Raph's Signature

[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.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Mar 25 2006, 09:34 PM']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.
[right][snapback]922352[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


I know that their is a difference between Discipline and Doctrine. Yes the mass has changed since the last supper. the Traditonalists who take up issue with Vatican II have a problem with what is taught in the documents. the Ideas of Relegious Freedom (which contary to 2,000 years of Catholic Teaching) Ecumenicism, the bible, the "dignity of Man", and other novelty teachings.

once again i do not enjoy discussing this, nor do i want to because it never really solves anything.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Mar 25 2006, 09:44 PM']I know that their is a difference between Discipline and Doctrine. Yes the mass has changed since the last supper. the Traditonalists who take up issue with Vatican II have a problem with what is taught in the documents. the Ideas of Relegious Freedom (which contary to 2,000 years of Catholic Teaching) Ecumenicism, the bible, the "dignity of Man", and other novelty teachings.

once again i do not enjoy discussing this, nor do i want to because it never really solves anything.
[right][snapback]922363[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
The problem is that you dont read them and understand them using the official Church teachings. You go off and fill your head with nonsense from the rad trads. Have you ever actually discussed religious freedom? You dont even understand it. You just spout out the garbage from rad trad sites and you dont think for yourself.

You are so full of pride that you dont even see it. Remove the plank from your own eye before you even think you can tell the Church and the Pope to remove a splinter from their eyes.

[Tarcisius]

bashing someone for being pridefull- the picture of humilty meekness

[Theoketos]

[quote name='Tarcisius' date='Mar 26 2006, 11:07 AM']bashing someone for being pridefull- the picture of humilty meekness
[right][snapback]922697[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

My brother I love your screen name, but am displeased with your accusation that I was bashing any one. While I admit that I am far from attaining the prefection of the virtue of humility, I maintain that such action as to place yourself more knowledgeable then the universal episcople magisterium is prideful. Note Bene I did not call any one prideful I simply pointed out an action of intellectual arrogance.

Please pray for my humility so that I may become even more gentle for the sake of Christ.

[Laudate_Dominum]

Micah's signature is ok, but this is my favourite Pope St. Pius X quote:

[i]"Do not allow yourselves to be deceived by the cunning statements of those who persistently claim to wish to be with the Church, to love the Church, to fight so that people do not leave Her... But judge them by their works. If they despise the shepherds of the Church and even the Pope, if they attempt all means of evading their authority in order to elude their directives and judgments..., then about which Church do these men mean to speak? Certainly not about that established on the foundations of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus Himself as the cornerstone.[Eph. 2:20]"[/i] - Pope Pius X, May 10, 1909


Pius IX was cool too:

[i]"It is as contrary to the divine constitution of the Church as it is to perpetual and constant tradition for anyone to attempt to prove the catholicity of his faith and truly call himself a Catholic when he fails in obedience to the Apostolic See."[/i] - Pope Pius IX, Quartus Supra to the Armenians, January 6, 1873

[ReinnieR]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Mar 27 2006, 12:05 AM']Micah's signature is ok, but this is my favourite Pope St. Pius X quote:

[i]"Do not allow yourselves to be deceived by the cunning statements of those who persistently claim to wish to be with the Church, to love the Church, to fight so that people do not leave Her... But judge them by their works.  If they despise the shepherds of the Church and even the Pope, if they attempt all means of evading their authority in order to elude their directives and judgments..., then about which Church do these men mean to speak?  Certainly not about that established on the foundations of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus Himself as the cornerstone.[Eph. 2:20]"[/i] - Pope Pius X, May 10, 1909
Pius IX was cool too:

[i]"It is as contrary to the divine constitution of the Church as it is to perpetual and constant tradition for anyone to attempt to prove the catholicity of his faith and truly call himself a Catholic when he fails in obedience to the Apostolic See."[/i] - Pope Pius IX, Quartus Supra to the Armenians, January 6, 1873
[right][snapback]923392[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
i likes

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='musturde' date='Mar 25 2006, 07:17 PM']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.
[right][snapback]922207[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I was not trying to bash or anger anyone. I was simply trying to make a logical statement.

St. Pius X is praying for the success of the pope, not for the success of the SSPX. It's the only logical conclusion.

I do not, however, deny that he is praying for the SSPX to submit to the Roman Pontiff.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Raphael' date='Mar 27 2006, 08:52 AM']I do not, however, deny that he is praying for the SSPX to submit to the Roman Pontiff.
[right][snapback]923579[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Which is necessary for salvation I might add.