Scenarios of a nuclear war

[Sean Osborne]

I would never bother or even consider the waste my time to debate such an issue. There is nothing to debate. I have never and will never debate any "church" doctrine. Period.

[Honza Malina]

Sound Biblical exegesis is one thing and is usually composed by a well studied believer.

Again, the only point of contention was and remains Honza's insistence the an individual does not truly acquire salvation unless he/she becomes a practicing Catholic. That is wrong, incorrect and non-Biblical when he wrote it and when reiterated it always will be wrong, incorrect non-Biblical rubbish in the future. Such a view is forevermore non-supportable, un-defendable nonsense.

Sean, Our Lord instituted His Church by giving mandate to teach to the Apostols as said in St. Matthew 28:16-20.

16 And the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them. 17 And seeing them they adored: but some doubted. 18 And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. 19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

Note 18 "All power"... See here the warrant and commission of the apostles and their successors, the bishops and pastors of Christ's church. He received from his Father all power in heaven and in earth: and in virtue of this power, he sends them (even as his Father sent him, St. John 20. 21) to teach and disciple, not one, but all nations; and instruct them in all truths: and that he may assist them effectually in the execution of this commission, he promises to be with them, not for three or four hundred years only, but all days, even to the consummation of the world. How then could the Catholic Church ever go astray; having always with her pastors, as is here promised, Christ himself, who is the way, the truth, and the life. St. John 14.

---------------

Now about the Holy Communion:

Holy Gospel of St. John 6 : 51-60

51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven. 52 If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. 53 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 54 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. 55 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.

54 "Eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood"... To receive the body and blood of Christ, is a divine precept, insinuated in this text; which the faithful fulfil, though they receive but in one kind; because in one kind they receive both body and blood, which cannot be separated from each other. Hence, life eternal is here promised to the worthy receiving, though but in one kind. Ver. 52. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh for the life of the world. Ver. 58. He that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. Ver. 59. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever.

56 For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. 57 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. 58 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. 59 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever. 60 These things he said, teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum.

------------------

Another part of St. John 6:


61 Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it? 62 But Jesus, knowing in himself, that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you? 63 If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 64 It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life. 65 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning, who they were that did not believe, and who he was, that would betray him.

63 "If then you shall see"... Christ by mentioning his ascension, by this instance of his power and divinity, would confirm the truth of what he had before asserted; and at the same time correct their gross apprehension of eating his flesh, and drinking his blood, in a vulgar and carnal manner, by letting them know he should take his whole body living with him to heaven; and consequently not suffer it to be as they supposed, divided, mangled, and consumed upon earth.

64 "The flesh profiteth nothing"... Dead flesh separated from the spirit, in the gross manner they supposed they were to eat his flesh, would profit nothing. Neither doth man's flesh, that is to say, man's natural and carnal apprehension, (which refuses to be subject to the spirit, and words of Christ,) profit any thing. But it would be the height of blasphemy, to say the living flesh of Christ (which we receive in the blessed sacarament, with his spirit, that is, with his soul and divinity) profiteth nothing. For if Christ's flesh had profited us nothing, he would never have taken flesh for us, nor died in the flesh for us.

64 "Are spirit and life"... By proposing to you a heavenly sacrament, in which you shall receive, in a wonderful manner, spirit, grace, and life, in its very fountain.
66 And he said: Therefore did I say to you, that no man can come to me, unless it be given him by my Father. 67 After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him. 68 Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away? 69 And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. 70 And we have believed and have known, that thou art the Christ, the Son of God.

-------------
In Christ and Mary

Honza

[Sean Osborne]

Sean, I am only a humble servant of the Lord, I put my salvation into the hands of Our Blessed Mother

Nowhere in the Bible does it say a single word, not one iota about Mary having jack-diddley-squat to do with the salvation of humanity.

Not a single word - zip, nada, nessuno, niente.

Salvation is through the Blood of Christ and the Blood of Christ alone. Period.

Jesus said "I am the way, the truth and the life. No man comes to the Father but by me."

Even Jesus' own words deny any salvation-ralated power or ability through his earthy mother.

This Mary nonsense is false doctrine simply because it is man-made rubbish.

[Sean Osborne]

...you can disagree with me, that doesn't matter, but you cannot disagree with Our Lord.

If you dare, you are putting youself outside His Mystical Body Church, and therefore you cannot be saved.....

See... this just the type of abject BS I have been talking about.

How dare you consider yourself worthy and able to speak for the Jesus Christ and then execute summary judgement on a fellow human being - Jesus Christ is the sole Judge and executor of Divine Salvation.

You are pathetic.

I also do not need your impertinent lecture on what Catholicism is - my wife and sons are Catholics - and I do not have a problem with them one iota - their faith is correct - yours is extremist and Biblically unsound as I pointed out above.

Therefore, having read what you wrote above I see no further need to read anything - not a single word - further of what you have to say.

This thread is now on my ignore list.

[Aplomb]

I want to address the comment that you made, Honza, about those who get angry. Anger is a human emotion that is not absent in any human being unless there are brain function issues going on in that person. Even Jesus himself experienced anger. The Bible says not to sin when you are angry. Anger can be a very positive thing, in fact, leading to action that changes things for the better. Controlling one's temper is a commendable thing, and there are consequences for lacking such control in many cases, but not being angry does not confirm one's belief in Christ nor is it proof that the grace of God is in that person/Traditional Catholic.

Honza, with all due respect, I'd like to take issue with you about this idea that those outside of the Catholic Church are unable to be saved. God is bigger than that. It is He who is the judge of who is and isn't saved. His acceptance and love for us knows no bounds. Even in the Bible, there are many instances of reaching out to the lost for the love of lost human beings in order to save them (us). In those Biblical passages, there was no mention of the Catholic Church. We are not judged by what we don't know, but by what we do know. God's grace is abundant to those who do are in ignorance and in all honesty each and every one of us is ignorant of something and unable to know all things concerning the ways of our Lord.

