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

[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

[jswranch]

jasJis, could you email me you testimony why you feel you need to leave the church?

[quote name='jasJis' post='958188' date='Apr 23 2006, 03:51 PM']
Please clarify Catholic Church is not the only Church. [/quote] No can do. There is only one church as Christ has only one bride. The Catholic Church would be it. The good news, according to the Catholic Church, is that all christians are members, even you like it or not. If you go non-denominational, the Catholic Church says you are only spreading yourself further from the fullness of truth God has issued to be in physical union with his only Son, Jesus Christ.


[quote]I don't have a hard time seeing that the same body that brought me knowledge of grace does not practice what it preaches. [/quote] Neither do I. However, I do not practice what I preach. I profess we all need to be in complete obedience to the will of God. However, I do not practice it. Does that mean that my profession is wrong or invallidated? No.


[quote]What is tolerable to the Catholic Church many not be tolerable to God. [/quote] I would love to see some references on this one.

[quote]Did not the Jews finally seperate themselves from God and do much that is intolerable to God. [/quote] Only those in hell are finally separated from God. As sinners, we all do what is intolerable to God.


[quote]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? [/quote] Your writting style is a bit difficult for me to understand here. I will try.

Have you seen GregoryX's 1272 bull on protection of the Jews? [url="http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Greg10/g10jprot.htm"]http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Greg10/g10jprot.htm[/url]
Yes, how the church preached to protect the Jews did impact how they were treated. But do the people follow it? No. Do christians of any denomination fully follow Christ's laws? None that I have met. I challenge you to find where the Pope or any council encouraged the mistreatment of Jews. You may find where the Catholic Church found the Jews inital and continued rejection of Christ to be wrong. However, this does not show the Catholic Church wanted their mistreatment (a violation of 'love thy neighbor as thyself). Would it have been wrong to mistreat anyone, Jew or non-Jew prior to 1382? Yes. Can you cite an example of Catholic Church authority denying this? You cannot. If you want examples of Catholics treating Jews well, see the examples of St. Nicholas in the early 300's for starters.


[quote]I[f] the Church has temporal status, it has corruptibility.[/quote] Amen. The pope maintains free will, he has a temporal status. We agree here. However, just because someone or some group has a temporal status, it does not mean they are not capable of some level of infalliblity, if willed by God and therefore non-corruptible. To say so, means one cannot be Christian or Jewish! Let us look a few examples.
1. When Moses declared how the Jews were to build the Ark or how the Levites were to perform sacrifices, was he protected by infallibility? We must say yes. Did Moses later sin? Yes. Was his further teachings still infallible? No. Did his sin remove any level of infalliblity God have given him?
2. When the Jewish theological heirarchy approved the book of Isaiah (example), were they infallible to say, "Yes, this book is to be in our canon of scripture. He was a prophet"? We must say yes.
3. Was not the high-priest infallible when using the urim and Thummim (Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers etc.)? Yes he was.
4. Were not the Apostles (temporal men) infallible when writting the scriptures?

So why do you assume infallibility left temoral, theological heirarchies after the Apostles all were finished writting the bible? How could you come to such a conclusion? Prots say that infallibility arises in each individual Christian when they interperet scripture. The Catholic Church believes infallibility still lives on in Christ's Church, the bride, the new Israel. Would not the Prot infallibility model also be considered a temporal institution?

[quote] I did not say complete corruptness, nor, I asssume, do you claim the Church is completely infallible in everything.[/quote] No I do not claim the Catholic Church is completely infallible in everthing. Neither does the Catholic Church. You act as if this is some great revelation. This claim (a complete infallability, aka impeccability) is not held by the church.

[quote]I don't worship the temporal Church.[/quote] Wonderful, if you were to worship the church instead of God, you would be committing idolotry. The Catholic Church condemns such action.

Conclusion: You argue against alot of statements about the nature of the Catholic Church that the Catholic Church does not believe or officially teach about herself. A bigger question is how you, a person who has " 12 years of Catholic education, 40+ years as a member, 4 years teaching it and answering questions," has come to believe these things. Perhaps you need to check your sources. I have two theories on how your path of error came to be. 1) You were improperly taught about the church from birth or in more recent years. 2) Your non-denominational buddies have given you some bad gouge.

Please keep digging brother. Ask questions as you can.

[qfnol31]

What about the Byzantine Church? the Ruthenian Church......

The Church isn't only Roman or Latin, though the entirety does fall at least somewhat under the jurisdiction of the Latin Patriarch (Pope).

[jswranch]

[quote name='qfnol31' post='973085' date='May 5 2006, 09:19 PM']
What about the Byzantine Church? the Ruthenian Church......

The Church isn't only Roman or Latin, though the entirety does fall at least somewhat under the jurisdiction of the Latin Patriarch (Pope).
[/quote]
I am not sure what you mean here. I use the term Catholic Church to talk about the Catholic Chruch. You are right there are many rites, Latin is just one of them. However, this does not change the fact that there is one church, as Christ has one bride.

BTW: The pope dropped the Patriarch title.

[qfnol31]

I know, but I think he's still a patriarch without the title.

I was just warning you that anyone outside the Latin Church might take a little offence at the title "Roman Catholic Church" being applied to them.

[jswranch]

[quote name='qfnol31' post='973107' date='May 5 2006, 09:42 PM']
I know, but I think he's still a patriarch without the title. [/quote]
Ahhh perhaps. pope=patriarch according to who?


[quote]
I was just warning you that anyone outside the Latin Church might take a little offence at the title "Roman Catholic Church" being applied to them.[/quote] When you use 'Latin Church' what do you mean? I am not sure how you are using it. By Catholic Church, I mean all those christians in full communion with the pope to include the Latin rite, eastern rite, etc.. If my use of the term 'Catholic Church' makes other rites feel offence, I need to update my language. To your credit, I believe JPII was not Latin Rite?? What do you recommend I use instead? How about just the Catholic Chruch?