Vatican document on Jews and conversion

[saemo]

14 minutes ago, jwhitlock said:

You're avoiding the question.

Is Christ necessary for salvation for all people? Is salvation ONLY through Jesus Christ? Do the Jews have to come to Christ in order to obtain salvation?

That's what the Vatican document brings into question. What are your answers to the above three questions? And how is the Vatican document consistent with an affirmative answer to all three questions?

Catholic doctrine is, salvation is only through Jesus Christ. Catholicism differs to Mormonism in what that means, and I'm sure you are asking in the definition of Mormonism. 

It it is Catholic doctrine that non-Christians could be judged to enter heaven, precisely because ALL Salvation is and through Jesus Christ. 

Christ died for all. Salvation IS Jesus Christ. I don't know why you think that is evading the question. No, they do not. It is Catholic doctrine that we will be judged according to our understanding/belief of God and our fidelity to God, as we understand that to mean.

That stament always goes with the statement that the Church is called to bring people to Christ, in this life.  This goes to Catholic doctrine that the Kingdom of God is now, established by Jesus during His ministry on earth. So we are called to reveal the reality of God's Kingdom to all people and nations.

 

All is centered on Christ, for Catholics. Everything.  If you try to remove any statement from the Vatican from that center, then you've lost the meaning before you've started reading the statement.

[jwhitlock]

1 hour ago, saemo said:

Catholic doctrine is, salvation is only through Jesus Christ. Catholicism differs to Mormonism in what that means, and I'm sure you are asking in the definition of Mormonism. 

It it is Catholic doctrine that non-Christians could be judged to enter heaven, precisely because ALL Salvation is and through Jesus Christ. 

Christ died for all. Salvation IS Jesus Christ. I don't know why you think that is evading the question. No, they do not. It is Catholic doctrine that we will be judged according to our understanding/belief of God and our fidelity to God, as we understand that to mean.

That stament always goes with the statement that the Church is called to bring people to Christ, in this life.  This goes to Catholic doctrine that the Kingdom of God is now, established by Jesus during His ministry on earth. So we are called to reveal the reality of God's Kingdom to all people and nations.

 

All is centered on Christ, for Catholics. Everything.  If you try to remove any statement from the Vatican from that center, then you've lost the meaning before you've started reading the statement.

All salvation is through acknowledging and accepting Christ as the Savior and only source of salvation. If a person does not do that, they cannot receive salvation. That includes the Jews.

The Vatican document is telling us that acknowledging Christ is not necessary for salvation. In effect, Christ will save you anyway, whether you care about Him or not.

I find that not only unscriptural, but a troubling watering down of the centrality of Jesus Christ alone for all salvation.

[saemo]

13 hours ago, jwhitlock said:

All salvation is through acknowledging and accepting Christ as the Savior and only source of salvation. If a person does not do that, they cannot receive salvation. That includes the Jews.

The Vatican document is telling us that acknowledging Christ is not necessary for salvation. In effect, Christ will save you anyway, whether you care about Him or not.

I find that not only unscriptural, but a troubling watering down of the centrality of Jesus Christ alone for all salvation.

Ignorance about Jesus and Who He is, is not a sin. See John 15:22. Our judgement will not be based on what we don't know. 

Christ died for us while we were still sinners. See Romans 5:8. 

I already said, twice, that Jesus is the only source of salvation. Not a single statement from the Vatican contradicts this doctrine. 

Our Salvation is not dependent on our knowledge. We are not condemned to hell for what we don't know.  Those ideas are gnostic heresies. Our Salvation is dependent on a Person, Jesus Christ. 

I find it ironic that you would be for the Catholic Church condemning non-Christians as not being saved. As the RCC views Mormonism as a non-Christian religion, you are arguing for your own condemnation. 

Edited January 17, 2016 by saemo

[3DOP]

saemo writes

"Ignorance about Jesus and Who He is, is not a sin. See John 15:22. Our judgement will not be based on what we don't know."

3DOP replies

Ignorance can be sinful. That is why the Church distinguishes between ignorance that is vincible and ignorance that is invincible.

Quote

Now it is evident that whoever neglects to have or do what he ought to have or do, commits a sin of omission. Wherefore through negligence, ignorance of what one is bound to know, is a sin;

Summa Theologica, First Part of the Second Part, q. 76, art. 2

So jwhitlock, it appears that we ain't see nuthin' yet. It appears that things will be even weirder in Rome pretty soon. It will be ironic next year if "the Vatican" follows through with plans to honor one of the most anti-semitic religious leaders of all time. 2017 marks the 500th year since Martin Luther started the German revolt against the Church that arguably led to conditions in Germany that opened the way to the Holocaust. The opinion of "Hitler's Spiritual Ancestor" on the Jews will not be highlighted. Confusing? To say the least. It begins to seem that to be in agreement with "the Vatican", Catholics must somehow become convinced that the Gospel, which we thought had something to do with eternal salvation by grace though faith, is actually about inter-religious "dialogue". Read the document on this Jewish nonsense and keep your eyes open in 2017. You'll see that the goals are political and temporal, not spiritual and eternal.

