Why Do We Go To Church?

[rwoehmke]

Oh, fer corn sakes! Why is it such a surprise when non-Catholic Christians have 30,000 denominations when even Catholics are at each others throats?

 

[LilyM]

Here’s my question: Do you believe this prayer is referring to believing Jews (Catholics), or unbelieving Jews?

The prayer asks that these Jews continue to grow in faithfulness to his covenant. Which covenant do you think it is referring to? The one they reject (the new covenant)? Or the one that claim to adhere to (the old covenant)?

Keep in mind that John Paul II believed that the old Covenenat was “never revoked by God”. It is difficult to twist those words in such a way that they fit in with what the Catholic Chuch teaches (as some have attempted) when you consider the context.
.

Firstly - even Jesus said that He came ‘not to abolish the Law (ie the old Covenant) but to FULFIL it’, which He did in establishing the New. Saying that the old Covenant has been changed and perfected by the new is one thing, but you go too far to say that the old covenant has been entirely abolished or rendered false.

Sounds somewhat similar to those clerics who after the introduction of the NO reckoned the TLM had been abolished, rendered false, done away with entirely, when as that very same JP2 who you seem to dislike so intensely and his succesor Benedict have made abundantly clear, it hasn’t. Where on earth would you TLM devotees be without that same John Paul who you’re so happy to slander, and his indult which paved the way for B16’s Motu Proprio, I wonder? Much worse off, let me tell you.

Secondly the prayer asks for faithfulness on the part of the Jews to GOD’S Covenant - His REAL Covenant, sealed ultimately with the blood of Christ, not the one the Jews mistakenly but sincerely think is all they need. And it asks for their salvation - which is ultimately only possible through one name, that of Jesus, who Himself kept the Old Covenant perfectly as well as instituting the New.

Besides which, the Council of Trent itself declared that it is impossible for the Church to propose ANY Rite (including that of Good Friday) which could lead the faithful into impiety (as long as not actually abused or celebrated contra the rubrics in any way). For you to declare it possible is to defy the Magisterium as it taught at Trent.

 

[EasterJoy]

The prayer asks that these Jews continue to grow in faithfulness to his covenant. Which covenant do you think it is referring to? The one they reject (the new covenant)? Or the one that claim to adhere to (the old covenant)?

Keep in mind that John Paul II believed that the old Covenenat was “never revoked by God”. It is difficult to twist those words in such a way that they fit in with what the Catholic Chuch teaches (as some have attempted) when you consider the context.

He spoke of a dialogue between two groups. These two groups were "the people of God of the Old Covenant never revoked by God, and that of the New Covenant" (John Paul II).

And don’t forget the document issued by the USCCB back on August 12, 2002, which taught…
…

Compare that teaching of John Paul II and the USCCB with what the Church defined de fide at the council of Florence:

Council of Florence, the bull Cantate Domino: "It [the Holy Roman Catholic Church] firmly believes, professes, and teaches that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, of the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments, because they were established to signify something in the future, although they were suited to the divine worship at that time, after our Lord’s coming had been signified by them, CEASED, and the sacraments of the New Testament began; and that whoever, even after the passion, placed hope in these matters of the law and submitted himself to them as necessary for salvation, as if faith in Christ could not save without them, sinned mortally. … after the promulgation of the Gospel it asserts that they CANNOT BE OBSERVED without the loss of eternal salvation. " (Council of Florence)

In the same Bull, we find the following: "“It (the Catholic Church) firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Mat. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock…” (Council of Florence).

What it comes down to is this: Since Vatican II, the majority of the hierarchy no longer believe what the Church teaches - and what it defined de fide. They erroneously believe that the old covenant “was never revoked by God”, and will still save. That is why the Novus Ordo mass prays that Jews “continue to grow in faithfulness to his covenant”.

For a person who believes the old Covenant will save, this prayer is fine; but for a Catholic who still believes what the Church teaches as defined at the Council of Florence, it is a prayer that asks for the Jews to commit a mortal sin.

If you disagree, please make your case.

