Hi guys,
What's the difference between Modernists and Orthodox Catholics?
-Jason
What's the difference between Modernists and Orthodox Catholics?
-Jason
Modernist vs. Orthodox Catholic?
- Thread starter Hoonbaba
- Start date
- Status
Modernists, either implicitly or explicitly (usually this is a difference between "conservative" and "liberal" persons) adhere to the heresy of Modernism, which was condemned as a heresy by Pope St.Pius X, and His successors thereafter, until John XXIII.
According to Pacendi Gregis, a powerful encyclical of the Saint-Pope, "modernism is the synthesis of all heresies." Very serious...fundamentally worse than even Arianism or Protestantism in it's nature.
The term "orthodox" mans "correct belief." An orthodox Catholic then, is one who has right belief. He believes all that the magisterium has authentically taught. This is quote unlike conservative modernists, who only believe what they've seen published by heirarchs in the last 40 years, utterly disregarding what came prior to this. Liberal modernists are the worst, objectively, since they could care less either way about anything said by anyone.
However conservative modernists are more deceptive; they bear the appearance of being good, sound Catholics (mainly because they haven't abandoned Christianity entirely.) But the truth is, they have ideas which are oppossed to fundamental dogmas, like "no salvation outside of the Catholic Church" (solemnly defined by Pope Boniface VIII in the Papal Bull Unum Sanctum, and addressed by several Popes and Ecumenical Councils unequivocally), or the doctrine of the Social Kingship of Christ (that the Lord Jesus is King of civilizations and governments, as well as individual men.)
According to Pacendi Gregis, a powerful encyclical of the Saint-Pope, "modernism is the synthesis of all heresies." Very serious...fundamentally worse than even Arianism or Protestantism in it's nature.
The term "orthodox" mans "correct belief." An orthodox Catholic then, is one who has right belief. He believes all that the magisterium has authentically taught. This is quote unlike conservative modernists, who only believe what they've seen published by heirarchs in the last 40 years, utterly disregarding what came prior to this. Liberal modernists are the worst, objectively, since they could care less either way about anything said by anyone.
However conservative modernists are more deceptive; they bear the appearance of being good, sound Catholics (mainly because they haven't abandoned Christianity entirely.) But the truth is, they have ideas which are oppossed to fundamental dogmas, like "no salvation outside of the Catholic Church" (solemnly defined by Pope Boniface VIII in the Papal Bull Unum Sanctum, and addressed by several Popes and Ecumenical Councils unequivocally), or the doctrine of the Social Kingship of Christ (that the Lord Jesus is King of civilizations and governments, as well as individual men.)
Upvote
0
"no salvation outside of the Catholic Church"
Please read Dominus Iesus for the correct interpretation of this statement. Just as in every age there have been those who would twist the words of the Church to fit their musings, there are still today. That is why the SSPX is in schism. May God keep you from deceiving others, sir.
Neal
Please read Dominus Iesus for the correct interpretation of this statement. Just as in every age there have been those who would twist the words of the Church to fit their musings, there are still today. That is why the SSPX is in schism. May God keep you from deceiving others, sir.
Neal
Upvote
0
As much as I want to become Catholic, I have to admit, that's really discouraging to hear.
-Jason
Upvote
0
isshinwhat (whatever that means)
You probably assume (wrongly) that I'm a Feeneyite. Given that I know better, and the official publishing organ of the SSPX (Angelus Press) has published literature refuting Feeneyism, I think it's safe to say where I don't stand on the matter.
As for "schism", given that I (and the SSPX clergy I've met) only hold to the perennial teaching of the Catholic Church, if there's a "schism", it's not been aggrivated by any of them. They're in the irregular position they're in because their fraternity was illegally supressed (the order given in the 70's was canonically invalid, being given by the Bishop of Sion, and not the Pope himself, and it was never corrected), and because there are powerful masons and modernists in the Vatican (and the heirarchy in much of the world) who have an interest in shutting them up.
