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)

[malakhi]

Well, first of all, most of those things don't sound like "disrespect" of other religions, but rather positive actions you'd like the church to take on its own accord. A question on one point, though:

Instead of apologizing to Jews, women and every other so-called victim of the Catholic Church

"So-called" victims? Are you suggesting that the church's treatment of other groups such as the Jews has been impeccable?

[malakhi]

Romans 9-11

Sorry, Steve, that's not in my bible.

[SoothingDave]

Dave, it appears you took that out of context.

LOL. Pot kettle black. LOL

The true Church of Christ is by definition one, it is truly unified. To say otherwise would make Christ to be a liar.

Duh.

Too bad the post-conciliar religion doesn't realize it. It longs for unity when the the true Church already has it.

This is your uncharitable misreading. Let's look again:

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.[

This does not say that the Pope or the council bishops are "longing" for some Church that does not exist.

Try reading what it says. It says "almost all" (that is, people) long for the Church.

As for the Catholic, you miss the word "visible." I know you don't really care, but this Catholic "longs" for all who know God to unite and become a part of the "one visible Church." I know the identity of this Church. What is longed for is the unity Christ intended.

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.

That's Feenyism. There are those saved who are "invincibly ignorant" of the need for the formal Church. They stay part of the mystical Church. Hence, the word "subsists."

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.

Yeah, OK. What's Father Schism have to say?

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.

Sure. Keep on believing that. You guys are amusing, in a sad way.

The Church makes use of the talents of her members. Without the unity desired by Jesus, we will lack the gifts of some Christians. The Church can have the fullness of Truth and still not be universal, if there are other options given, other ecclesial communions.

This is nothing at all about admitting the Church isn't fully Catholic.

SD

[drstevej]

***Steve, that's not in my bible.***

It was written by a great Jewish teacher.

[malakhi]

It was written by a great Jewish teacher.

The teachings of that great Jewish teacher are still there, they are just buried under the accretion of Pauline theology. If Yeshua had written his own book, he probably would have sounded a lot like Micah or Hosea.

[Francisco]

The "Faith" of the Novus Ordo Catholic….by Soothing Dave (but not so "Soothing" to Trads)

"We should recognize our common fatherhood as God's children, even if we have theological differences."

"The Church can have the fullness of Truth and still not be universal, if there are other options given, other ecclesial communions."

The Catholic Church is no longer universal, and the unbaptized share a "common fatherhood as God's children". Just thought you should know.

[drstevej]

It was written by a great Jewish teacher.

Ahem, the great Jewish teacher I was referencing was Paul.

[ultima ratio]

1. Yes, of course I stand by that. "Repeat" is accurate. So is "reenact". What happens during the Mass is a repetition or reenactment of Calvery. You should know this if you are a Catholic. That you do not is not surprising, given the state of catechesis these days.

2. Do you understand what the structural differences are between the old Mass and the new one? The old Mass itself in its own text speaks of sacrifice according to the Order of Melchisadech. In other words, according to the old Hebrew sacrificial pattern of the Temple of Jerusalem by a Hebrew priesthood--oblation (Offertory), immolation (Consecration), consummation (Communion). Though the Jewish priesthood disappeared with the destruction of the old Temple, their sacrificial lambs were the prototype for the Agnus Dei of the old Mass--Christ himself established this sacrificial structure as his own on the eve of his death. It has been understood in this way for two thousand years--up until the Bugnini fabrication. Now people like yourself question even this fundamentally Catholic notion. This is because the Novus Ordo has destroyed the pattern so successfully most Catholics do not recognize what has happened. They will attend the new Mass in Latin and think it is the old Mass--even when following in their missals. But by doing away with the sacrificial structure and substituting the commemorative meal structure--the very structure condemned by the Council of Trent--the N.O. has radically shifted the meaning of the Mass. Many liturgists have made these same observations which you apparently find incomprehensible. Read some. Klaus Gamber is not--as you seem to think--an SSPXer. He is a centrist on most issues and has been endorsed by Cardinal Ratzinger (who wrote the Introduction to his classic text: The Reform of the Roman Liturgy).