Okay, here's something to explain salvation possibility outside the Catholic Church that you may find useful in your understanding of what our Church teaches:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/OUTSID.TXT

Many of the broad texts of the Fathers were given in response to a charge
by the pagans: If the Church and Christ are necessary, why did He come so
late, and neglect countless millions born before His time? The first
attested instance of this claim comes from the pagan Celsus, in his "True
Discourse," probably to be dated 178 A.D. Origen quotes Celsus: "Did God
then after so great an age think of making the life of man just, but
before He did not care?"[31]

We cannot help thinking of St. Paul himself, who in Rom 3:29-30 asks: "Is
He the God of the Jews alone? Is He not also (the God) of the gentiles?
Yes, also of the gentiles. For it is one (and the same) God who makes
righteous the circumcision (Jews) on the basis of faith, and
uncircumcision (non-Jews) through faith." In other words: If God had not
provided for those who did not come to know His old revelation, He would
seem not to act as their God. The same, of course, applies to the period
after Christ, for St. Paul insists with repeated vehemence in Rom 5:15-19
that the redemption is much more abundant than the fall. If God had made
provision before Christ, and then left men worse off after Christ, the
redemption would be, for such men, not superabundant, but a harsh
disaster.

Long before Celsus and before any known literary pagan attacks on Christ,
Pope St. Clement had written to Corinth c. 94. A.D.

Let us go through all generations, and learn that in generation and
generation the Master has given a place of repentance to those willing to
turn to Him. Noah preached repentance, and those who heard him were saved.
Jonah preached repentance to the Ninivites; those who repented for their
sins appeased God in praying, and received salvation, even though they
were aliens (allotrioi) of God.[32]

That is, they did not formally belong to His People of God.

The most suggestive texts come from St. Justin the Martyr, who also wrote
before Celsus, but anticipated the objection of Celsus. In his "First
Apology" he says he will answer in advance the claim that those who lived
before Christ were not answerable: "Christ is the Logos (Divine Word) of
whom the whole race of men partake. Those who lived according to Logos are
Christians, even if they were considered atheists, such as, among the
Greeks, Socrates and Heraclitus."[33] Light on what Justin means by this
comes in his "Second Apology" 10:8: "Christ . . . was and is the Logos who
is in everyone, and foretold through the prophets the things that were to
come, and taught these things in person after becoming like to us in
feeling." Similarly in "Second Apology" 13.3, after speaking of Plato, the
Stoics and others: "For each of them, through part of the Divine Logos,
seeing what was cognate to it (syngenes) to it, spoke well."[34]

Danielou gives a helpful interpretation. He holds that Justin borrows
Stoic terminology, so as to say that in each man there is a "seed of the
Logos" (sperma tou logou), resulting from the action of the Logos which
gives the seed (spermatikos logos). For the Stoics, the Logos is the
immanent principle of all reason, of which the rational faculty in each
man is a manifestation: "It is the action of this Logos which gives to
each man the capacity to form certain moral and religious concep- tions. .
. . That which Socrates and Heraclitus knew is in fact
the Word."[35] They knew it partially and obscurely. But yet, Justin does
not mean a difference in the content of the truth they saw and the truth
that came through revelation. Danielou adds: "The difference is solely one
of fullness, certainty, clarity."

We can certainly agree with Danielou that Justin the philosopher utilized
the language and even to some extent the framework of ideas borrowed from
Stoicism. But we believe, as we shall say later on, that there is still
greater depth to Justin's thought. He had seen many philosophies, and now
wants to use them in the service of Christ,[36] but without being a merely
natural philosopher. The real basis of Justin's thought is probably Romans
2:14-16, in which Paul tells us that God, or the Spirit of God, or of
Christ, writes the law on hearts, even the hearts of pagans, i.e., makes
known to each one what he should do. (Anthropology today agrees: pagans
do know the moral law surprisingly well.) Those who follow the law written
on hearts by the Spirit, do follow the Logos, and so can be saved, as Rom
2:16 says. Hence Hacker is not right in saying: "Justin is silent on the
possibility for pious gentiles to reach final consummation in
eternity."[37] If Justin says Socrates was Christian, and lived by the
Logos, how can such a Christian fail to reach the goal? Again, Rom 2:16
speaks of this final consummation at the judgment.

[Honza Malina]

Nowhere in the Bible does it say a single word, not one iota about Mary having jack-diddley-squat to do with the salvation of humanity.

Not a single word - zip, nada, nessuno, niente.

Salvation is through the Blood of Christ and the Blood of Christ alone. Period.

Jesus said "I am the way, the truth and the life. No man comes to the Father but by me."

Even Jesus' own words deny any salvation-ralated power or ability through his earthy mother.

This Mary nonsense is false doctrine simply because it is man-made rubbish.

Mary was coronated as the Queen of Heaven by Our Lord, the message of Fatima among others shows that she was instituted as the mediatary between us, the faithful and Our Lord, that was done when she was assumed into Heaven, as a singular exception, as the Mother of God.

When Protestant rationalism cannot accept this supernatural truth, among other true revelations coming from the prophets [ as God speaks to us through the Scripture and the prophets

Epistle Of Saint Paul To The Romans
< prev | Chapter 3 | next >
21 But now without the law the justice of God is made manifest, being witnessed by the law and the prophets.

The error of Protestantism is that all of it is just symbolic, not literal, specially the Sacraments, including the Real Presence and the Holy Eucharist.

To claim that a man can put himself without God to undertake the explanation of the Bible and the Doctrine of Our Lord, is not correct, it is a heresy.

Luther, by his false pride began what many people absorbed, and as the Church, by Her Teaching Authority given to her by Our Lord Jesus Christ, declared, those who are outside the Church there's no salvation for them.

Now Our Lord said:

Who heareth you heareth me.

