Pray for Evan Conversion into the Roman Catholic Church
KFHAM
To Evan and those outside the Roman Catholic Church-------
Believe in the Faith that Jesus Christ gave to His Apostles; accept His
Vicar; and be baptized ------- otherwise you will surely perish.
The way I LOVE to say it is this:Become a Roman Catholic or goto Hell.
This is called true charity.
KFHAM
Missionaries testify that in parts of the Islamic world, there is a
surprising number of Mohammedans who convert because of Our Lady. One of
these missionaries testifies that a camel owner named Ali arrived at his
church one day and asked him, "Fayna Maryam? meaning "Where is Mary?" The
priest brought the Muslim to the statue of Mary which was in the church.
The man put down a small rug on the floor, knelt on it, and chanted
"Maryam, Maryam." When he finished his prayers, he left the church. But
he returned twice a week for more than a year to make the same prayers to
Maryam. After several years, the missionary was called to the hospital,
and led to the deathbed of Ali, who was dying of cancer. "Father, I am
dying, but I want to go with the Great Lady. Tell me what I have to do.
She loves me and surely will welcome me." Moved by this appeal, the
missionary returned to the hospital every day for a month to teach the man
the Catholic Faith. At the end of the month, Ali requested to be
baptized, a request the missionary was happy to meet. After being made a
Christian (that is another way of saying Roman Catholic), the penitent
ex-Muslim was then happy and joyful to be able to go with Mary.
KFHAM
Our Blessed Lady In The Order of Grace
Will soon be here on my web site. By the end of this next weekend I hope
to have some if not all of it done. Thank for visiting.
KFHAM
Protestantism was not a true reformation of the Church. The identity
of the Church is indissolubly linked with a continuous identity of
doctrine, worship, and discipline. The so-called Reformation involved the
abolition of essential doctrines, worship, and discipline, substituting
completely different and humanly invented alternatives.
To say that the Prot. churches have as much right to say they have the
truth as the Churches of the Corinthians, Ephesians, Colossians, etc., in
early times is like supposing that the Prot. churches have the same
doctrine, worship, and disciplines as those early Churches. But this is
an unwarranted supposition. Those early branch foundations of the one
true Church had the true doctrine, and were in communion with St. Peter,
Bishop of Rome, who addressed his first Epistle to the Galatians and
several other Churches. Prot. churches do not hold the same doctrine as
those early Churches, nor do they acknowledge the same obedience. Also,
in all the countries where Prot. churches exist, there exists also the
Catholic Church which corresponds exactly with the Churches of the
Corinthians, Ephesians, Colossians, etc.
Many profess to believe in Christ, but do not accept the whole of His
teaching. They are WRONG. Certainly the Anglican does not believe in the
correct doctrines of Christ if the Baptist does. The Catholic Church
alone teaches the complete doctrine of Christ, and the only way to become
a Catholic is to submit to her teaching authority and disciplinary
directions.
The Protestant sects constitute a breakaway from the Catholic Church.
That is their condemnation, for there could never have been a valid reason
for leaving the Church established and guaranteed by Christ. In any case,
branches of the Church must be living branches still retaining their
uninon with the parent tree. The Catholic Church as established in
England, or in America, or in Australia, fits in with the idea of living
branches. But at best, the Prot sects are branches sawn off, and without
the true life of the tree. Prot. churches are divisions from the Church,
not co-ordinated parts within the Church, and making up one complete body.
KFHAM
It is not certain that men would realize their mistakes on other subjects.
In political and national affairs men differ hopelessly, and absurd
political policies seem ever to find followers. Yet, even granted that
men would realize their mistakes in other matters, they would not
therefore realize the falsity of Protestantism. In the first place,
religion is very different from other matters. It is not here a question
of a merely intellectual admission. The acceptance of Catholicism is a
complex matter demanding adherence of mind, heart, and will, under the
influence of God's grace. The absence of one or other necessary condition
can mean a dimming of one's powers of comprehension. And until a man sees
the truth of Catholicism, he is liable to rest more or less content with
the "religion" he has. Again, Prots PREJUDICE IS A REAL, if unrealized,
force in those educated under the influence of Protestantism, a force
blinding people to the defects of Protestantism, and to the merits of
Catholicism. I remember a man who went through many forms of
Protestantism, ending in Agnosticism, and who replied to my question as to
whether he had ever studied Catholicism, "No. But Catholicism can't be
right!" Protestantism had ceased to grip him positively, yet still left
the negative poison in his system, "Rome must be wrong---I would not even
consider it." Finally, and especially with Englishmen, the Protestant
system has been so blended with nationalism that it has become a matter of
sentiment and patriotism. Its adherents go far more by feeling and
emotion than by reason and true faith. Indeed it has been said strongly,
yet not without a degree of truth, that when an Englishman enter his
church, he leaves his brains on the doormat. In other words, the average
Prot. gives little real thought to his "religious" position at all.
Padraic42
In article <19970520075...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, kf...@aol.com
(KFHAM) writes:
I am no fan of Evan, but I can't go with this, especially the last line.
