Neo-conservatives

[Mr. Cube]

About the baptism of blood, and the baptism of desire. The way it was explained to me is that they are for people who die without baptism. People who want to be baptized, but never have the opportunity, like the repentant thief crucified next to Jesus, get the baptism of desire. People who are martyred, like the infants massacred by Herod, get the baptism of blood. Who knows if you never had the opportunity to get baptized? God knows. Thus if you want to get baptized, you should do everything you can to get baptized. That's what I was told anyway.

And the modesty veils-- I wish women would wear them to Mass.

[Donna]

Hey, Al. (Are you really a champion of drunkenness? Somehow it doesn't fit).

Sigga (Hey, long time), that overly focusing can be a pitfall. I think of this in Jesus' letter (to the Ephesians), where they were so zealous of combatting evil they "left thy first charity" (Apoc. 2).

But to address a common theme of the thread, the main thing about Tradition, is that it is the patrimony of Holy Church and thus is no one's possession to do with what they will other than

1) Guarding
2) Faithfuly transmitting
3) Upholding it in deed as well as in word

If any dis-own or refuse to care for the treasures God has given His Church, He will give His treasures to someone else. I would guess keeping the Faith of our fathers is a talent which each one of us will be asked to account for. Did we bury it, invest it, beget fruit from it?

St. Paul said we Gentiles best take care, for God spared not His natural son (Israel) in cutting him off. We are the grafted branch which can be as easily cut out. God only cut out like this when His priests and people showed by their obstinate pursual of the world rather than Him, what they really loved, and Whom they really wanted to ditch.

I realize the tension between conservative and trad is difficult. Sometimes we vent against each other's emphasis, and against each other. But IMO, it is dangerous for each to remain long in a superficial understanding of the issues at hand.

We're all sunk unless we receive the truth with love...unless we receive the love of the truth that we might be saved. Else, God shall send the operation of error, to believe a lie (2 Thess).

It has been said before: the layity alone has not the wherewithal to unleash the kind of civil war going on among [i]practicing[/i] Catholics. By [i]practicing[/i] I mean conservative and trad, and it'd be a much longer post if I didn't designate by those terms [i]conservative[/i] and [i]trad[/i]. They are often needed now, a bad fruit of confusion, and the devil is laughing.

I do not engage in conspiracy theory. I am a very simple housewife who is [i]sometimes[/i] able to look to the fruit and reason back to the beginning from there.
___________________________________________________________________

Now someone wrote herein that either one is in the Mystical Body or one is not (in speaking of Catholics).

Can someone explain in light of this, whether that would include all non-Trad groups deemed outside the Church, yet somehow in imperfect communion with her (like the Orthodox)?

Thx.

[picchick]

Donna,
"Now someone wrote herein that either one is in the Mystical Body or one is not (in speaking of Catholics).

Can someone explain in light of this, whether that would include all non-Trad groups deemed outside the Church, yet somehow in imperfect communion with her (like the Orthodox)?"

If you believe the truths taught and given to us by the Church. If you are baptized and profess the believes of the Church then you are in the Mystical Body.

If anyone says, "Well I believe that Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary, but I don't believe that she is free of sin", then that man is WRONG. Even if he believes everything else that the Church teaches he is not in the Mystical Body.

I am not sure what you mean by non-Trads. Are you talking about Greek Orthodox or the Eastern Rites?

Eastern Rites are in union with the Chruch. They are the "right lung"(I think right. Either that or left. Well, one of the lungs.) as the Pope called it. They are in full communion with the Church.

The Greek Chruch or Orthodox went into schism in the 800's. The Empire at this time was upbraided by Ignatius, the Patriarch of Constantinople. The Emperor not liking this sent him into exile and replaced him with a layman named Photius. Photius was crafty and stopped at nothing for personal gain. Igantius appealed to Rome at the same time that the Emperor was asking approval for his actions. The Pope, Pope Nicholas at the time, called a meeting together to figure things out. Afterwards, he declared that Ignatius was rightful Patriarch and that Photius should be stripped of all priestly honor given to him.

The Emperor was murdered three years later and his assassian took the throne. He again brought Photius to be the Patriarch of Constantinople. He tried to persuade the new Emperor that the Bishop of Constantinople should be head of the Church. He did all he could to get people against the Pope. He mentioned a whole bunch of charges against the Church. The Emperor soon lost favor with him and deposed of him. The Pope excommunicated him and reiterated his believe that Ignatius was the true Patriarch. Ignatius died and Photius became the Patriarch. Pope Nicholas died soon after. In 1043, another patriarch repeated the same charges of Photius. Pope Leo IX sent three delegates to check out the situation. There was a language barrier and the delegates were unable to refute the charges. They excommunicated the Patriarch. The Greek Church and the Roman Church broke apart and there has been no renunion yet.

Hope this helps
Meg

[amarkich]

I do not have the time to reply to all those posts, but I just want to point out that even dissident "Traditionalists" (which I am not one; in this I am speaking of Sedevacantists, etc) are much better than liberal cafeteria Catholics because the dissident "Traditionalists" are following something that was actually approved, taught, practiced, and believed by the Church whereas the liberals are trying to change the Church into something that She is not now, never has been, and never will be. God bless.

