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)

[SoothingDave]

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.

Surprise! I agree. But that is different from saying that there is no one who was ever saved through invincible ignorance. And that even one person who was saved though not a formal member of the "Church" was nonetheless a member of the mystical Church.

So the idea that the two are equivalent goes "poof!" The true Church must subsist in the Catholic Church.

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.

It takes an incredible ideological filter to read the Papacy of Dominus Iesus the way you do. This Pope has affirmed the unicity and universality of the Catholic Church, made care to distinguish other "churches" from mere "ecclesial communions" and addressed the absolute need for Jesus and the Catholic Church as the instrument of salvation.

SD

[malakhi]

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

That would be fair game.

Very well. Now remember, the question at hand is the impeccability of the church as an institution.

we decree that such Jews and Saracens of both sexes in every Christian province and at all times shall be marked off in the eyes of the public from other peoples through the character of their dress. (FOURTH LATERAN COUNCIL, CANON 68)

Since it is absurd that a blasphemer of Christ exercise authority over Christians, we on account of the boldness of transgressors renew in this general council what the Synod of Toledo (589) wisely enacted in this matter, prohibiting Jews from being given preference in the matter of public offices, since in such capacity they are most troublesome to the Christians. (FOURTH LATERAN COUNCIL, CANON 69)

[Aloysius]

we decree that such Jews and Saracens of both sexes in every Christian province and at all times shall be marked off in the eyes of the public from other peoples through the character of their dress. (FOURTH LATERAN COUNCIL, CANON 68)

In the U.S. (which is a democracy), we throw suspected enemies of the state in jail. Israel (which is also a democracy) does the same thing. But a Catholic state, which is not a democracy, cannot identify perceievd enemies of the state by their dress?

Since it is absurd that a blasphemer of Christ exercise authority over Christians, we on account of the boldness of transgressors renew in this general council what the Synod of Toledo (589) wisely enacted in this matter, prohibiting Jews from being given preference in the matter of public offices, since in such capacity they are most troublesome to the Christians. (FOURTH LATERAN COUNCIL, CANON 69)

I have no problem with this. Again, we are not talking about a democracy here. I would also have no problem if Israel prohibited Palestinians from holding public office.

[huskyboy]

Once again:

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.

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.

You're right. The schismatic post-conciliar church (post #268, paragraph 6) is denying that the Church is fully Catholic. What else is new?

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

I was afraid that I was the only one who is troubled by applause during Mass. Applaud for the newly baptized baby and family, applaud for the choir, applaud for anyone whom Father tells us to applaud for. This just did not happen ever during Mass pre- VII. It would have been considered totally inappropriate if not downright sacrilegious. 299 posted on 05/20/2003 12:24 PM PDT by k omalley

It may seem odd but it does seem to derive from "television culture" along with the other giddy atmospherics. I had the misfortune of being at a "folk mass" recently where people clapped boisterously at the end of one of the hymns. There is also a "therapeutic" aspect which seems to come in. The priest chides the audience to clap. That's ridiculous. This handshake of "peace" nonsense is not only unnecessary and distracting, it can be embarrassing. If a person has a cold and a runny nose, they should not be touching other people anywhere.

I have seen one parish where they ask everyone to stand up and introduce themselves to each other at the beginning of Mass. Again, Mass is not the "social hour." There is plenty of time after and before Mass for people who want to gab and network. Mass is actually a time for prayer and worship. Some people prefer to remain quietly private while they do this.

[huskyboy]

Surprise! I agree. But that is different from saying that there is no one who was ever saved through invincible ignorance. And that even one person who was saved though not a formal member of the "Church" was nonetheless a member of the mystical Church.

So the idea that the two are equivalent goes "poof!" The true Church must subsist in the Catholic Church.

Can't accept that either. The problem is with the word "subsist", and the context that it is in.

Let me use terminology familiar to all. The Catholic Church is composed of the following: the Church Militant (the visible Church on earth), the Church Suffering (purgatory), and the Church Triumphant (heaven). If there is a person who is in the Church, (s)he must be one in of those three.