It would be nice for Evan to convert back to the True Church, but he is
already in the Church. I would ask for his heart of stone to be replaced
by one of flesh and blood, and work toward mutual respect and
reconcilation than his blind attacks.
He is a member of the Church in that, beig taught, and truly following
his conscience as to what God wills of him, he is a member by the baptism
of desire. Though his belief is imperfect and tainted, I believe he
essentially is trying to do what God wills. It's only that he has
hardened his heart, this is what I see as the greatest danger to Evan.
Pax Christi, Pat
"Pray for us O Holy Mother of God, that we may be made worthy of the Promises of Christ."
Marc Edward Petrunia
KFHAM (kf...@aol.com) wrote:
: To Evan and those outside the Roman Catholic Church-------
: Believe in the Faith that Jesus Christ gave to His Apostles; accept His
: Vicar; and be baptized ------- otherwise you will surely perish.
: The way I LOVE to say it is this:Become a Roman Catholic or goto Hell.
: This is called true charity.
Is this charity? Become a Roman Catholic of go to Hell.... hummm.... I
don't think so. Sorry. I am a Protestant, who is going through RCIA,
and planning to become Catholic. Does this post mean that all my
relatives and friends are going to go to Hell, even though they are
practicing Baptists, Methodists, etc??? NO!!! And anyone who does
believe this, shouldn't be calling themselves a Christian either.
-Marcvs --
KFHAM
It is true charity. Go into my homepage and read the tracts and go to my
only link and you can email them. They also have a book which I have and
It is very good. It is called 'Father Feeney and The Truth about
Salvation.'
My homepage is not fancy any you may not like the colors but so what?
KFHAM
No Pat. You can't be saved by baptism of desire.
KFHAM
Read my reply on your other post.
KFHAM
True and natural water must be used.
Christopher Beattie
KFHAM wrote:
>
> No Pat. You can't be saved by baptism of desire.
newsreader tends to have a quick turnover due to small disk
space) it would seem that as stated this is not correct
with reguards to church teaching. From the Catechism of
the Catholic Church we read:
VI. THE NECESSITY OF
BAPTISM
1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary
for salvation.[59] He also commands his disciples to
proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize
them.[60] Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to
whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have
had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.[61] The
Church does not know of any means other than Baptism
that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she
takes care not to neglect the mission she has received
from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are
"reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound
salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is
not bound by his sacraments.
1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction
that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith
without having received Baptism are baptized by their
death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the
desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism
without being a sacrament.
1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism,
their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance
for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that
they were not able to receive through the sacrament.
1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in
fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine,
we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the
possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to
God, of the Paschal mystery."[62] Every man who is
ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but
seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance
with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be
supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism
explicitly if they had known its necessity.
1261 As regards children who have died without
Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy
of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed,
the great mercy of God who desires that all men should
be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which
caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not
hinder them,"[63] allow us to hope that there is a way of
salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All
the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little
children coming to Christ through the gift of holy
Baptism.
<END OF QUOTE>
--
| _______ |Christopher Beattie | 801 Eisenhower Dr|
| /__ __\ Peace |Tantalus Inc. | Key West, FL 33040|
| / \ and |Development Div. |Phone: (305) 293-8100|
| /___\ Good |chr...@Tansoft.com | Fax: (305) 292-7835|
| |#include <disclamer.standard.hpp> |
MarcMySimp
kfham writes:
>No Pat. You can't be saved by baptism of desire.
>True and natural water must be used.
Yeah, like was hosed all over the thief on the cross, right?
BTW: I hate that false and unatural water, tastes bad.
In Christ,
Marc
----------------
"Those who use abortifacients commit homicide."
St. Clement
KFHAM
Saint Dismas, was saved under the same economy as all justified men of the
old dispensation were saved. He went to the Limbo of the Just----Christ
referred to it as "paradise," and the Apostles' Creed calls it
"hell"---and was led into the Beatific Vision by Christ on Ascension
Thursday along with all the Just of the Old Testament. The need for
Baptism did not become effective until the first Pentecost Sunday when the
Church was actually "born.".
Padraic42
In article <19970521173...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, kf...@aol.com
(KFHAM) writes:
>No Pat. You can't be saved by baptism of desire.
"Thus we see tha tgod does not refuse grace to anyone in 'good faith', to
anyone who is outside the Church through 'invincible ignorance'; but it is
essential tha the must be in good faith. Whoever, 'without his fault' is
not a Catholic, but sincerely seeks the truth and keeps the commandments
to the bes tof his knowledge, does not indeed belong to the 'visible body'
of the Church, but in spirit, as it were, belongs to the 'invisible'
church, and therefore can be saved. He is not saved 'without' the Church
of Christ and 'against' her, but 'through' her....There is no 'invisible'
Church beside the 'visible' one; there is only one true Church of Christ
in which both what is visible and invisible are organically united." (A
Course in Religion, Book IV, Catholic Apologetics; Fr. John Laux, M.A.
