Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 22

Author Topic: Is a CMRI chapel a reasonable substitute for a Resistance Mass?  (Read 14028 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline JPaul

Re: Is a CMRI chapel a reasonable substitute for a Resistance Mass?
« Reply #40 on: July 14, 2018, 05:02:38 PM »
I would say that this is the most serious error of our time, and it is the one upon which all of the Vatican II church is built.

The weakness on this dogma is the reason why you have the SSPX "negotiating" with Rome. The dogma is absolute and without explanation clear and completely understandable by even the most unschooled person.  The belief in some kind of salvation by ignorance is more or less a deceptive cover for unbelief in this dogma. Through this pilpul deception, there is almost no doctrine that you cannot find a way to negate or escape its implications.
Logged

Offline Neil Obstat

Re: Is a CMRI chapel a reasonable substitute for a Resistance Mass?
« Reply #41 on: July 14, 2018, 05:05:01 PM »
Quote from: Ladislaus on July 14, 2018, 04:20:55 PM
I'm guessing that it had to be defined so many times because it has so long been under attack from all quarters.
.
That would seem to be the case. 
Evidenced at least by the fact that each successive definition was more specific and more detailed.
Compare it to the 3 Creeds of the Church.
The Apostles' Creed seemed to be sufficient at the time.
But then came the heresies. In fact, I've seen the history of the major heresies arranged in chronological order next to the 12 Articles of the Creed and it is a dead ringer, almost as if the Creed was a prophesy of troubles to come.
Then there was the Athanasian Creed, addressing principally the Arian heresy and the denial of the nature of God.
Then came the Nicene Creed which incorporated an abbreviated form of the Athanasian as well as many other details in other topics.
.
It scares me to think how much LONGER a new Creed would have to be which puts Modernism into its place -- have a look at the Oath Against Modernism or the Catechism of Modernism by the great Fr. Lemius (no doubt a genius priest, if not "merely" a saint!). 
.
In both cases, it wouldn't make sense historically for the third version (?) to have occurred first.
(We don't call subsequent dogmatic definitions "versions" of the first one.)
Then the Apostles, who were simple men, albeit personally infallible, would have had to come up with all the pithy nuances of the Nicene Creed, when it is said that the 12 Articles were each contributed by one each of the 12 Apostles. It would seem you'd need a few more Apostles for stuff like "...Who proceeds from the Father and the Son, and together with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified."  Would, "Who spoke to the prophets," have been another article? Or "I believe in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church..." They would have had to use their own title in "Apostolic" (but they were too humble for that!) -- did they even call each other "Apostles" or the Church "Catholic?" "Hey, Peter, have you seen Bartholomew the Apostle around here lately?"
TLDR...
Logged

Offline Neil Obstat

Re: Is a CMRI chapel a reasonable substitute for a Resistance Mass?
« Reply #42 on: July 14, 2018, 05:32:35 PM »
Quote from: Ladislaus on July 14, 2018, 04:24:00 PM

Quote from: Neil Obstat on Today at 12:34:02 PM
Quote
.
The second hint has to do with the manifest MISSION of the CMRI.


I'm not following you.  They did twice publish an article entitled "The Salvation of those outside the Church" ... a word-for-word contradiction of Catholic dogma.