Why are you still in the Catholic Church? I don’t see how you can attest that you believe it to be holy or apostolic. At least you say that its bishops, within the openly published teaching of the council of the College of Cardinals itself and even up to the Pope have forsaken the teachings handed on to them in favor of falsehoods. You complain that the Church herself has suppressed the only true worship, encouraged the faithful into mortal sin by the litugies allowed in its place, including even the liturgies of the Triduum, and that She even now perpetuates a Mass which defiles the Eucharist, and from St. Peter’s Basicilica itself! If this is not what you are saying, correct me and tell me what you* are *saying?

When God promised the Jews that they would be His eternal possession, was God not dependable? When Jesus said to Peter, “on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it”, was God not dependable? Or is God only as dependable as we are? And among us…who is dependable, except those whose actions satisfy you? Whose authority do you accept, then, except your own? For it is only your reading of the Councils which you will accept. That the Magesterium, which is well-acquainted with the original Latin, reads those texts differently is of no account to you.

That prayer is fine, period. It refers to every Jew, converted or not. God’s covenant is not obselete. God’s gift and call are irrevocable, according to Holy Scripture. That is, Holy Scripture as taught by the Magesterium. There is no accounting for how Holy Scripture might be taught by individuals, yourself included.

It is impossible that anyone, Jew or Gentile, could grow to the “fullness of redemption” without accepting Jesus as the Christ. Jesus said he came not to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it. It is the demands of the Law, having been fulfilled by Christ, which are obselete, not God’s promises. Those who teach that the prescriptions of the Law are necessary (such as when some in the early Church proposed that circumcision is necessary) are teaching error. Those prescriptions are not necessary for salvation. But those who teach that circumcision is therefore a mortal sin? That is another matter! The Council of Florence did not teach that!

It is not Rome who spreads rumors and teaches falsehoods. Again, please clarify, and let me know that I miss your meaning.

 

[jmcrae]

WHY DO WE GO TO CHURCH?

God commanded Moses to build a tent of meeting. God commanded Solomon to build a Temple out of wood and stone. He didn’t do this for His own health, or because He thought Moses and Solomon were bored - He did this because the people needed a place to come together for worship.

People have been building houses of worship and gathering there for community prayer ever since. Catholics build churches, and gather there at least every Sunday (and sometimes even every day) for Mass. We do it because it’s part of who we are in our relationship to God.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Firstly - even Jesus said that He came ‘not to abolish the Law (ie the old Covenant) but to FULFIL it’, which He did in establishing the New.

Mt 5:17: “Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill”.

very next verse…

Mt 5:18: "For amen I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot, or one tittle shall not pass of the law, till all be fulfilled.

The old law was fulfilled, then revoked. It’s not either or.

Heb 10:9: “Christ annuls the first Covenant to establish the second”.

Saying that the old Covenant has been changed and perfected by the new is one thing, but you go too far to say that the old covenant has been entirely abolished or rendered false.

Heb 10:9: “Christ annuls the first Covenant to establish the second”.

Pope Pius XII: **"And first of all, by the death of our Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished; … on the gibbet of his death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees… “To such an extent, then,” says St. Leo the Great, speaking of the Cross of our Lord, “was there effected a transfer from the Law to the Gospel, from the Synagogue to the Church, from many sacrifices to one Victim…” (Mystici Corporis, #29).

Sounds somewhat similar to those clerics who after the introduction of the NO reckoned the TLM had been abolished, rendered false, done away with entirely, when as that very same JP2 who you seem to dislike so intensely and his succesor Benedict have made abundantly clear, it hasn’t

.

Benedict XVI certainly made it clear. But John Paul II issued an indult for the old Mass thereby implying that all those who claimed it had been abrogated were correct. Why do I say that? Because an indult is special permission to do what the law does not permit. It would only be necessary if the old Mass had been abrogated.

Where on earth would you TLM devotees be without that same John Paul who you’re so happy to slander, and his indult which paved the way for B16’s Motu Proprio, I wonder?

How did the indult, *which confirmed the error of those who claimed the Mass had been abrogated and thsu required an “indult” to be said, pave the way for the Motu Proprio which said the old Mass had never been abroaged and was always “juridically permitted”?