1934. pg. 126; )
The teaching "Outside the Church there is no salvation" does not mean
one has to belong to the 'visible' Church in order to be saved, but was
rather taught in response to heretical sects which left the Church for
reasons of convenience.
Therefore, the Buddhist, Protestant, Eastern orthodox, who is not a
member of the Catholic Church by virtue if 'invincible ignorance' canno
tbe presumed to be condemned. However, the Catholic, given the truth and
teaching, who leaves for reasons of convenience, is outside the Church and
endangering his immortal soul.
This is NOT to say that 'one religion is as good as another' or that '
all or any religion leads to heaven'. However, that is not to say that
those who follow those fatihs are automatically condemned.
If a person commits a crime, is his grandson guilty of the crime? Those
who left the Church may have reason to be concerned for their souls
because of this action, but their descendents are following God honestly
in the way they were taught.
St. Peter said; "In every nation he that fears God and works justice is
acceptable to him." ( Acts 10:35) Pope St. Gregory the Great said, "The
Catholic Church embraces all the just from Abel to the last of the elect
at the end of the world."
I do not know Evan's history of faith, so, though I disagree strongly
wiht him, I will not say that he is outside the Church and thereby lost.
This is something purely within God's realm.
However, those who leave the Church because they want to reject a
teaching or the Pope, 'may' have reason for concern. This is why it is
dangerous for those who speak of the 'errors of the Church' and leave.
BMccahill
Here's another age old Protestant/Atheist argument. "You Catholics are bad
because you think no one can be saved unless he's a Catholic!" Reply, "No
we don't. We say one must be baptized." Next - "Oh, so all those Indians
and Africans can't be saved?" Reply - "Yes they can." (Catholic goes on to
explain babtism by water, blood or desire) "No way!",comes the
counterargument. There's no such thing!"
So, we start the downward spiral. First comes the false accusation, then
the shift.
BAM
"If a man really thinks that there is no distinction between virtue and vice, why, Sir, when he leaves our houses, let us count our spoons." Samuel Johnson
Mark Johnson
padr...@aol.com (Padraic42) wrote:
>Whoever, 'without his fault' is
>not a Catholic, but sincerely seeks the truth and keeps the commandments
>to the best of his knowledge, does not indeed belong to the 'visible body'
>of the Church, but in spirit, as it were, belongs to the 'invisible'
>church, and therefore can be saved. He is not saved 'without' the Church
>of Christ and 'against' her, but 'through' her....There is no 'invisible'
>Church beside the 'visible' one; there is only one true Church of Christ
>in which both what is visible and invisible are organically united." (A
>Course in Religion, Book IV, Catholic Apologetics; Fr. John Laux, M.A.
>1934. pg. 126; )
> Therefore, the Buddhist, Protestant, Eastern orthodox, who is not a
>member of the Catholic Church by virtue if 'invincible ignorance' canno
>tbe presumed to be condemned.
It's tough to presume that of anyone. The Church, after all, rules on
sainthood, in particular cases (perhaps far too many, in my opinion,
of late, to be legitimate). It doesn't rule on perdition, as far as I
know. We all assume Hitler is in hell, don't we? We all assume the
same of the Anton LeVay? But there's perhaps the lingering doubt,
though unreasonable it would seem. And it also seems more difficult to
fairly judge the case for a saint. A putative miracle received by
prayer may be true, after the saint has died, but one would expect a
miracle or two during the life of the saint, as well, wouldn't one?
One of the sins against God's Holy Spirit is to presume our own
sainthood, or even that of others. It trivializes what is meant by the
narrow way or road, and it contradicts the teaching that few will be
made worthy of The Church Suffering and Triumphant. It may indeed be
the case that one may be saved without knowing of The Church, without
knowing by conscience they could be moved to investigate this visible
organization, to learn more about the Sacraments, to study the lives
of the saints - ultimately to their Baptism and Confirmation, and to
the regular use of Penance and Holy Communion, and the sanctity of
Matrimony, where they learn to understand what is holy as opposed to
what is merely 'civil', or where they find they even are eventually
called to orders within The Church Militant (if it is, anymore), and
up to the time where they understand a priest _ought_ to be by their
deathbed, and not chased away.
But that doesn't seem to describe the world, today - this 'global
village' of instant and mass communication. The Church has always
considered the spark, the process of conversion, to be valuable. We
don't necessarily wake up one day and say, I'm Catholic. It can take
some twists and turns to get there. On the other hand, who is really
ignorant at least of the existence of The Church - The Roman Catholic
Church? Who could not be moved, if they are humble to true conscience,
to want to know more? The Protestant you suggest, the schismatic
Greek, the pagan, or whoever, knows of The Church and rejects it, out
of blind ignorance you would claim, on their behalf. But if they are
not moved to question that ignorance, on their own, by conscience,
then how can you argue they have embraced Our Lord, by His rules, by
His sense, and not by their own stubborn misunderstanding based
ultimately on a rejection of The Magisterium?
Peace.