3. My so-called "rant" is not a rant at all but an attempt to penetrate the fog of your ignorance. Like a lot of nominal Catholics these days, you "believe" in the Pope, in Rome, in the Holy See, but see no need for any deeper understanding beyond what you are told to think and believe by people who are modernists and have little interest in passing on Catholic Tradition. The truths of revelation mean less to people like you than following the pope . If the Pope tells you to pray with Buddhists, you will do so gladly and willingly--though Buddhists have no God to pray to. That is your mistaken definition of a good Catholic. Normally, this would be a safe point of view. But we are living in very shocking and abnormal times--and this Pope is not always safe to follow.

4. Eucharistic Prayer III alone mentions the intercession of the saints--and only once, whereas the traditional Mass does so throughout its text--and mentions many of the saints by name, starting with the Virgin Mother and St. Michael. Wherever else the saints are mentioned in the new Mass it is not as intercessors for our sinfulness, but as those who will greet us when we reunite with them in Heaven. The entire notion of Propitiation for sin has been suppressed. So too have the prayers of Proper of the Saints. Whereas there were once 200 prayers to the saints in the liturgical year, there are now only 3.

[SoothingDave]

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, in #4 of the same decree on ecumenism, Vatican II denies that the Church of Christ is fully Catholic!

Hey Reggie! Guess what? I've found "Catholics" who can't read either. Are you proud?

Francisco, look at what is said.

the divisions among Christians prevent the Church from realizing in practice the fullness of Catholicity proper to her

Prevent the Church from "realizing in practice" the "fullness" of "Catholicity proper to her."

The Church, due to the existence of Protestants and others, is prevented from practicing the fullness of Catholicity.

What Catholicity?

The Catholicity that is "proper to her."

To schismatic this is the Church denying that the Church is fully Catholic. What a poor reading.

If I deny that I can fully exercise something that does not mean I do not possess it.

More:

more difficult to express in actual life her full Catholicity

Her what?

Her "full Catholicity."

This is also a "denial" of the full Catholicity of the Church by the schismatics. Very poor reading. Black is white. Up is down.

SD

[Aloysius]

Are you suggesting that the church's treatment of other groups such as the Jews has been impeccable?

Yes. Can you specifically tell me what the Church, as an institution, has done to mistreat Jews?

[malakhi]

Ahem, the great Jewish teacher I was referencing was Paul.

Oh. Well, I think it is safe to say that I do not hold him in nearly as high of regard as do you.

[SoothingDave]

Yes, of course I stand by that. "Repeat" is accurate. So is "reenact". What happens during the Mass is a repetition or reenactment of Calvery. You should know this if you are a Catholic. That you do not is not surprising, given the state of catechesis these days.

So then, you repeatedly sacrifice Jesus over and over? how do you answer the Protestant objection that the Sacrifice was finished "once and for all"?

Could it be that we both understand the same thing, but you are nitpicking on language. We re-present the One Sacrifice during our Mass.

Do you understand what the structural differences are between the old Mass and the new one? The old Mass itself in its own text speaks of sacrifice according to the Order of Melchisadech.

So does the new one.

In other words, according to the old Hebrew sacrificial pattern of the Temple of Jerusalem by a Hebrew priesthood--oblation (Offertory), immolation (Consecration), consummation (Communion).

All are found in the new one. Just because you don't like the words, doesn't mean that these elements are not found there. you miss the forests for the trees. Big time.

Though the Jewish priesthood disappeared with the destruction of the old Temple, their sacrificial lambs were the prototype for the Agnus Dei of the old Mass--Christ himself established this sacrificial structure as his own on the eve of his death.

Duh. How about spare the rants and provide some evidence of the crap you spew?

