Is the G.I.R.M. anathematized by Trent?

[jasJis]

[quote name='brendan1104' post='957512' date='Apr 22 2006, 07:57 PM']
To what are you referring?

I don't think there is a complete dogma list anywhere.

It seems that when you were in the Church you weren't properly catechized or you left before any catechesis.
[/quote]But they way you are describing it. So sure and everything. Dang. 12 years of Catholic education, 40+ years as a member, 4 years teaching it and answering questions. I must be an idiot savant, but very light on the savant part.

[brendan1104]

[quote name='jasJis' post='957510' date='Apr 22 2006, 11:54 PM']
Anyone here? Anyone, or one particular person. I was Catholic for a long time, though never a good or smart one, so I'm sure I'm missing some important bits. Who's posting on PhatMass that's an Apostle or the Mouth of God? I mean, if there are certain Dogma's, wouldn't there be a list or a clear definition? But if it's carried in the vesself of all our minds, why didn't I get my bit when I was fully embraced by the Roman Catholic Church.

I'm so confused now. Before I thought I was just dumb. Please help me.
[/quote]


I googled for a list and I found one for Marian dogmas and doctrines, but not a complete general list.

Listen, Phatmass doesn't have God or the Apostles. But we do have trusted, competent members who have received degrees from orthodox, authentic Catholic insitutions of theology, philosophy, divinity, church history, the bible, exegesis, etc. As for me, I am only a Catholic who has studied the Catechism, and I am only beginning serious extensive study, and God-willing I will one day be a priest.

You're not dumb, and we're here to help. Ask in Questions and Answers about a list of all dogmas, and feel free to post in the various threads, asking questions, etc.



[quote name='jasJis' post='957515' date='Apr 23 2006, 12:00 AM']
But they way you are describing it. So sure and everything. Dang. 12 years of Catholic education, 40+ years as a member, 4 years teaching it and answering questions. I must be an idiot savant, but very light on the savant part.
[/quote]

So you're in your 40's/50's... well that would make sense. Did you receive your education in the Vatican II/post Vatican II years, like I said it seems like improper/poor/unorthodox catechesis. I'm sorry if I offended you.

Edited April 23, 2006 by brendan1104

[jasJis]

I needed the chuckle, Chuckles. I'm member number 10. I was here at phatmass when you were probablly learning to tinkle standing up. (By the way, I was one of the first Church Militants before I burned my draft card. : )

The point is, you aren't as smart as you think, nor know as much as you want to believe. You have to dig a lot deeper to find the Church contradicting itself in official writings.

I like honesty. I believe I petitioned dUSt, or supported him, when the idea of labeling people like you as 'phishy'.

Edited April 23, 2006 by jasJis

[brendan1104]

[quote name='jasJis' post='957522' date='Apr 23 2006, 12:08 AM']
I needed the chuckle, Chuckles. I'm member number 10. I was here at phatmass when you were probablly learning to tinkle standing up. (By the way, I was one of the first Church Militants before I burned my draft card. : )

The point is, you aren't as smart as you think, nor know as much as you want to believe. You have to dig a lot deeper to find the Church contradicting itself in official writings.

I like honesty. I believe I petitioned dUSt, or supported him, when the idea of labeling people like you as 'phishy'.
[/quote]



I should've recognized you. Anyways nobody's as smart as they think they are. I'm not as smart as Cam, for example. Boy oh boy you fooled me.

And all's I did when I joined was saying that I sympathized/supported the SSPX and that I went to their Masses. That's why I'm phishy.

Edited April 23, 2006 by brendan1104

[qfnol31]

I'd like to make a quick response here.