KFHAM
When the popes defined the dogma, Outside the Church there is No
Salvation, they clearly meant the visible, incarnational Church; the
Church which the whole world can see and hear and know.
KFHAM
blood and desire are NOT sacraments.
Padraic42
In article <3384c2c9...@news.pacbell.net>, 1023...@compuserve.com
(Mark Johnson) writes:
>But that doesn't seem to describe the world, today - this 'global
>village' of instant and mass communication. The Church has always
>considered the spark, the process of conversion, to be valuable. We
>don't necessarily wake up one day and say, I'm Catholic. It can take
>some twists and turns to get there. On the other hand, who is really
>ignorant at least of the existence of The Church - The Roman Catholic
>Church? Who could not be moved, if they are humble to true conscience,
>to want to know more? The Protestant you suggest, the schismatic
>Greek, the pagan, or whoever, knows of The Church and rejects it, out
>of blind ignorance you would claim, on their behalf. But if they are
>not moved to question that ignorance, on their own, by conscience,
>then how can you argue they have embraced Our Lord, by His rules, by
>His sense, and not by their own stubborn misunderstanding based
>ultimately on a rejection of The Magisterium?
Those declared saints have shown, by the record of their lives, and the
miracles associated with their intercession, shows that they are in
heaven. One has to understand that these are 'heroic' saints. For most
though, we cannot, nor the Church, presume that anyone is in heaven,
though we trust and hope that they are by God's love and mercy.
Of those who by their lives have shown a total and wilfull rejection of
God and His teaching, may well be in the other place. Yet, we cannot even
presume this, barring a last minute conversion, a death bed conversion if
your will (ref. the good thief).
Whereas the teaching of the Church is easy to understand. i.e. that all
are not necessarily condemend for simply not being Catholic, it is more
difficult to apply (hence the reason we do not presume who is condemned)
Gandhi, for example, was a prime candidate for conversion, and might have
made a great Christian saint. The problem? "I love your Christ, it's
your Christians I have a hard time with." So, by our unchristian
actions, keeping the label but not the teachings of being a Christian, did
more to turn him from being a Christian than the teaching.
How can anyone, as Evan shows, decide that the Church is the true Church
when it's difficult to distinguish what is the real Church. i.e. The
Church that condemns easy and seemingly automatic annulments, or the one
which allows it.
As a Greek Orthodox priest said on Mother Angelica, 'It's hard to know
who to speak to when we try to speak of reconciliation between us. Do we
speak to the traditionalists or the liberals?'
However, anyone who has become convinced that the Church is the true
Church, and remains outside of it for reasons of convenience, bias, etc.
Or those inside the Church who leave because they don't like the Pope, the
Church won't sanction their desires, for convenience, etc. These have
taken themselves outside of the Church, and are endangering their souls
(emphasis on endangering not lost sinc ethey can return). Likewise, there
may be reason for concern for those who, out of ignorance, attack the
Church, a la Tony Alamo, Jack Chick, Evan(?), Edwin Robinson, etc. The
Pharisees were ignorant of who Christ was, but were not spared from being
condemned by Christ.
KFHAM
A brief look at the New Catechism of the Catholic Church
Outside the Church there is No Salvation is, in the order of priority, the
most important dogma of the Catholic Church. It clearly expresses her
authority over all men (Evan that means you!). Do away with it, or change
its meaning, and all men become victims of the greatest hoax ever
perpetrated:they are deliberately given wrong directions to "the one and
only path to salvation," as Pope John Paull II described the Church.
Satan dreads this dogma! It robs him of countless souls who would
otherwise fall under his power. Over the centuries, he has attacked it
constantly, but only within the last 100 years or so, has he been able to
infiltrate his agents into the Church in order to attack it more
effectively from within.
Freemasonry is Satan's vehicle of infiltration; the heresy of Modernism is
the handiwork of Freemasonry.
Vatican II was a Pastoral Council (NOT a doctrinal) controlled by
Modernists, whom, no doubt, the Holy Ghost prevented from speaking
infallibly.(In fact Vatican
II did proved Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus!). Therefore, any of its
teachings, if they conflict with Tradition, prior Councils or Papal
encyclicals, are to be disregarded, as Pope John Paull II advises.
The German theologian, Karl Rahner, S.J., was described as having been the
most influential peritus at the Council. Father Rahner was also an
arch-Modernist. Subsequent to the Council he showed his true colors by
openly advocating "Universal Salvation" everyone goes to Heaven! a heresy
imputed to Origen. In his bood, The Anonymous Christian, published in
1976, Rahner wrote:
"There can be, and actually are, individuals who are actually justified in
the grace of God who attain to supernatural salvation in God's sight...yet
who do not belong to the Church...as a visible historical reality...No
truly theological demonstration of this thesis can be supplied here from
scripture or tradition. Such a demonstration would not be easy to make,
because the optimism of universal salvation entailed in this thesis has
only gradually become clear and asserted itself in the conscious faith
concerning salvation for unbaptized catechumens in Ambrose, through the
doctrine of baptismus flaminis and the votum ecclesiae in the Middle Ages
and at the Council of Trent, down to the explicit teaching in the writings
of Pius XII to the effect that even merely implicit votum for the Church
and baptism can suffice.