"The Vatican" just wants to keep talking and talking and talking, and to blazes with ever arriving at anything but admiration for religions where faith in Jesus Christ is gravely imperfect at best (Protestants) and usually rejected altogether. Besides Jews, they want to do this with Protestants and Muslims and Buddhists and Atheists and pretty much anybody that is non-Catholic that will agree to have "dialogue". On the other hand faithful Catholics, who question this policy, are labelled as dangerous, fundamentalists, and Pharisees who hate everybody and want to keep our religion to ourselves. "The Vatican" seems to have identified many of her own children as the greatest obstacle to its crazy endeavours to "evangelize" non-Catholics without Catholic doctrine. In its delusion, "the Vatican" seems to believe that if only we can achieve mutual admiration among equally false religions, we can all enjoy a new millenium, a new "Pax Romana" of peace, justice, and planetary awareness in a world that rejects the Prince of Peace, and the King of Creation, our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

 

Edited January 17, 2016 by 3DOP

[jwhitlock]

10 hours ago, saemo said:

Ignorance about Jesus and Who He is, is not a sin. See John 15:22. Our judgement will not be based on what we don't know. 

Christ died for us while we were still sinners. See Romans 5:8. 

I already said, twice, that Jesus is the only source of salvation. Not a single statement from the Vatican contradicts this doctrine. 

Our Salvation is not dependent on our knowledge. We are not condemned to hell for what we don't know.  Those ideas are gnostic heresies. Our Salvation is dependent on a Person, Jesus Christ. 

I find it ironic that you would be for the Catholic Church condemning non-Christians as not being saved. As the RCC views Mormonism as a non-Christian religion, you are arguing for your own condemnation. 

Ignorance of Christ equates to a lack of salvation. That's scriptural. You have to come to Christ and you have to accept Him in order to be saved. That's what you don't seem to want to understand. You cannot be saved in ignorance.

The Vatican document does indeed contradict this in that it states those who reject Christ or are ignorant of Him will still receive salvation - as long as they are Jewish. I'm waiting for the list to be expanded to include Muslims.

I'm not for the Catholic church in the manner you're claiming. I'm merely pointing out that the Catholic church, as a Christian church, must by necessity hold to the centrality of Jesus Christ for any and all salvation.

The Vatican document does not do that. It denies the necessity of a belief in, acceptance of, and coming to Christ for salvation in the case of the Jews. In order for your claim that "Not a single statement from the Vatican contradicts this doctrine" to be valid, you need to specifically address the parts of the document that say a belief in Christ is not necessary for a Jew to be saved.

Instead of making a generic statement that "we are not condemned to hell for what we don't know", you need to address what's being specifically talked about here, which is a belief in, acceptance of, and embracing of Christ as the only source of salvation in order to gain salvation. You seem to have denied that in your post, which I find to be troubling coming from a Catholic Christian.

Do you actually believe that someone can be saved with absolutely no knowledge of or acceptance of Christ?? That's what the Vatican is saying. In fact, they're saying that you can deny Him and still be saved.

[jwhitlock]

22 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

saemo writes

"Ignorance about Jesus and Who He is, is not a sin. See John 15:22. Our judgement will not be based on what we don't know."

3DOP replies

Ignorance can be sinful. That is why the Church distinguishes between ignorance that is vincible and ignorance that is invincible.

Summa Theologica, First Part of the Second Part, q. 76, art. 2

So jwhitlock, it appears that we ain't see nuthin' yet. It appears that things will be even weirder in Rome pretty soon. It will be ironic next year if "the Vatican" follows through with plans to honor one of the most anti-semitic religious leaders of all time. 2017 marks the 500th year since Martin Luther started the German revolt against the Church that arguably led to conditions in Germany that opened the way to the Holocaust. The opinion of "Hitler's Spiritual Ancestor" on the Jews will not be highlighted. Confusing? To say the least. It begins to seem in order obey "the Vatican", you must somehow become convinced that the Gospel, which we thought had something to do with eternal salvation by grace though faith, is actually about inter-religious "dialogue". Read the document on this Jewish nonsense and keep your eyes open in 2017. You'll see that the goals are political and temporal, not spiritual and eternal.

