"Traditionalists" Alert

Great points, Danny. I found this guide to good/bad Catholic sites that is also interesting.

Thanks to Catholic and Enjoying It! for the link.

Jay

catholicinsight.com is run by Mr. Robert Sungenis, a Catholic in communion with Rome.

Also, many Traditionalists do believe that the Holy Spirit was at the Vatican II COuncil, more to protect it from real heresy.

I find this quote troubling. "They are.. wasting precious evangelization energy in their efforts, and making the Catholic Church look more like a Protestant Church".

First of all, the New Mass and the "new evangelization" is not about bringing people into the Catholic Church. If I recall correctly, Pope John Paul II has not once called for the conversion of people to the Holy Catholic Church. He gladly prays with fals religions of course in sacred Catholic churches, but he has never called for their conversion. The SSPX, for example,

And if you noticed, many New Masses are very Protestant in appearance. And, of course, many prelates, priests and religious, as well as laity, are liberal dissenters. Atleast the SSPX, for example, maintains some sort of historic and ecclesiastical Catholicism (though they, and the AMChHurch, should repent).

It's a shame that the author of this article blindly asserts that all Traditional Catholics are members of schismatic groups. Please educated yourself by seeing the Una Voce website, thelatinmass.com, and other groups in communion with Rome who want to presevred traditional ways.

Also, there are traditional Catholic orders that are episcopally-permitted to celebrate the holy Mass according to the Missale Romanum 1962.

http://FSSP.com
http://institute-christ-king.org/

God bless

Be careful, Ben. There's a difference between those who enjoy the Latin Mass and those who are schismatic. The key is this: is [your group here] following Pope John Paul II? If not, you have decided to part ways with the Chair of St. Peter, which Christ founded to lead His church. I personally don't know specifics on the groups you point out (if someone does, please post), but it does sound a little fishy. Vatican II was good. Period. There may be some abuses of the changes Vatican II initiated, but those who suggest we go back to a pre-Vatican II church are in error (unlike the Bishops when they held Vatican II).

God bless,
Jay

Jay,
Yes, I'm quite aware that there is a difference between schismatics and then those who feel spiritually nurtured by the holy TLM (while remaining faithful to Rome).

Well, since I said they are episcopally-approved, obviously they are not schismatic. Check the websites my friend.

Yes, Vatican II was good. It's too bad that we can't follow the organic Mass that it laid down for us.

Pax Christi,
Ben

What happens when a Pope dies and some one elses dies in the time before a new Pope is elected- there is no Pope for them to be united with on earth so do they go to hell? Come on. Peter did not die on the Cross for us- Christ did! If loyality to Christ, His teaching and that of His Saints, the Doctors and Fathers of HIS Mystical body means going aganist the Pope than so be it. Paul resisted Peter for a lot less than all the crimes of JP II and so have Saints down the ages. The Papacy is there to guard and guide the Church- it was never meant to take the place of Scripture and Tradition which is what you lot try to do with it. Read the secret of La Salette- Rome will become the Seat of the Anti-Christ, the Church will be in eciplise and only FAITH will survive, and survive just barely I might add.

Sophy,
So you believe that Jesus was lying when He said that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church? (Matt 16:18 ff) Or is the "secret of La Salette" more accurate than the Bible?

We don't follow the pope in the way you imply, rather we follow Christ who instituted the Church with the power to bind on earth and in heaven as well as the power to dispense the sacraments.

Please let me know if you think Jesus was lying or you just don't believe the Bible - I'm curious.

God bless,
Jay

The gates of Hell have not prevailed, but the Bible does say that the Mass will be taken away in the last days which suggests that the faithful remanent will not even have a Priesthood no mind a Pope, yet they will be the Church aganist which the gates of hells will not prevail.Read the book of Daniel about the continueing sacrafice been taken away, the Church has always read it as I have just out lined. Second the Bible says that the Anti-Christ would decieve even the elect if that were possible, now how could he achieve that without some type of Christian exterior? I am NOT a "Feeneyite" though I suggest that you read very carefully the article on the Syncretist Heresy of JP II at htttp://www.romancatholicism.org . Remember again the words of Our Lord about the blind following the blind and them both falling into the pit? What about " come out of her my people and be not a part taker of her sins" ? Please, God loves you and I hope you can believe me when I say I have nothing but good will towards you but because when we had Truth we didnt glorify It truelly, God has turned us over to a reprobate mind as He said He would. That which restrained the Anti-Christ, Monarchial Power, has been taken away and the every where lies, cruelty and the spirit of this world rule. Jay Lucifer was rightfull head of the Angelic Hosts- there fore would you have followed him in rebellion aganist our Lord? May God Bless you and forgive me my many sins.

Sophy

Beware of wolves in sheep's clothing! 17 Novus Ordo priests no longer say the New Mass but the Latin Mass and also support the SSPX. See the exciting information here:

http://www.angeluspress.org/new_offerings.htm#priests_book

The SSPX in not in schism but supports the Pope in what is Catholic but rejects what isn't such as the Assisi Meetings with false religions!

http://sspx.org/sspxfaqs.htm

Our Lady of LaSalette: "Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the anti-christ" It's heading that way folks, just look at novusordowatch.org and see for yourself!

Cindy,
What makes you different than any other schismatic such as Martin Luther? Nothing.

If you're correct, then Christ must have been lying when He said that the gates of hell shall not prevail against His Church. Right? Or do you believe Jesus was just wrong?

Looking forward to your answer.

God bless,
Jay

Dear Jay,
Once, I was just like you. I was a confused neo-catholic who just couldn't accept the truth. Anti Pope John Paul is a manifest heritic therefore, if one believes the true teachings of the True Catholic Church and the teachings of many Saints down through Church history (Not the Novos Ordo Antichrist Church) you have to accept that ipso facto John Paul II has lost his Papal athority for his heretical actions and teachings.

If you follow the Novos Ordo Religion, you are no Catholic. You are a heretic just like him.
In JMJ
St, Michael

Micheal,
First, I'm not confused, but I am a Catholic (1 out of 2 isn't bad). One question: Jesus promised that His Church would last forever. You're trying to claim that His Church has fallen into heresy. Who should I believe? Jesus, or some crazy guy who calls himself "St. Michael"?

The Church is protected by the Holy Spirit - the Holy Spirit could have easily taken Pope John Paul II's life to prevent the church from falling into heresy. You are a product of the protestant mindset and, thus, you feel that dissent and disobedience are your right. This is a grave error and I will pray to the real St. Micheal for you. May God remove the blinds from your eyes and open your mind to the truth.

God bless,
Jay

The Council of Florence, the seventeenth Ecumenical Council of the Holy Roman Catholic Church begun in 1431, dogmatically decreed the following:

"[The Catholic 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 Catholic Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of the 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 produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church."

St. Pius X warned against interpreting this dogma of the Catholic Faith in an evolutionary sense, whereby "...doctrines pass from one sense to another sense alien to that which the Church held from the start" (Oath Against Modernism). Regarding the Baptism of Blood and Desire, one cannot be considered baptized by either of these means if he contemptuously dissents from a doctrine of the Faith, as the theological virtue is Divinely infused upon reception of baptism. In addition, the state of Sanctifying Grace is necessary for salvation.

As it is stated in the Athanasian Creed, "This is the Catholic Faith, which except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved." Sicut erat in principio, et nunc, et semper, et in saecula saeculorum. Amen.

"Vatican II was good. Period."

What an ignorant statement, meant only to stymie arguments to the contrary. Would you like to further generalize and state that the last forty years of the Church have been "good" also?

the sspx is holding to the faith christ said the gates of hell will not prevail against it he never said how big or small it would be the holy ghost may be working --with the sspx

St. pius x tried to warn us of the modernists in the church and now with the help of Vatican II has brought about this modernist heresy within the church.read about st. athanatious he held to the traditions ans was excommunicated -the pope was wrong,vatican ii was a pastoral council not dogmatic like the council of trent , also the pope is only infallible when he speaks excatheadra the last pope to do this was pius XII.----------there where mistakes in vatican II . not every thing that comes from rome is guided by the holy Ghost.only the magestirium is infallible vII went against the magesterium in spirit.--------sspx is right when we return to the mass of all time vocations will return--------christ said you will know the truth by the fruit -Vatican II fruit from 1965-2003 a drop in seminarians by 90 % loss of faith in catholic dogma ,dignity at mass,people at mass,what do you people need christ to come down and tell you your wrong????----seek and you will find.