One who gets saved even though invincibly ignorant (and although these instances are God's province, we would have to say these occurences are rare because they are exceptions which prove the rule, otherwise why we do we have a Church?) would have to be either in purgatory or heaven, so they've been brought into the Church.

The word "subsist" implies that there are other churches which make up what Vatican II calls the Church of Christ. But that's the idea which has been condemned by no fewer than three popes, not to mention every Doctor of the Church. Let's call this "subsist" for what it is: a subtle move to cloak heresy in what sounds like truth (but really isn't).

[Domestic Church]

"... applause during Mass. ... It would have been considered totally inappropriate if not downright sacrilegious."

It still is in my view. I cringe everytime it is done. It reflects a lack of belief in the Eucharist and a turning of focus from Christ to man.

[fishtank]

"They are His children of natural descent,"


The Jews are children of Abraham, and as a nation are still God's Chosen, but on an individual level, each person, Jew or Gentile, must freely receive Yeshua to receive salvation and to be adopted of God.

[jt8d]

"Catholic, Monarchist, Texan... Any questions?"

Great signature line!

[ultima ratio]

I am not at all nit-picking--these are essential differences between Protestants and Catholics which the New Church glosses over in an exaggerated attempt at ecumenism. This is why traditionalists firmly believe the Novus Ordo is not only deficient, but dangerous to the faith.

The Council of Trent teaches that Christ Himself is truly Present after the Consecration and that the Sacred Host is immolated and offered up to the Father in sacrifice. Since this is truly Christ Himself, and not just a symbolic presence as Protestants believe, the offering is a true reenactment of the Cross of Calvery, an unbloody sacrifice:

"And inasmuch as in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the mass is contained and immolated in an unbloody manner the same Christ who once offered Himself in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross, the holy council teaches that this is truly propitiatory and has this effect, that if we, contrite and penitent, with sincere heart and upright faith, with fear and reverence, draw nigh to God, we obtain mercy and find grace in seasonable aid. For, appeased by this sacrifice, the Lord grants the grace and gift of penitence and pardons even the gravest crimes and sins. For THE VICTIM IS ONE AND THE SAME, the same NOW offering by the ministry of priests who then offered Himself on the cross, the MANNER ALONE OF OFFERING BEING DIFFERENT. The fruits of that bloody sacrifice, it is well understood, are received most abundantly through this unbloody one, so far is the latter from derogating in any way from the former. Wherefore, according to the tradition of the Apostles, it is rightly offered not only for the sins, punishments, satisfactions and other necessities of the faithful who are living, but also for those departed in Christ but not yet fully purified." (Council of Trent, 22nd Session)

Protestants do not believe in the Real Presence. Christ's presence is virtual only, in the assembly and in the Scripture readings--precisely the emphasis given in the Novus Ordo. The Protestant ritual is a memorial meal, a commemoration of Christ's sacrifice, a looking-back on what happened two thousand years ago once and for all. Nothing is immolated. There is, in fact, no altar of immolation, no priesthood to do the immolating, no sacrifice per se. In imitation of this, the Novus Ordo calls the priest a "presider" and emphasizes the virtual presence of Christ--ignoring His Real Presence, suppressing, in fact, this central Catholic dogma.

You claim the sacrificial structure has not been destroyed. But Bugnini started where Luther began--by tossing out the Offertory and substituting a prayer of thanks. There is no Offertory in the new Mass--none, zilch. The "Presentation of the gifts" make no allusion to our sinfulness or to the nature of the sacrifice.

As for your being "a smart guy"--I don't think so. You apparently don't understand the fundamental meanings behind the Mass which all traditional Catholics commonly appreciate. You assume the Novus Ordo is Catholic--since you've been brought up to believe it is. But it is theologically Protestant--and just barely valid as a Mass. It supports none of the ancient teachings about the Real Presence, about His unbloody sacrifice, about the need for propitiation for our sins. These are fundamental Catholic doctrines--which you seem to think are "rants" or "pet theories" on my part, rather than the perennial teachings of the Church. You need to read the Council of Trent.

[Cap'n Crunch]

Hey! There he is!

I was hoping Doc was gonna take the bait, I am always up for a dozen donuts.

I've been working so much lately though... here's another thread that took off on me.