Secondly the prayer asks for faithfulness on the part of the Jews to GOD’S Covenant - His REAL Covenant, sealed ultimately with the blood of Christ, not the one the Jews mistakenly but sincerely think is all they need.

It asks for their “continued” faithfulness. That implies faithfulness to the covenant they hold to, which is null and void.

And it asks for their salvation - which is ultimately only possible through one name, that of Jesus, who Himself kept the Old Covenant perfectly as well as instituting the New

.

He kept the old before nullifying it.

Heb 10:9: “Christ annuls the first Covenant to establish the second”.

Besides which, the Council of Trent itself declared that it is impossible for the Church to propose ANY Rite

(including that of Good Friday) which could lead the faithful into impiety (as long as not actually abused or celebrated contra the rubrics in any way). For you to declare it possible is to defy the Magisterium as it taught at Trent.

That’s not what it taught. The following are the decrees:

CANON I.–If any one saith, that in the mass a true and proper sacriflce is not offered to God; or, that to be offered is nothing else but that Christ is given us to eat; let him be anathema.

CANON II.–If any one saith, that by those words, Do this for the commemoration of me (Luke xxii. 19), Christ did not institute the apostles priests; or, did not ordain that they, and other priests should offer His own body and blood; let him be anathema.

CANON III.–If any one saith, that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and of thanksgiving; or, that it is a bare commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice; or, that it profits him only who receives; and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, pains, satisfactions, and other necessities; let him be anathema.

CANON IV.–If any one saith, that, by the sacrifice of the mass, a blasphemy is cast upon the most holy sacrifice of Christ consummated on the cross; or, that it is thereby derogated from; let him be anathema.

CANON V.–If any one saith, that it is an imposture to celebrate masses in honour of the saints, and for obtaining their intercession with God, as the Church intends; let him be anathema.

CANON VI.–If any one saith, that the canon of the mass contains errors, and is therefore to be abrogated; let him be anathema.

NOTE: That is referring to the canon in use at the time, which is the canon found at the Traditional Mass.

CANON VII.–If any one saith, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema.

CANON VIII.–If any one saith, that masses, wherein the priest alone communicates sacramentally, are unlawful, and are, therefore, to be abrogated; let him be anathema.

CANON IX.–If any one saith, that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or, that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only; or, that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice, for that it is contrary to the institution of Christ; let him be anathema.**

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Why are you still in the Catholic Church? I don’t see how you can attest that you believe it to be holy or apostolic.

To be a faithful Catholic today, do I have to believe that the old Covenant was never revoked and will still save?

If I reject and claim that the Old Covenant was indeed revoked, and as such will save no one, am I still a faithful Catholic today?

If I believe that all unbelieving Jews will be damned unless they enter the Catholic Church, am I still a faithful Catholic?

Lastly, if 99% of the Bishops and the Pope teach that Jesus was not truly God, can I reject that teaching and still be a faithful Catholic? If so, why?

 

[HelenRose]

WHY DO WE GO TO CHURCH?

I can’t speak for anyone else but I go to Church to receive the Precious Body and Blood of my Savior.

The friendships formed and way of life that has enriched my life flows from the wonderful gift of God’s love.

 

[jmcrae]

Thank you, Helen Rose, that is a beautiful answer.

I wonder if the rest of us could all just try to keep the focus on the original question.

 

[HelenRose]

It really is hard to stay focused isn’t it? Have a wonderful evening.

 

[Ravyn_Guiliani]

Hebrews chapter 10:

22 Let us draw near with a true heart, in fulness of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with clean water. 23 Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering (for he is faithful that hath promised): 24 And let us consider one another, to provoke unto charity and to good works: 25 Not forsaking our assembly, as some are accustomed: but comforting one another, and so much the more as you see the day approaching.
a little difficult to consider one another to provoke unto charity if we never see each other....

 

[kleary]

WHY DO WE GO TO CHURCH?

Dear Lord…I cannot believe I am hearing this…then again the Church is in such a sad state since Vatican II…no wonder we hear people saying stuff like this.

We go to Mass to witness the Sacrifice made for our sins and partake in its fruits. We partake in consuming the Sacrificial Lamb, by eating His Flesh and drinking His Blood- for our salvation.