St. pius x tried to warn us of the modernists in the church and now with the help of Vatican II has brought about this modernist heresy within the church.read about st. athanatious he held to the traditions ans was excommunicated -the pope was wrong,vatican ii was a pastoral council not dogmatic like the council of trent , also the pope is only infallible when he speaks excatheadra the last pope to do this was pius XII.----------there where mistakes in vatican II . not every thing that comes from rome is guided by the holy Ghost.only the magestirium is infallible vII went against the magesterium in spirit.--------sspx is right when we return to the mass of all time vocations will return--------christ said you will know the truth by the fruit -Vatican II fruit from 1965-2003 a drop in seminarians by 90 % loss of faith in catholic dogma ,dignity at mass,people at mass,what do you people need christ to come down and tell you your wrong????----seek and you will find.

St. pius x tried to warn us of the modernists in the church and now with the help of Vatican II has brought about this modernist heresy within the church.read about st. athanatious he held to the traditions ans was excommunicated -the pope was wrong,vatican ii was a pastoral council not dogmatic like the council of trent , also the pope is only infallible when he speaks excatheadra the last pope to do this was pius XII.----------there where mistakes in vatican II . not every thing that comes from rome is guided by the holy Ghost.only the magestirium is infallible vII went against the magesterium in spirit.--------sspx is right when we return to the mass of all time vocations will return--------christ said you will know the truth by the fruit -Vatican II fruit from 1965-2003 a drop in seminarians by 90 % loss of faith in catholic dogma ,dignity at mass,people at mass,what do you people need christ to come down and tell you your wrong????----seek and you will find.

St. pius x tried to warn us of the modernists in the church and now with the help of Vatican II has brought about this modernist heresy within the church.read about st. athanatious he held to the traditions ans was excommunicated -the pope was wrong,vatican ii was a pastoral council not dogmatic like the council of trent , also the pope is only infallible when he speaks excatheadra the last pope to do this was pius XII.----------there where mistakes in vatican II . not every thing that comes from rome is guided by the holy Ghost.only the magestirium is infallible vII went against the magesterium in spirit.--------sspx is right when we return to the mass of all time vocations will return--------christ said you will know the truth by the fruit -Vatican II fruit from 1965-2003 a drop in seminarians by 90 % loss of faith in catholic dogma ,dignity at mass,people at mass,what do you people need christ to come down and tell you your wrong????----seek and you will find.

joe,
It's funny how sspx schismatics seem to think that all was good before Vatican II! Remember, the older U.S. priests who are decidedly liberal were all taught pre-Vatican II. These are the priests (and laity) who expected the Church to rule that contraception was okay. Sometimes denial is an ugly thing.

Do you think St. Pius would have said, "Let's become schismatics, like Luther! Let's leave the Church (note: not "the faith") Christ established and promised to protect against the gates of hell." Give me a break.

Christ established a church and promised to protect it. You left Christ's church after being suckered by historical revisionism. Come home - you'll be happier in the true church.

God bless,
Jay

Jay,

It's funny how you can't see to argue any point brought up by those who disagree with the direction of the post-Conciliar Church, with its commitment to false ecumenism, indifferentism, and dogmatic relativism (all strictly condemned by the Magisterium in the years preceeding the Council - try reading Pope Pius XII's "Humani Generis"), but instead argue through divisive and false labeling ("schismatic") and assert that nothing is wrong because Christ promised that Hell would not overthrow His Church. This is simply wrong and foolhardy - the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ and should be expected to suffer as Its Head suffered on earth. Currently, the errors that have entered the Church as a result of the aggiornamento of Vatican II are acting as a virus in the Mystical Body, with the false doctrines, novelties, and modern theology causing the rot of heresy and apostasy so prevalent amongst modern Catholics today. The Church is composed of both human and divine elements, with the human elements prone to error if they do not follow the truths contained in Revelation, both in Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

Your spurious claim that "sspx schismatics" think everything was "good" before the Council reveals again your tact of simplifying the issue to avoid justifying your argument - most well-informed Catholics realize that the emerging errors of the early 20th century, including the "synthesis of all heresies," Modernism, were causing great harm to the Church and leading souls astray. The difference is that prior to the Council, the bastions of the Church, most importantly the Tridentine-based catechisms and the Traditional Mass, remained intact, fighting the errors and heresies which strove to corrupt the minds of the faithful. The Council, of course, openly strove to destroy these and other bastions, as Cd. Ratzinger has stated, for the sake of making peace with the world and eliminating points of contention between Catholicism and false religions such as Protestantism. The "liberalism" that you decry has been enshrined in the post-Conciliar Church as one of many viewpoints, which are now accepted without rebuke on account of the new pastoral orientation whereby errors are not condemned, but merely placed alongside what the Church teaches with the expectation that the Catholic doctrine will prevail. It is a foolish notion that has born only the bad fruit of bold dissent, as asserting a truth necessitates condemning the opposing falsehood.

So what indeed would St. Pius X assert? He would probably strenuously plead with the faithful to seek out the Catholic truths which form a continuity with the teachings of the Magisterium throughout the ages and reflect the Deposit of Faith given to the Apostles by Christ. And who would he recommend the faithful seek to be nourished with sound doctrine? Most likely the Society that bears his name, as they teach nothing but what the Church had taught for millenia prior to the Council. For as he stated: "The true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries nor innovators, but men of tradition."

dear , jay
read the council of trent it was dogmaatic.GOd bless you brandon you are right!-----------------------also jay you have to do something against the faith to be schismatic---------like denie the true faith ------like the bishop of fatima is doing right now--------seek and you will find God bless you jay

I cant help but think that the SSPX folk confuse dogma with less important matters such as liturgy or nuances in wording. Vatican II brought about many changes in liturgical norms (such as permitting mass in the local tongue or reception of the Eucharist in the hand) but made absolutely no changes to Catholic dogma.

Vatican II changed its posture with respect to the Protestant communities by referring to them as "separted brethren" rather than "schismatics" realizing that such terminology only refers to people who leave the Church rather than those who are born into such a community. Its position remains unchanged. Post-Vatican II documents such as the Catechism all affirm the standard teachings on transubstantiation and points out that Protestants who reject our understanding of the Eucharist may not be admitted to communion.

I could understand people considering John XXIII, Paul VI, and Popes John Paul I and II soft in the head for bringing about the liturgical and ecumenical reforms (though I think our Popes have been filled with the Holy Spirit). What I fail to understand is how SSPX folks can even claim that the Magisterium has taught errors since Vatican II considering that no new teachings have even been made. Every post-Vatican II teaching coming from the Magisterium and the papal office is fully consistent with pre-vatican II teaching.

While the language of Vatican II is much less inflammatory than the language of previous councils, the position of the Roman Catholic Church remains (to the frustration of modernist liberals) completely unchanged.

dear'Rich
vatican II said nothing obout communion in the hand or the norvis ordo mass -----------both where abuses--------the magesterium can not go against it's self -many thing in vatican II go against the magesterium and are wrong.bring back all the popes back to peter and i know they would side with the sspx. not the 4 last popes. also Vatican II was not a dogmatic council like trent-------and the only time a pope is infallible with the holy ghost is when he speaks excatheadra-----the last pope to do this was pius XII.-------we are in a state of apostisy--whe church is infected with modernism even the conservitive catholics out there are infected some what but st.pius the X tried to warn us in his encyclical against modernism.Christ said he will always be with his church -------and i think the last remnant of the true Holy Roman Catholic church is the sspx.I think they will help save the church.

so if Vatican II contains no (new) dogma how can it possibly be heretical?

Heresy is defined as the denial of any of the truths contained in Christ's Doctrine. The Second Vatican Council is not necessarily heretical, as it does not directly deny any of the dogmas of the Church, but its faults lies in its ambiguous and verbose statements that are open to various interpretations: hence, forty years later, the apologists for the Council are still discovering how to properly "implement" its decrees.