Since the Church is being governed by the power of the Holy Ghost, there is no mistake in doctrine, which is given to us by Our Lord.

Those who think that they can be saved outside the Catholic Church [tradition keeping, not the Novus Ordo Protestant cult], are simply in error and will learn at the last judgment.

Sean, I told you before, you don't have to read it, but you were the one chalenging me to "read the Scripture".

I showed you many examples from the Bible which the Protestants don't follow, you have disregarded them and now you're accusing me and leaving the field.

This is the fulfilment of Our Lord's prophecy when he said that "they will force you out of the Synagogues.....".

God is only one in 3 Devine Persons, there is no other religion which can bring a man to salvation than the Catholic Church, instituted, unlike the men-made Protestant religions, by Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Therefore those who dare to explain Our Lord's doctrine and teachings by themselves, not having the Teaching Authority of the Church of Christ - the One, Holy, Apostolic Catholic Church [traditional, not the Novus Ordo], are heretics and cannot be saved.

What the Pope Eugene IV declared at the Holy Council of Florence in 1493 [I think the year was] is binding and cannot be changed by another Pope - that would make the Pope [who would dare such contradiction of the teaching of His Predecesor] a formal heretic and he would seize to be a Pope immedietaly.

To Absalm:

Honza, with all due respect, I'd like to take issue with you about this idea that those outside of the Catholic Church are unable to be saved. God is bigger than that. It is He who is the judge of who is and isn't saved. His acceptance and love for us knows no bounds. Even in the Bible, there are many instances of reaching out to the lost for the love of lost human beings in order to save them (us). In those Biblical passages, there was no mention of the Catholic Church. We are not judged by what we don't know, but by what we do know. God's grace is abundant to those who do are in ignorance and in all honesty each and every one of us is ignorant of something and unable to know all things concerning the ways of our Lord.

You're saying something that is a material heresy - this is not true, God instituted One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church [Apostles Creed], therefore the command is there - and if you want to confirm yourself to the false doctrines of the Modernists, they were condemned by His Holiness Pope St. Pius X in encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis.

[QUOTE]28. Thus then, Venerable Brethren, for the Modernists, both as authors and propagandists, there is to be nothing stable, nothing immutable in the Church. Nor indeed are they without precursors in their doctrines, for it was of these that Our Predecessor Pius IX wrote: These enemies of divine revelation extol human progress to the skies, and with rash and sacrilegious daring would have it introduced into the Catholic religion as if this religion were not the work of God but of man, or some kind of philosophical discovery susceptible of perfection by human efforts. On the subject of revelation and dogma in particular, the doctrine of the Modernists offers nothing new - we find it condemned in the Syllabus of Pius IX., where it is enunciated in these terms: Divine revelation is imperfect, and therefore subject to continual and indefinite progress, corresponding with the progress of human reason; and condemned still more solemnly in the Vatican Council:

The doctrine of the faith which God has revealed has not been proposed to human intelligences to be perfected by them as if it were a philosophical system, but as a divine deposit entrusted to the Spouse of Christ to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted.

Hence the sense, too, of the sacred dogmas is that which our Holy Mother the Church has once declared, nor is this sense ever to be abandoned on plea or pretext of a more profound comprehension of the truth. Nor is the development of our knowledge, even concerning the faith, impeded by this pronouncement - on the contrary it is aided and promoted. For the same Council continues:

Let intelligence and science and wisdom, therefore, increase and progress abundantly and vigorously in individuals and in the mass, in the believer and in the whole Church, throughout the ages and the centuries - but only in its own kind, that is, according to the same dogma, the same sense, the same acceptation.[/QUOTE]

I strongly suggest, before you pronounce anymore errors against the Faith, that you read this brilliant enclyclical.

I don't mean no disrespect, just want to help you see the truth and obstain yourself from false and condemned doctrines.

God Bless.

Honza

[Honza Malina]

I want to address the comment that you made, Honza, about those who get angry. Anger is a human emotion that is not absent in any human being unless there are brain function issues going on in that person. Even Jesus himself experienced anger. The Bible says not to sin when you are angry. Anger can be a very positive thing, in fact, leading to action that changes things for the better. Controlling one's temper is a commendable thing, and there are consequences for lacking such control in many cases, but not being angry does not confirm one's belief in Christ nor is it proof that the grace of God is in that person/Traditional Catholic.

Dear Aplomb,
if you read what I said again, it is little bit different than you seem to explain here.

I was implying that Sean is angy and that he is not able to address the issues calmly and that this is in contrast to what I see when I talk to our faithful for example after the Mass, when they receive the Body of Christ.

That supernatural gift to their soul is what makes them nice and calm, filled with the spirit of the Body of Christ, and therefore they partake in that devine fruit, it is a spritual food for our soul, which not only gives us the virtues of Our Lord to safeguard our immortal soul, to give us of that devine virtue so that we may be one day called children of God in Heaven.

So that those who don't gain such virtue through accepting the Holy Communion through the Tridentine Mass [not the Novus Ordo "mass" - changed words of consecration, priest facing the people instead of the altar etc.], such people don't gain the spritual kindness, piety, virtue of calm and resolved mind, quality of soul only supernatural power of Christ can supply.

So being angry is a sin, that is when people are angry without a cause, that is defending the truth [of God - I add this to make it more important].

7 capital sins and their opposite virtues:

Pride Humility
Anger Meeknes
Covetousness Liberality
Glutony Temperance
Lust Chastity
Envy Charity
Sloth Diligence

I think this explains it in full.

From the Catechism of the Holy Council of Trent:

Proof From Scripture

When our Lord says: This is my body, this is my blood, no person of sound mind can mistake His meaning, particularly since there is reference to Christ's human nature, the reality of which the Catholic faith permits no one to doubt.

The admirable words of St. Hilary, a man not less eminent for piety than learning, are apt here: When our Lord himself declares, as our faith teaches us, that His flesh is food indeed, what room can remain for doubt concerning the real presence of His body and blood?