[quote]If any one saith, that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or, that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only; or, that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice, for that it is contrary to the institution of Christ; let him be anathema.[/quote]

Actually here it only says that if anyone denies the Rite of the Roman Church is to be condemned...let him be anathema. According to the Rite the canon and words of Consecration are pronounced in a low tone, but I think that's more a point of reference rather than the Rite. It's not defining the Rite as to what it should be, but rather just showing what it says. (Why, I haven't the foggiest). If it had mandated that the Canon be allowed to be spoken quietly it would have put it later when it condemns people who say that it should only be in the vernacular. It doesn't and doesn't actually condemn it, but uses a relative clause that has very little to do with the condemnations.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='brendan1104' post='957477' date='Apr 22 2006, 09:25 PM']
"An infallible statement requires more than simply being ex cathedra." That's heresy! Ex cathedra is infallibility, and vice-versa, for all intensive purposes.[/quote]
Last time I checked, an infallible papal statement required that it be an ex cathedra statement on faith or morals. Liturgical form is neither of those.

You cannot equate ex cathedra with infallibility, though they are related.

Anyway, like I said...the Church is not bound to her own non-infallible definitions. Because discipline never falls under the blanket of infallibility, the Church is never bound to the disciplines she imposes. Members of the Church are, yes, but the Church as a whole is free to change her disciplines through the magisterium.

As for Quo Primum, which is a similar situation, you need only look at the context. The document was forbidding aberrations from the established form of the Mass by priests who were looking to do their own thing, not restricting the ability of the Universal Church to change the form of the Mass.

Context and the use of language can provide tricky situations. You'd better learn the historical context as well as the original languages if you want to be a good theologian. Look at the early Church for evidence...one council establishes a certain Christological term, another condemns it...why? Because the semantic range of the term itself had changed over time to include things not originally meant by the Church and the Church had to clarify. The Church didn't change anything...it just changed the language...because the language it was using changed.

So it is with the liturgy.

Any attempt to reduce the liturgy to a mere formula is an attempt to deny that the Church is alive. Go read Mediator Dei...it's pre-conciliar...and it will tell you in plain language that the Mass is a living thing, not a dead set of rubrics.

Don't proclaim the death of the Church. The Church is the Body of Christ and Christ is risen. Alleluia.

[qfnol31]

Although Papal Magisterium requires Ex Cathedra, there are other types of infallibility, such as the Ordinary Universal Magisterium and extraordinary councils.

[jswranch]

Jasjis, I am impressed and pleased by your open questioning. You ask for some great proofs. I would like to see your conversion story/testimony. However, (in my semi-enlightened perception) I find it unwise for you to have left the church on the grounds you have provided (so far). There are truths the RC church holds you do not fully understand or agree. You have questions. Fine, so do I. But I remain faithful and obedient while not agreeing or understanding all. If I were to shake my fist at heaven on these matters, heaven might respond, "Do not worry yourself with such knowledge; continue your vocation. Discerning the finite details of the truths revealed by God is not what brings you closer to me." I am not to sit in the dirt, refusing to move along the path of truth, slowed by my own unquenchable curiosity. As having been recently received into the church, "I believe and profess all that the Catholic Church teaches to be revealed by God." This includes the dogma that the church serves as God's provided path of grace. He wishes all to cling to her for better or worse, for richer or poorer, till death eternally binds us all in heaven. However, I do not necessarily understand it all, but I am allowed to ask questions.

Anyways,....
[quote name='jasJis' date='Apr 22 2006, 07:45 PM' post='957500']
Where's the Dogma list?[/quote]

...here is [u][b]a[/b][/u] dogma list. It is a summation of a widely recognized book on the subject.
[url="http://www.theworkofgod.org/dogmas.htm#Dogma-IV-Mother"]http://www.theworkofgod.org/dogmas.htm#Dogma-IV-Mother[/url]

I use '[b][u]a[/u][/b] dogma list' because no 'dogma list' has ever been defined (provided by the magisterium). The number of items listed here is 252. (It is missing the invalidity of women's ordination, via JPII.) Granted some items listed are considered 'proxima fide' vice dogma, but that issue will not be addressed here. I hope this helps. For further detail, the canons of the 21 councils are considered to be infallible on faith and morals. The book Denzinger also quotes papal decrees [url="http://www.aquinasandmore.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/store.ItemDetails/SKU/475/"]http://www.aquinasandmore.com/index.cfm/Fu...etails/SKU/475/[/url]. Denzinger is used as a reference by the Vatican.
[quote] ...[where is a dogma list?]....Who's posting on PhatMass that's an Apostle or the Mouth of God? [/quote] I will not accept this title, but will settle for induction as "Third order Engineer in Google-Copy-Link Apostolate of the Child Jesus"

FYI, I almost never use the vatican website for documents. Use [url="http://www.ewtn.com/vlibrary/search.asp"]http://www.ewtn.com/vlibrary/search.asp[/url]
though it is not smooth.