"It was declared at the Second Vatican Councils that atheists too are not
excluded from this possibility of salvation...The only necessary condition
which is recognized here is the necessity of faithfulness and obedience to
the individual's own personal conscience. This optimism concerning
salvation appears to me one of the most noteworthy results of the Second
Vatican Council. For when we consider the officially received theology
concerning all these questions, which was more or less traditional right
down to the ... Council, we can only wonder how few controversies arose
during the Council with regard to these assertions of optimism concerning
salvation, and wonder too at how little opposition the conservative wing
of the Council brought to bear on this point, how all this took place
without any setting of the stage or any great stir even though this
doctrine marked a far more decisive phase in the development of the
Church's conscious awareness of her faith, than, for instance, the
doctrine of collegiality in the Church, the relationship between scripture
and tradition, the acceptance of the new exegesis, etc." (Emphasis ours)
Rahner's brand of "optimism concerning salvation" is simply a denial of
the DEFINED dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. He was the architect of
this denial which he proudly describes as "one of the most noteworthy
results" of Vatical II. On this score, he is right:thanks to the Council
very few Catholics today believe there is no salvation outside the Church.
But he LIES about there being no "setting of the stage" at Vatican II,
and he is naive if he truly wonders "at how little opposition the
conservative wing ... brought to bear on this point." The conservative
wing was led by aging Cardinal Ottaviani who, as Assessor of the Holy
Office, had signed the infamous "Letter to the Archbishop of Boston" which
condemned Father Feeney's unequivocal teaching of this very dogma.
Obviously the Cardinal could not defend it at the Council.
So much for background pertaining to Vatican II itself. Now let us turn
our attention to the recently published, new catechism prepared by
Modernist disciples of Rahner.[Note:remember I did ask if the person knew
what the 5% rule is.] It is called the Catechism of the Catholic Church,
and it comes to us by the authority, and with the approval, of Pope John
Paul II. Abbe Georges de Nantes holds it to be about 95% good, but 5%
poison; 95% honey and 5% arsenic. When arsenic is mixed with honey it is
deceptive, and consequently more dangerous to the unaware. So, the
question is, where is the arsenic? Here are the teachings of the
Catechism on the two issues of great importance:
On page 224, under a heading, Outside the Church there is no salvation,
paragraph #846 begins:
How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church
Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from
Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Here, at the very beginning of the discussion, we encounter trickery.
First, we are told that the "affirmation" cannot easily be understood; it
must be explained to us! This is typical Modernist "hokum."
What could be more clear than the words used by Pope Boniface VIII in his
Bull Unam Sanctam in 1302:
"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."
TO BE CONTINUED..............
KFHAM
Then we are told it is just an "affirmation" by Church Fathers; the
catechumen is not informed that it is a dogma of the Church, defined
infallibly by THREE Popes, one in Council. Finally, the exclusive
negative formula of the dogma is restated in the form of an inclusive
affirmative truism, or obvious truth. What does this do to the meaning of
the dogma? Pope Innocent III had declared ex cathedra:
"There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which NO
ONE AT ALL is saved." (Lateran Council IV, 1215)
In the philosophical science called Logic, this proposition is known as a
UNIVERSAL NEGATIVE; it permits no exceptions AT ALL! On the other hand,
by substituting for it the simple truism that "all salvation comes from
Christ...THROUGH the Church..." the door is opened to every exception
imaginable, and that includes Rahner's "universal salvation." :
Universal Affirmative: "All men have rational souls" This proposition does
not rule out the possibility of creatures, other than men, also having
rational souls.
Universal Negative: "Outside of men, there are no rational souls" This
proposition permits no exceptions; only men have rational souls. (Note:
Angels are intellectual spirits, not rational souls.)
Even if everything else in the Catechism were Traditional and orthodox,
which it is not, this piece of sleight-of-hand alone justifies our
rejecting it. Here, its Modernist authors completely change the meaning
of the key dogma of the Church.
The Catechism continues, quoting another truism from Vatican II:
"...Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church
was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to
enter it or to remain in it." (L:umen Gentium 14)
It then introduces its first exception, "This affirmation is not aimed at
those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his
Church, and quotes Lumen Gentium 16:
"Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of
Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart,
and moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it
through the dictates of their conscience those too may achieve eternal
salvation."
With the positively stated, non-qualifying formula for the dogma as its
reference, the Catechism introduces exceptions based on a distinction
between "knowing" or "not knowing" about the Church. This distinciton
with its ultimate destructive effect on the de fide requirements for
salvation, is a logical consequence of the denial of Original Sin by the
heretic Pelagius in the 4th century. This heresy was laid to rest by
Saints Augustine and Jerome, and the Papally approved Councils of Carthage
(418) and Orange (529), but was resurrected in the infamous 1949 "Letter
to the Archbisop of Boston," to which the decrees of Vatican II, and its
catechism, give credit for the resurrection. It is a novel teaching
which, heretofore, has never been approved by the Church. We disregard
and reject it, as Pope John Paul II says we must.