The Council, with its "pastoral" nature, departed from typical ecumenical councils of the past in that it did not condemn error in conjunction with affirming the truths of the Faith. Missing were the precise definitions, the "canons," and the anathemas against those who would dare to go against the teachings of the council. Instead, the Council set about to "update the language" of the Church - to "teach the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine more efficaciously," to quote Pope John XXIII's Opening Address. Given the novelty of this approach, the best means of determining its effectiveness would be to examine the fruits of the Council, which are emminently documented in Kenneth Jones' book, "Index of Leading Catholic Indicators." They include: a decline in priests, a decline in ordinations, an increase in priestless parishes, a drop in seminarians, the closing of over 2/3 of the seminaries open in 1965, a precipitous fall in sisters and teaching nuns, a decline in religious orders, the closing of over half the Catholic schools in America, a rise in annulments from 338 in 1968 to 50,000 in 2002, and a decline in Mass attendence from close to 70% prior to the Council to 25% today. Couple these frightening statistics with the observable decline in proper catechesis, priest scandals, etc, and you can only reach one conclusion: the fruits of the Council are bad. Given a Council that yields bad fruits and has wrought mass confusion (pardon the pun) within the Church, it only makes sense to hold true to the Traditions of the Church, eschew all novelty, and continue in the manner prior to the Council. This is the express purpose of the Society of St. Pius X: to "Restore all things in Christ" and to stay true to the direction of the Church throughout the centuries, most importantly in regards to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Hello,

I have a question. In Luke 9:46-50. In verse 49
John asks Jesus about seeing a man casting out
Demons in His (Jesus) name and we tried to prevent because He does not follow along with us. But Jesus said to him " Do not hinder him; For he who is not against you is for you.

Now I understand Jesus to say that if someone is
confessing Jesus and His gospel you should not
hinder them because they are not against what
they were doing. Is that a fair interpretation?

You keep saying on this BLOG that the Church is the institution in Rome because they can trace
back the popes all the way back to Peter who was
the official head of the church appointed by
Christ. Anyone outside of that church is not a
part of the body of Christ or a part of the church He (Christ) started. Is that a fair statement?

The RCC says that someone who is not a member of the RCC may be able to get into heaven but you give the impression that it is highly doubtful or highly unlikely. The RCC is the Narrow Gate
Jesus talks about ?

Or is it possible that some Catholics and some
Protestants and some Messianic Jews will be in
heaven. That the ones who make it are a part of
the Body of Christ and a part of the true church ?

Humans, IE the Pharisees thought that they were
God's people and that they had the right formula
to get into heaven and that everyone else was going to hell. Guess what, as we all know they
were dead wrong.

My perception is that the RCC is saying exactly what the Pharisses did. No one can get into heaven unless you are in our group. The Seventh Day adventists do it and many other denominations
do it. We are the one true church or we are the
remnant church. The Catholic has become the
institution the Scribes and the Pharisees had become. They could trace their authority back
to Abraham, Issac and Jacob and Moses. But they
missed their Messiah..

Jesus said, I am the vine, abide in me and I will
abide in you. That message was given to the Jew
first and then to the gentiles. It is for anyone
who believes and has faith. Not just for the
the Catholic Church or the SDA's or for any other
denomination but for ANYONE who would pick up their cross and follow Him... If you say no then
you are calling Jesus a Liar.. You see that card
can be played with more than just with the gates of Hell will not prevail against His church.

Now you can tell me how misguided and wrong I am.

In Christ,

Clem

Clem,

Christ also said: "He that is not with me, is against me; and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth" (St. Luke xi.23). So it seems, logically speaking, that if you are not "with Him," you are "against Him," and therefore you aren't "for Him" either, assuming that the contrapositive of both initial statements are true. It would seem that to be "with Him," you would need to follow His Doctrine, which he gave to the Apostles so that they might "go forth and teach all nations." All that Christ taught as a matter of revealed truth must be believed, for "he that believeth not shall be condemned."

Brandon,

So you are saying that if someone is not a part of the RCC they are against Jesus and His teachings ? Just because you can point back
to Peter doesn't mean that the church is following the teachings of Christ...

The Jews were able to point back to Abraham and
Moses but they got off track and missed the Messiah.

The RCC is very comfortable in hanging onto that
one verse about the gates of Hell not prevailing against the church. Is the Church of today the same church that He left the apostles ? You have Popes making doctrines and Anti Popes recinding those doctrines. Doctrines
and dogmas like the Rosary and the immaculate
conception were not a part of the church Jesus
put Peter in Charge of..

There is talk on this BLOG about tradition as
being a part of the church and I will not dispute
that there is oral tradition and tradition found
in scripture. How much of the tradition in the RCC is ritualistic traditions of men and how much of that traditon is the traditions of God ?
The RCC has set up a nice catch 22.

They say that all of their doctrine is inspired
and guided by the Holy Spirit. The Edicts from
the Pope and the Magistrum are infalable.

But the written scripture tells us to check it out for ourselves to make sure we are not being
decieved. But when someone checks it out and
points out a discrepency or an inconsistancy
the RCC has the ace up their sleave to brand
that person or their arguement a heretic or
Herescy .. Very convenient for them isn't it.
It sounds a lot like what the Pharisees did to
Jesus. He went against their preconceived Ideas
on what the Law said and how it should be interpreted. They eventually Crucified Him
because they believed what He said was contrary to what they taught and contrary to their traditions.

I think that many of the people on this BLOG will
be very surprised if they make it to heaven ( And I pray that they all do) that Catholics won't be the only ones there. Also they will be
surprised to see people they thought would not be
there and disappointed that people they thought
would be there are not.. God knows the heart
and minds of HIS true Church. He will separate the Wheat from the Chaff.

I am putting my faith and my trust in the Promises of Jesus. You say that Rejecting some
of the doctrines of the RCC is rejecting Jesus.

I am a part of His Body and a part of His church.
I trust that He will Judge me fairly with His Justice and His Mercy and HIS Grace. I am glad
that I will not be standing in front of any one from this BLOG on the day of Judgment.

You've got GOD tied up in a box and all the
formulas required to get in to heaven all figured
out. It's the RCC way or the highway...

The Pharisees had it all figured out too and you
see what Jesus thought of them ...

In Search of HIs Truth,

Clem

Clem,

In order to have the true Faith and to please God, you must assent to all that He has revealed for our salvation. Catholics believe that Christ established one Church, the Holy Catholic Church, to teach, govern, and sanctify in accordance with Christ's message throughout the ages. He gave to this Church a specific set of doctrines, called the "Deposit of Faith" by the Church, that has been passed down inerrantly throughout the ages and must be possessed in order to "have God," as St. John's Second Epistle states. If I thought for a moment that Christ had not instituted a Church or that the Church is guilty of fabricating doctrines that aren't concurrent with what the Apostles believed or what is contained in Holy Scripture, then I wouldn't be Catholic. But since the Church can be proven to be the work of Jesus Christ, the God-Man, through a diligent and honest study of history and because I have been given the grace to believe, I so choose to place my faith in Her and to assent to all that She teaches on matters of faith and morals as I know She is speaking with the voice of God.

I also see it as rather contemptuous of God and denigrating of His wisdom that the Protestant notion of "sola Scriptura" is what Christ intended. To believe that is to believe that there was no true teaching authority established by Christ, that shortly after the Apostles walked the earth the teachings of Christ fell into obscurity, that the Bible, which no Apostle was commanded to write (save for perhaps St. John and his Apocalypse, which was thought to be spurious by many in the early Church) and which was not a widely held item by Christians until the advent of the printing press, was necessary to discern Christ's doctrine, and that the fissiparious and fractious nature of Protestant churches and their inherent disagreement with one another is what Christ so wished to bequeath to man. I, frankly, find the whole idea absurd.

I pray that you will continue searching and that you and I, God-willing, will see our Creator in Heaven if we worship him in "spirit and in truth."

Brandon,

I just reread 2nd John and It says nothing about what you have quoted. I believe you meant that quote from
St. Agustine. The quote is from a church father and not from St. John. Here is 2nd John

1 The elder to the chosen lady and her children , whom I love in truth ; and not only I, but also all who know the truth , 2 for the sake of the truth which abides in us and will be with us forever : 3 Grace , mercy and peace will be with us, from God the Father and from Jesus Christ , the Son of the Father , in truth and love . 4 I was very glad to find some of your children walking in truth , just as we have received commandment to do from the Father.
5 Now I ask you, lady , not as though I were writing to you a new commandment , but the one which we have had from the beginning , that we love one another . 6 And this is love , that we walk according to His commandments . This is the commandment , just as you have heard from the beginning , that you should walk in it. 7 For many deceivers have gone, out into the world , those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist . 8 Watch yourselves , that you do not lose what we have accomplished , but that you may receive a full reward . 9 Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching , he has both the Father and the Son . 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching , do not receive him into your house , and do not give him a greeting ; 11 for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds . 12 Though I have many things to write to you, I do not want to do so with paper and ink ; but I hope to come to you and speak face to face , so that your joy may be made full . 13 The children of your chosen sister greet you.

