, thoughts, and habits of all men, because of His great goodness and mercy, will by no means suffer anyone to be punished with eternal torment who has not the guilt of deliberate sin.

Admittedly this is very close to the impossible human as well, but at the other extreme aka virtue.

Did I get close to answering your question?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top