Where Have All the FR Protestants Gone? [A Month Later]

drstevej

[drstevej]

Thread from last month...

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

Where Have All the FR Protestants Gone?
drstevej

Posted on 04/08/2003 12:29 PM CDT by drstevej

OBSERVATIONS:

[1] There seems to be a significantly reduced number of Protestant Threads (KJV Only being the exception for sure) in the FR Religion Forum.

[2] There seems to be a reduced number of FR Protestant posts in the Religion Forum.

This thread is a place to discuss these observations.

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

Now the transformation to a Catholic Religion Forum is almost complete. Must be a Marian miracle or an answer to Jim Robinson's prayer, "Can't we all just get along?" Now all the dissent is within the RC fold ... NO Mass vs. Tridentine Mass. Boredom has descended, the moderators are free to nap without fear of an **** awakening them.

Could someone arrange for a funeral mass? (a clown mass in this case might be in order).

 

-- Pope Piel  I (thinking of abdicating prior to even assuming the Chair of Peter)

[Aloysius]

So we can not work together with any except for Catholics? Not even for common goals?

Common goals? The only common goal, from a theoligical standpoint, we should be concerned with is our collective eternal salvation. The surest we to ensure this is to bring people into the Holy Roman Catholic Church. Sure, we can all fight together on abortion and high taxes, but inviting all of the world religions to Assissi and removing the crucifixes so we don't offend them, does nothing for those religions.

[SoothingDave]

Jews ain't baptised. Are they then not children of God?

SD

[SoothingDave]

Sure, we can all fight together on abortion and high taxes

That's good to know.

The only common goal, from a theoligical standpoint, we should be concerned with is our collective eternal salvation. The surest we to ensure this is to bring people into the Holy Roman Catholic Church.

And, as always, the difference is that the schismatics want to do this by disrespect, misunderstanding and disrupting the peace. This isn't the middle ages anymore.

I understand the "tradition" here, but I don't think trying to persuade people is a bad thing.

SD

[huskyboy]

Your entire worldview is foreign to me. That a pope expressing hope that the major monotheistic peoples might come "to mutual respect, understanding and peaceful coexistence" is apostasy to you speaks volumes.

The only way there will be mutual respect, understanding, and peaceful coexistence is if all people on this earth were in the Church and held and lived by the true Faith. This is what the Church teaches.

The modernist interpretation of that phrase, however, has a different meaning:

That's just one example of how a modernist would apply that phrase to real-life situations.

[drstevej]

***Jews ain't baptised. Are they then not children of God?***

John 1

¹² Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— ¹³ children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.

Jews who reject the Messiah are certainly not children of God in the sense indicated in this passage. They are His children of natural descent, but they are alienated from His spiritual family and eternal inheritance. So the sense of how you use the word children is important.

[drstevej]

Scratch 'n Sniff Koran ???

[Aloysius]

This isn't the middle ages anymore.

Unfortunately, you are correct. We are living in the Modern Ages where mutual respect for all religions is paramount. Hugs and kisses for everyone!

[Aloysius]

Scratch 'n Sniff Koran ???

Rich, Corinthian leather.

[SoothingDave]

So the sense of how you use the word children is important.

The sense is that of any of the peoples who look to God and say "Abba." We can all have our peculiar doctrines that mutually exclude each other from the true "title" of child of God, or elect, or saved, or Catholic or whatever.

The point is, do we work from the assumptions brought to the table that those who reard God as father are trying to be His children? Or do we work from the assumption that everyone who isn't "with me" is an enemy, worthy of no respect whatsoever.

SD

[SoothingDave]

The only way there will be mutual respect, understanding, and peaceful coexistence is if all people on this earth were in the Church and held and lived by the true Faith. This is what the Church teaches.

So to hell with the rest of them, right? There's no need to be civil, cause we are the chosen ones.

What a beautiful world you must inhabit.

SD

[Aloysius]

So to hell with the rest of them, right?

That's not for us to decide, but the Church teaches us that it's the likely outcome.

[malakhi]

They are His children of natural descent

What could this possibly mean? I think you may have spent too much time perusing [5th Amendment] literature.

but they are alienated from His spiritual family and eternal inheritance.

You are the sons of YHWH your God (Deuteronomy 14:1)

Behold, God is my salvation;
I will trust, and will not be afraid;
for God YHWH is my strength and my song,
and he has become my salvation. (Isaiah 12:2)

But Israel is saved by YHWH
with everlasting salvation (Isaiah 45:17)

[malakhi]

Unfortunately, you are correct. We are living in the Modern Ages where mutual respect for all religions is paramount. Hugs and kisses for everyone!

What sort of manifestation of disrespect for other religions do you condone? Is it safe to assume, based upon your comments here, that you prefer a more medieval approach?

[Aloysius]

What sort of manifestation of disrespect for other religions do you condone?

1. Instead of kissing to Koran I would recommend spitting on the Koran (just kidding - but I certainly wouldn't touch the filthy book).