Brandon doesn't the scripture contain all that is
needed for ones's salvation ? 2nd Timothy 3:16

I am not saying that Christ did not set up a church on this earth. I believe that He meant it to continue.

You are saying that it is NOT Possible
that the men in this church could have gotten off
track.. No, because the gates of Hell will not
prevail against it. There were already deceivers
in the church during the time of the apostles. Most of Paul's letters and the letters of the other Apostles were to correct error that had gotten into the church.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

In His Grace,

Clem

Brandon,

Correct me if this incorrect but are you not
dissatisfied with Vatican 2 ? Are you
not in essence saying that the church got off
track or did a poor job with V2? You site statistics of all of the things that are
in decline since V2?

What are these precepts of faith you speak of?
I think if you check what most Protestants
believe is needed for salvation They will say
faith in Jesus Christ.

I think the main difference I see between
Catholics and Protestants is that Catholics
believe you must do something or keep certain laws or participate in sacrements to hopefully get into heaven. With Catholics they are never sure if they are going to get into heaven.

Most Protestant stand on the promises of Jesus.
That if you confess with your mouth and believe
in your heart that you are saved IE you are going
to heaven. Salvation to me doesn't depend on what
I do or don't do but What Jesus Did on the Cross.

Growing up as a Catholic in the late 50's and early 60's pre vatican 1 or two I believe, I was always made to feel guilty. I always wondered if I was good enough to get into heaven. I was given the impression by the priests and other catholics that God had this balance sheet, if you did more good than bad then Maybe God would let you into heaven. I was ignorant because the Catholic church NEVER encouraged me to read the scriptures.

After I started reading the Bible It became clear
that it was my faith and trust in Jesus and giving my heart to God that opened the door to heaven. Jesus is the Key, He paid the price and He is my righteousness. That doesn't give me a
licencse to sin or prevent me from doing good
works. But those good works did not count as
points towards enterance into heaven. The works
were done because of my Love and graditude for
what Jesus did for me.

Now you may disagree with this, but I had a much
closer relationship with God when I was in the protestant church then I did growing up in the
catholic church. I see that as a failure of the
RCC to teach who God is. He is not this big
Angry God waiting to zap you if you mess up.

He is a Loving and merciful father. God wants
a relationship with His Creation NOT a religion.
Just my perspective.

In Search of the Truth,

Clem

Clem,
A couple of thoughts about your two posts above.

First, in the early Church there was dissent and error among the laity, but not among the leaders of the Church. We are trusting in the Holy Spirit to ensure our leaders are error-free when defining doctrine. Otherwise, you would have to argue that we cannot know Scripture is infallible. So, when you try and suggest that corruption was in the early Church, remember that it was the dissent of the laity, which we still have with us in those who don't believe in what the Church teaches, though they call themselves Catholic.

Second, perhaps the worst protestant teaching is that of "once saved always saved." If you simply accept Christ you are going to heaven. I personally have family members who are living completely Godless (perhaps even anti-Christian) lives, but believe they are going to heaven because once when they were twelve they "accepted Jesus." Remember, in the Bible St. Paul works out his salvation with "fear and trembling." He also states that we must "finish the race." If St. Paul isn't sure of heaven, how can we be? I would never claim to be as holy as St. Paul!

Finally, it was your parents job to teach you the basics of your faith - their obligation to do so. If you grew up with these misconceptions, it's because they did not do so. The home is the domestic church and the place where children learn about God. The Church is merely there to assist your parents in teaching you the truth of Catholicism. Now in the US, parents have been so lax that the Church is taking on more and more of this role, but it remains the primary responsibility of the parents - and it has always been this way.

God bless,
Jay

Clem,

"Whosoever revolteth, and continueth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that continueth in the doctrine, the same hath both the Father and the Son. If any man come to you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him, God speed you. For he that saith unto him, God speed you, communicateth with his wicked works" (2 John 9-11).

The reason I referred to this passage of Scripture is because it contains the essence of Christianity: the necessity of belief in Christ's Doctrine. Faith is not a "feeling" or an unspecified movement of the will, but it is an assent to all that Christ taught as divinely revealed truth, as contained in His Doctrine. The Beloved Diciple warns us that those who revolt against this Doctrine do not have God and should be neither received as fellow Christians nor confirmed in their errors.

Now, the problem with using solely the written Word of God to determine this Doctrine is that, without a guide, you will most likely fall into error. "How can I understand what I read, lest someone show me?" as the Ethiopian eunuch said to St. Philip. I fully agree that Scripture is "profitable" to make man perfect, as the Apostle states to St. Timothy, but it is only profitable if you understand its true meaning. The way by which we know its true meaning and proper interpretation is through Sacred Tradition, the other fount of Revelation, which is guarded by the Church and preserved in Her unchanging dogmas.

Now, it must be admitted that if any group understood Christ's Doctrine and all that he wished man to believe concerning Revelation, it was the Apostles, who received His word directly. Christ sent them forth to "teach all nations" and would not have done so had they been in error. To preserve His Doctrine from error and continue the office of the Apostles, He established a Church, one that would speak with His authority and teach with His certitude. From the very beginning, there were those who did not "endure sound doctrine" but sought teachers who would "tickle their ears" and confirm them in their errors, but the Church stood firm by what was given Her by the Master, "whether by word or epistle," and anathematized those who would not repent of their unbelief.

It remains that if you reject Sacred Tradition and reject the Church which Christ established and cling to Scripture alone, you must establish that the doctrines you profess are consonant with that taught by Christ and His Apostles, or else you have fallen into error. There must be a continuity between what you believe and what the early Christians professed.

Jay,

First, I agree that the doctrine of once saved
always saved can be dangerous if taught incorrectely. The christian life is a changed life which trys to follow and obey God. Not to get into heaven but out of Love and obediance to the one who died to set us free from the sentence of death.

So you are saying that the gift of savation can be lost. Explain How ? IF we sin ? Isn't this a works based doctrine? Are you saying what Chirst did is incomplete for Salvation and that we have to work to keep our salvation ?

If the words of Jesus Are true regarding your favorite verse that the Gates of Hell will not prevail against His church, are the many verses that say believe or have faith and be saved any less true? Is Jesus telling the truth with your
verse but lying to us about Salvation ?

What is the Catholic Definition of Salvation ?
Once you have it what do you have to do so it
will not be taken away ?

Second regarding my parents. They took me to
church and sent me to Catecism and taught me
about God as they understood the teaching of
the RCC. My parents are not college educated
as you seem to be but they are intelligent.
They believed what their church taught them without question. They both have a deep faith in God..

You are correct that it is their job to teach me
about the faith and they did their job. Somewhere along the line THE CHURCH. The RCC
failed to teach them correctly. The fact that
I know God at all is because of my dear parents.

I don't blame them, they did the best that they
could. I blame the church. They some how got the
idea from the church that they have to be good
people and then Hope that they might get to heaven if their good deeds out wieghed their bad ones. If salvation depends on us and not what Christ did on the Cross we all would go to hell and Christ died for nothing.

If the RCC does not teach a works based formula
for salvation then tell me why so many Catholics
that I know feel that if they are good enough
people maybe they will get into heaven ?

Didn't Christ come to give us assurance ?

Please explain the formuula the RCC teaches.

Still seeking the Truth ...

Clem

Clem,

Regarding Vatican II, I think my comments on this forum suffice for others to deduce my opinion of it. The pope who promulgated the documents of the Council also had a thing or two to say about it:

"The Church finds herself in an hour of anxiety, a disturbed period of self-criticism, or what would even better be called self-destruction. It is an interior upheaval, acute and complicated, which nobody expected after the Council. It is almost as if the Church were attacking itself. We looked forward to a flowering, a serene expansion of conceptions which matured in the great sessions of the council. But...one must notice above all the sorrowful aspect. It is as if the Church were destroying herself" (Pope Paul VI, December 7, 1968).