[Dave]

[quote name='amarkich' date='Aug 14 2004, 02:00 PM'] I do not have the time to reply to all those posts, but I just want to point out that even dissident "Traditionalists" (which I am not one; in this I am speaking of Sedevacantists, etc) are much better than liberal cafeteria Catholics because the dissident "Traditionalists" are following something that was actually approved, taught, practiced, and believed by the Church whereas the liberals are trying to change the Church into something that She is not now, never has been, and never will be. God bless. [/quote]
Number one, you don't have to be a sedevacantist or even a member of a schismatic group like the Society of St. Pius X to be a dissident traditionalist. If you support the heresy of Feeneyism or if you constantly find stuff to criticize the pope about rather than supporting him, then you're a dissident traditionalist.

Number two, dissident traditionalists are also trying to change the Church into something it wasn't and never will be. For example, the Church has NEVER taught Father Leonard Feeney's version of "extra ecclesia nulla salus." Also, it's not church doctrine or dogma that the Tridentine Mass is the only acceptable Mass there is (that belongs in the realm of discipline), yet dissident traditionalists like to act like it is.

[amarkich]

Even the ones that do subscribe to the things which you have stated are still supporting what the Church practiced. It only hurts your credibility to claim that they are the same as liberals. In any event, saying that the TLM gives greater glory to God is different than saying the NO is invalid. The one is true, and the other is not. Also, as I said, BOD/BOB are not Articles of Faith (even the NO priests I have talked to agree here, sorry to break that to you guys who were claiming otherwise), so one is completely in communion with Church teaching to deny this speculative theology. Also, criticizing the Pope (when he is wrong) is not being dissident; it is doing our duty to avoid scandal and to fulfill the Spiritual Works of Mercy.

Edited August 14, 2004 by amarkich

[Dave]

[quote name='amarkich' date='Aug 14 2004, 02:18 PM'] Even the ones that do subscribe to the things which you have stated are still supporting what the Church practiced. It only hurts your credibility to claim that they are the same as liberals.

[/quote]
No they're not either. They're not supporting authentic Church doctrine -- only their erroneous ideas of what they think Church doctrine is and what they think it's always been.

[quote]In any event, saying that the TLM gives greater glory to God is different than saying the NO is invalid. The one is true, and the other is not. [/quote]

I realize that, but also, thinking the TLM gives greater glory to God isn't the same as thinking the NO has harmed the Church really bad, regardless of its validity.

[quote]Also, as I said, BOD/BOB are not Articles of Faith (even the NO priests I have talked to agree here, sorry to break that to you guys who were claiming otherwise), so one is completely in communion with Church teaching to deny this speculative theology.[/quote]

Show me some Church documents that show they're not articles of faith. Where does it explicitly say that one doesn't have to believe in baptism of blood or of desire?

[quote] Also, criticizing the Pope (when he is wrong) is not being dissident; it is doing our duty to avoid scandal and to fulfill the Spiritual Works of Mercy.[/quote]

Who are you to decide the Pope is wrong? The Pope can never teach incorrectly otherwise that would mean the gates of hell had prevailed against the Church. We all know that ain't gonna happen.

[MichaelFilo]

The pople CAN be wrong. Just not on faith and morals. Anyways, yes, it is better to not put him on a higher pedestal than we should. That was the main reason of the bad popes of the renessiance Church.

God bless,

Mikey

Edited August 14, 2004 by MichaelFilo

[picchick]

Can someone please tell me what the TLM and BOD/BOB?

Also, it is true that the pope can err in anything except when he speaks on faith and morals. However, I understand that we need to critize everything that the Pope has to say. I have not seen that Pope John Paul II has said anything in his lifetime that is contrary to the faith or is questionable. Alot of the distortion comes from the interpretation of the media. If he has said anything please tell me with the source of the information so that I may investigate it myself.
God Bless,
Meg

[Dave]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' date='Aug 14 2004, 03:01 PM'] The pople CAN be wrong. Just not on faith and morals. [/quote]
That's not what I was saying. I wasn't saying the Pope can never be wrong. What I was saying is that certain people find fault with EVERYTHING the Holy Father says or does. To happen not to agree with him on a certain way that he's chosen to do things is one thing. But being overly critical of everything he says or does puts one on a dangerous road -- one that could eventually lead to straight heresy or schism.

[Dave]

[quote name='picchick' date='Aug 14 2004, 03:29 PM'] Can someone please tell me what the TLM and BOD/BOB?
[/quote]
TLM = Tridentine Latin Mass
BOD = Baptism of Desire
BOB = Baptism of Blood

[picchick]

Thanks

[amarkich]

[color=red][Edited by dUSt: [b]Public[/b] criticism of the magisterium. I don't know how to make this any more clear. IT IS NOT TOLERATED ON PHATMASS. 30 day suspensions for anyone who has multiple warnings. Starting yesterday.][/color]

Edited August 15, 2004 by dUSt

[picchick]

Wait, I don't understand, BOD and BOB is in the Baltimore Catechism.