Now people like yourself question even this fundamentally Catholic notion.

I do no such thing. That is what pisses you off. That I understand the sacrificial nature of the Mass, even though there is no way, according to your dogma, that I should be able to. I am the living disproof of your pet theory.

I know it's shocking, but you have to admit it.

But by doing away with the sacrificial structure and substituting the commemorative meal structure--the very structure condemned by the Council of Trent--the N.O. has radically shifted the meaning of the Mass.

You keep saying, saying, saying. What is your proof? I'm not 7 years old and you are not my teacher. Show me why you say these things. Convince me, don't browbeat.

Eucharistic Prayer III alone mentions the intercession of the saints--and only once, whereas the traditional Mass does so throughout its text--and mentions many of the saints by name, starting with the Virgin Mother and St. Michael.

But they are mentioned. Unless you are willing to argue that this mention is a sine qua non of a valid sacrifice, then you are merely expressing a liturgical preference.

I am a smart guy. I can understand the intercession of the saints wihtout having it repeated 12 times an hour.

SD

[malakhi]

Yes. Can you specifically tell me what the Church, as an institution, has done to mistreat Jews?

Sure, but first, I need to clarify what you would identify as an action of the church as an institution. I'm assuming, for example, that the teaching of a particular theologian or doctor of the church would not qualify, but the canons of an ecumenical council would. Is this fair? If not, please correct me.

[drstevej]

Yep, I find Paul appealing, you find him apalling.

[malakhi]

Hi Dave. How does it feel to be the Protestant in the discussion? ;o)

[SoothingDave]

Yep, I find Paul appealing, you find him apalling.

Well ahead of Woddy Allen, Paul may have been the first self-loathing Jew. ;-)

SD

[SoothingDave]

Hi Dave. How does it feel to be the Protestant in the discussion? ;o)

LOL. I'm not. Just battling the mini-popes of the right. :-)

The tactics are the same, including bringing up things out of context, and poor comprehension skills.

SD

[Aloysius]

but the canons of an ecumenical council would. Is this fair?

That would be fair game.

[drstevej]

"I do not believe in the afterlife, but I do plan to take a change of underwear." -- Woody Allen

[huskyboy]

As for the Catholic, you miss the word "visible." I know you don't really care, but this Catholic "longs" for all who know God to unite and become a part of the "one visible Church." I know the identity of this Church. What is longed for is the unity Christ intended.

I missed nothing. What John Paul II did was say something and then put into practice. How do you explain koran-kissing and the interreligious Spirit of Assisi prayer sessions? It is quite obvious from his words, the words of Vatican II, and his actions that the unity they are pursuing is a sort of mega-religion, not founded on Divine Truth, but on what people decide will be truth.

Come on, even the Masons are down with the post-conciliar program.

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.

That's Feenyism. There are those saved who are "invincibly ignorant" of the need for the formal Church. They stay part of the mystical Church. Hence, the word "subsists."

Sorry, I'm not buying it. Fr. Feeney goes as far as saying the water baptism is necessary for salvation. That's where I draw the line.

But first, let's show Dave how this "invincibly ignorant" concept is a problem. Here are three infallible declarations which back up the truth that the true Church of Christ is the Catholic Church:

The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, also Jews, heretics, and schismatics can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire 'which was prepared for the devil and his angels' (Mt. 25:41) unless before death they are joined with Her. . . No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ can be saved unless they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church. (Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino, 1441)

There is one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all can be saved. (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215).

We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. (Pope Boniface VII, Unam Sanctam, 1302).

Now, please tell me how invicible ignorance can be exception to the rule when the idea that "Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ" has already been condemned by the Pope Pius IX's Syllabus of Errors (see Proposition #17)

As far as I see it, too many people give the "invincible ignorance" clause a little too much elasticity. When one starts going down the slippery slope, one inevitably arrives at a heresy called universal salvation.