Needless to say, the Church continues in a mode of self-destruction today, as the forces let loose during the Council have not been checked by the liberals and modernists who currently occupy Rome and much of the hierarchy. Does this lessen my faith in Christ or His Church? Of course not, because I realize that, in spite of all the bad fruits seen in the last forty years, the Church remains His spotless Bride and continues to teach His Doctrine throughout the ages. It is though now we are seeing Christ's Mystical Body, which is the Church, go through Its own Passion, in emulation of Its Head, and many are left wondering, "How can this be divine?" as those on the Way of the Cross must have thought of Our Lord.

As regarding your comment that salvation only necessitates a confession of Christ and a belief in His promise of Heaven, and that what you do is irrelevant, you should heed the warning of St. James:

"Thou believest that there is one God. Thou dost well: the devils also believe and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?" (ii.19-20)

It does indeed matter what you do and God will judge you according to your works (St. Matthew xvi.27, xxiii.3, Romans ii.6, 2 Tim. iv.14, Apocalyse xx.13, xxii.12). It saddens me to hear that you were once Catholic and have apostatized - I pray that you will come again to the truth of Christ's Church.

Brandon,

You must have not read my posts to Jay. I don't
believe that you say a prayer and you are saved.
There must be a change of heart. There should
be a dhange on the inside and the outside.

My question to You and to Jay is do you believe
the Works are necessary to maintain salvation
or are they as I believe a bi-product of salvation. Isn't the spirit of what is in
in the verses you quoted above that works are
a natural bi-product of Salvation and NOT a
legal requirement to keep your salvation.

I will ask the same question to you.
Does the RCC teach that salvation is earned by our works ?

Can a catholic know for sure if he or she is going to heaven or do they have to guess?

Doesn't Christ promise us Salvation and are Not
all of our sins forgiven and covered by the Blood
and the one sacrifice HE made on the cross?

It is illogical to follow Christ and not know
for sure where you will end up ? HE was clear
to the thief on the cross, Today you will be with
me in paradise. He was clear to the apostles that
they would Judge the twelve tribes of Israel
and Paul knew to be absent from the body is to be
present with the Lord...

Most Catholics I know, if you ask them, do not
know where they will end up. They say I hope that
my good deeds out weigh my sins and that I will get into heaven. I have not met one who has told
me I know that I will be in heaven with Jesus.

Why is this ? The RCC teaches confusing doctrines like purgatory. No one knows if they end up there how long it will take to get out. How many prayers need to be offered up to get you out... ????

Did Jesus or the apostles EVER teach this ?
If so tell me where it is in scripture ??

No Jesus promises if you abide in Me I will abide
in you and you will have life everlasting....
Was He lying to US or are His promises true..

Purgatory wasn't a first century teaching. And yet you say that the RCC is true to the teachings
of its founder... Over and over Jesus promises
that if you follow Him and put your faith and trust in Him, He will give you eternal life with
Him and the Father.. It is so simple and plain
to understand. You don't have to be a PHD or a
theologian to understand it. The Apostles were
not theologians they were mostly blue colar guys
and Jesus spoke to them on their level.

Purgatory is such a strange concept that in
my opinion it diminishes the Awesome Sacrifice of
Jesus on the Cross.

Please don't dodge my questions. Answer them
plainly and simply.

Yes God will judge you by your works but what context was that in ? What is it meaning to Judge. Is the judgement for Salvation OR is the
works to count toward your rewards or crowns in
heaven. We all will have different levels in
heaven. It's like the parable of the talents.

Those are what is meant by works. Your good works are like a heavenly bank account. When
God Judges them what ever ones are not burned
away will count towards your rewards in heaven.

God is a rewarder of good works and HE shows it
throughout scripture. Salvation is a gift and
you can not EARN IT. LEST anyone WOULD BOAST.
Salavation can not be earned or LOST by good
or BAD works otherwise we would be able to boast
about it..... I am sure you will disagree with
my assessment but that is how I see the scripture
and it is logical.

How can something that is a gift from someone be
bought by the receiver ? Then it would cease to
be a gift. Bottom line you can not earn or work
for your salvation ...

I look forward to your response.

In search of God's Truth.

Clem

Jay,

You said in your post that Paul did not know
where He was going. Then why did he say to be
absent from the body is to be present with the
Lord. Did the theif on the cross know where HE
was going? When Jesus went down to preach to
the captives did HE just leave all the old testament people in Abrahams bosom there or
did they end up in heaven?

Paul didn't was not sure if he was going to heaven but the RCC tells us that Mary is there..
How do they know she is there. How do they know
that any of the canonized saints are there ?

To my knowledge Nobody has come back to tell us
they are living there. The only one we know for
sure is in heaven is Jesus. Enoch because he
was taken up to heaven and Ellijah because He
was taken up to heaven.

Maybe the others are in purgatory? How does the
church know who is in heaven and who is not if
catholics can not know for sure if they are going to heaven or not... It's a big gamble...
Maybe you will make it and maybe not. There are
no garantees .... Didn't Jesus say to the twelve that they would be with Him in heaven
ruling over the twelve tribes of Israel or is
that not in your bible?

I personally think it rather cruel to have His
creation have to guess and Hope they were good
enough to make it.... We know Mary is there
because the Church says she is. What does the
church tell you about him?

Jay, Why do you follow and obey Jesus if you
can only HOPE you will make it to heaven...?
I hope for your sake you make it. You are such
a strong defender Of HIS One True church it would be pretty crummy if you did something or said something or died before you were able to get to confession and that kept you out of heaven ????

Something to ponder ....

I am not trying to be cute. I am trying to make
a point. Why follow if there is still a 50-50
chance that you would get stuck in purgatory for
500 years or worse still end up in hell... ?

Jay, I don't know you but I am sure that if you
have given your heart to Him you are assurd of
heaven. God keeps His promises. HE is faithful
and true ...

In His Love,

Clem

Clem,
I'm not suggesting we have a 50/50 chance at all - that's downright silly. I'm saying we must "finish the race", which involves conversion as a lifelong process. The "once saved always saved" mentality suggests that we can simply proclaim Jesus as our Lord and know we are going to heaven no matter how we live our lives after that point. I think the Bible, Jesus, and the apostles are very clear this is a false teaching.

God bless,
Jay

Clem,

Here is a good explanation of the Church's teaching on Purgatory:

http://www.kensmen.com/catholic/purgatory.html

I also recommend Apologia's "Challenge to 'Christians'":

http://www.kensmen.com/catholic/challenge.html

Both webpages are filled with Scriptural passages, which should satisfy the "Where is that in Scripture?" approach most Protestants take. Continue searching.

Jay,

I noticed that the Apologia website I passed along to Clem isn't banned by the silly "SCHISM" website you linked to in the first comment. I also noticed that one of the "approved" sites was for The Latin Mass Magazine, which featured this article by Michael Davies:

http://www.latinmassmagazine.com/articles/articles_2001_SP_Davies.html

The article concludes:

"By refusing to accept any rite of Mass other than that found in the Roman Missal of 1962, traditional Catholics are in no way a cause of disunity in the Church but, motivated by a profound sensus catholicus, they are serving it with the utmost fidelity to the faith handed down from their fathers, the faith that they are determined to hand down to their children. As Msgr. Gamber put it:

"'In the final analysis, this means that in the future the traditional rite of Mass must be retained in the Roman Catholic Church...as the primary liturgical form for the celebration of Mass. It must become once more the norm of our faith and the symbol of Catholic unity throughout the world, a rock of stability in a period of upheaval and never-ending change.'"

Brandon,
It's fine to prefer to Latin Mass - there are many opportunities to attend it where I live (and I'm in the south!). However, what I have a problem with is the notions that the Catholic Church has somehow failed, the new mass isn't valid, and/or the notion that the current Pope isn't valid. This is where a person becomes schismatic rather than obedient.

The Latin Mass requires an understanding of Latin, which is not longer common among men and women (to our detriment, I might add). By allowing Mass to be said in the common tongue, the Church helps the faithful to understand the truth behind the mass and participate fully in it. It is ignorance which causes issues like the protestant reformation and this is a decidely intelligent way of addressing these issues. Remember, God doesn't care what language the mass is in, He cares that we participate in it.

God bless,
Jay

Jay,

I don't hold that:

A) The Church has failed;
B) The Novus Ordo Missae in Latin is invalid;
C) His Holiness John Paul II isn't pope.