On page 320 of the Catechism, under a topic heading, The Necessity of
Baptism, we are taught the following in numbered paragraphs:
#1257 Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has
been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this
sacrament. ...God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he
himself is not bound by his sacraments.
Both of these sentences are novelties, never before taught by the Church.
The first contradicts the Council of Trent's Canon V on Baptism: "If
anyone saith that Baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto
salvation, let him be anathema." The second infers that Christ deceived
us when He said, "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost,
he cannot enter the kingdom of God." By this clear, unequivocal
statement, Our Lord not only bound salvation to the Sacrament of Baptism,
but He also bound Himself to the same sacrament.
TO BE CONTINUED....................
KFHAM
No Pat they are NOT members. There is NO WAY they can be.
I have already refuted you on this.
KFHAM
If you want to deal with me than I suggest you get your facts straight.
Or how about a debate YOU MUST ANSWER ALL OF MY QUESTIONS.
Or goto http://www.Catholicism.org where They are setup for a debate. The
are debating now but just email them to set up a debate.
That was easy.
KFHAM
My comments have already refuted you. I suggest you read them.
In the material visible sense, the Church is a "congregation of men bound
together by the profession of the same Christian Faith, and by the
communion of the same Sacraments, under the rule of the legitimate
pastors, and especially of the one Vicar of Christ on earth, the Roman
Pontiff" (Saint Robert Bellarmine). She is a perfect incarnational
society founded by Jesus Christ as the one and only path to salvation.
In the spiritual, invisible sense, the Church is the Mystical Body of
Christ, born as His members in Holy Baptism, nourished by Him in the Holy
Sacrament of the Altar, and bonded in union by the Holy Ghost. Be
receiving the Holy Eucharist, the human natures of members of the VISIBLE
Church on earth are absorbed into, and made one with, the human nature of
Our Lord Jesus Christ who is now in Heaven, Body and Soul.
We must emphasize, however, that although we may distinguish between
these two senses, we CANNNOT SEPARATE them, one from the other, as if they
were independent entities. This Mystical Body of Christ IS the Catholic
Church. They are one and the same thing, considered from two different
points of view.
But it seems that both Archbishop Lefebvre and Father Laisney among
others think of the Church in the spiritual, invisible sense, to the
exclusion of the visible sense, whenever her necessity for salvation is to
be considered. They admit she is necessary for salvation, but then seek
means other than sacramental Baptism to get people "inside" her.
The Archbishop holds that implicit disire unites one with "the soul of
the Church." an erroneous concept corrected by Pope Pius XII in Mystici
Corporis.
The visible Catholic Church Is the Mystical Body of Christ. The
sacrament of Baptism is the only way to gain membership in the Catholic
Church. It is clear, then, that "Charity" and/or "desire" are not enough
for membership in the Mystical Body.
In a word, Lefebvre and Laisney among others believe in a shortcut to
heaven; one that bypasses the visible Church and its port of entry, the
sacrament of Baptism; a shortcut that leads directly to the Church
Triumphant without going through the Church Militant.
This belief accounts for Father Laisney's writings his booklet, Baptism
of Desire, from "the point of view of grace," a purely spiritual approach.
It accounts for his considering the external rite of the sacrament of
Baptism of secondary importance. It accounts for his treatment of the
baptismal character as something of almost no value. And it accounts for
his failure to understand the great importance of the Dogma of Faith, the
suppression and denial of which was the first thing the modernists had to
accomplish if they were to succeed in their plan to destroy the Church
and, with it, the Mass, the sacraments, and everything the Church stands
for.
And lastly, sad but true as it is, it explains the otherwise
inexplicable animosity toward Father Feeney.
When the popes defined the dogma, Outside the Church there is No
Salvation, they clearly meant the visible, incarnational Church; the
Church which the whole world can see and hear and know. This is "the
Church" we mean. This is the visible "city on a hill" which Christ
founded. Outside the walls of this City, there is NO salvation possible
whatsoever!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------
Instead of responding to all the replies I am just making one to all here.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
I am currently working on the article as promised on my home page.
It is called:Our Blessed Lady in the Order of Grace.
It is not finished but you can read of what I have so far and hopefully I
will have
it done this weekend as I said I would.
You can't reach it at my main page but you can read it at:
http:members.aol.com/KFHAM/obl.html
I also have the e-mail and URL for it.
Padraic42
In article <19970525002...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, kf...@aol.com
(KFHAM) writes:
>No Pat they are NOT members. There is NO WAY they can be.
> I have already refuted you on this.
KFHAM, IF you refuted anything, you refuted Church teaching. What I
posted is from the Catechism, what I posted IS Catholic teaching. What
you posted seems to refer to those who have refused to follow the Church
and left. Not those who are 'visibly' outside the Church.