Let me [s]pick at[/s] discuss some of your pervious posts. :
[quote name='jasJis' date='Apr 22 2006, 07:35 PM' post='957488']
Outside of Grace there is not salvation. [/quote]
Amen. I could not agree more.


[quote] The Roman Catholic Church is not the only source of grace. [/quote]
Wrong. God is the only source of grace. I really do not know where you got this one. The Catholic Church does in no way claim this one. The Catholic Church claims God merely ordained the CC to distribute the sacraments of grace on earth. Other communities (with a valid priesthood) may also validly distribute these sacraments. This is a very important distinction to make. However, there remains a problem with separation from the chair of Peter and the truths it proclaims. Since you did not bring this topic up here, neither will I.

[quote] Besides, I've been baptized... [/quote]
Excellent, you are a brother Christian. However, valid baptism is not the only requirement for assured salvation. I can give further evidence if queried.

[quote]...I don't have to choose to belong to a... temporal club to know God.[/quote] Whoa. This statement contains [u]partial truth[/u] and [u]some error[/u].
Partial truth:
One does not have to belong to any church, much less be a Christian, to learn of God and to seek his nature. (See NOSTRA AETATE [url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/v2non.htm)"]http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/v2non.htm)[/url]. God has made knowledge of himself revealed to man in various ways from the beginning of man. We are to cling to these truths and investigate them to the fullest possible extent. In more recent times, God sent Jesus, his son and his substance, to provide us a more complete knowledge and union with God/himself (among other purposes). This is a new knowledge for all.

Some error:
We are to be members in a temporal club. As seen above, this new knowledge or "New Testiment," we have been blessed with tools to include Sacred Scripture for binding ourselves to the creator. Sacred Scripture is to be weighed along side our other tools. Sacred Scripture by itself tells us we need to be part of a church or 'temporal club.' I challenge anyone's attempt to use Sacred Scripture prove the church is not physical or temporal. I challenge anyone to use Sacred Scripture to show membership or 'belonging' is not required. I profess that membership in the church is required by Sacred Scripture. If you believe Sacred Scripture does not apply, we will need a different discussion.

[quote]You're not the first one to be so 'blunt'.[/quote]
Jesus too was blunt. He also engaged in 'socially unacceptable' behaviour.

[quote]hateful legalistic temporal club[/quote]
Ouch! I have a hard time seeing how the same body that brought you DEUS CARITAS EST is a hatefull club. Tell us how. What is intolerable to the Catholic Church that is tolerable to God? As for legalism, show me the Catholic Church is any more legalistic than the church Christ set up. Even if we can conclude Jesus and the Apostles promoted fewer 'rules, hoops and deffinitions' for the faithfull than the Catholic Church, it fails to prove the current Catholic Church 'rules, hoops and deffinitions' are not the will of God nor do we disprove that such rules are not binding on Christians. But you may always try.

[quote] ....[prove] the Catholic Church's 'Canon Law [is] Inspired by God' like the Bible...[/quote]
I can't. No one can. More importantly, no one claims it is "inspired by God like the Bible." Briefly described, the Code of Canon Law a list of 'rules, hoops and deffinitions' from the above paragraph.

[quote]12 years of Catholic education, 40+ years as a member, 4 years teaching it and answering questions. I must be an idiot savant, but very light on the savant part.[/quote]Nearly every major heresy in church history was started by the ordained. These folks had more Catholic Church theology experience than you and they still started great error. Your experience "40+ years.." is a blessing, however it in no way means you know it all.

