Graces From Protestant Services?

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

So in your book Mortify black people being slaves was ok and not sinful ?

 

I would happily be a slave Josh if i had a good master. I'm sure at least half the christian and jewish masters where actually good. And did you know, i think it was the Ottoman empire which was a turkish empire had slaves also, there favorite slaves where actually white europeans and this pre dates african slaves.

 

Though the holy bible doesn't actually condone slavery as such it was just something that was done. Jesus uses the term ' slaves be good to your masters and masters be good to your slaves' i think because that is what people did than, they had slaves, i don't know whether he actually either condoned it or vilified it.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

Nobody likes living with a crowd for eternity. Ewwwww.

 

:lol: I hope there is a massive crown anomaly. :)

 

God is GOOD!

Edited May 7, 2014 by Tab'le De'Bah-Rye

[Nihil Obstat]

What do y'all think about this little passage?

 

 

"We must say it clearly: such a concept [of all religions offering salvation] is radically opposed to Catholic dogma. The Church is the one ark of salvation, and we must not be afraid to affirm it.  You have often heard it said, “Outside the Church there is no salvation”--a dictum which offends contemporary minds. It is easy to believe that this doctrine is no longer in effect, that it has been dropped. It seems excessively severe.

Yet nothing, in fact, has changed;  nothing can be changed in this area. Our Lord did not found a number of churches: He founded only One.  There is only one Cross by which we can be saved, and that Cross has been given to the Catholic Church. It has not been given to others.  To His Church, His mystical bride, Christ has given all graces.  No grace in the world, no grace in the history of humanity is distributed except through her.

Does that mean that no Protestant, no Muslim, no Buddhist or animist will be saved? No, it would be a second error to think that. Those who cry for intolerance in interpreting St. Cyprian's formula, “Outside the Church there is no salvation,” also reject the Creed, “I confess one baptism for the remission of sins,” and are insufficiently instructed as to what baptism is. There are three ways of receiving it: the baptism of water; the baptism of blood (that of the martyrs who confessed the faith while still catechumens) and baptism of desire.

Baptism of desire can be explicit. Many times in Africa I heard one of our catechumens say to me, “Father, baptize me straightaway because if I die before you come again, I shall go to hell.” I told him “No, if you have no mortal sin on your conscience and if you desire baptism, then you already have the grace in you.”

The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit baptism of desire.  This consists in doing the will of God. God knows all men and He knows that amongst Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists and in the whole of humanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in an effective way. In this way they become part of the Church.

The error consists in thinking that they are saved by their religion.  They are saved in their religion but not by it. There is no Buddhist church in heaven, no Protestant church. This is perhaps hard to accept, but it is the truth. I did not found the Church, but rather Our Lord the Son of God.  As priests we must state the truth.

But at the cost of what difficulties do people in those countries  where Christianity has not penetrated come to receive baptism by desire! Error is an obstacle to the Holy Ghost.  This explains why the Church has always sent missionaries into all countries of the world, why thousands of them have suffered martyrdom. If salvation can be found in any religion, why cross the seas, why subject oneself to unhealthy climates, to a harsh life, to sickness and an early death? From the martyrdom of St. Stephen onwards (the first to give his life for Christ, and for this reason his feast is the day after Christmas), the Apostles set out to spread the Good News throughout the Mediterranean countries.

Would they have done this if one could be saved by worshipping Cybele or by the mysteries of Eleusis?  Why did Our Lord say to them, “Go and preach the Gospel to all nations?”"

[Nihil Obstat]

No reactions? Nobody wants to say anything about it? I am a bit surprised.

[Credo in Deum]

No reactions? Nobody wants to say anything about it? I am a bit surprised.

 

I personally do not see it as surprising.  There is great truth listed in the above statement, and that is God is capable of all things and that He knows the hearts of men (mankind).   A person who genuinely and honestly lives for truth and always strives to know the truth, but in the end does not reach the fullness of it -Christ's Church, the Catholic Church- is still by their very desire part of the Catholic Church; the Body of Christ.   This is because they have spent their life searching, following, and loving truth to the best of their ability, and so they've spent their life to the best of their ability, loving Christ.   Yet none of this diminishes to truth that outside The Catholic Church there is no salvation, especially for those who know it.   This is because the moment you stop pursuing truth, you stop loving it.  And the moment you reject truth, you can no longer be guided by it and therefore can no longer reach your final end -the purpose of your very existence- which is eternity with God.   We must pray for those who are outside the Church and those in other Christian communities, because while they may still be able to attain salvation by their desire to know and love the Truth, they're also still at a great disadvantage by not having all of the Sacraments, especially those of confession and communion.  The Sacraments are the very thing which make us open to Truth so we may know Him and love Him with all of our heart, mind, body and soul. 

 

As for us Catholics we need to proclaim the love and mercy of God, while telling our neighbor that if they're lovers of Truth, then the Catholic Church is their only home, since it posses the fullness of it.   It's not about which religion is right or wrong, it's about which one has parts of the Truth and which one has the Fullness of the Truth.  