Reconsider here KFHAM, you are calling the Church, both pre and post
Vatican II, a liar. No, not the Church, but what you say is Church
teaching. Again, I did not post my opinion of Catholic teaching, I wrote
it word for word from the Catechism, and a pre-Vatican II Catechism at
that. Or would you prefer the Vatican II teaching s well?
"The visible members are those who have been recieved into the Church by
baptism. The following are not members: The unbaptized (heathens, Jews,
Mohammedans), formal heretics (Protestants), and schismatics (the Eastern
orthodox)... THE INVISIBLE MEMBERS ARE THOSE WHO WITHOUT ANY FAULT OF
THEIR OWN ARE OUTSIDE THE CHURCH LEADING GOD-FEARING LIVES."
(Catechism Explained, pg. 247; 1927; Bishop Hayes, Archbishop of New
York, Imprimatur)
"In this one and only Church of God from the very beginnings there arose
certian rifts...However, one cannot charge with the sin of seperation
those who at present are born into these communities and in them are
brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them
with respect and affection as brothers. For men who believe in Christ and
have been properly baptized are put in some, though imperfect, communion
with the Catholic Church."
(Vatican II; Decree on Ecumanism; Chap. 1, para. 3)
"Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the
Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation;...THOSE WHO,
THROUGH NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN DO NOT KNOW THE GOSPEL OF CHRIST OR HIS
CHURCH, BUT WHO NEVERTHELESS SEEK GOD WITH A SINCERE HEART, AND MOVED, BY
GRACE, TRY IN THEIR ACTIONS TO DO HIS WILL AS THEY KNOW IT THROUGH THE
DICTATES OF THEIR CONSCIENCE - THOSE TOO MAY ACHIEVE ETERNAL SALVATION"
(New Catechism; "Outside the Church there is no salvation" #846-847)
So KFHAM. I would re-evalute your position in lieu of the pre-Vatican II
catechism, Vatican II decress, and the New Catechism.
Evan Kalenik
All this time I thought that KFHAM and Pat were the same person using
two different addresses. Maybe I was mistaken. Maybe not.
Evan
see...@ibm.net
In <33890F...@webspan.net>, Evan Kalenik <kal...@webspan.net> writes:
[snip]
> As I said, I have not read Humanae Vitae in a while so I
>will not comment on it, however I will say, that before a couple
>practices birth control they had better be certain that they are able to
>justify their actions for they will be held accountable for them before
>God.
Evan: You don't have to read it again. You realize that the
pope went against the papal commission on birth control that he
himself set up, which was almost unanimously in favor of relaxing
the previous papal opinions that birth control was against the
"Natural Law", and therefore wrong.
As to justifying their actions, and being held accountable: this
is always used to beat the laity, but it should also be applied
to the pope and the hierarchy in general. Paul VI and other
popes will be held accountable for the inestimable harm they have
done the Church by their rash judgments against birth control for
good reasons within marriage.
At the beginning of every mass, we are expected to be sorry for
our sins and make a resolution to avoid faults in future. Maybe
there should be similar sentiments expressed by the hierarchy
about THEIR faults and failings, which are many?
seeker
KFHAM
Again I have already refuted you on this on different posts and I could do
a lot more!!! Go to my home page and read the tracts.
Christopher Beattie
Evan Kalenik wrote:
>
> Padraic42 wrote:
>
> > How can anyone, as Evan shows, decide that the Church is the true
> > Church when it's difficult to distinguish what is the real Church.
> > i.e. The Church that condemns easy and seemingly automatic
> > annulments, or the one which allows it.
>
> today as the Orthodox Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Faith. One
> only has to look around to see the changes that the Roman Catholic
> Church has made to that faith to be able to know where the fullness of
> the truth is and where it isn't.
The interesting problem to this argument is that one can make the same
argument against anything from the first seven ecumencial councils, all
those "changes," such as Trinity, Theotokos, and the veneration of Icons.
(In fact some people do, and they can be just as stubborn and obstanate
in accepting proofs contrary to their pre-conceived notions.)
> > Likewise, there may be reason for concern for those who, out of
> > ignorance, attack the Church, a la Tony Alamo, Jack Chick, Evan(?),
> > Edwin Robinson, etc. The Pharisees were ignorant of who Christ was,
> > but were not spared from being condemned by Christ.
>
> Again the personal attacks.
Agreed! We are CHRISTIANS after all, let's behave like one. Now
some of us occasionally need to be knocked down from our horses like
Paul was when he was persecuting Christians (and in effect persecuting
Christ) without knowing the full impact of his actions. Instead of
stabbing Evan for the scales on his eyes, let us help him remove it.
(Even if he doesn't really want those scales removed anyway.)
> What I think distresses you the most, Pat, is that I will not back down
> to all of your attacks. When I say that the modern innovations by the
> Church in Rome were not the beliefs of the Church from the beginning you
> have great fear that the truth might just leak out. Heaven forbid that
> the truth be known. It is better to silence those who might be willing
> to look at the whole story and not just the sanitized version that you
> have been spoon fed. You remind me of the words of your St. Ignatius
> Loyola who wrote "If children make a good first communion, they will be
> submissive to the pope forever. Like the stick in the hands of a
> traveller, they shall have no personal will, no thought of their own."