I suppose people who think inter confessional prayer events like Assisi (where the Pope prayed in common with anti-Christs and idolaters, and at Assisi II this last January, proposed a brand new "10 Commandments" that made no reference to God or His true religion) are not abominations, who don't think the modern western heirarchy has sacrificed all of it's moral authority (with it's tolerance of faggotry, which has now spilled open into an ugly scandal which has humiliated the Church, the pure bride of Christ which these maggots are defiling by their indifference)...well yes, then I suppose such persons would have a very hard time understanding why anyone would have the nerve to stand up and say "I resist you to your face, for you are to blame."
11 But when Cephas was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. (Galatians 2:11)
You probably assume (wrongly) that I'm a Feeneyite. Given that I know better, and the official publishing organ of the SSPX (Angelus Press) has published literature refuting Feeneyism, I think it's safe to say where I don't stand on the matter.
As for "schism", given that I (and the SSPX clergy I've met) only hold to the perennial teaching of the Catholic Church, if there's a "schism", it's not been aggrivated by any of them. They're in the irregular position they're in because their fraternity was illegally supressed (the order given in the 70's was canonically invalid, being given by the Bishop of Sion, and not the Pope himself, and it was never corrected), and because there are powerful masons and modernists in the Vatican (and the heirarchy in much of the world) who have an interest in shutting them up.
I suppose people who think inter confessional prayer events like Assisi (where the Pope prayed in common with anti-Christs and idolaters, and at Assisi II this last January, proposed a brand new "10 Commandments" that made no reference to God or His true religion) are not abominations, who don't think the modern western heirarchy has sacrificed all of it's moral authority (with it's tolerance of faggotry, which has now spilled open into an ugly scandal which has humiliated the Church, the pure bride of Christ which these maggots are defiling by their indifference)...well yes, then I suppose such persons would have a very hard time understanding why anyone would have the nerve to stand up and say "I resist you to your face, for you are to blame."
11 But when Cephas was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. (Galatians 2:11)
Upvote
0
Hoonbah, give no mind to SSPX, "True Catholics" and the other schismatic sects that splintered off after Vatican II. They are not in union with the Pope, and as such are not truly Catholic in any substansive sense. Go to sites and read works that are in communion with the Vatican and Pope, the final arbiter of what is and is not Catholicism, and you'll be fine.
Upvote
0
That there is no salvation outside of the Church?
Do not the Scriptures teach there is no salvation apart from Christ? The Christ Who established a Church (HIS Church, "my Church" as He puts it), which is His Bride, and the "pillar and foundation of truth" as the Scriptures explicitly teach? The same Christ Who establishes Baptism for the "remission of sins" as St.Peter told the Jews in Jerusalem on Pentecost? He whose Apostle taught in the inspired Scripture that there is "one faith"?
All of these things taken together, mean one very clear thing; there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church, the Church that Christ founded.
The Church teaches it is subjectively possible for certain individuals to be saved without being visibly incorporated into the Church. However such persons must have true faith, and a desire for the Church and Baptism. This can be implicit, and will be something that God will solve before they die. It is never taught in any dogmatic or authoratative documents that people will be saved remaining in ignorance; only that in some hidden way, truly sincere people seeking truth will be led out of it before they die.
St.Thomas Aquinas taught very clearly that being in a state of inculpable ignorance about the Church, has the character of being a punishment for other sins. St.Augustine taught that someone who passes out of this world a heretic, is someone that God knew would die in sins anyway if they did have the Catholic faith. St.Cyril taught the Church was the unique Ark of Salvation. This is a Biblical, and Patristic thought, and it's confirmed by the ordinary and extraordinary Magisteriums.
Thus if Vatican II fuddle duddeled on this, since it never invoked the supreme teaching authority of the Church (as Pope Paul VI admitted), it is capable of proposing error. Given that things that may be ordinary magisterium cannot be viewed as such without agreeing with the perennial faith, no one can claim the documents of Vatican II bear some infallible protection over them.
That we know the Council proceedings were hijacked by liberals and arch-Modernists is certain. They admitted as much themselves afterwards, that the conciliar texts were worded in an ambiguous, yet highly questionable way, so as to have the superficial appearance of orthodoxy, but be open to Modernist interpretation and implimentation.
All of this combined, gives adequate reason to informed persons to see the Council in the light of Holy Tradition, and reject it in so far as it errs from the truth.