[fishtank]

When I read the Latin Missal,

I became a SSPXer,

When I read the letter to the Hebrews,

I became a Protestant.

---

In "Hebrews", the Word says over

and over

and over

that

Jesus died once for all.

[jt8d]

Right on the mark, sir.

[sinkspur]

The fact remains, however, that if the NO were celebrated according to the GIRM every Sunday in Latin as Sacrosanctum Concilium recommends, there would be almost no sedevacantists, schismatics, etc. The NO is perfectly capable of maintaining the atmosphere of solemn dignity and reverence.

I disagree with this completely. If you read the schismatics carefully, most of them will accept nothing short of the restoration of the Tridentine Mass, the suppression of the Novus Ordo (GIRM or otherwise), and the complete repudiation of Vatican II. If the Church acceded to a universal indult, the SSPX would still hold out because the Church was still corrupted by Vatican II. I'm convinced there would be a hardcore of SSPXers who wouldn't return under any circumstances due to simple pride.

I've also detected, in some of the posting of those who favor a return to the Tridentine Mass and who attend the Novus Ordo, a secret hope that the Novus Ordo will, at some point, be seen as an aberration and be suppressed.

Now, I would oppose this vehemently, but I would attend whatever Mass the Church approves, because it is THE EUCHARIST that is important, after all. But any attempt to reimpose the Tridentine Mass would drive Catholics out of the Church who prefer worshipping God in their native tongue.

If every bishop permitted their priests to celebrate the Tridentine Rite and refrained from stigmatizing the priests who chose to celebrate it, I can't imagine the SSPX could stay in operation.

I don't think bishops would stigmatize priests who want to celebrate the Tridentine Mass. I really don't.

But I do firmly believe that there are just not that many priests who would celebrate the Tridentine Mass (no matter what your anecdotal experience happens to be) and the thought of Mass in Latin hasn't crossed the minds of 95% of Catholics who attend Mass every Sunday. Most of them would welcome it as an occasional novelty, but would not attend a Latin Mass on a regular basis.

But, I agree. The Tridentine Mass should be offered, but not jammed down anybody's throat. That's the mistake the Church made in the 1960s, and it should not make it again.

[drstevej]

*** When I read the Latin Missal,

I became a SSPXer,

When I read the letter to the Hebrews,

I became a Protestant.***

Once for all.
It is finished.
Glorious truth!

[jt8d]

I have read all that Francisco has posted here, with regard to this subject, and with great interest. I must express a keen agreement with Francisco. He is being HISTORICAL, not "hysterical," as you have unjustly accused. His facts AND his Catholic faith are exactly on the mark. However, SD, you sir, are either disceived or are being disingenuous with your contentions. This argument of heresy/apostacy is not a difficult matter to resolve, when the facts are placed in context with Catholic history; to wit: the unchanging teachings of the Church fathers--doctors of the faith, and the long litany of orthodox Catholic popes are definitive and absolute, Pope Paul VI committed heresy by aligning the Roman Catholic Church with the teachings of freemasonry, hence the "Cult of Man."

[jt8d]

PRIMARY DEFINED DOGMA OF THE FAITH: THERE IS NO SALVATION OUTSIDE OF THE HOLY ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH. SD, do you accept this doctrine or not? A simple one-word answer is all that is necessary: Yes or No?

[Tantumergo]

"I would also have no problem if Israel prohibited Palestinians from holding public office."

They do! Palestinians have no rights in Israel as they are not citizens of Israel.

[Polycarp]

I am always up for a dozen donuts.

[Tantumergo]

"The word "subsist" implies that there are other churches which make up what Vatican II calls the Church of Christ."

Your understanding of metaphysics is what is letting you down here!

Any particular body can only have one subsistence, therefore your implication that "subsist" implies that other churches make up "the Church of Christ" is quite incorrect.

To say that the Church Christ established subsists in the Catholic Church is also to say that it subsists nowhere else.

The word "subsist" does allow for the fact that lost sons and daughters of the Church exist outside her, as do elements of her life e.g. baptism by heretics and schismatics is still valid baptism which constitutes those who receive it members of the Catholic Church until they adhere to a heresy or commit a schismatic act.