Pastors should also adduce another passage from which it can be clearly seen that the true body and blood of our Lord are contained in the Eucharist. The Apostle, after having recorded the consecration of bread and wine by our Lord, and also the administration of Communion to the Apostles, adds: But let a man prove himself, and so eat of that bread and drink of the chalice; for he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.

If, as heretics continually repeat, the Sacrament presents nothing to our veneration but a memorial and sign of the Passion of Christ, why was there need to exhort the faithful, in language so energetic, to prove themselves?

By the terrible word judgment, the Apostle shows how enormous is the guilt of those who receive unworthily and do not distinguish from common food the body of the Lord concealed in the Eucharist.

In the same Epistle St. Paul had already developed this doctrine more fully, when he said: The chalice of benediction which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? and the bread which we break, is it not the participation of the body of the Lord ? Now these words signify the real substance of the body and blood of Christ the Lord.

And also:

Testimony Of The Fathers

The first is by consulting the Fathers who flourished in the early ages of the Church and in each succeeding century, who are the most unexceptionable witnesses of her doctrine. All of these teach in the clearest terms and with the most entire unanimity the truth of this dogma. To adduce the individual testimony of each Father would prove an endless task. It is enough, therefore, that we cite, or rather point out a few, whose testimony will afford an easy criterion by which to judge of the rest.

Let St. Ambrose first declare his faith. In his book On Those Who are Initiated Into the Mysteries he says that the true body of Christ is received in this Sacrament, just as the true body of Christ was derived from the Virgin, and that this truth is to be believed with the firm certainty of faith.

In another place he teaches that before consecration there is only bread, but after consecration there is the flesh of Christ.

St. Chrysostom, another witness of equal authority and gravity, professes and proclaims this mysterious truth in many passages, but particularly in his sixtieth homily, On Those Who Receive The Sacred Mysteries Unworthily; and also in his forty?fourth and forty?fifth homilies on St. John. Let us, he says, obey, not contradict God, although what He says may seem contrary to our reason and our sight. His words cannot deceive, our senses are easily deceived.

With this doctrine fully agrees the uniform teaching of St. Augustine, that most zealous defender of Catholic faith, particularly when in his explanation of the thirty?third Psalm he says: To carry himself in his own hands is impossible to man, and peculiar to Christ alone; He was carried in His own hands when, giving His body to be eaten, He said, This is my body.

To pass by Justin and Irenaeus, St. Cyril, in his fourth book on St. John, declares in such express terms that the true body of our Lord is contained in this Sacrament, that no sophistry, no captious interpretations can obscure his meaning.

Should pastors wish for additional testimonies of the Fathers, they will find it easy to add St. Denis,? St. Hilary, St. Jerome, St. Damascene and a host of others, whose weighty teaching on this most important subject has been collected by the labor and industry of learned and pious men.

Teaching Of The Councils

Another means of ascertaining the belief of the holy Church on matters of faith is the condemnation of the contrary doctrine and opinion.

It is manifest that belief in the Real Presence of the body of Christ in the holy Sacrament of the Eucharist was so spread and taught throughout the universal Church and unanimously professed by all the faithful, that when, five centuries ago, Berengarius presumed to deny this dogma, asserting that the Eucharist was only a sign, he was unanimously condemned in the Council of Vercelli, which Leo IX had immediately convoked, whereupon he himself anathematised his error.

Relapsing, however, into the same wicked folly, he was condemned by three different Councils, convened, one at Tours, the other two at Rome; of the two latter, one was summoned by Pope Nicholas II, the other by Pope Gregory VIII.' The General Council of Lateran, held under Innocent III, further ratified the sentence. Finally this truth was more clearly defined and established in the Councils of Florence and Trent.

But the most important is this one:

The Eucharist Contains Christ And Is The Food Of The Soul

This they will in some degree accomplish, if, having explained the efficacy and nature of all the Sacraments, they compare the Eucharist to a fountain, the other Sacraments to rivulets. For the Holy Eucharist is truly and necessarily to be called the fountain of all graces, containing, as it does, after an admirable manner, the fountain itself of celestial gifts and graces, and the author of all the Sacrament, Christ our Lord, from whom, as from its source, is derived whatever of goodness and perfection the other Sacraments possess. From this (comparison), therefore, we may easily infer what most ample gifts of divine grace are bestowed on us by this Sacrament.

It will also be useful to consider attentively the nature of bread and wine, which are the symbols of this Sacrament. For what bread and wine are to the body, the Eucharist is to the health and delight of the soul, but in a higher and better way. This Sacrament is not, like bread and wine, changed into our substance; but we are, in some wise, changed into its nature, so that we may well apply here the words
of St. Augustine:

I am the food of the frown. Grow and thou shalt eat Me; nor shalt thou change Me into thee, as thy bodily food, but thou shalt be changed into Me.


The Eucharist Gives Grace

If, then, grace and truth came by Jesus Christ, they must surely be poured into the soul which receives with purity and holiness Him who said of Himself:

He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me and I in him.

Those who receive this Sacrament piously and fervently must, beyond all doubt, so receive the Son of God into their souls as to be ingrafted as living members on His body.

For it is written: He that eateth me, the same also shall live by me;

also: The bread which I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.

Explaining this passage, St. Cyril says:

The Word of God, uniting Himself to His own flesh, imparted to it a vivifying power: it became Him, therefore, to unite Himself to our bodies in a wonderful manner, through His sacred flesh and precious blood, which we receive in the bread and wine, consecrated by His vivifying benediction.

-----------

Now since Sean is not receiving the Body of Christ in the Catholic Church, he cannot receive the grace of God contained in the Sacrament - therefore he can be angry because he's in fact depriving himself of it by his own fault..... not being Catholic.

I think this should instruct enough what is said and why it was said.

In Christ and Mary

Honza

P.S. one of the virtues is also patience.....