The idea that the Pope, or the heirarchy are "truth machines", or that the guarantess given to the execution of their offices cover absolutely everything they do, is nonsense and nowhere taught by the Church. Strictly speaking, it's not even impossible for a Pope to outright apostacize, and vacate the Papal office.
Upvote
0
And St. Irenaeus of Lyons believed Jesus lived until he was 50:
For how had He disciples, if He did not teach? And how did He teach, if He had not a Masters age? For He came to Baptism as one Who had not yet fulfilled thirty years, but was beginning to be about thirty years old; (for so Luke, who hath signified His years, bath set it down; Now Jesus, when He came to Baptism, began to be about thirty years old
and He preached for one year only after His Baptism: completing His thirtieth year He suffered, while He was still young, and not yet come to riper age. But the age of 30 years is the first of a young mans mind, and that it reaches even to the fortieth year, everyone will allow: but after the fortieth and fiftieth year, it begins to verge towards elder age: which our Lord was of when He taught, as the Gospel and all the Elders witness, who in Asia conferred with John the Lords disciple, to the effect that John had delivered these things unto them: for he abode with them until the times of Trajan. And some of them saw not only John, but others also of the Apostles, and had this same account from them, and witness to the aforesaid relation. Whom ought we rather to believe? These, being such as they are, or Ptolemy, who never beheld the Apostles, nor ever in his dreams attained to any vestige of an Apostle? (Against Heresies, 2:22:5)He also believe that the world would end in the sixth thousandth year:
For in as many days as this world was made, in so many thousand years shall it be concluded. And for this reason the Scripture says: "Thus the heaven and the earth were finished, and all their adornment. And God brought to a conclusion upon the sixth day the works that He had made; and God rested upon the seventh day from all His works."(6) This is an account of the things formerly created, as also it is a prophecy of what is to come. For the day of the Lord is as a thousand years;(7) and in six days created things were completed: it is evident, therefore, that they will come to an end at the sixth thousand year." (Against Heresies, 5:28:3)
Here's somethign to consider: This position failed years ago, as the year 1994 was the 2000th year since Christ's birth. And scripture contradicts his claims, since it does not speak of a literal end of the world (Ps. 78:69; 89:36-37; 93:1; 96:10; 104:5; 119:90; 145:13; 148:4,6; Eccl. 1:4; Isa. 9:7; Dan. 2:44; 4:3,34; 7:14,18,27; Lk. 1:33; Eph. 3:21)
Irenaeus also taught that flesh and blood DOES inherit the kingdom of God, which flat out contradicts 1 Cor 15:50
Obviously St. Irenaeus made some foolish mistakes. Here's a challenge to you:
Jesus said his second coming would come within the lifetime of the apostles (Matt 16:27-28). He says it again by saying that Jesus would show up (Matt 24:30) before that generation passed (Matt 24:34). He even said that the high priest would see Jesus's coming (Matt 26:64)
St. John believe he was living the 'last hour' (1 John 2:18). Heb 1:2 says that they, the apostles and their contemparies, were living the 'last days'. St. Peter believe he was living the 'last times' (1 Peter 1:20). In fact St. Paul goes around saying, "don't get married, don't be happy, don't be mourning, don't get engross with the world, etc because the form of this world is passing away" (1 Cor 7:26-31)
Are we supposed to strictly follow these commands even now since the Catholic Church doesn't believe Christ came within the expectations of the apostles?
Were the apostles wrong? How can they be wrong if scripture says that they would all be inspired by the Holy Spirit and speak truth (John 16:13).
The Church Fathers all believe that Jesus's coming would be in the future for their future. Some of them even believed that Jesus would come before the year 400 AD. Could it be that they screwed up and maybe Jesus and the apostles were right?
At what point can we rely upon man's opinions like St. Thomas Aquinas or St. Irenaeus to be considered truth? I still question many things of the Catholic church, but one thing for sure: man screws up.
I share this because you're basically saying that I'm not a Christian. You're tearing apart my past year and a half. You're saying I'm not saved and that everything I believed from then until now is a complete lie. You're saying God didn't use me to pray for a friend who was miraculously healed simply because I prayed and ask God to heal him. You're saying that Jesus didn't shape the way I am. You're denying my conversion and my entire life with God. You're denying the fact that I was once a spiteful agnostic who tore apart Christians almost for fun. You're denying the fact that my drastic conversion experience was not genuine and that I'm not a Christian, since I'm not part of the Catholic church. In a sense, you're still saying I'm still captive under the bonds of Satan!
