Raph's Signature

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

[quote name='Raphael' date='Mar 24 2006, 08:19 PM']No one else likes art, huh?
[right][snapback]921313[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


I like art, but i am a little wary of your signature........... :

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/40/Mlad%C3%BD_Jozef_Sarto_-_neskor%C5%A1%C3%AD_p%C3%A1pe%C5%BE_Pius_X..jpg[/img]

Sanctvs Pivs X, Ora pro nobis!

Edited March 25, 2006 by Extra ecclesiam nulla salus

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

[quote name='Raphael' date='Mar 24 2006, 11:14 PM']As well you should be. :
[right][snapback]921446[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Your Signature is not very ecumenical.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Mar 25 2006, 12:45 AM']Your Signature is not very ecumenical. 
[right][snapback]921487[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Ecumenism is not about making concessions to a group which is in the wrong. It is about finding common ground and working for unity under the banner of the Catholic Church.

Common ground: Pope St. Pius X

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

i would continue this discussion. but its not allowed so i won't.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

[quote]Abraham was the Patriarch of the Jewish relegion, he believed that a Messiah would come to Reedem the world .do you suppose he's in Heaven praying for the Catholic Church who Confesses Christ as the Messiah or for the success of a group which denies that Christ is the Messiah? Jews, you'd better return...Abraham, the man you claim as your Patriarch, may rise and testify against you.

[/quote]

So lets take your signature and make it over so its about the jews. ok here it is. would you use that as your signature?

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Mar 24 2006, 11:01 PM']So lets take your signature and make it over so its about the jews. ok here it is. would you use that as your signature?
[right][snapback]921504[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I would caution against continuing this here...

[musturde]

I yet again find myself almost agreeing with EENS. Just calm down on the Jew comments lol.

To Raph:
Why bash a religion in a signature. If you were to say the Catholic Church is still of God, do it in a subtle way. You're asking for a fight. You already know that nobody will really contemplate your signature because everyone who is united to Rome would currently agree that schismatics should be part of our Church. Your signature just angers traditionalists when what you should be doing, if you actually want to sound convincing in a debate instead of inciting anger, is to keep the debates personal between people and not to make public statements into your signature that make the people sound stupid. Then you can debate the people in the Debate Table instead of carrying it with you in your signature every topic you post in.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

i didn't make this thread. i wonder how it got here

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

it Was Aloysius was it.............. i see.

[Slave_of_the_Trinity]

I came to this thread to check out some really cool art but as I read on i saw a conversation that escalated very fast into something that everyone has taked a part of. Guys, you have got to settle this. EENS i respect how the SSPX believes that the Traditional Mass should be preserved but you beliefs can still be in union with the Church under the Society of St. Peter. this goes out to Raph, I agree also with you that the SSPX should unite with the Church but you could post your belief in a more charitable matter.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

[quote name='Slave_of_the_Trinity' date='Mar 25 2006, 06:41 PM']I came to this thread to check out some really cool art but as I read on i saw a conversation that escalated very fast into something that everyone has taked a part of.  Guys, you have got to settle this.  EENS  i respect how the SSPX believes that the Traditional Mass should be preserved but you beliefs can still be in union with the Church under the Society of St. Peter.  this goes out to Raph,  I agree also with you that the SSPX should unite with the Church but you could post your belief in a more charitable matter.
[right][snapback]922220[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I do not show support of the SSPX just because of their views on the traditonal latin mass.

[Brother Adam]

hmmm

[Slave_of_the_Trinity]

Well, growing up after Vatican II i dont really know too much about the Church before the Council. Explain what else you think is lacking in the Church, for i truly am ignorant and i would like to understand where you are coming from.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

i would give you a good link but it is not allowed. I am not going to get into this argument again, because it happens every few months and nothing is ever solved. if you would like to learn more about the Church before the Council and traditional Catholicism i suggest you come to [mod]we do not link to such sites here on phatmass[/mod]

God Bless,


Sam

Edited March 26, 2006 by Lil Red

[Slave_of_the_Trinity]

Thanks, i'll check it out

[Brother Adam]

Rather, traditional Catholics look at the Church, and its disciplines as it existed for about 400 years, from the time after Trent until the next council. Matters of discipline are such for a reason

Traditional Catholics would be "neo-catholics" to those Catholics and their disciplines from before the Council of Trent if those Catholics decided to have the same attitude.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

that is not ture Brother Adam.


Traditional Catholics believe that Trent Re-affirmed Catholic Dogma, where as Vatican II departed from Catholicism and is not treated "as a super Dogma".

[Theoketos]

Vatican II did not depart from Catholism. It is pride and heresy to say so.

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Mar 25 2006, 09:19 PM']that is not ture Brother Adam.
Traditional Catholics believe that Trent Re-affirmed Catholic Dogma, where as Vatican II departed from Catholicism and is not treated "as a super Dogma".
[right][snapback]922328[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Yes it is true. I've studied the history of the liturgy in depth. While I'm not nearly as well formed as Cam, what I have said is absolutely true. You have to understand that there is a difference between doctrine and discipline. The actual written and spoken language of the creeds, of the mass, of various rites, have changed throughout time. No one in the New Testament knew Latin. Jesus did not speak Latin. The first mass was different in language and words than that of the missal issued after Trent.

Discipline is different than doctrine. If a priest can be married or unmarried, colors of liturgical seasons, even parts of the mass and its order are all parts of discipline. It is not doctrine, and is changable based on the judgment of the Magisterium of the Church.

Trent developed known doctrine. It was a response to the Reformation and part of the counter-reformation. The Second Vatican Council never changed any doctrine of the Church. The Church did not go from believing the Eucharist is really, truly, and substantially the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ, to believing it was symbolic. The council was called by the Roman Pontiff, the man who sits in the chair of St. Peter, the representative of Jesus Christ on earth. It was a Catholic council. In as much as you would be obendient to the Church through the council of Trent, which caused hard times for many years after its close because of changes that were made, so to are you called to be obedient to Jesus Christ through His Church even when you don't like it. I don't like every decision the Church makes, but it is not my business to question her authority, nor is it yours. The decision that one must make really is very simple. You either obey the Church, who stands today, as she has for 2000 years, with her Pontiff, Bishops, priests, and laity, or you deny her, separate yourself from her and go your own way. To insist that the Second Vatican Council taught error, is to insist that the "gates of hell" have prevailed, and the Reformers were most certianly right and just in separating themselves from the Church. For that is what the SSPX did, they said that the Catholic Church no longer has it right. That the mass they call valid, is an absurdity, that the council introduced new teachings contrary to the faith, and that they had to cut themselves off from the Catholic faith. No matter how much the SSPX tries to hold to Catholic 'traditionalism' trying to live in the past, if they disobey the Church, members of the movement very well may find themselves, ever so surprised, that they do not have a wedding garment on, when all along, they thought they were right with God. "He who receives you, receives me."

Perhaps, if Cam has the time, we should have study, showing the development of the mass, of the rites, and of doctrine throughout the Churches 2000 year history.