It doesn't necessarily follow that those who do hold the above opinions are "schismatic," though - to be a schismatic, one must "refuse to submit to the authority of the pope or to hold communion with the members of the Church subject to him" (Attwater, A Catholic Dictionary). It would be advisable to avoid tossing the word around just to label those who you feel are in error, as an act of schism can be a complex issue concerning theology and canon law.

"The Latin Mass requires an understanding of Latin..."

Wrong. To follow the prayers, it merely requires a Missal with a translation of the Latin. Did you have to learn Latin and Aramaic as a requirement to see "The Passion," or did you simply read the subtitles?

"It is ignorance which causes issues like the protestant reformation..."

Most modern Catholics are ignorant of the dogma that the Mass is a propitiatory sacrifice offered to God the Father for both the living and the dead and instead have fallen into the Reformation mentality that the Mass is simply the Lord's Supper and a commemoration of His life, death, and Resurrection. The New Mass was created to specifically downplay the sacrificial aspect and the objective presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist as a means of pleasing Protestants.

"God doesn't care what language the Mass is in..."

That's a fairly bold assumption. If you are so quick to say that the Second Vatican Council was aided by the Holy Ghost, why are you hesitant to say that the same Spirit helped to chose Latin as the language of the Church and the Holy Mass?

Jay,

We are in agreement on this point.

"The "once saved always saved" mentality suggests that we can simply proclaim Jesus as our Lord and know we are going to heaven no matter how we live our lives after that point. I think the Bible, Jesus, and the apostles are very clear this is a false teaching.

We must abide in Him ..

Grace and Peace,

Clem

jay,
the reason the church fathers wanted the mass in latin was because it was a dead language and would not change in time -the words would not change--because truth dosnt change. God dosnt change in time only man and most of the time for the worse.the tridentine mass was aid for 1700 years al the saints and vast majority of popes said it.It is not hard to learn little 6 and 7 year old boys learn to serve at mass all the time.The most important thing is that it is a true sacrafice of GoD to GOD----now some not all novus ordo mass's are invalid ---if they use levened bread or make the host at home with brown sugar and honey.or if the young badly formed priests comming out of the novus ordo seminaries don't have the right intention.........something because of the order of and prayers during the tridentine mass is almost impossible not to have. Do you remember cain and able? able had a more perfect sacrafice he gave our lord his best and was humble-----cain did not give his best and held back and God was not pleased and only accepted ables.well the tridentine mass is so much more perfect and holy than the novus ordo mass --------just go to one it will change you.

Joe,
The mass is dependent upon God, not man. The sacrifice is not a human sacrifice (like Cain's or Able's), but a divine one. Therefore, the validity of a mass does not derive from the language it is in or the intentions of the priest. Every mass is equivalent - you cannot say one is more "holy" than another simply because of the language involved!

Remember, Christ gave the Church (not you) the authority to determine these things. Do you believe the early Church held masses in Latin?? St. Peter was a fisherman, he didn't understand Latin, much less speak it.

Think through this very well, it's basically a decision on whether to follow the path of schism laid out by Luther, not by Christ.

God bless,
Jay

Jay,

Your above comments are quite scandalous and bordering on heretical. Concerning the intention of the priest in conferring the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, the Council of Trent has decreed:

"CANON XI.-If any one saith, that, in ministers, when they effect, and confer the sacraments, there is not required the intention at least of doing what the Church does; let him be anathema." (sess. vii, On the Sacraments)

Therefore, it would be heretical to assert that "...the validity of the Mass...does not derive from the intentions of the priest." For a Sacrament of the Church to be valid, it must have the proper matter, form, minister, and intention. You may be interested in reading St. Thomas Aquinas' comments on the necessity of intention:

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/406408.htm

You also state that "every Mass is equivalent" as long as it is valid - would you assert the same concerning a Black Mass, in which the Holy Eucharist is validly confected but then desecrated according to satanic rituals? If not, then you should perhaps rethink your opinion.

"Do you believe the early Church held masses [sic] in Latin?? St. Peter was a fisherman, he didn't understand Latin, much less speak it."

Are these assumptions on your part? I would think that St. Peter, having consecrated Rome with his blood through martyrdom, would at least attempt to learn the spoken langauge of the area, don't you?

Also, it should be noted that the divers tongues which exist in the world today are a punishment from God given when the children of Adam attempted to build the Tower of Babel (Gen xi.1-9). From the beginning the earth was "of one tongue" and this should be reflected in the worship of God, which is quite literally supposed to be "Heaven on earth" and which should draw us nearer to our Creator and to perfection. It would seem that the will of God would order us to a common language in the liturgy, making the dismissal of Latin a rash judgment at the very least.

Your concluding sentence is a false dichotomy - and, again, I urge you to be more cautious in using the word "schism." It is starting to affect your credibility. Pax et bonum.

Brandon, I can’t resist responding to this.

The Canon XI you cite from the council of Trent states that the Priest, and NOT the Mass, is anathema! One might infer then, that such a Mass was not valid, but I think Jay is right – the validity of the Mass depends on the promises of God, not the intentions of the Priest.

Re: the Black Mass. I don’t think Jay had anything else in mind other than the Roman Catholic Mass – not the Black Mass, nor even Mozart’s Requiem Mass. You draw a comparison that he never intended.

Re: the various tongues as punishment in Gen 11; again, you might infer that God intended to punish, but the text is anything but clear that it is intended as punishment. In fact, the text indicates that it was (only) strategy to keep humans from being able to build the Tower and from doing “whatever they presume to do” and not a punishment.

If we humans were from the beginning supposed to speak only one language, then it must be Hebrew!

Everybody knows that God spoke/speaks Hebrew. ;-)

Hevenu shalom aleichem!

Absurd. The Council of Trent dogmatically defined that anyone who denies that the intention of the minister is necessary for the confection of the Sacraments, including the Holy Eucharist, is condemned by the Church. Your argument is a non sequitur and your conclusions are contrary to Catholic teaching.

The example of the Black Mass is very apt, given that Jay's argument essentially boiled down to "As long as it's valid, it's okay!" which is erroneous. Do you not think that God is offended by indifference, irreverence, and sacrilege?

Concerning the Tower of Babel, God was displeased with the efforts of man which had pride for their motive ("Let us make our name famous"), so He inflicted the people with the "confoundment of tongues" that saw the end to their schemes. The inference of a punishment is valid given that the act was displeasing to God and contrary to His will and necessitated the imposition of a penalty. Regardless, it was in the beginning that God created man "of one tongue"; it was only after the incident at Sennaar that man was found with "divers tongues." The words of Our Lord - "From the beginning, it was not so" - come to mind.

Hebrew is the language retained by the Jews in their religious services today - but God's True Church was guided to use the Latin language, as was only appropriate given the establishment of Rome as the Holy See.

Brandon, I respond in turn below to your points very briefly, and in [[brackets]]. This will be my final response to you as I’ve no doubt that Jay is able to evince a much better response than I.
___________________________
Absurd. The Council of Trent dogmatically defined that anyone who denies that the intention of the minister is necessary for the confection of the Sacraments, including the Holy Eucharist, is condemned by the Church. Your argument is a non sequitur and your conclusions are contrary to Catholic teaching.

[[What you may perceive as a non-sequitur is no more than a vigilant text-specificity that you apparently lack both in your interpretation of Church teaching(s), and – given your strained disinterring of punishment from the narrative in Gen 11 - in your interpretation of Sacred Scripture.]]

The example of the Black Mass is very apt, given that Jay's argument essentially boiled down to "As long as it's valid, it's okay!" which is erroneous. Do you not think that God is offended by indifference, irreverence, and sacrilege?

[[Tenuous rhetoric thrives on naming your opponent’s intentions falsely. I suspect that you honestly don’t believe that Jay was comparing the Catholic Mass to the Black Mass, let alone that he thinks the latter to be legitimate. But it serves your rhetoric well to portray it thusly.]]

Concerning the Tower of Babel, God was displeased with the efforts of man which had pride for their motive ("Let us make our name famous"), so He inflicted the people with the "confoundment of tongues" that saw the end to their schemes. The inference of a punishment is valid given that the act was displeasing to God and contrary to His will and necessitated the imposition of a penalty. Regardless, it was in the beginning that God created man "of one tongue"; it was only after the incident at Sennaar that man was found with "divers tongues." The words of Our Lord - "From the beginning, it was not so" - come to mind. [[cf. above]]

Hebrew is the language retained by the Jews in their religious services today - but God's True Church was guided to use the Latin language, as was only appropriate given the establishment of Rome as the Holy See.