Well my friend, I firmly believe Jesus as my lord and savior (2 Peter 3:18). I confessed my sins, and I was baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. (Matt 28:19) My entire life drastically changed because of Jesus. Yet, what you're saying is that I'm living a completely lie.
Is that supposed to be edifying? I guess not. Clearly the purpose for this message board is for edification. You've done a good job at doing the exact opposite.
All I know is that my Bible says that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life and that no one comes to the Father except through Him (John 14:6), and that if I confess with my lips that Jesus is lord and that God raised him from the dead in 3 days (Romans 10:9), then I will be saved as long as I've been baptized so I can identify with Christ's dead and resurrection (Rom 6:3-7).
I believe all that, yet you're saying that I'm still not a Christian and I'm still under Satan's bondage. Great. It looks like I (and hundreds of millions of other God-fearing protestant Christians) are still doomed, even though I firmly believe in the gospel message and I've been baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
It's ALWAYS great knowing that my life with Christ is a mere illusion and a completely lie......
-Jason
Upvote
0
nyj
Goodbye, my puppy
- Feb 5, 2002
- 20,966
- 1,303
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Private
Hoonbaba,
First you need to understand that Augustine is not Catholic, he is a schismatic. The SSPX is not in communion with Rome, they have broken away and their disobedience was the cause of their excommunication, which has been formally announced by the Vatican. Hence, Augustine does not speak for the Church.
However, it is true that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church, but what Augustine fails to tell you is that all Christians, through their baptism, are considered Catholic. Take for example, the story of the prodigal son. Because the son left the father, did that no longer make him his son? Hardly. All it meant was that he was not in communion with his father.
So it is for non-Catholic Christians. They are still a part of the family, but they are not in communion with it. So why bother becoming a Catholic? Because Jesus expressly wishes that it be so. The Catholic Church contains the fullness of the Truth, contained both in Scripture and in Tradition. People should come to the Catholic Church because they want to grow in their faith and commitment to God... to move from the milk to the meat. You haven't been living a lie, the Catholic Church has never said that... what the Church has said is that while you know Jesus where you are, the Church believes you can know Him more fully if you were Catholic.
First you need to understand that Augustine is not Catholic, he is a schismatic. The SSPX is not in communion with Rome, they have broken away and their disobedience was the cause of their excommunication, which has been formally announced by the Vatican. Hence, Augustine does not speak for the Church.
However, it is true that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church, but what Augustine fails to tell you is that all Christians, through their baptism, are considered Catholic. Take for example, the story of the prodigal son. Because the son left the father, did that no longer make him his son? Hardly. All it meant was that he was not in communion with his father.
So it is for non-Catholic Christians. They are still a part of the family, but they are not in communion with it. So why bother becoming a Catholic? Because Jesus expressly wishes that it be so. The Catholic Church contains the fullness of the Truth, contained both in Scripture and in Tradition. People should come to the Catholic Church because they want to grow in their faith and commitment to God... to move from the milk to the meat. You haven't been living a lie, the Catholic Church has never said that... what the Church has said is that while you know Jesus where you are, the Church believes you can know Him more fully if you were Catholic.
Upvote
0
nyj,
For the sake of clarity, I'd like to point out that the laity who attend SSPX Masses are not considered excommunicated. Back in 1991 the bishop of Honolulu attempted to excommunicate 6 Catholics in his diocese who attended the local SSPX chapel, but the excommunicated was declared null and void by Cardinal Ratzinger, because, as he said "From the examination of the case, conducted on the basis of the Law of the Church, it did not result that the facts referred to in the above-mentioned decree are formal schismatic acts in the strict sense, as they do not constitute the offense of schism; and therefore the Congregation holds that the Decree of May 1, 1991 lacks foundation and hence validity." Being a member of chapel of the SSPX is not a schismatic act, and does not carry the penalty of excommunication. You therefore have no right to tell Augustine or me that we are not Catholic. You can read more about the "Hawaii 6" as they are called here http://www.sspx.org/diocesan_dialogues/honolulu_&_hawaii6_.htm
On the subject of no salvation outside the Church, every Catholic must believe the following:
"The Catholic Church firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within Her, not only pagans, but also Jews, heretics, and schismatics, cannot become participants in eternal life but will depart into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels (Mt. 25:41), unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock..."(Council of Florence, Dz 714).