[Aplomb]

Very good, then, Honza, I will read and pray and be back to discuss this with you. Thank you for your response.

[Aplomb]

Honza, this study will take some time with sessions going from 1431--1445. Yet I did want to put a note here that I am in prayer about this, and I am reading and thinking about this division in Catholicism with emphasis in my study about salvation to those outside of the Roman Catholic Church. I do, however, also have some questions that will help me to further understand some of the things that I am considering. Please give me the answers to the best of your ability in a concise manner, and I will ask for additional clarification if I am in need of more detail. Thank you.

1. Who is the present Pope?

2. What was the actual purpose of the Council of Florence?

3. In the Tridentine Mass, are all of the females in your parish having their heads covered?

4. Can you make an enumerated list of the things in the Church that have changed since Vatican II which you consider heretical?

[Honza Malina]

Honza, this study will take some time with sessions going from 1431--1445. Yet I did want to put a note here that I am in prayer about this, and I am reading and thinking about this division in Catholicism with emphasis in my study about salvation to those outside of the Roman Catholic Church. I do, however, also have some questions that will help me to further understand some of the things that I am considering. Please give me the answers to the best of your ability in a concise manner, and I will ask for additional clarification if I am in need of more detail. Thank you.

1. Who is the present Pope?

2. What was the actual purpose of the Council of Florence?

3. In the Tridentine Mass, are all of the females in your parish having their heads covered?

4. Can you make an enumerated list of the things in the Church that have changed since Vatican II which you consider heretical?

Dear sir,
I will tell you from the beginning, I only go to the SSPX chappels for the Tridentine Mass, I know the SSPX Superior General His Excellency Bishop Fellay personaly, he confirmed me this year in February in accordance with the Catholic tradition.

So I am not a sedevacantist, they are simply wrong - Pope Benedict XVI IS THE POPE !

I am not exactly sure what the overall purpose of the Council of Florance was but the quote from Eugene IV is accurate, this is also the teaching of the Church Magisterium as every Catholic should know this - that outside the Church there is no salvation.

Anybody who dares to claim otherwise is a heretic !

One Church, One Baptism, One Salvation - period.

#3 - the answer is yes, because of the true respect for Our Lord and the Sacrifice of the Mass, which is a re-enactment of the Sacrifice of the Cross.
If you read your Catechism [not the Novus Ordo, the Council of Trent or the St. Pius X one for example], it is there about the true meaning of the Mass. One of the best books which deal with the problems is the book from Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre [founder of SSPX]
Open Letter to Confused Catholics.

To your question #4:

The list is very well documented in this above mentioned book, but I will mention some heresies:

1) ecumenism - dialog with other [all false] religions
2) the new mass - ambigious at the least [changed words of consecration, surpressed Ofertory, priest facing the people instead of the altar - BTW altars are replaced by Protestant tables etc.], symbolic and not celebrating OUr Lord [I have the booklet from the priests of the Diocese of Campos, Brazil - they put together about 64 point booklet showing what is seriously wrong with the new mass and why we must avoid it
3) Sacraments - again changed so they wouldn't be done properly according to tradition - the Devine Deposit of Faith given to us by Our Lord
4) The acceptance of heretics and schismatics into the Church - that is first of all the KGB run Russian Orthodox, then the Communion given to Protestant heretics etc.

5) Asisi - this fiasco when JP2 kissed the Koran and also was present in Jewish synagogue for the prayers is what makes people loose their faith - JP2 was a material heretic,. just read his Ecclesia Dei letter to Archbishop Lefebvre, there are so many doctrinal errors, heresies and blasphemies that it is a shame that such letter was even written.

Everething that JP2 preached was before him condemned by St. Pius X, he even excommunicated priests who wouldn't give up these modernist heresies.

Just read the Pascendi enclyclical, you'll see for yourself.

Of course, extremely important enclyclical about the religious freedom [and that it is wrong and against God] is the Quanta Cura by Pius IX.


Now some Catholics wrongly believe that the Society of St. Pius X is excommunicated - but that is void. Even today's Pope, then Cardinal Ratzinger wrote one time about this, he even overturned a decree of bishop who excommunicated some faithful for going to SSPX chappels for the Tridentine Mass. [I have the data but not the time to type it here today].

I will try to deal with the Ecclesia Dei issue later on - I can demonstrate on that letter alone how wrong and heretical the Novus Ordo Modernists are.

You may also read the background of all these changes within the Church in my article Holy Crusade against Communists.

I am working on something even more explosive but have little time to finish it, perhaps soon it'll happen.

Let me know if you have any questions, I'll be glad and happy to answer what I can - remember, I don't know anything, I am just a simple man who wants to know, that's all.

God Bless.

Honza

[Honza Malina]

I would like to quote from the enclyclical Quanta Cura of Pius IX:

For you well know, venerable brethren, that at this time men are found not a few who, applying to civil society the impious and absurd principle of "naturalism," as they call it, dare to teach that "the best constitution of public society and (also) civil progress altogether require that human society be conducted and governed without regard being had to religion any more than if it did not exist; or, at least, without any distinction being made between the true religion and false ones."

And, against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that "that is the best condition of civil society, in which no duty is recognized, as attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace may require."

From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an "insanity,"2 viz., that "liberty of conscience and worship is each man's personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way."

But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching "liberty of perdition;"3 and that "if human arguments are always allowed free room for discussion, there will never be wanting men who will dare to resist truth, and to trust in the flowing speech of human wisdom; whereas we know, from the very teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, how carefully Christian faith and wisdom should avoid this most injurious babbling."4

Now as Catholics we must stand by this because this is our Faith. If anybody dares to exert otherwise he or she is simply a heretical creature opposing God, Who has never ever proclaimed in any way that the worship of Him, Our Creator, is left to us unworthy dust, to decide how we will conduct it - and this religious so called freedom is the basic principle of Protestant errors and heresies.

