Author Topic: Is a CMRI chapel a reasonable substitute for a Resistance Mass? (Read 10431 times)

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #30 on:** July 14, 2018, 12:23:39 PM »

.
If anyone wants a hint, it has to do directly with the unmentionable thing that 2Vermont is tired of hearing about (and I don't blame her!)

2Vermont · « **Reply #31 on:** July 14, 2018, 01:43:26 PM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat on July 14, 2018, 12:23:39 PM

.
If anyone wants a hint, it has to do directly with the unmentionable thing that 2Vermont is tired of hearing about (and I don't blame her!)

There is no 'unmentionable thing" Neil, so quit trying to read my mind. I am just tired of the constant battles on the BOD topic here, so I prefer to avoid them like the plague.

However, given you are looking for the CMRI to recognize the teaching "Outside the Church there is No Salvation". I will offer you this link from the CMRI website (although I am sure it's still not good enough for you):

http://www.cmri.org/02-v2_non-christian.shtml

The attitude of the Catholic Church towards pagans, Mohammedans and Jєωs has always been clear — there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. Even supposing a person were invincibly ignorant of the true Church, he must still follow the natural law to be saved (implicit baptism of desire). It is evident, according to Catholic theology, that these false and immoral religions are opposed to the natural law. The Fathers of the Church, as well as many true Popes, have been quite strong in their condemnation of these religions, and especially of Mohammedanism and Judaism, which have persistently attacked the Catholic Church throughout history.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #32 on:** July 14, 2018, 02:05:10 PM »

Quote from: 2Vermont on July 14, 2018, 01:43:26 PM

There is no "unmentionable thing" Neil, so quit trying to read my mind. I am just tired of the constant battles on the BOD topic here, so I prefer to avoid them like the plague.

However, given you are looking for the CMRI to recognize the teaching "Outside the Church there is No Salvation". I will offer you this link from the CMRI website (although I am sure it's still not good enough for you):

http://www.cmri.org/02-v2_non-christian.shtml

The attitude of the Catholic Church towards pagans, Mohammedans and Jєωs has always been clear — there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. Even supposing a person were invincibly ignorant of the true Church, he must still follow the natural law to be saved (implicit baptism of desire). It is evident, according to Catholic theology, that these false and immoral religions are opposed to the natural law. The Fathers of the Church, as well as many true Popes, have been quite strong in their condemnation of these religions, and especially of Mohammedanism and Judaism, which have persistently attacked the Catholic Church throughout history.

.
You're correct on both counts, 2Vermont.
.
-- The quote you proffer does literally say, "there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church." And,
-- No, it's not quite enough for me.
.
Why not? Here's why:
They couch the Church's infallible dogma as "the attitude of the Catholic Church towards..."
Do you know why equating a dogma with an attitude is a problem?
Would they say that the real presence in the eucharist, body, blood, soul and divinity of Our Lord is "the attitude" of the Church?
Would they say that our sins being forgiven by the priest in Confession with the words "Ego te absolvo" is "the attitude" of the Church?
.
Furthermore, no sooner do they mention the infallible dogma (albeit already demoted as an "attitude") they further trounce on its relevance and authority by equivocation, pressing hard with their "invincible ignorance" in order to be saved, topping it off with the constant battle topic of which you're so tired you'd like to avoid it like the plague (but not quite so tired that you'd refuse to bring it up again -- but it's not your fault because even a fisherman who draws in the net sometimes gets a lousy boot or trash bag in the net along with the fish he was hoping to catch). Don't worry, I'm not going to say it, even if I can't read your mind and it's not unmentionable.
.
Is that any way to treat a sacred dogma of the Faith?
Does that teach reverence, respect, awe, devotion, love and honor for a dogma?
It couldn't possibly be a "mistake." I'm sure it wasn't easy for you to find this. (Or perhaps it was!)
If it were a mistake they would be making that kind of mistake a lot more, but they don't.
They don't make mistakes like that, it's much too well thought out and manifestly deliberate.
Overall, and pertinent to this discussion, there must be a REASON they're so wishy-washy about this sacred dogma.
This definitive dogma, that defines what it means to be Catholic.
.
Like I said, "I have a theory."

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #33 on:** July 14, 2018, 02:19:24 PM »

.
And I have another hint if anyone is interested.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #34 on:** July 14, 2018, 02:31:04 PM »