[quote] I'm so confused now. Before I thought I was just dumb. Please help me. [/quote]
God bless you brother. Blessed is he who blieves but has not seen. Keep your head up. Sometimes we all stumble in some way. Seek God, for God seeks you. Even some of the greatest saints doubted. Let us all keep talking this confusion out.

[jasJis]

[code]We are to be members in a temporal club. As seen above, this new knowledge or "New Testiment," we have been blessed with tools to include Sacred Scripture for binding ourselves to the creator. Sacred Scripture is to be weighed along side our other tools. Sacred Scripture by itself tells us we need to be part of a church or 'temporal club.' I challenge anyone's attempt to use Sacred Scripture prove the church is not physical or temporal. I challenge anyone to use Sacred Scripture to show membership or 'belonging' is not required. I profess that membership in the church is required by Sacred Scripture. If you believe Sacred Scripture does not apply, we will need a different discussion.

Ouch! I have a hard time seeing how the same body that brought you DEUS CARITAS EST is a hatefull club. Tell us how. What is intolerable to the Catholic Church that is tolerable to God? As for legalism, show me the Catholic Church is any more legalistic than the church Christ set up. Even if we can conclude Jesus and the Apostles promoted fewer 'rules, hoops and deffinitions' for the faithfull than the Catholic Church, it fails to prove the current Catholic Church 'rules, hoops and deffinitions' are not the will of God nor do we disprove that such rules are not binding on Christians. But you may always try.
I can't. No one can. More importantly, no one claims it is "inspired by God like the Bible." Briefly described, the Code of Canon Law a list of 'rules, hoops and deffinitions' from the above paragraph. [/code] Seemingly a thorough job, but you missed much of the sarcasm. I don't deny the Church is physical and temporally present. Let's look at the Church's definition of Church and then make a judgement. Please clarify Catholic Church is not the only Church. I don't have a hard time seeing that the same body that brought me knowledge of grace does not practice what it preaches. What is tolerable to the Catholic Church many not be tolerable to God. Did not the Jews finally seperate themselves from God and do much that is intolerable to God. Hateful? What did the Catholic Church preach direct how the Jews were to be treated until it changed? Only a lawyer's words will twist that to nothing. The Church was corrected, but would it have been wrong of me to treat a Jew like a person in 1382? Wrong by whose standards? It the Church has temporal status, it has corruptibility. I did not say complete corruptness, nor, I asssume, do you claim the Church is completely infallible in everything.

I don't worship the temporal Church.

[MichaelFilo]

I'd rag on you, because I love you, but I'm sure the army of Church Faithful and Militant will rush you with a divulge of posts, and EENS will throw some comment about your eternal damnation (I am assuming all this, and I love EENS so much I pick on him), but I'd really like to do be the first to do either.

The Church, with it's multidues throughout so many ages has promiesd the charism of infalliablity to two areas, dogma and morality, and then has perserved to a select group throughout the ages. If one Pope calls the Jews subhumans, thats one Popes deal, it is outside of his jurisdiction as to the nature of the Jew's humaniy. The Church can be corrupted at it's highest levels (Go go Pope Julius II and Alexander IV, Cardinal Mahony, etc (but certainly, I do not mean to criticize them, but only to submit to the general criticism of the age about these men whose hearts I do not know, and whose intentions I know very little about)). Regardless, from a theological standpoint, you can hardly disagree (with reason) with the Church's claim to teach absolute Truths in the matters of Faith and morality. However, humanity corrupts, as it has been corrupted itself, the Bride of Christ, but luckily we cannot corrupt the Spirit, which safegaurds these things of the Church by mere strings (or so it seems at time).

In conclusion, if you know it's got the Truth, make it your home. IF you don't think that, then theres space for a new thread (the modernists here love the threads, as the meaningless one's crop up everywhere, and the one's worth arguing about get shutdown (just kidding mods, sort of)). And while worshipping the Church is wrong, it is the only source of Grace (salvic primarily, but all other spiritual Graces come through Her since Her establishment). That is the nature of God's Church, the pillar of all Truth, the Bride of Christ, the Body of Christ (and thats just from the Bible, wait until you hear what She has to say about Herself). So, if you hope to get to Heaven, even those who escape the requirement for an actual Baptism, are baptized in some other form and join the Mystical Body (that is the Church). Extra eccalsiam non Salus, and you know it.