I have found also a Scriptural background of what I am talking about:

Fourth Book Of Kings
< prev | Chapter 22 | next >

8 And Helcias the high priest said to Saphan the scribe: I have found the book of the law in the house of the Lord: and Helcias gave the book to Saphan, and he read it. 9 And Saphan the scribe came to the king, and brought him word again concerning that which he had commanded, and said: Thy servants have gathered together the money that was found in the house of the Lord, and they have given it to be distributed to the workmen, by the overseers of the works of the temple of the Lord. 10 And Saphan the scribe told the king, saying: Helcias the priest hath delivered to me a book. And when Saphan had read it before the king,


8 "The book of the law"... That is, Deuteronomy.

11 And the king had heard the words of the law of the Lord, he rent his garments.

12 And he commanded Helcias the priest, and Ahicam the son of Saphan, and Achobor the son of Micha, and Saphan the scribe, and Asaia the king's servant, saying: 13 Go and consult the Lord for me, and for the people, and for all Juda, concerning the words of this book which is found: for the great wrath of the Lord is kindled against us, because our fathers have not hearkened to the words of this book, to do all that is written for us. 14 So Helcias the priest, and Ahicam, and Achobor, and Saphan, and Asaia went to Holda the prophetess the wife of Sellum the son of Thecua, the son of Araas keeper of the wardrobe, who dwelt in Jerusalem in the Second: and they spoke to her. 15 And she said to them: Thus saith the Lord the God of Israel: Tell the man that sent you to me:

14 "The Second"... A street, or part of the city, so called; in Hebrew, Massem.
16 Thus saith the Lord: Behold, I will bring evils upon this place, and upon the inhabitants thereof, all the words of the law which the king of Juda hath read: 17 Because they have forsaken me, and have sacrificed to strange gods, provoking me by all the works of their hands: therefore my indignation shall be kindled against this place, and shall not be quenched.

18 But to the king of Juda, who sent you to consult the Lord, thus shall you say: Thus saith the Lord the God of Israel: Forasmuch as thou hast heard the words of the book, 19 And thy heart hath been moved to fear, and thou hast humbled thyself before the Lord, hearing the words against this place, and the inhabitants thereof, to wit, that they should become a wonder and a curse: and thou hast rent thy garments, and wept before me, I also have heard thee, saith the Lord: 20 Therefore I will gather thee to thy fathers, and thou shalt be gathered to thy sepulchre in peace, that thy eyes may not see all the evils which I will bring; upon this place.

--------------

This is pretty clear what has happened. So it is not up to us to decide how we worship God and how we explain what He has already explained in unsurpassable way, using His Devine power and wisdom.

Think hard before you continue in ways which you think you may be correct.

God Bless.

Honza

[Aplomb]

Honza, thank you for shedding light on our differences. I want you to know something while I am absent from this thread to study and pray. To some, it is important to accept and cling to what they have been taught without investigating due to fear or need to belong; others argue and defend their faith boldly but w/o much substance to back it up as being correct; still other people, though knowing their own inaccuracies, continue to deceive many. I am none of these types. So please understand that upon my return, I will discuss this with you in a serious manner, for Honza, this is a serious matter. The Bible states that it profits one nothing to gain the whole world and lose his or her soul. It is of utmost importance to hold and defend that which is true concerning the things of God. The last thing I want to be is a heretic, for though I believe that Christ has mercy on me, I certainly do not want to lead others astray; to me that is a grievous offense against God. If it turns out that I have been mistaken, I will post my revealed errors right here publically. I am an honest student finding truth to be more valuable than pride or needing to belong to a certain group (family nor friends), which is why in my quest for God, I rejected other belief systems and I chose the Catholic faith.

Congratulations on your Confirmation.

[Zjeng]

For me, the funniest thing is that a small splinter group such as SSPX leaves the body, and says that it's the body that's left it. I think for one to claim that the Catholic Church has abandoned her teachings, one never held to the Catholic faith in the first place.

Throughout history, you can see whenever there's been an ecumenical council, there's always been schismatics claiming that the entire church has left the true teaching. Historically, you can see a development of doctrine that causes these schisms, and historically, you'll see that there tends to be reconciliation between schismatics and the Church. This, I believe is already happening with the SSPX group. This too, will pass.

To extrapolate on this tendency (to split because of the belief of error within the church): most of the time, the split, such as this situation is actually because of the practice or discipline not actual doctrine.

We see this with the two stipulations SSPX has forwarded to the Church as requirements for reconciliation:

1. That the Vatican make it known that every priest in the world may celebrate the Tridentine Mass without any restriction.

2. That Rome make it clear that the four bishops of the Society of St. Pius X are not excommunicated.

In the first requirement, we see that their request is not a change of teaching but a change in form/practice of how the mass is celebrated. It’s interesting to note that the request is simply to remove the restriction (the restriction is that the local bishop must approve a priest’s request to celebrate the mass in the tridentine form).

In the second, their request to reverse the excommunication is directly related to the first. The reason the four SSPX bishops were excommunicated was because they ordained or were ordained as bishops without the approval of Rome.

Now, in regard to the attacks on fellow Christians: I believe it’s easy for one to judge someone else’s salvation, if they think God follows their rules. Let’s be thankful that humans aren’t making the rules, because when it comes down to it, we’re all deserving of hell.

To say that because you don’t follow rules A, B, and C, you’re damned to hell, means you think little of God. It’s an irk I usually have with fundamentalist protestants, but in this case, we have a “man bites dog� situation. Though the Church has said that salvation is not possible outside of the church, this doesn’t exclude the fact that God is powerful enough to work outside of the sacraments. After all, when we’re all dead, we’ll see that this proclamation of the Church (that salvation is not possible outside the Church) is true, for all in heaven will be/are Catholic.