> (Liturature Depository, 1886, London). Or maybe it is his rule 13 of
> the Spirtual Exercises of Ignatius Loyola "We ought ever to hold as a
> fixed principle that what I see as white, I will believe to be black, if
> the superior authorities in Rome define it to be so."
First on the quotes, starting with the first one, somehow I think
that has been taken out of context, but if not, well, noone's
perfect, even St. Ignatius Loyola. On to the second. I've always
had problems with that as stated myself, but one has to look more
closely into what it implies.
Truth is rarely viewed as an absolute. (Truth is absolute, but our
viewing of truth is not.) How we approach a truth is important to
how we perceive it. Scripture clearly states that it is the Church
which is the pillar and foundation of Truth, which has been passed
down from the Apostles, and sometimes not always perfectly explained
to every member of the body of the Church. Therefore when I see a
truth of the Church which appears black and the church proclaims it
white, I instead look at why the church proclaims it white, how it
got to that point and how my view which comes from a different
direction was flawed, then understanding that it is truely white,
I am confirmed in the belief of the Church. Although if I do not
have the time or resources to do this, my FAITH of the Church through
scripture will lead me to believe that it is white.
First of all, in order to disprove that a thing was not a part
of the church from the beginning, it is necessary to show that
it existed somewhere. This we have proved, time and time again.
Now you counter that some did not believe. This may be possible,
but it not the point to the problem in question. In the 20th century
in the Catholic Church you might if you try find some writings of
some people who are for example opposed to humanti vitae, but this
does not mean the church did not teach humanti vitae strongly throughout
the 20th century.
Michael E. Cottmeyer
On 25 May 1997 18:24:54 EDT, Evan Kalenik <kal...@webspan.net> wrote:
>Padraic42 wrote:
>
>> How can anyone, as Evan shows, decide that the Church is the true
>> Church when it's difficult to distinguish what is the real Church.
>> i.e. The Church that condemns easy and seemingly automatic
>> annulments, or the one which allows it.
>
>It is fairly easy. Christ established His Church. That Church exists
>today as the Orthodox Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Faith. One
>only has to look around to see the changes that the Roman Catholic
>Church has made to that faith to be able to know where the fullness of
>the truth is and where it isn't.
>
>> Likewise, there may be reason for concern for those who, out of
>> ignorance, attack the Church, a la Tony Alamo, Jack Chick, Evan(?),
>> Edwin Robinson, etc. The Pharisees were ignorant of who Christ was,
>> but were not spared from being condemned by Christ.
>
>Again the personal attacks.
>
>What I think distresses you the most, Pat, is that I will not back down
>to all of your attacks. When I say that the modern innovations by the
>Church in Rome were not the beliefs of the Church from the beginning you
>have great fear that the truth might just leak out. Heaven forbid that
>the truth be known. It is better to silence those who might be willing
>to look at the whole story and not just the sanitized version that you
>have been spoon fed. You remind me of the words of your St. Ignatius
>Loyola who wrote "If children make a good first communion, they will be
>submissive to the pope forever. Like the stick in the hands of a
>traveller, they shall have no personal will, no thought of their own."
>(Liturature Depository, 1886, London). Or maybe it is his rule 13 of
>the Spirtual Exercises of Ignatius Loyola "We ought ever to hold as a
>fixed principle that what I see as white, I will believe to be black, if
>the superior authorities in Rome define it to be so."
>
>That is not a nice thing to say, but it seems to apply to you too often.
>
>Evan
I really hesitate to get involved in this "discussion" you guys have
going but I wanted to make one comment to Evan.
Pat asks "How can anyone, as Evan shows, decide that the Church is
the true Church when it's difficult to distinguish what is the real
Church. i.e. The Church that condemns easy and seemingly automatic
annulments, or the one which allows it."
I would suggest that both you guys look to the Catechism of the
Catholic Church. Whether you agree with the RCC or not, this is where
you will find the definative teaching of the Catholic Church.
I wholeheartedly belive the the RCC is the church that Christ
established. I get really frustrated with my local priest because
they lean away from Rome. Little things they in the Sunday homily
give them away. I always try to remember that I am first a member of
the Universal Church. Secondly I am part of a local community. I can
always go to the Catechism if I wish to know what the church actually
teaches on a given subject.
Mike
Timothy Consodine
Sergei King wrote:
> Well politics as usual
...
> ECUMENICAL PATRIARCHATE
> OF CONSTANTINOPLE
> www.patriarchate.org
...
>
> ECUMENICAL PATRIARCH CANCELS VISIT TO AUSTRIA AFTER VATICAN SETS TERMS
...
> Ecumenical Patriarchate: http://www.goarch.org/patriarchate
> Greek Orthodox Archdiocese: http://www.goarch.org/
> Orthodox Ministry ACCESS: http://www.goarch.org/access
> Orthodox World News: http://www.goarch.org/worldnews
I guess we all need to pray more.
Thanks for the great links to these Orthodox sites!