2. Insteading of calling the eccumenical event at Assissi, I would reccommend the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

3.Instead of apologizing to Jews, women and every other so-called victim of the Catholic Church, an apology to Christ and the Faithful, for destroying the Traditions of the Church might be more appropriate.

[huskyboy]

Yet almost all, though in different ways, long for the one visible Church of God, that truly universal Church whose mission is to convert the whole world to the gospel, so that the world may be saved, to the glory of God.[1]

At the very beginning of its decree on ecumenism, Vatican II teaches that almost everyone longs for a truly universal Church whose mission is to convert the world to the Gospel. What is the truly universal Church whose mission is to convert the world to the Gospel? It is the Roman Catholic Church, of course, which alone is the one true Church of Christ. So what is Vatican II talking about then? Why is Vatican II teaching that almost everyone longs for one the truly universal Church of Christ when we already have it? What Vatican II is teaching at the very beginning of its decree on ecumenism is that people must long for the true Catholic Church because it does not yet exist! It is teaching that the true Church of Christ – the universal Catholic Church – does not yet exist!

Absolutely hysterical. That's the first paragraph of the first writing you point me to.

Dave, it appears you took that out of context. The true Church of Christ is by definition one, it is truly unified. To say otherwise would make Christ to be a liar.

Too bad the post-conciliar religion doesn't realize it. It longs for unity when the the true Church already has it. Remember the Nicene Creed: "We believe in one, holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church".

Someone should have reminded John Paul II about this:

Antipope John Paul II, Homily, Dec. 5, 1996, speaking of prayer with non-Catholics: "When we pray together, we do so with the longing ‘that there may be one visible Church of God, a Church truly universal and sent forth to the whole world that the world may be converted to the Gospel and so be saved, to the glory of God’ (Unitatis Redintegratio, 1.)."[2]

Here we see that John Paul II himself confirms that the longing for the one, visible Church of Christ is a longing on both sides – Catholic and non-Catholic, which means that Vatican II in its decree on ecumenism (which John Paul II is quoting from) was indeed longing for the one universal Church of Christ. Vatican II was therefore denying that the Catholic Church is the one universal Church of Christ.

That was from the same page as the quote you were complaining about. Remember, Vatican II affirmed that the Church of Christ "subsisted in" the Catholic Church. That is heresy: the Church of Christ is the Catholic Church.

Here's more proof why Vatican II lied:

Unitatis redintegratio (# 4):

Nevertheless, the divisions among Christians prevent the Church from realizing in practice the fullness of Catholicity proper to her, in those of her sons and daughters who, though attached to her by baptism, are yet separated from full communion with her. Furthermore, the Church herself finds it more difficult to express in actual life her full Catholicity in all its bearings.

Here's Br. Dimond again:

Here, in #4 of the same decree on ecumenism, Vatican II denies that the Church of Christ is fully Catholic! This is so heretical that if you believe this you cannot even say the Apostles’ Creed: "I believe in… the holy Catholic Church." You would have to say, "I believe in the not fully Catholic Church." But why would Vatican II assert such a ridiculous heresy? The reason for this ridiculous statement in Vatican II is that Vatican II rejects that the Roman Catholic Church is the universal Church of Christ.

And yet more proof from anticardinal Joseph Ratzinger:

Thus the Council Fathers meant to say that the being of the Church as such is a broader entity than the Roman Catholic Church. . .(L'Osservatore Romano, Italian edition, October 8, 2000, p. 4)

And we already know schismatics are actually cut off from the Church, right? So explain how the anticardinal arrived at such a heretical conclusion.

[drstevej]

Romans 9-11

9:27 Isaiah cries out concerning Israel:

“Though the number of the Israelites be like the sand by the sea,
only the remnant will be saved.
28 For the Lord will carry out
his sentence on earth with speed and finality.”
29 It is just as Isaiah said previously:

“Unless the Lord Almighty
had left us descendants,
we would have become like Sodom,
we would have been like Gomorrah.”

30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith;
31 but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it.
32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the “stumbling stone.”
33 As it is written:
“See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall,
and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame.”

[Francisco]

Saint Cyprian: "No one has God as his Father who has not the Church as his mother."

[k omalley]

True, our times of worship should be pleasing to God but there is another important element as well. If I'm not mistaken, the Eastern Orthodox consider the liturgy to be the heavenly and the eternal breaking into our time and space. If there are any EO's reading this please tell me if I'm wrong. Divine Liturgy is a foretaste of heaven as is I believe, the Catholic Mass. Unfortunately, we Catholics have inserted too much worldliness into our worship- frenetic activity, applause, chatter, immodest and sloppy dress. The sacred aspect all but disappears.

[drstevej]

Did you send the Church a Mother's Day card?

Cyprian must not have known that Mary is s'posed to be our Mother.

[huskyboy]

There's no need to be civil, cause we are the chosen ones.

If evangelizing isn't civil, then I don't need to be civil.

As for being "chosen", that's not for us to decide or worry about. We got the message, that message needs to propagated throughout the world. O, what message was that? (a)God wills that all men be saved. (b)Extra ecclesiam nulla salus.