God bless,
Mikey

[jasJis]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' post='958318' date='Apr 23 2006, 05:59 PM']
I'd rag on you, because I love you, but I'm sure the army of Church Faithful and Militant will rush you with a divulge of posts, and EENS will throw some comment about your eternal damnation (I am assuming all this, and I love EENS so much I pick on him), but I'd really like to do be the first to do either.

The Church, with it's multidues throughout so many ages has promiesd the charism of infalliablity to two areas, dogma and morality, and then has perserved to a select group throughout the ages. If one Pope calls the Jews subhumans, thats one Popes deal, it is outside of his jurisdiction as to the nature of the Jew's humaniy. The Church can be corrupted at it's highest levels (Go go Pope Julius II and Alexander IV, Cardinal Mahony, etc (but certainly, I do not mean to criticize them, but only to submit to the general criticism of the age about these men whose hearts I do not know, and whose intentions I know very little about)). Regardless, from a theological standpoint, you can hardly disagree (with reason) with the Church's claim to teach absolute Truths in the matters of Faith and morality. However, humanity corrupts, as it has been corrupted itself, the Bride of Christ, but luckily we cannot corrupt the Spirit, which safegaurds these things of the Church by mere strings (or so it seems at time).

In conclusion, if you know it's got the Truth, make it your home. IF you don't think that, then theres space for a new thread (the modernists here love the threads, as the meaningless one's crop up everywhere, and the one's worth arguing about get shutdown (just kidding mods, sort of)). And while worshipping the Church is wrong, it is the only source of Grace (salvic primarily, but all other spiritual Graces come through Her since Her establishment). That is the nature of God's Church, the pillar of all Truth, the Bride of Christ, the Body of Christ (and thats just from the Bible, wait until you hear what She has to say about Herself). So, if you hope to get to Heaven, even those who escape the requirement for an actual Baptism, are baptized in some other form and join the Mystical Body (that is the Church). Extra eccalsiam non Salus, and you know it.

God bless,
Mikey
[/quote]In conclusion, it's got Truth, but it's not the only place of truth. It has corruption as well, that hides the truth. I find that calling myself Catholic and acting Catholic makes me feel more separated from God. A God who has always been at my side even when I practiced no religion. The Church has managed to drag itself down from a high moral position. It's human leads has made it non-relevant to moral order. That's what Luther was upset about, it's been the constant problem of the Church. The fact it survives is a side not to what human leaders have done. Does not the Catholic Church teach Salvific Grace is found outside the nominal/temporal Catholic Church, granted I acknowledge that Grace came from the Catholic Church hundreds of years ago, but one doesn't have to go to the spring to drink of the river. Sometimes the debris falls into the stream near the spring and must tumble over rocks and seep through sand to be clear again.

[MichaelFilo]

Surely, even if the fountain maybe corrupt, the life-giving water cannot be. You are right, the Church does overflow... So I'm gonna quote a part of my favorite book (ever) from Anne Caterine Emmerich, whose visions are what Mel Gibson's "The Passion" was based on, in relevance to what you said (They aren't ranty, just visions, please read them, they aren't a burden). This part was taken from Satan's temptation of Christ to not take up the chalice of suffering in the garden.