Whenever someone cites EENS, it's come to be synonymous with "Feeneyism".  It's almost as if, in practice, they've turned this dogma into a heresy, that if anyone says this he's a heretic.
.
I must confess: I haven't read the article in question. Shame on me!
.
As for the latter, you might enjoy reading The Boston Heresy Case, and The Loyolas and the Cabots by Sr. Catherine Goddard Clark. 
.
These two books shed an enormous amount of historical fact illumination on all these questions. 
You're at a loss not knowing history, for then you're bound to repeat it.
If these two books alone were required reading at a CMRI seminary, we'd have a whole new congregation in 5 years.
Either that or some kind of upheaval.
You can't bury truth under a pile of rocks. It has a way of finding its way out eventually.
.
On their website, the closest thing I can find to a "Mission Statement" is the following:
.
http://www.cmri.org/introduction.shtml
.
As you review the various pages of this web site, you will see that the Priests, Brothers, and Sisters of this Religious Congregation are dedicated to the preservation of the Roman Catholic Faith, as it has been taught for 2,000 years, and to the spread of the message of Our Lady of Fatima.
.
.
That would seem to be distinguished, but not separated, from the stated Mission of the Church:
.
http://www.cmri.org/94prog6.htm
.
If Jesus Christ is acknowledged at least as a prophet by the Muslims, and prophets are truly inspired by God, how do the Muslims deny the Divinity of Jesus Christ Who solemnly and explicitly proclaimed Himself to be God — equal to the Father? Did the Catholic Church ever in its history look with esteem upon the religion of Islam? How can this be interpreted “in the light of tradition”?
.
Then comes the most preposterous statement of this entire Declaration:
.
“The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions.”
.
What can be “good and holy” in the worship of false gods and in the practice of false religions?
.
Following this quote in the Declaration, there is a footnote which is the most damning of all statements:
.
“Through the centuries, however, missionaries often concluded that non-Christian religions are simply the work of Satan and that the missionaries’ task is to convert from error to knowledge of the truth. This Declaration marks an authoritative change in approach.”
.
Since Vatican Council II, no longer is it the role of the missionaries to convert the people of these religions to Catholicism; their new role is merely to promote the “good” in them?! This doctrine is directly opposed to the mission of the Catholic Church.
.
Christ founded His Church to teach all nations all things whatsoever He commanded. This was His solemn command to His Apostles and their successors:
.
“Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and behold, I am with you all days, even unto the consummation of the world” (Matt. 28:19).
.
“Go into the whole world and preach the gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized shall be saved, but he who does not believe shall be condemned” (Mark 16:16).
.
Where would the Catholic Church be today if the Apostles and their successors did not attempt to convert to the true Faith the followers of false religions? Where would the Catholic Church be today if the Apostles and their successors merely tried to promote the “good” found in these false religions?
.
.
The bold section is what I was indicating as the Mission of the Church.

Spot the difference.
CMRI's mission is the "preservation of the Catholic Faith," whereas the Church's Mission is the conversion of the world. 
The Scripture of Mark 16:16 was practically the breastplate of St. Francis Xavier, the greatest Missionary of all time.
.
Logged

Offline Neil Obstat

Re: Is a CMRI chapel a reasonable substitute for a Resistance Mass?
« Reply #43 on: July 14, 2018, 05:37:06 PM »
Quote from: JPaul on July 14, 2018, 05:02:38 PM
I would say that this is the most serious error of our time, and it is the one upon which all of the Vatican II church is built.

The weakness on this dogma is the reason why you have the SSPX "negotiating" with Rome. The dogma is absolute and without explanation clear and completely understandable by even the most unschooled person.  The belief in some kind of salvation by ignorance is more or less a deceptive cover for unbelief in this dogma. Through this pilpul deception, there is almost no doctrine that you cannot find a way to negate or escape its implications.
.
Dang that's good.
.
.
It's truly astounding that this question was put to rest in its essence 803 years ago:
.
“There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.”
.
Why didn't we have a worldwide party for the 8th centennary 3 years back??
.
Oh, well! We can have another chance in only 97 years.
Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Is a CMRI chapel a reasonable substitute for a Resistance Mass?
« Reply #44 on: July 14, 2018, 05:47:10 PM »
Quote from: Neil Obstat on July 14, 2018, 05:32:35 PM
Spot the difference.
CMRI's mission is the "preservation of the Catholic Faith," whereas the Church's Mission is the conversion of the world.
The Scripture of Mark 16:16 was practically the breastplate of St. Francis Xavier, the greatest Missionary of all time.

And they're promoting the very principle that has practically killed off the entire missionary spirit and zeal of the Church.  Missionaries like St. Francis Xavier went to convert the poor souls in pagan lands precisely because they knew that they could not be saved otherwise.  So what's the point of missionary activity anymore, to just give them the "fullness" of the faith, as per Vatican II, even though said fullness is not strictly required for salvation?
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 22
« previous next »