[[Not much comes to mind as a response to this absurdity, save that Hebrew is the language of our “Old Testament” – not Latin! But this sort of assertion is simply ludicrous – i.e. that God prefers worship in one language over another. I only find it amusing to respond as I have. When I am no longer amused, and I’m not amused any longer, I will defer to others.]]

[[Baruch atah Adonai Elohenu melech ha olam!
Erev tov!]]

Jack,

If you don't believe the minister's intention is necessary for valid confection of the Sacraments, you are condemned by the Church. My reference to a Black Mass (which is valid) was meant to prove a point about the importance of what surrounds the valid confection of the Holy Eucharist - the liturgy - but that seems to have completely flown over your head. Labelling my inference of punishment a "strained disinterring" is not only poor use of the English language (I brought the inference to light with excessive effort?), it is also not an argument and merely a means of dismissing my contention. Latin is the official language of the Catholic Church, whether you realize it or not, and its perennial use in the most holy act done by man upon the face of the earth, the Sacrifice of the Mass, should indicate to you that God, Who has instituted but one True Church, has a preference for the language. Some suggestions for you:

1) Learn what is meant by the canons of the various Church councils when they state: "If any one say that X, let him be anathema," and realize that dogmatic decrees are self-explanatory and universally applicable.

2) Get a basic catechism written before 1965 and try to grasp the concept of what is required for the valid confection of the Sacraments.

3) Understand that debates over Scriptural interpretations must include intelligent arguments and reasoning, not simply smarmy insults.

4) Read the following quote from Pope Pius IX with deliberation:

"For the Church, precisely because it embraces all nations and is destined to endure until the end of time...of its very nature requires a language which is universal, immutable, and non-vernacular."

Well then Brandon...

I stand condemned! (let my fellow Catholic readers here who know me, understand!) :-)

Will you pray for mercy for my tormented soul?? ;-)

Shalom!

Jack,

You seem to think that it is a light matter when the Council of Trent levels excommunication against those who dare defy its dogmatic teachings - but I assure you, it is not. You cannot claim ignorance, so it stands that you are culpable of despising a teaching of the Church. I'm really rather saddened that you decided to intervene in this posting, as at least Jay, to whom I was originally responding, seems to take his religion seriously.

First Brandon, I’ve not defied anything the Council of Trent teaches about the Mass. I function neither as a celebrant of Mass(es), nor do I dare to think I can read the mind of a celebrant – and so test his “intention” before I attend Mass. Nor, I will add, do I disregard the possibility that there may indeed exist extraordinarily gifted persons (like yourself perhaps?) who can simply look at a priest and know his intentions. The absurdity here is intended.

Second, I’ve claimed no ignorance nor do I despise the teaching of the Church. The difference between you and I is that I recognize the promises of God to dwell within the teachings of Mother Church, and so within the teachings of Vatican II – thus, within the entirety of Scripture and Tradition.

Finally, I find it excruciatingly difficult to believe that you are genuinely saddened by anything YOU think that I THINK about the teachings of Trent, let alone my "intervention" on a weblog discussion. Was it Qoheleth who said, "If you can't stand the heat..." or something like that. This is a weblog Brandon!

And I can only suppose it is, again, your mind-reading ability that makes it possible for you to conclude (and about someone you’ve never even met no less!!) that I do not take my religion seriously.

It is discourse like this that unveils the ugliness of your brand of apologetics, and to an extent, any brand of apologetics the goal of which is not to offer the Truth as best as possible – but to “wipe the floor” with one’s “opponent(s)”, and so claim victory that is really nothing more than the gratifying of what may indeed be a crippled self-image.

Eti gar Christos onton hemon asthenon eti kata kairon hyper asebon apethanen!
Eirene!

I really think God speaks koine Greek, not Latin!

YOU:
"...the validity of the Mass depends on the promises of God, not the intentions of the priest."

COUNCIL OF TRENT:
"If any one saith that, in ministers, when they effect and confer the Sacraments, there is not required the intention of at least doing what the Church does; let him be anathema."

So what am I to think?

Ok ok Brandon.

To follow suit...

COUNCIL OF TRENT (kata Brandon):"If any one saith that, in ministers, when they effect and confer the Sacraments, there is not required the intention of at least doing what the Church does; let him be anathema."

YOU:"Therefore, it would be heretical to assert that "...the validity of the Mass...does not derive from the intentions of the priest." For a Sacrament of the Church to be valid, it must have the proper matter, form, minister, and intention."

What are you to think? Obviously, you will think whatever you like. But I will stick with what Trent implied about the question under discussion - whether or not a Mass is valid despite a priests "intentions." [It is after all, addressing the issue of the Priest, not the Mass].

Since Trent said "let 'HIM' be anathema", i.e. the Priest, and NOT the Mass, or something of the kind, I'll stick with that. You are free to read into Trent what you like, and you no doubt will, and in fact, do.

Please refrain from sadness. Life is far too short.

Pax!

The Council of Trent condemns ANYONE who holds that the minister's intention of doing what the Church does is NOT NECESSARY for valid confection of the Holy Eucharist or any of the other Sacraments - this is what is meant by "let him be anathema." The Holy Council is cursing or anathematizing those who hold the contrary opinion to its dogmatic teaching concerning the necessity of intention. This very means of isolating and condemning error can be found from the earliest inception of the Church, as St. Paul used it in his Epistle to the Galatians:

"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema" (i.8)

Here he is taking the same approach: "If X does Y, then let them be condemned." This language can be found in all the Holy Councils of the Church, up until the Second Vatican Council. Here is another example from the Council of Trent concerning the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass:

"CANON I. If anyone says that in the Mass a true and real sacrifice is not offered to God, or that the act of offering is nothing else than Christ being given to us to eat: let him be anathema." (sess. xxii On the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass)

Therefore, if you were to make the statement: "I don't believe the Mass is a sacrifice - I believe it is better termed a commemorative meal offered in rememberance of Our Lord's life, death, and Resurrection," you would be under the condemnation of the Church. Good day.

For starters Brandon (and enders as this “discourse” is now a waste of time), I thought we already established that I was accursed, condemned, anathema! As I asked before – when you’re finished wiping the floor with me, celebrating your apologetic victory – please pray for my tormented soul, will you?

YOU (citing something??): “Therefore, if you were to make the statement: "I don't believe the Mass is a sacrifice - I believe it is better termed a commemorative meal offered in remembrance of Our Lord's life, death, and Resurrection," you would be under the condemnation of the Church. Good day.”

But I haven’t made such a statement.

We are all really better off having someone like you around to point out our errors, and make sure that we know that you know that we are all condemned by the Church.

Got to go now. I’m late for Mass. Yeah, even though I am condmened to eternal perdition by my Church, I still like to go to Mass. Oh, rats! Its not in Latin! Just can't win!!!!

The END!

Shalom

You stopped making sense a few posts ago, so I'm glad to see you're parting, albeit on a sarcastic note.

Brandon,
Just to point out an error you're making, that Council of Trent line you quote doesn't say that the priest's sins or personal issues or even language matter on the validity of the mass. It simply says that the priest must intend to say a mass. I think virtually every priest qualifies under this when he approaches the altar, don't you?

Above I said the "intentions of the priest" don't matter, but I didn't imply that a priest who didn't intend to say the mass still says a valid mass. I simply meant that the priest personal holiness has no effect on the mass.

Now, please quote me a passage from the Bible or one of the Church councils that says non-Latin masses are invalid.

God bless,
Jay

Jay,

The priest must have the intention of doing what the Church does in order for the Sacrament to be valid. The solemn Magisterium, St. Thomas Aquinas, and I are all in agreement on this. From St. Thomas:

"On the contrary, what is unintentional happens by chance. But this cannot be said of the sacramental operation. Therefore the sacraments require the intention of the minister.

I answer that, when a thing is indifferent to many uses, it must needs be determined to one, if that one has to be effected. Now those things which are done in the sacraments, can be done with various intent; for instance, washing with water, which is done in baptism, may be ordained to bodily cleanliness, to the health of the body, to amusement, and many other similar things. Consequently, it needs to be determined to one purpose, i.e. the sacramental effect, by the intention of him who washes. And this intention is expressed by the words which are pronounced in the sacraments; for instance the words, 'I baptize thee in the name of the Father,' etc."