If we do not eat of the flesh of this Sacrificial Lamb we are doomed - there is no life in us. (John Ch. 6)

Ken

 

[I_Believe]

Oh, fer corn sakes! Why is it such a surprise when non-Catholic Christians have 30,000 denominations when even Catholics are at each others throats?

It’s not a surprise. Lost sheep wander and scatter.

Division ? What caused the division ?

 

[EasterJoy]

Lastly, if 99% of the Bishops and the Pope teach that Jesus was not truly God, can I reject that teaching and still be a faithful Catholic? If so, why?

The bishops and Pope teach no such thing. Where did you get such an idea? Do you read what Benedict XVI has written? Many of the public libraries carry his books.

Again, if you were to think such a thing, how could you stay in the Church? How could you possibly hold on to the idea that the Holy Spirit has not utterly abandoned her?

 

[EasterJoy]

Dear Lord…I cannot believe I am hearing this…then again the Church is in such a sad state since Vatican II…no wonder we hear people saying stuff like this.

Vatican II, again. Is this the “We Hate Vatican II” forum, or what?

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

The bishops and Pope teach no such thing. Where did you get such an idea? Do you read what Benedict XVI has written? Many of the public libraries carry his books.

Again, if you were to think such a thing, how could you stay in the Church? How could you possibly hold on to the idea that the Holy Spirit has not utterly abandoned her?

I think you missed my point. I realize that the Pope and Bishops are not denying the Divinity of Jesus. Some Bishops do, but they are the exception.

My point was this: You are claiming, or at least implying, that in order for me to be a “faithful” Catholic, I will need to reject an infallible dogma of the faith and follow novel teachings which are in contradiction to it. I hope I am wrong, but you yourself give the impression that you reject the dogma from the council of Florence (that I have quoted over and over again), in favor of the contrary.

When I reject the contrary teaching (the error), and instead hold fast to what the Church has always taught, you ask why I remain in the Church. Therefore, I asked you if I am required to follow novel teaching that are in contradiction to what the Church has always taught, and even defined de fide, in order to be a faithful Catholic.

You ignored those questions and only responded to the third, which was merely a hypothetical question posed to make a point… which was this: if the Bishops and Pope fall into heresy, am I required to follow them into error if I wish to remain a faithful Catholic?

The Catholic faith does not change. What has been defined as a dogma is fixed and all are bound to adhere to it - even the Bishops and Pope. It is possible for a Bishop or Pope to fall into heresy, but it is not possible for a dogma to be changed.

I am not claiming that John Paul II rejected that dogma, although it certainly seems that he did. All I am saying is that we must hold to that dogma, and all the rest, in order ot keep the faith.

And you can’t hide behind the argument you have alluded to several times: That the dogma was written a long time ago at a time we don’t fully understand, and in Latin. None of that matters. Especially given the fact that the same exact teaching has been repeated by the Popes, as late as Pius XII in the 1940’s.

The teaching is what it is, and it will remain that. It may be a politically incorrect teaching, but it is still true.

I have located more papal quotes teaching the exact same thing if you are interested in seeing them. You shouldn’t need to see them, since I have provided enough. But if you would like a few more quotes that teach exactly what the council of Florence defined de fide, just let me know and I will post them.

One last point - Regarding the Holy Spirit abandoning the Church: The Holy Ghost has not abandoned the Church. He has simply allowed the use of free will. During the Arian Crisis, it is said that up to 97% of the Bishops were Arian heretics who denied the Divinity of Jesus. The Pope himself - Liberius - signed a semi-Arian document that taught the error. It is said that he did so under preasure, and maby that is true; but all that anyone at the time knew was that virtually every Bishop and the Pope believed the error. The Holy Ghost did not abandon the Church then, and He has not done so now. Just as the Church recovered from the Arian crisis, so too will it recover from the modernist/liberal crisis that it is currently suffering.

 

[kleary]

Vatican II, again. Is this the “We Hate Vatican II” forum, or what?

No - actually you will find many of us here who have learned that it is not Vatican II that is hated- but the erroneous interpretation and implementation of much. Archbishop Lefebvre himself signed the documents of Vatican II.

Ken