[Nihil Obstat]

I personally do not see it as surprising. There is great truth listed in the above statement, and that is God is capable of all things and that He knows the hearts of men (mankind). A person who genuinely and honestly lives for truth and always strives to know the truth, but in the end does not reach the fullness of it -Christ's Church, the Catholic Church- is still by their very desire part of the Catholic Church; the Body of Christ. This is because they have spent their life searching, following, and loving truth to the best of their ability, and so they've spent their life to the best of their ability, loving Christ. Yet none of this diminishes to truth that outside The Catholic Church there is no salvation, especially for those who know it. This is because the moment you stop pursuing truth, you stop loving it. And the moment you reject truth, you can no longer be guided by it and therefore can no longer reach your final end -the purpose of your very existence- which is eternity with God. We must pray for those who are outside the Church and those in other Christian communities, because while they may still be able to attain salvation by their desire to know and love the Truth, they're also still at a great disadvantage by not having all of the Sacraments, especially those of confession and communion. The Sacraments are the very thing which make us open to Truth so we may know Him and love Him with all of our heart, mind, body and soul.

As for us Catholics we need to proclaim the love and mercy of God, while telling our neighbor that if they're lovers of Truth, then the Catholic Church is their only home, since it posses the fullness of it. It's not about which religion is right or wrong, it's about which one has parts of the Truth and which one has the Fullness of the Truth.

Agreed. So would you characterize the above passage as being, say, balanced, merciful, and orthodox?

[Credo in Deum]

Agreed. So would you characterize the above passage as being, say, balanced, merciful, and orthodox?

I would, however, this does not mean I therefore agree with everything Marcel Lefebvre has said or written. 

[Nihil Obstat]

I would, however, this does not mean I therefore agree with everything Marcel Lefebvre has said or written.

Cool. Thanks for your input. I do not really have a point with this, but I found it interesting.

[mortify ii]

Archbishop Lefebvre is unfortunately a very demonized figure, I think if more people studied his life and teachings they would find him surprisingly agreeable, and I say this as someone not affiliated with the SSPX.

[Guest]

No reactions? Nobody wants to say anything about it? I am a bit surprised.

I like what he said....Found it prop worthy... lol Edited May 8, 2014 by Guest

[Nihil Obstat]

I like what he said....Found it prop worthy... lol

I am glad that you think so.

 

Marcel Lefebvre tends to be vilified among conservative non-traditionalist Catholics. But in my experience, the vast majority of those people have not actually read what Archbishop Lefebvre wrote and said, either pre- or post-SSPX. I think that is a shame.

Look at it like this. For the SSPX issue, from the perspective of your average orthodox Catholic, the only real objections come from a few areas: Disobedience with regards to the Econe consecrations; disobedience with regards to the pre-Econe suspensions; disagreement over the ideas of religious liberty stemming from the Second Vatican Council; disagreement over the Novus Ordo; debates over the nature and limits of ecumenism; allegedly borderline Jansenism among particular priests of the Society.

Naturally these are all important topics and I am not minimizing their importance, but look at it this way. Out of the entire body of Catholic thought, the priests and bishops of the SSPX and your average 'conservative' Catholic are in agreement on far more issues than in disagreement. That is, if you believe as the Church believes, then you believe the same thing as the SSPX on (I would hazard a guess) at least 95% of topics within the Church. And that is operating from the assumption that there is no common ground with the Society in the controversial points, which I think is rather pessimistic as well. We all believe in transubstantiation, in grace, in the divinity and humanity of Christ, in Mary being immaculately conceived and the mother of God, in the Church being established by Christ, in the primacy of the See of Peter, in the resurrection, in judgement, in the saints and the angels and the prophets. There is so much we believe in common.

After all, look at these last few posts. That passage was a cut and paste from Marcel Lefebvre's own writings. That is in theory what the SSPX stands for. And as you saw, with that particular passage, it is not objectionable for your average faithful, reasonable Catholic like yourself.

I am not 'coming out' as an SSPX Catholic or something like that by saying this. I attend Mass every week celebrated by two excellent priests from the FSSP, and I trust these two with my faith. So do not think I am being an 'SSPX apologist' by saying this. All I am saying is that the Society is certainly Catholic and I, personally, discovered an interest in learning what they were really about. After all, when studying history, especially as it relates to the Church, we must first never tell a lie, and second never be afraid to tell the truth. Studying what the SSPX stands for is worthwhile because it is simply a search for truth, and since truth comes from God, we can never be afraid of the things we find.

That was my thought process a couple years back. So I decided to start over again, study it all for myself. Not as an adversary to the Society, but as a fellow Catholic with most beliefs in common. I thought, "why not start with the motivating figure behind the Society, Archbishop Lefebvre?" So I did. I read his biography, I listened to some of his homilies, I read some of his books. Like I said, I wanted to find out what they really stand for. Some of it surprised me.

What do you think I found?

 

 

 

(And I just want to leave a quick note for moderation and administration. I have no intention that this post sparks "Catholic versus Catholic bickering" as per the forum guidelines, and nowhere have I criticized the Holy Father or the Novus Ordo. Nor do I intend to do so. I stand only for the Catholic Church, and the fullness of grace and truth contained therein. Anything the Church does not stand for, I reject.)

[Nihil Obstat]

Sorry that is so TL;DR. I am sitting here at work with very little to do. :P

[Guest]

I admit I don't know much about the SSPX....Just heard they were "bad" and to stay away....And Confession wasn't valid there and other things....

[Nihil Obstat]

I admit I don't know much about the SSPX....Just heard they were "bad" and to stay away....And Confession wasn't valid there and other things....

Like I said, there is no reason to fear learning about them, because learning the truth should never be avoided. One must simply be careful, know when to seek guidance, and from whom. Be careful, pray always, and trust the Church.

[Guest]

And to be fair I see alot of the objections and they make sense......Is a Catholic who starts attending an SSPX Church still in good standing ?

Edited May 9, 2014 by Guest