As I said previously, for a Sacrament to be validly confected, it must have the proper matter, form, minister, and intention. Regarding the Holy Eucharist: the matter must be unleaven wheat bread and grape wine; the form must be "This is My Body" for the Consecration of the bread and "This is the chalice of My Blood, of the new and eternal testament, the mystery of faith, which shall be shed for you and for many, to the remission of sins" for the Consecration of the wine; the minister must be a validly ordained priest; and the intention must be to do as the Church does, that is, to substantially change the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Our Lord. There is some contention as to how explicit this intention must be, but most theologians view that the proper form expresses the intent of the Church and therefore the minister is understood to have the proper intention when he makes use of it. It should be understood, however, that those who make use of the form but yet have an express intent to not do what the Church does (e.g. if the celebrant believed that "transignification" occurred, whereby Christ is thereafter "signified" by the Holy Eucharist, instead of being objectively and substantially present), it would be extremely doubtful that the Sacrament is valid.

The contention does not revolve around the personal holiness of the priest, whether or not the form is in Latin, etc. I hope this clarifies my position. Pax et bonum.

Brandon and Jay,

I would find this all amusing if it weren't sad.
You have one side condemming V1 & V2 as boarding
on heretical and at the very least bad for the
RCC. And according to Brandon everyone who is not a Catholic in Good standing being an anathama
and banished to the fires of hell with no hope
of Salvation .....

Tell me what gives this counsil the Right to condemn anyone to hell... Let's take God and Jesus out of the equation. They won't need to judge anyone... It's all cut and dried according
to the council of Trent. They have judged anyone not belonging to their group to the fires
of hell with no hope ....

They have now taken the place of Jesus and God as the Judge as it clearly teaches in scripture. Yet you guys Close your eyes to the error of their statement. Was the Holy Spirit in that decission? keep holding onto the verse that the gates of hell won't prevail against HIS church.. It is a true statement but it has conditions.

You seen to forget a very HUGE condition to that
promise... The church must be faithful... You
talk about the church being one, then condemn anyone not in your group to hell by proclaimation of a church counsil.

All I can say is I am glad that I will not be
standing before Brandon, or the Pope or the
counsil of Trent on Judgment Day...

I will be standing before a merciful and Loving
God who sent His Son to die for me.. I have
confidence in GOD and I know that He will keep
His promises.. If I lived my life for Him I KNOW
HE will welcome me into heaven... And He won't
make me wait in the vestibule (Purgatory) for
an undetermined amount of time... Either I will
get in or I won't..

And you say there is no divsion in the RCC...
It's pre-vatican 1 & 2 versus Vatican 1 & 2.
Of course you will not admitt that there is a
problem, But it is clear from this BLOG that everyone is not a happy camper..

Very Interesting,

Clem

Clem,

Three points:

1) No one, to my knowledge, has said a word about Vatican I "boarding [sic] on heretical." My disagreements are with the Second Vatican Council, its ambiguities, and the resulting pastoral changes which have wrecked havoc in the Church. If you'd like to get into the nuances of this argument, a rudimentary knowledge of the Catholic Faith would be an asset.

2) "Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus" is a defined dogma of the Catholic Faith - "Outside the Church, there is no salvation." As the Catholic Encyclopedia states:

"This doctrine of the absolute necessity of union with the Church was taught in explicit terms by Christ. Baptism, the act of incorporation among her members, He affirmed to be essential to salvation. 'He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: he that believeth not shall be condemned' (Mark, xvi, 16). Any disciple who shall throw off obedience to the Church is to be reckoned as one of the heathen: he has no part in the Kingdom of God (Matt., xviii, 17). St. Paul is equally explicit. 'A man that is a heretic,' he writes to Titus, 'after the first and second admonition avoid, knowing that he that is such a one is . . . condemned by his own judgment' (Tit., iii, 10 sq.). The doctrine is summed up in the phrase, Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. This saying has been the occasion of so many objections that some consideration of its meaning seems desirable. It certainly does not mean that none can be saved except those who are in visible communion with the Church. The Catholic Church has ever taught that nothing else is needed to obtain justification than an act of perfect charity and of contrition. Whoever, under the impulse of actual grace, elicits these acts receives immediately the gift of sanctifying grace, and is numbered among the children of God. Should he die in these dispositions, he will assuredly attain heaven. It is true such acts could not possibly be elicited by one who was aware that God has commanded all to join the Church, and who nevertheless should willfully remain outside her fold. For love of God carries with it the practical desire to fulfill His commandments. But of those who die without visible communion with the Church, not all are guilty of willful disobedience to God's commands. Many are kept from the Church by Ignorance. Such may be the case of numbers among those who have been brought up in heresy. To others the external means of grace may be unattainable. Thus an excommunicated person may have no opportunity of seeking reconciliation at the last, and yet may repair his faults by inward acts of contrition and charity."

If you wish to hold to the silly statement that the Church is acting contrary to Scripture when it condemns errors and excommunicates those who hold them, you would have to level the same charge against St. Paul, who said to the Galatians (as I quoted above):

"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema" (i.8)

3) Your "confidence" is not in God so much as it is in yourself, as you make yourself and your intepretation of Scripture, the Church Fathers, etc, the final authority. You'll note that when a question of doctrine arises, I don't necessarily take the initiative and attempt to discern God's truth from my own reason, but instead I defer to the Church's perennial teaching which reflects the teaching of the Apostles and Our Lord. Revelation has been given to us from above - it is not something we must discern, but something we must assent to as coming from God. To this end, Christ instituted a Church, so that all may know His Doctrine and come to sanctification. The Church, prefigured by Noe's Ark, is the only means of salvation and outside of Her is nothing but the seas of error.

As a question for you: When St. Judes speaks of his contemporaries who "perished in the contradiction of Core" (11), what was the fundamental error he was speaking of? I look forward to your answer.

Brandon,

Maybe I am not as knowledgable about the Catholic
Faith as you appear to be but there is no need to
be condesending and sarcastic.

You can leave out the Latin and the $5 words..
We all know you have this high education...
You don't need to flaunt it ...

You can judge me and claim that I don't trust in
God and that I trust in myself. You don't know me
and unless you are GOD which is the way you come
off in your posts you can not know my heart...
Only the One true God knows me and I am comfortable letting HIM be my Judge.

Brandon, you disagree with Jay and many others on this BLOG.. You never stand corrected or concede
a point.... You are always right and every one
else is always wrong... You have an answer for everything...

I read Jude, I am using the NASB version of the
bible. I am not sure what you are asking.

Here is verse 11 -11 Woe to them! For they have gone the way of Cain , and for pay they have rushed headlong into the error of Balaam , and perished in the rebellion of Korah .
New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995

So all Protestants and people who disagree with your position have gone the way of Cain and have
rushed into the error of Balaam. Fine....

The church and Brandon are always right and the rest of the world is wrong ... I can not have
a dialogue with you ..

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree
and leave it at that.... As I said I AM Trusting
in God , NOT myself and your opinion on that point
is your opinion ...

Clem

Brandon,

I too am not impressed with your $5 words and your knowledge of Catholic teaching.

You stated, “I don't necessarily take the initiative and attempt to discern God's truth from my own reason, but instead I defer to the Church's perennial teaching which reflects the teaching of the Apostles and Our Lord. Revelation has been given to us from above - it is not something we must discern, but something we must assent to as coming from God. To this end, Christ instituted a Church, so that all may know His Doctrine and come to sanctification.”

So you agree with the Church’s teaching from Vatican II then? . . .

I suggest you take your own advice.

“Do not judge, or you too will judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye.’ When all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You HYPOCRITE, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.” Matthew 7:1-5 (Emphasis mine.)

I’m sorry but you have no standing here to condemn anyone, especially when you yourself are doing the very same thing you are condemning. In fact by your own condemnation of others you are the one who is on very shaky ground.

Grace, Peace, and Truth

Thomas

Brandon,

As an aside, I agree with you as you so eloquently point out that the Church clearly taught one set of teaching Pre-Vatican II and another Post-Vatican II. What conclusions are we to draw from this? The only conclusion that I dra