[quote]The scandals of all ages, down to the present day and

p. 109

oven to the end of the world-every species of error, deception, mad fanaticism, obstinacy, and malice--were displayed before his eyes, and he beheld, as it were floating before him, all the apostates, heresiarchs, and pretended reformers, who deceive men by an appearance of sanctity. The corrupters and the corrupted of all ages outraged and tormented him for not having been crucified after their fashion, or for not having suffered precisely as they settled or imagined he should have done. They vied with each other in tearing the seamless robe of his Church; many ill-treated, insulted, and denied him, and many turned contemptuously away, shaking their heads at him, avoiding his compassionate embrace, and hurrying on to the abyss where they were finally swallowed up. He saw countless numbers of other men who did not dare openly to deny him, but who passed on in disgust at the sight of the wounds of his Church, as the Levite passed by the poor man who had fallen among robbers. Like unto cowardly and faithless children, who desert their mother in the middle of the night, at the sight of the thieves and robbers to whom their negligence or their malice has opened the door, they fled from his wounded Spouse. He beheld all these men, sometimes separated from the True Vine, and taking their rest amid the wild fruit trees, sometimes like lost sheep, left to the mercy of the wolves, led by base hirelings into bad pasturages, and refusing to enter the fold of the Good Shepherd who gave his life for his sheep. They were wandering homeless in the desert in the midst of the sand blown about by the wind, and were obstinately determined not to see his City placed upon a hill, which could not be hidden, the House of his Spouse, his Church built upon a rock, and with which he had promised to remain to the end of ages. They built upon the sand wretched tenements, which they were continually pulling down and rebuilding, but in which there was neither altar nor sacrifice; they had weathercocks on their roofs, and their doctrines changed with the wind, consequently they were for ever in opposition one with the other. They never could come to a mutual understanding,

p. 110

and were for ever unsettled, often destroying their own dwellings and hurling the fragments against the Corner-Stone of the Church, which always remained unshaken.

As there was nothing but darkness in the dwellings of these men, many among them, instead of directing their steps towards the Candle placed on the Candlestick in the House of the Spouse of Christ, wandered with closed eyes [b]around the gardens of the Church, sustaining life only by inhaling the sweet odours which were diffused from them far and near[/b], stretching forth their hands towards shadowy idols, and following wandering stars which led them to wells where there was no water. Even when on the very brink of the precipice, they refused to listen to the voice of the Spouse calling them, and, though dying with hunger, derided, insulted, and mocked at those servants and messengers who were sent to invite them to the Nuptial Feast. They obstinately refused to enter the garden, because they feared the thorns of the hedge, although they had neither wheat with which to satisfy their hunger nor wine to quench their thirst, but were simply intoxicated with pride and self-esteem, and being blinded by their own false lights, persisted in asserting that the Church of the Word made flesh was invisible. Jesus beheld them all, he wept over them, and was pleased to suffer for all those who do not see him and who will not carry their crosses after him in his City built upon a hill--his Church founded upon a rock, to which he has given himself in the Holy Eucharist, and against which the gates of Hell will never prevail.

Bearing a prominent place in these mournful visions which were beheld by the soul of Jesus, I saw Satan, who dragged away and strangled a multitude of men redeemed by the blood of Christ and sanctified by the unction of his Sacrament. Our Divine Saviour beheld with bitterest anguish the ingratitude and corruption of the Christians of the first and of all succeeding ages, even to the end of the world, and during the whole of this time the voice of the tempter was incessantly repeating: 'Canst thou resolve to suffer for such ungrateful reprobates?' while the

pg. 111

various apparitions succeeded each other with intense rapidity, and so violently weighed down and crushed the soul of Jesus, that his sacred humanity was overwhelmed with unspeakable anguish. Jesus--the Anointed of the Lord--the Son of Man--struggled and writhed as he fell on his knees, with clasped hands, as it were annihilated beneath the weight of his suffering. So violent was the struggle which then took place between his human will and his repugnance to suffer so much for such an ungrateful race, that from every pore of his sacred body there burst forth large drops of blood, which fell trickling on to the ground. In his bitter agony, he looked around, as though seeking help, and appeared to take Heaven, earth, and the stars of the firmament to witness of his sufferings."[/quote]

This is of some relavance, I'm sure you can make it click. Of course, it's just a very holy woman and her visions, it's fine to ignore them, but I believe we can learn much about God from holy people, and can be led astray by the same type of people. At any rate, consider it, because quite simply, you and I are at odds, and I fear that the eternal nature of the Church, and Christ's promise, put me on a more winning side. Seriously, you know what Satan does, Satan does, and I'm not saying your a slave to him, but I am saying he maybe a bit too trixsy, and you caught the bad end. You can come back humbly, or otherwise, God will be happy, you know it... Besides, rejecting Christ and His Mystical Body is something of a tough cookie... caus eyou know what He said (now of course, I know what you will say, that the Catholic Church may not neccessarily be His Mystical Body, but then you know as well as I we are left with no other real option, besides, you've been saved by Christ and inherited all Truth, don't let doubt overcome you).