Joe
For the sake of clarity, I'd like to point out that the laity who attend SSPX Masses are not considered excommunicated. Back in 1991 the bishop of Honolulu attempted to excommunicate 6 Catholics in his diocese who attended the local SSPX chapel, but the excommunicated was declared null and void by Cardinal Ratzinger, because, as he said "From the examination of the case, conducted on the basis of the Law of the Church, it did not result that the facts referred to in the above-mentioned decree are formal schismatic acts in the strict sense, as they do not constitute the offense of schism; and therefore the Congregation holds that the Decree of May 1, 1991 lacks foundation and hence validity." Being a member of chapel of the SSPX is not a schismatic act, and does not carry the penalty of excommunication. You therefore have no right to tell Augustine or me that we are not Catholic. You can read more about the "Hawaii 6" as they are called here http://www.sspx.org/diocesan_dialogues/honolulu_&_hawaii6_.htm
On the subject of no salvation outside the Church, every Catholic must believe the following:
"The Catholic Church firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within Her, not only pagans, but also Jews, heretics, and schismatics, cannot become participants in eternal life but will depart into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels (Mt. 25:41), unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock..."(Council of Florence, Dz 714).
Joe
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
ALL SSPX masses are illicit. They are valid, but illicit because they are being said outside of communion with the Bishop of Rome. Attending an SSPX chapel is not enough to get you excommunicated. By attending you do not meet the criteria, but I do believe the Priests (and Bishops) of SSPX would be excommunicated. I don't understand what the big problem is. John Paul II allowed the Tridentine Mass to be said under an indult (whose name escapes me at the moment).
Upvote
0
Wolseley
Beaucoup-Diên-Cai-Dāu
- Feb 5, 2002
- 21,132
- 5,624
- 63
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Cite?
Poor Jesus. He was so confused when He said He would never abandon the Church, and that the gates of hell would not prevail against it. And the Holy Spirirt, falling down on the job like that! Tsk, tsk.
Vatican II has been unimplemented in many places, even today. Instead, you've had nonsense implemented in its place that people claimed was part of Vatican II. But that does not invalidate the council. And again, unless the Holy Spirit has departed the earth, I do believe He is still in charge, or was the last time I looked.
That's what Martin Luther did. He knew better than everyone else for the preceeding 1,517 years, didn't he?
Marcel LeFebvre had the same idea, unfortunately. He had a great deal in common with Luther---they both thought the Church was in such bad shape, that they had to take matters into their own hands. If events in Brazil are any indication of the future, however, it appears that history has passed the schismatics by, and the SSPX is becoming increasingly irrelevant.
I would suggest that you re-read your Apostolic Fathers, my friend; your statement is erroneous. However, to use your own phrase, I must contrast your ideas "in the light of Holy Tradition, and reject it in so far as it errs from the truth."
Abeo,
---Wols.
Upvote
0
First off, "faggotry" isn't a word. And even if it were -- why use it instead of "homosexuality"? Can you imagine Jesus calling someone a [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]?
-Chris (who thinks that word and other slurs should be ***'d out by the cuss filter)
Upvote
0
Augustine said:
"There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification the Council intended to give to its teachings, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions engaging the infallibility of the ecclesiastical Magisterium. The answer is known by whoever remembers the conciliar declaration given the Councils pastoral character, it avoided pronouncing, in an extraordinary manner, dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility." (General Audience, Jan 12, 1966)
You know, its possible that the Council was "hijacked by liberals". That would not affect the Church's indefectability. And Augustine is in fact right because theologians who were condemned under Pius XII like Schillebex (sp?)and Rhaner were made 'experts' at the Council.