321. "How can those be saved who through no fault of their own have not received the sacrament of Baptism?"

"Those who through no fault of their own have not recieved the sacrament of Baptism can be saved through what is called the baptism of blood or baptism of desire."

[MichaelFilo]

Picchick, I believe in the BOD/BOB but, for the sake of Mr.Amarkich (Who I've grown to like quite a bit since our views aren't very far apart) I'll state it for him.

The Catechism is NOT infalliable. That is, if it contradicts a canon or anything that is infalliable, the infalliable item over rides it. Mr. Amarkich has stated time and time again, that he believes (however apotheon nicely refuted it) that the BOD/BOB are in contradiction of a certain set of canons. The Catechism cannot make something an article of Faith, as it is falliable. With that said, Mr. Amarkich disregards the BOD/BOB statements, as heretical (or so it seems) and contradictiry to infalliable canon.

I hope that clears it up.

[cmotherofpirl]

The Cathechism is a magisterial document and a sure norm for the faith.

[picchick]

Thanks cmom.

If I had to memorize the Baltimore Catechism and refer to the Catechism of the Catholic Chruch for norms and clarifications of the Churche's teachings then what is their purpose?

Where am I to find my information?

[MichaelFilo]

Tradition and the bible.

The catechism is not infalliable. It is falliable. Therefore, can be overidden. If you want to dissprove Mr. amarkich, then you can't use the CCC to odo it. He is quoting canon law, therefore, his very source over rides yours.

God bless

Mikey

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='amarkich' date='Aug 14 2004, 06:29 PM'] So, we agree pretty much. The Pope can be incorrect in his opinions (we agree), and the NO is not equal to the TLM (at least in all respects)--we agree again. I also believe the NO has harmed the faithful greatly in several ways (not illustrating the truths of the Faith externally by ritual, not offering an uplifting Mass as far as music and holiness are concerned--at least in practice--etc). There is no need to show you a document that says "This is not an Article of Faith." The Church does not say this. The United States does not say "Limbo is not an Article of Faith." The Church only says that teachings [i]are[/i] Articles of Faith. There is no document to say this.


There has been no evidence for BOD/BOB being the teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium (the fact that it is in a Catechism does not mean anything; Limbo has been taught more widely in Catechisms and theology books than BOD/BOB and it is not an Article of Faith). As I said, the dissident "Traditionalists" still practice what the Church practiced and believe (mostly) what the Church has always taught whereas the liberals do not practice what the Church practiced (instead they practice "tolerance" and licentiousness); they also do not believe as the Church has believed (the dissident "Traditionalists" believe that the Pope is not truly the Pope, but the liberals believe that the Church is not infallible, that women can be priests, that the universal "priesthood" and the actual Priesthood are the same, that the Church encompasses all believesrs of anything--even nonbelievers--that there are many ways to salvation, that women and men are homogenous, and basically all other heresies put together since Modernism is the culmination of all heresy). Even though the dissident "Traditionalists" (I use the quotation marks because I do not consider them to be true Traditionalists, the way that the Church Fathers, Pope Saint Gregory the Great, Pope Saint Pius V, and the Popes against Modern Errors are Traditionalists).


I absolutely agree and believe in everything that every member of the hierarchy says (even if it is not authoritatively; this is what faithful Catholics have always done) [i]unless[/i] he is speaking in such a way as to contradict tradition or faith and morals. In other words, the Bishops who say that the Bible is not historically accurate, the Pope's "New Ecumenism" (in practice), the Pope's ideas about social justice (at least concerning the death penalty and war), the false ecumenism promoted by most Priests, the subjectivism cultivated in catechism classes, and all other heresies which have infiltrated the Church do not have to be (and [i]cannot [/i]be) obeyed. Other than the incorrect teachings, I accept even the opinions of the Pope, the Bishops, and even any Priests I know so long as these opinions do not contradict Church teachings or venerable traditions.


It seems that we agree on almost all of the issues. The only issue seems to be that BOD/BOB are not Articles of Faith. Since there has been no evidence for this and since there is no [i]Ex Cathedra [/i]statement concerning them, there is no reason to believe that they are Articles of Faith. If they are not Articles of Faith, they must be examined in regard to Catholic doctrines and Traditions in order to understand whether or not they are valid beliefs at all (this is in the event that they are not Articles of Faith, which has yet to be seen). If they cannot be reconciled legitimately to the defined teachings of the Church (such as the Canons on Baptism from Trent), then they must be discarded as erroneous (and even heretical) since they are incompatible with Catholic teaching. This whole debate, however, hinges on whether or not BOD/BOB are Articles of Faith. Unless one can show that they are, I think that my arguments for their invalidity should be addressed. God bless.

Edit: I spaced it out; I hope this is sufficient; if anyone is having problems reading my posts still, please tell me. Thank you. God bless. [/quote]
The Cathechism is a magisterial document and a sure norm for the faith.

[cmotherofpirl]

The Catechism of Pius X

17 Q: Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way?

A: The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is
called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of
contrition, along with the desire, AT LEAST IMPLICIT, of Baptism, and
this is called Baptism of Desire.