I'm sorry if it got preachy, I just really care about your soul, and even though you were a modernist when you were Catholic, better a little wrong then alot wrong, right?

God bless,
Mikey

[jasJis]

Modernist? I can't even pronounce it. LOL
I don't reject God.

[MichaelFilo]

Of course.. but could someone reject the Church's teaching on abortion and not reject God? Can someone reject Christ's teaching about the Church and not reject God? Sure, but you can't accept him half-heartedly either, and that is the essence of that rejection.

Now the other form of rejection is outright rejection, which is what you mean, and what I meant when I said sure to those questions i just posited. It is exemplified in this prayer to Satan (Do not read if you are... Catholic.. or want to have faith... or are easy to have large amounts of fear.. it is only here to make a point). I edited anywho, removing annoying adjectives. I simply replaced WC (word choice) for the actual words.

[quote]Before the almighty and ineffable God Satan/Lucifer and in the presence of all Demons of Hell, who are the True and the Original gods, I, (state your full name) renounce any and all past allegiances. I renounce the false Judeo/Christian god Jehova, I renounce his (WC) and (WC) son Jesus Christ, I renounce his (WC), (WC), and (WC) holy spirit.

I proclaim Satan Lucifer as my one and only God. I promise to recognize and honor him in all things, without reservation, desiring in return, his manifold assistance in the successful completion of my endeavors. [/quote]

That is the rejection you mean. However, not accepting is also rejection, and you know, Christ demands all of you, not you with reservations. And that means all of you in His Body, the True Church, and there is only one..

God bless,
Mikey

[jasJis]

So melodramatic. I reject less than you'd think. I see limits as to what the Church teaches as infallible. Probably, what it originally taught it was infallible to do. Not everything the Church does is infallible, and it is right it isn't the sole possesor of Grace or Truth. It has brought understanding to this world, but it also knows there are hierachial limits to the truths it can proclaim, and no, it isn't the only entity. Read the Catechism.

[phatcatholic]

i haven't been following this debate, so i don't know how relevant this is, but i saw that [i]Quo Primum[/i] was mentioned earlier, so i wanted to provide two articles on the subject:

--[url="http://www.cuf.org/Faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=185"][b]Dogmatizing Discipline: Papal Authority, Modifying the Mass and the Truth about [i]Quo Primum[/i][/b][/url]
--[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/QUOPIUS.HTM"][b]Pope St. Pius V and [i]Quo Primum[/i]: Did the Pope Intend to Bind His Successors from Changing the Tridentine Mass?[/b][/url]

pax christi,
phatcatholic

[ironmonk]

[quote name='jasJis' post='958603' date='Apr 23 2006, 11:07 PM']
So melodramatic. I reject less than you'd think. I see limits as to what the Church teaches as infallible. Probably, what it originally taught it was infallible to do. Not everything the Church does is infallible, and it is right it isn't the sole possesor of Grace or Truth. It has brought understanding to this world, but it also knows there are hierachial limits to the truths it can proclaim, and no, it isn't the only entity. Read the Catechism.
[/quote]


The Church doesn't teach that what the people within it do is infallible.

The Church teaches that the teachings of faith and morals are infallible.

IT IS the only entity that has the Full Truth. Read the Catechism, and Scripture.

Most non-Catholic churches have some truth... NONE of non-Catholic churches have all truth.

You keep writing a lot but have you realized something... You are not providing any meat to your posts. Nothing to back your stance... what I do see is things taken out of context... you wrote to me about your time away... you must have forgotten a lot.