[Sean Osborne]

Now, in regard to the attacks on fellow Christians: I believe it’s easy for one to judge someone else’s salvation, if they think God follows their rules. Let’s be thankful that humans aren’t making the rules, because when it comes down to it, we’re all deserving of hell.

Zjeng,

You are exactly correct here. And this point is exactly, specifically why God, in the human flesh of Jesus of Nazareth, sacrificed Himself; that His blood would cover the sins of ALL MANKIND.

God knew from the first moment of His creation that His own sacrifice would be necessary to redeem that part of fallen from grace mankind which would accept of their own free will His gift of renewed grace through redemption from the initial deception of Lucifer - the result of which is absolute death. See Genesis 3:15

To say that because you don’t follow rules A, B, and C, you’re damned to hell, means you think little of God.

The "Rules A, B and C" are the RULES OF MEN FALSLY CLAIMING TO BE THE RULES OF GOD. (i.e.: Church Doctrine and Dogma).

The "rules" of God are contained within His FAULTLESSLY INSPIRED TEXT... what we know as The Holy Bible, and through the conviction of the HOLY SPIRIT. Nothing else matters. Period.

It’s an irk I usually have with fundamentalist protestants, but in this case, we have a “man bites dog” situation.

As a non-denominational, evangelical Christian, my perspective is this:

1.) What we have here is one group of Roman Catholic adherents at odds with another group of Roman Catholic adherents.

2.) The sum of the issue between these groups of Roman Catholics is that which revolves around NON-BIBILICAL doctrine and dogma - (i.e.: the dictates of fallible mankind). It is of no consequence of mine or any other Christian on the face of this earth, now or ever.

It does however initmately concern myself and other Christian's when NON-BIBLICAL DOCTRINE AND DOGMA deny and boldly contradict the inspired Word of God; deny and contradict the whole cloth of redemption in the Blood of the Lamb; and futhermore lay the claim to deny salvation for any man or woman based upon his/her acceptance of or distinct lack thereof to the fallible doctrines and dogma of other men organized in a "CHURCH".

THAT POSITION IS ABSOLUTLY WORTHLESS AND A DECEPTION IN THE EXTREME.

In colloquial terms, it is absolute BULLSHIT.

... the Church has said ... salvation is not possible outside of the church

THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU!!!

I thank you for finally admitting here that which most non-Catholic believers have known and endured for centuries.

This is the anathema I have spoken of before.

This is the chasm defined between Catholicism and the entire rest of the CHRISTIAN WORLD - [ i.e: "The Body of Christ, a/k/a the Bride of Christ.]


Therefore, the Catholic Church is dead wrong on this issue. This issue is the specifically non-Biblical nonsense and hogwash to which I VEHEMENTLY OBJECT and will ABSOLUTELY DENY TO ALL WHO WILL LISTEN. IT IS HERESY AGAINST THE WORD OF GOD; IT IS BLASPHEMOUS IN THE EXTREME.

PERIOD.

[Zjeng]

Hello Sean,

Okay, here’s the deal, you’re right on some issues (of course you are because you’ve agreed with me on them), however, you need some catechism. And I think you’ll understand where I’m coming from (it may even help the schismatics a bit). I did say salvation was possible outside the Catholic Church, I also said that all in heaven would be catholic. I’ll expand on this apparent contradiction in a bit.

Let’s begin with your first response to one of my quotes: “The 'Rules A, B and C' are the RULES OF MEN FALSLY CLAIMING TO BE THE RULES OF GOD. (i.e.: Church Doctrine and Dogma).�

There’s an essential difference between Doctrine / Dogma (these are teachings) and Discipline (these are rules / customs). The rules or customs (which I’ll simply call discipline(s) of the church are directly determined by doctrine / dogma (which I’ll refer to as teachings). This means that teachings directly influence discipline. Disciplines can change based on what the flock needs in regard to learning the teachings of the Church.

Now, this does not exclude the development of teachings (the more familiar term is development of doctrine). An example of this is the development of the dogma of the Trinity (as defined by what we know as the Nicene Creed):

The catalyst of the Arian heresy, Arius clamed that (and I’m paraphrasing here) ‘there was a time when Christ was not’ gave rise to the council of Nicea I. This led to first part of the Nicene Creed: …�begotten, not made…� and to designate the full divinity and full humanity of Christ (Homoousios). Then later, you had the council of Constantinople (by which time the full Liturgical form of the creed was complete, and thus, too, the bones of the Trinity)

So, to recap your quote which equates “..rules A, B, and C…� with “…Church Doctrine and Dogma…’ is in error. And I hope my clarification helped explain the difference.

Now, on the meat of this discussion (salvation outside of the Catholic Church):

This is a development of doctrine, after all, before the protestant reformation, there was only one Church… it was the Catholic Church. So, in the past, it would’ve made sense that salvation was not possible outside of the Catholic Church. So, of course as time passed and the Church was able to reflect on it’s new situation (it’s relationship with the Protestant & Orthodox Christians), this understanding of “salvation outside of the church� developed (I might add, that I don’t think it’s finished developing yet – you’ll see why in a sec).

So, yes, in a quite general way of understanding this: Only Catholics will be in heaven. This is a pun – because those in heaven will all be Universal (catholic is greek, meaning universal). This even means God is Catholic!!!
How would a non-catholic or even a non-Christian, have the possibility of being saved? St. Paul tells us that even the Greek philosophers were cooperating with the Grace of God, so long as one is cooperating with the Grace of God, they have a possibility of being saved. Yes, some may try to argue that this is unbiblical, well think about it this way: Would an aborted or still born baby go to hell because they didn’t have a chance to accept Christ as his/her personal Lord and Savior?

These are hard questions which the church leaves open. And, as I’ve alluded to above, I don’t think she’s attempting to close the door on such an open question. We see the beginning of this understanding of the power of God reaching beyond the sacraments about 200 years after the death of Christ. Tertullian speaks of baptism by blood for the Christian martyrs (real martyrs, not suicide bombers – had to get that off my chest). The belief that God is not bound by the sacraments has been here for 2000 years, there are just some that forget He can do that, I think.