With the implementation of Vatican II comes the laicization of the Catholic states... for example, in 1953 Spain and the Vatican signed a concordat which banned the public expression of any religion other than the CAtholic religion, after Vatican II all such concordats had to be revised in light of the Council's document on religious liberty, Dignitatis Humanae. Now Pope John Paul II praises the pluralism of modern Europe, and protestant missionaries no longer are impeded from carrying out their diabolical activity in South America, and we all know what the result of that is.
No, he rejected Tradition, just like today's modernist bishops.
He and Luther are opposites. Luther rejected Tradition, Lefebvre embraced Tradition. Big difference.
I would suggest you read up on the life of Pope John XXII. He taught heresy, and recanted after his theologians and a synod showed him his errors. The Pope does not always posses the charism of infallibility.
Joe
"There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification the Council intended to give to its teachings, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions engaging the infallibility of the ecclesiastical Magisterium. The answer is known by whoever remembers the conciliar declaration given the Councils pastoral character, it avoided pronouncing, in an extraordinary manner, dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility." (General Audience, Jan 12, 1966)
You know, its possible that the Council was "hijacked by liberals". That would not affect the Church's indefectability. And Augustine is in fact right because theologians who were condemned under Pius XII like Schillebex (sp?)and Rhaner were made 'experts' at the Council.
With the implementation of Vatican II comes the laicization of the Catholic states... for example, in 1953 Spain and the Vatican signed a concordat which banned the public expression of any religion other than the CAtholic religion, after Vatican II all such concordats had to be revised in light of the Council's document on religious liberty, Dignitatis Humanae. Now Pope John Paul II praises the pluralism of modern Europe, and protestant missionaries no longer are impeded from carrying out their diabolical activity in South America, and we all know what the result of that is.
No, he rejected Tradition, just like today's modernist bishops.
He and Luther are opposites. Luther rejected Tradition, Lefebvre embraced Tradition. Big difference.
I would suggest you read up on the life of Pope John XXII. He taught heresy, and recanted after his theologians and a synod showed him his errors. The Pope does not always posses the charism of infallibility.
Joe
Upvote
0
Wolseley
Beaucoup-Diên-Cai-Dāu
- Feb 5, 2002
- 21,132
- 5,624
- 63
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Translated from Vaticanese, all this means is that the Council did not issue any dogmas, or definitions of existing doctrines. No dogmas were declared, because Vatican II was a pastoral council, called, for the most part, to reform liturgical functions. It was not a Council called to define a doctrine being challenged by a heresy, or such.
If one accepts that the College of Bishops, assembled together in an ecumenical council (which was what Vatican II was) enjoys the charism of infallibility in its pronouncements (as has been the teaching of the Church since antiquity), then Vatican II, as a legitimately convened council is included under that charism.
If, however, one believes that Christ was in error when He said He would never abandon His Church and that He would provide it with the Holy Spirit to lead it into all truth, then one can probably more or less believe whatever one likes.
Again, if one accepts that the College of Bishops, assembled together in an ecumenical council (which was what Vatican II was) enjoys the charism of infallibility in its pronouncements (as has been the teaching of the Church since antiquity), then Vatican II, as a legitimately convened council is included under that charism. You either do or you don't.
And both did what they did in open defiance of the Church. Not a big difference at all. Schism is schism.
His recantation is simply a proof of the Holy Spirit's guidance, employed through the vehicles the Holy Spirit chose to use, friend.
Of course not. Only when he is speaking Ex cathedra. Everybody knows that.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Fr. Rob
Defender of the Primitive Faith
Hello all!
First, regarding "no salvation outside of the Church":
So many Protestants seem to think that the statement is meant as a blanket statement referring to the Roman Church. The Church is the entire body of Christ. Baptism, administered with Water and in the name of the F,S,&HG, with the intent to make a new creation in Christ, is a catholic baptism. The Sacrament of Baptism can be administered by any Christian who has proper intent. While the Eucharist, Confirmation, Ordination, Anointing of the Sick, etc... require ordained ministers in the Apostolic Succession, baptism does not. Lutheran, Methodist, Disciples of Christ baptisms. . . they all are valid. LDS and JW baptisms are not. Jesus only baptism is also a violation of the scriptural norm.
That being said, we must remember that God is not boxed in by our limitations, and the Church has always recognized baptism by Desire and by Blood.