.
The link 2Vermont so graciously provided has the following on the right half of the page while Vat.II is on the left half:
.
.
Past Infallible Church Teaching on Non-Christian Religions
.
Hinduism, Buddhism and many other Eastern religions are pantheistic by nature. In opposition to the praises accorded to these religions by the Vatican II decree are these Canons of the First Vatican Council in the First Chapter of its Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith:
.
“1. If anyone denies that there is one true God, Creator and Lord of things visible and invisible: let him be anathema.
.
“2. If anyone dares to assert that nothing exists except matter: let him be anathema.
.
“3. If anyone says that God and all things possess one and the same substance and essence: let him be anathema.
.
“4. If anyone says that finite things, both corporeal and spiritual, or at least spiritual, emanated from the divine substance; or that the Divine Essence becomes all things by a manifestation or evolution of itself; or, finally, that God is a universal and indefinite being, which by determining itself makes up the universe which is diversified into genera, species and individuals: let him be anathema.”
.
It should be remarked that in no way can it be said that the followers of these religions make a “loving, trusting flight toward God;” the gods they worship are pantheistic deities — devils in reality — and, ultimately, themselves. What greater insult can there be offered to the true God than the worship of man, which is the ultimate purpose of the religious practices of Hinduism and many other Eastern religions?
.
The numerical references of the following refer to the Syllabus of Errors, by which Pope Pius IX condemned and proscribed the following errors:
.
“15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true.
.
“16. Men can find the way of eternal salvation and reach eternal salvation in any form of religious worship.
.
“17. Good hopes, at least, must be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who in no way belong to the true Church of Christ.”
.
It should also be pointed out that the Moslems or Mohammedans, who, according to the Vatican II decree, “prize the moral life,” have been notorious for their habit of murdering Christians throughout history. The following quotations give the Church's teaching concerning the Jєωs:
.
“...the following propositions...are condemned and proscribed:
.
“Error #60. Christian doctrine was originally Judaic. Through successive evolutions it became first Pauline, then Joannine, finally Hellenic and universal” (Pope St. Pius X, Lamentabili Sane — Syllabus of Modernist Errors).
.
“When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through places without water, seeking rest and not finding he saith: I will return into my house whence I came out...The men of Ninive shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they did penance at the preaching of Jonas; and behold more than Jonas here’ (Luke 11:24,32). The Lord spoke to us this similitude that He might show us that the evil and adulterous generation of the Jєωs, because of their hard and unrepentant hearts, would be condemned, not alone by the Ninivites, but also and rightly by the other Gentiles. Since this impious generation knew not that it should repent, but daily grew more wicked, its last state was worse than its first. And this they themselves likewise implied when they said of our Savior: ‘His blood be upon us and upon our children’ (Matt. 27:35). So shall it be unto this most wicked generation as it was to this man who was possessed by an unclean spirit” (St. Bruno, Commentary on Luke 11).
.
.
All of which is nice, but they're missing the most definitive historical text that would perhaps displace all of these (not that they're no good, just inadequate). At least they didn't muck it up with the out-of-context paragraph from Pius IX with "invincible ignorance" in it like they usually do (q.v.).
.
Like I said, I have a theory.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #35 on:** July 14, 2018, 02:34:02 PM »

.
The second hint has to do with the manifest MISSION of the CMRI.

Incredulous · « **Reply #36 on:** July 14, 2018, 04:08:28 PM »

Thank you for all the good inputs!

CMRI has a lot of issues, as I suspected.

Traditional Catholic Chapels will be in disarray until Our Lord excoriates the Jєωs
and St. Michael seals Hell's crack that "Montini the Marrano" opened.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #37 on:** July 14, 2018, 04:20:55 PM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat on July 14, 2018, 10:36:09 AM

*Can you find any other dogma of the Faith that has been defined ex cathedra three times?

I'm guessing that it had to be defined so many times because it has so long been under attack from all quarters.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #38 on:** July 14, 2018, 04:24:00 PM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat on July 14, 2018, 02:34:02 PM

.
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.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #39 on:** July 14, 2018, 04:41:06 PM »

Quote from: Incredulous on July 14, 2018, 04:08:28 PM

Thank you for all the good inputs!

CMRI has a lot of issues, as I suspected.

Traditional Catholic Chapels will be in disarray until Our Lord excoriates the Jєωs
and St. Michael seals Hell's crack that "Montini the Marrano" opened.

.
What if you break your leg, or have a medical emergency, or lock your keys in the boot* or travel to a foreign country?
When you have a broken leg, do you refuse treatment by the only doctor in town because he's one who has performed an abortion?
If you hate Pfizer, Merck and Monsanto -- do you ask your doctor who made the drugs you're about to get on the way to the ER?
If you lock your keys in the trunk (*boot* for our GB fans like Greg Taylor), do you refuse the services of a locksmith just because he's a Freemason?
When you're in a foreign country do you stay out of Church because they're using the Melkite liturgy, and you're not Lebanese?
Are you better off to not know which doctors perform abortions, who made your drugs, the locksmith's Lodge number or if it's a Melkite chapel?
.
I don't say that the CMRI should be avoided like the plague (2Vermont, I'm sorry!) or question the validity of their sacraments, but Catholics going to their chapel ought to be apprised of the doctrinal irregularities, at least.
I would like to know if it was me going there!
.
Nobody explained these things to me and I had to find them out for myself, so I feel obliged to share with those who would like to know.

JPaul · « **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.

Neil Obstat · « **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...

Neil Obstat · « **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.
.

Neil Obstat · « **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.”

(Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.)

.
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.

Ladislaus · « **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?

Author Topic: Is a CMRI chapel a reasonable substitute for a Resistance Mass? (Read 10431 times)

Neil Obstat

Re: Is a CMRI chapel a reasonable substitute for a Resistance Mass?

2Vermont

Re: Is a CMRI chapel a reasonable substitute for a Resistance Mass?

Neil Obstat

Re: Is a CMRI chapel a reasonable substitute for a Resistance Mass?

Neil Obstat

Re: Is a CMRI chapel a reasonable substitute for a Resistance Mass?

Neil Obstat

Re: Is a CMRI chapel a reasonable substitute for a Resistance Mass?

Neil Obstat

Re: Is a CMRI chapel a reasonable substitute for a Resistance Mass?

Incredulous

Re: Is a CMRI chapel a reasonable substitute for a Resistance Mass?

Ladislaus

Re: Is a CMRI chapel a reasonable substitute for a Resistance Mass?

Ladislaus

Re: Is a CMRI chapel a reasonable substitute for a Resistance Mass?

Neil Obstat

Re: Is a CMRI chapel a reasonable substitute for a Resistance Mass?

JPaul

Re: Is a CMRI chapel a reasonable substitute for a Resistance Mass?

Neil Obstat

Re: Is a CMRI chapel a reasonable substitute for a Resistance Mass?

Neil Obstat

Re: Is a CMRI chapel a reasonable substitute for a Resistance Mass?

Neil Obstat

Re: Is a CMRI chapel a reasonable substitute for a Resistance Mass?

Ladislaus

Re: Is a CMRI chapel a reasonable substitute for a Resistance Mass?