[quote]1989
The first work of the grace of the Holy Spirit is conversion, effecting justification in accordance with Jesus' proclamation at the beginning of the Gospel: "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."38 Moved by grace, man turns toward God and away from sin, thus accepting forgiveness and righteousness from on high. "Justification is not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man."

...
1996
Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life

...

2003
Grace is first and foremost the gift of the Spirit who justifies and sanctifies us. But grace also includes the gifts that the Spirit grants us to associate us with his work, to enable us to collaborate in the salvation of others and in the growth of the Body of Christ, the Church. There are sacramental graces, gifts proper to the different sacraments. There are furthermore special graces, also called charisms after the Greek term used by St. Paul and meaning "favor," "gratuitous gift," "benefit."53 Whatever their character—sometimes it is extraordinary, such as the gift of miracles or of tongues—charisms are oriented toward sanctifying grace and are intended for the common good of the Church. They are at the service of charity which builds up the Church.[/quote]



Here is a great page... Moral Conscience:
[url="http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect1chpt1art6.htm#1778"]http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sec...t1art6.htm#1778[/url]


[quote]
1800
A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience.

1801
Conscience can remain in ignorance or make erroneous judgments. Such ignorance and errors are not always free of guilt.

1802
The Word of God is a light for our path. We must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice. This is how moral conscience is formed.[/quote]



God Bless,
ironmonk

[MichaelFilo]

Well it's certainly not the predicted amount of response, but I wasn't far off, yeah?

I still love you Jasjis, regardless of your choice to throw off the chains of the Romanist Church while holding on to it's beliefs.

One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Faith man.. and you know it. I posit this challenge (because I am, as we know, quite the ass about this issue) if you proclaim yourself an ex-Catholic (which means you probably don't attend Mass on Sundays... but you could be a funny case) then you must know of a church which then is your resting place, because you certainly know there is only one Church.... so which is it.. because you and I know, theres only two groups of Churches that fall outside the realm of protestantism.. the Eastern Orthodox, and the Church of Satan... and we both know that Protestantism isn't logical... So I am wondering, which Church is it. (If this comes across pushy, it was meant to be, while still attempting to charitable (which probably failed, knowing me)).

God bless,
Mikey

[jasJis]

Well, Mike. Again, it's not what you think. This phorum isn't really the time and circumstance to discuss all the detail. I'm arguing about extraneous conclusions which are secondary to my current dislike and distrust of the Church. You argue back dragging in primary reasons instead of the topic on hand.

Read Dominus Iesus and re-think your myopic understanding of the Church.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='jasJis' post='958737' date='Apr 24 2006, 07:39 AM']
Well, Mike. Again, it's not what you think. This phorum isn't really the time and circumstance to discuss all the detail. I'm arguing about extraneous conclusions which are secondary to my current dislike and distrust of the Church. You argue back dragging in primary reasons instead of the topic on hand.

Read Dominus Iesus and re-think your myopic understanding of the Church.
[/quote]

The only just reason that would be acceptable for dislike and distrust of the Church would have to come from:
1) Scripture
2) Catechism
3) Encyclicals
or 4) Early Church Father writings

It is stupid to leave the Church because men who fail within it happen to be Catholic clergy.

It is stupid and foolish to leave the Church because of Judas. It shows an ignorance of Scripture and Christ. It shows a lack of integrity and thought. It shows pompus pride.

UNLESS one can back their stance with the very words of Christ.

There is no harmony in what you have wrote... it comes down to this, either there is no God or the Catholic Church is right. If what you say is true, then Christ must not have been God and a liar... By your actions you reject Christ and call him a liar.

Reasons that come out of your experiences and your mind are found no where else as a justifiable reason to leave.

[b]Luke 10:16[/b] "[color="#FF0000"]He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me[/color]"


Show me with Scripture where you can go off and be your own church.....

[b]Better yet, explain to me how I am wrong with the words of Christ or writings from the Apostles.[/b]


God Bless.

Edited April 24, 2006 by ironmonk