As far as the difference between Modernists and Orthodox Catholics. . .
Modernists have little love for authority - desiring, instead, to do their own thing and still have the nice little feeling inside that they are doing just fine. For that very reason, thousands of Catholics marched up to the Sacrament this morning around the world, knowing that they should not presume to come to the table for many reasons. In America, one of the chief reasons is the consistent disobedience of Humanae Viate -- the liberal use of chemical birth control. A desire to conform the faith to their use, instead of conforming themselves to the faith, is causing a wide rift of modern heresy in the Church.
Orthodox Catholics in the Roman Communion take the words of the Pope to heart, the decisions of Councils and Synods serve as the guiding light for them in many ways, together with the Scriptures as the source of all truth.
For Anglicans, many of the same problems have been present over the last 50 years. . .the heretical ordination of women in the Episcopal Church, Church of England, etc... is an example of the kind of pandering modernisim that will destroy the Church.
One of the popes, Leo XII as I recall (I could be wrong) issued a bull against modernisim. I have to say that it's as valid today as it was in the late 1800's and early 1900's.
Just my $.02
Fr. Rob
First, regarding "no salvation outside of the Church":
So many Protestants seem to think that the statement is meant as a blanket statement referring to the Roman Church. The Church is the entire body of Christ. Baptism, administered with Water and in the name of the F,S,&HG, with the intent to make a new creation in Christ, is a catholic baptism. The Sacrament of Baptism can be administered by any Christian who has proper intent. While the Eucharist, Confirmation, Ordination, Anointing of the Sick, etc... require ordained ministers in the Apostolic Succession, baptism does not. Lutheran, Methodist, Disciples of Christ baptisms. . . they all are valid. LDS and JW baptisms are not. Jesus only baptism is also a violation of the scriptural norm.
That being said, we must remember that God is not boxed in by our limitations, and the Church has always recognized baptism by Desire and by Blood.
As far as the difference between Modernists and Orthodox Catholics. . .
Modernists have little love for authority - desiring, instead, to do their own thing and still have the nice little feeling inside that they are doing just fine. For that very reason, thousands of Catholics marched up to the Sacrament this morning around the world, knowing that they should not presume to come to the table for many reasons. In America, one of the chief reasons is the consistent disobedience of Humanae Viate -- the liberal use of chemical birth control. A desire to conform the faith to their use, instead of conforming themselves to the faith, is causing a wide rift of modern heresy in the Church.
Orthodox Catholics in the Roman Communion take the words of the Pope to heart, the decisions of Councils and Synods serve as the guiding light for them in many ways, together with the Scriptures as the source of all truth.
For Anglicans, many of the same problems have been present over the last 50 years. . .the heretical ordination of women in the Episcopal Church, Church of England, etc... is an example of the kind of pandering modernisim that will destroy the Church.
One of the popes, Leo XII as I recall (I could be wrong) issued a bull against modernisim. I have to say that it's as valid today as it was in the late 1800's and early 1900's.
Just my $.02
Fr. Rob
Upvote
0
VOW
Moderator
- Feb 7, 2002
- 6,912
- 15
- 71
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
To Fr Bob:
Weaken, perhaps...but not destroy. I believe in the promise Jesus made to Peter, "and the gates of the netherworld will not prevail against it."
I look forward to seeing more of your observations!
Peace be with you,
~VOW
Weaken, perhaps...but not destroy. I believe in the promise Jesus made to Peter, "and the gates of the netherworld will not prevail against it."
I look forward to seeing more of your observations!
Peace be with you,
~VOW
Upvote
0
Not necessarily. For example, disciplinary decrees never enjoy the charism of infallibility. As Pope Paul VI said, none of the decrees of Vatican II are acts of the extraordinary magesterium (which is always infallible), but only the ordinary magesterium, which is infallible insofar as it reiterates traditional teaching.
The Novus Ordo, which is a protestant worship service approved for Catholics; ecumenism, the practical denial of the faith; and religious liberty, which is state atheism as I believe Pope Gregory XVI or Leo XIII said must be defied in order to remain obedient to the Church of all time. Any schism is the result of the conciliar church.
Joe
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Status
Similar threads