Pax Christi â€Â*

Oh! Also, practically speaking anathemas are reserved for those Catholics that go astray. Only Catholics are bound to Catholicism.

[Sean Osborne]

This is a development of doctrine, after all, before the protestant reformation, there was only one Church… it was the Catholic Church.

No sir. You are incorrect.

Christianity did not begin with nor does it end-all with the so-called "Catholic Church".

Christianity begins and ends with the Bride of Christ, those men and women who accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior since AD 33.

The First Christians were entirely Jews. They were not "catholic" in or of any variety. The 3,000 born-again Christians on the day of Pentecost were all JEWS.

Then came the conversion of Roman Centurian Cornelius, and of his band of men, who were baptised by the Holy Spirit and began speaking in "tongues". God immediately informed Simon Peter in a vision that he should not think profane or unclean that "What God has made clean, you must not call profane." Reference Acts 10 if you doubt my words here.

As God rebuked Peter, so are all men rebuked who dare to call un-saved those who are not "Roman Catholics". It is outrageous blasphemy against Almighty God and His Divine Sovereignty. This is a lesson your Church has either yet to learn or has blatantly ignored to date.

Paul wrote:

Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all.

Colossians 3:10

So, in the past, it would’ve made sense that salvation was not possible outside of the Catholic Church.

Wrong, and I have just proven you so by the Word of God in the Book of Acts and Colossians. You are speaking from a purely Roman Catholic doctrinal/dogmatic perspective and not from a Bible-based Christian perspective.

Things such as the nonsense propagated by Honza and reiterated by yourself above concerning the position of the Catholic Church and salvation are what caused the Reformation to begin with. THE driving force of the reformation was a return to Bible-based theology and not the nonsense the Catholic Church propagated upon the masses.


Bottom Line for myself in all of this is as follows: When I see this same un-Biblical nonsense being propagated in this forum I will not tolerate or abide in or with it for one single microsecond... Just as Jesus Christ did not abide or tolerate for one microsecond the money changers in the Temple in Jerusalem.

[Zjeng]

Okay Sean. Thank you for your input. Peace and Blessings to you.
Pax Christi â€Â*

[Sean Osborne]

Okay Sean. Thank you for your input. Peace and Blessings to you.
Pax Christi â€Â*

Zjeng,

Marana tha.

( Aramaic meaning "Come, O Lord" )

[Honza Malina]

For me, the funniest thing is that a small splinter group such as SSPX leaves the body, and says that it's the body that's left it. I think for one to claim that the Catholic Church has abandoned her teachings, one never held to the Catholic faith in the first place.

Throughout history, you can see whenever there's been an ecumenical council, there's always been schismatics claiming that the entire church has left the true teaching. Historically, you can see a development of doctrine that causes these schisms, and historically, you'll see that there tends to be reconciliation between schismatics and the Church. This, I believe is already happening with the SSPX group. This too, will pass.

To extrapolate on this tendency (to split because of the belief of error within the church): most of the time, the split, such as this situation is actually because of the practice or discipline not actual doctrine.

We see this with the two stipulations SSPX has forwarded to the Church as requirements for reconciliation:

1. That the Vatican make it known that every priest in the world may celebrate the Tridentine Mass without any restriction.

2. That Rome make it clear that the four bishops of the Society of St. Pius X are not excommunicated.

In the first requirement, we see that their request is not a change of teaching but a change in form/practice of how the mass is celebrated. It’s interesting to note that the request is simply to remove the restriction (the restriction is that the local bishop must approve a priest’s request to celebrate the mass in the tridentine form).

In the second, their request to reverse the excommunication is directly related to the first. The reason the four SSPX bishops were excommunicated was because they ordained or were ordained as bishops without the approval of Rome.

Now, in regard to the attacks on fellow Christians: I believe it’s easy for one to judge someone else’s salvation, if they think God follows their rules. Let’s be thankful that humans aren’t making the rules, because when it comes down to it, we’re all deserving of hell.

To say that because you don’t follow rules A, B, and C, you’re damned to hell, means you think little of God. It’s an irk I usually have with fundamentalist protestants, but in this case, we have a “man bites dog” situation. Though the Church has said that salvation is not possible outside of the church, this doesn’t exclude the fact that God is powerful enough to work outside of the sacraments. After all, when we’re all dead, we’ll see that this proclamation of the Church (that salvation is not possible outside the Church) is true, for all in heaven will be/are Catholic.

Dear sir,

The Vatican infested by communists and liberals, using already condemned Modernism as a tool, of course doesn't want to allow that.

I will not post here anymore so you are free to blame the tradition as you please,

In Christo et Mariam

Honza

[Zjeng]

...what you have just posted is not true.
Which part exactly, isn't true?

The point is - either you know what Catholic Faith is and what it means to be a Catholic, or you don't and then you submit to this Protestantism which is rampant today within the Novus Ordo Church.
I'd agree, but you take this to a fundamentalist's level. I submit myself, to the Body of Christ, his Church, and in this way, I'm fully confident that I'm also submitting myself to Christ.

Our obedience is to Christ first, not to the Pope who uses "new doctrines", as you can read in the letter from JP2 to Archbishop Lefebvre.
I concur.

I will not post here anymore so you are free to blame the tradition as you please, but remember, God is watching !
Note what I have said: In doing so, you'll see that I'm in complete alignment with the Tradition of the Church. Discipline can change, while Doctrine cannot, this is what I'm understanding to be the Tradition.

What I would need to see (and feel free to pray for me my brother) is that a change in the Mass is a change in the Doctrine of the Church, and not merely a change in Discipline.

Pax Christi, meus frater â€Â*

Also: On a personal note, it's nice to see someone who can converse (even while presenting arguments) in a discussion. It shows respect and consideration for what others have to say.