"The Vatican" just wants to keep talking and talking and talking, and to blazes with ever arriving at anything but admiration for religions where faith in Jesus Christ is gravely imperfect at best (Protestants) and usually rejected altogether. Besides Jews, they want to do this with Protestants and Muslims and Buddhists and Atheists and pretty much anybody that is non-Catholic that will agree to have "dialogue". On the other hand faithful Catholics, who question this policy, are labelled as dangerous, fundamentalists, and Pharisees who hate everybody and want to keep our religion to ourselves. "The Vatican" seems to have identified many of her own children as the greatest obstacle to its crazy endeavours to "evangelize" non-Catholics without Catholic doctrine. In its delusion, "the Vatican" seems to believe that if only we can achieve mutual admiration among equally false religions, we can all enjoy a new millenium, a new "Pax Romana" of peace, justice, and planetary awareness in a world that rejects the Prince of Peace, and the King of Creation, our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

 

I wish you'd let us know how you really feel about this.

As I noted earlier in the thread, this step by the Catholic church should be troubling to all Christians. When the largest Christian denomination starts to water down the doctrine of the centrality of Christ for salvation (in the name of being politically correct), it's not any kind of victory for other denominations like the Mormons. It is instead something to be mourned as a sign that the world's opposition to Christ is spreading and gaining strength.

And that ultimately affects anyone who calls him or herself a Christian.

[3DOP]

3 hours ago, jwhitlock said:

I wish you'd let us know how you really feel about this.

As I noted earlier in the thread, this step by the Catholic church should be troubling to all Christians. When the largest Christian denomination starts to water down the doctrine of the centrality of Christ for salvation (in the name of being politically correct), it's not any kind of victory for other denominations like the Mormons. It is instead something to be mourned as a sign that the world's opposition to Christ is spreading and gaining strength.

And that ultimately affects anyone who calls him or herself a Christian.

jwhitlock,

I appreciate the smiley. I have not always been so candid.

I have believed for many years before the accession of Pope Francis, that there was an emergency in the Catholic Church of such proportion that it pointed to the need to "obey God rather than man". I joined this board in Dec. 2004. On Jan. 1, 2005,  I went to my first Mass that was celebrated by a priest who had "irregular canonical status". This means that the local ordinary, the bishop, was opposed to his presence in the diocese. Only a grave reason could justify such an action on my own part, or the part of a priest. I have continued since that January day to believe even more firmly in the necessity of avoiding parish boundaries, for the sake of maintaining a truly Catholic formation for my family and me, as most "conservative Catholics" already do, tacitly admitting that there is a grave sickness in the Church as a whole. I go the tiniest step further. I admit that the problem goes one step deeper. It involves the pope and his bishops. It is their fault and often with their approval that conservative Catholics cannot trust every parish priest to teach our families the Catholic faith. I don't know a conservative Catholic who believes that we are obligated to attend our local parishes. I go one step farther.

What I would remind those who are familiar with my "career" here at MD&DB, is that it gives me no pleasure to share my misgivings about what has been happening in the Catholic Church. I refrained from sharing that there were problems for many years. But then Jorge Bergoglio became pope. His outrageous distancing from the faith of his fathers has been embraced and praised right here on this board by Mormons. I could no longer hide my difficulties with modern Rome. In some respects, it has been a relief to "let us know how you really feel about this". But I fear I also have given an impression that I am only recently disturbed and that my faith is perhaps shaken. My faith is as firm as ever, in eternal Rome. I seek the faith of Romans who vanquished a pagan empire by the blood of her martyrs. I do not embrace a city. I embrace a people, though they be dead, who weren't given over to the spirit of the age, but unto timeless truths that will never be popular with the world.

This is my apology for why it took so long to "let you know how I really feel about this". Perhaps I should have been more forthcoming earlier? I can admit to that. I did not wish to have to explain how I could call myself Catholic while practically admitting that the episcopate and even the papacy has in some sense, apostasized. I thought it would scandalize the non-Catholic and alienate them further, confirming them in their "un-Catholicism". To my knowledge, no one seems to think that I have ever engaged in "proselytism" here. But I have never had any other ultimate purpose. I admit that I have had some good leisure and amusement here, but I have never lost sight of saying that which I think might tend to help someone to consider the claims of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. I believe more firmly and joyfully than ten years ago in that. There is no one who can steal the peace and joy that comes from accepting Divine Providence even as it unfolds in ways that we would not have chosen, for the world as a whole, or in our inmost soul, where the good God should also be Sovereign King. His ways are not my ways! Heh.

God love you and bless you jwhitlock. I can not pretend that I think it is okay to be LDS anymore than I think it is okay to be a Jew. I have little interest in a mutual admiration society that can't go to church together. That doesn't mean we have to be at war. It means I earnestly want to go to church with you. I want us to believe the same things and worship the same way. No other unity satisfies, and this is where I think modern Rome, and the modern world, with all of its love of "diversity", is missing the mark. They are willing to hope that good can come from a "pretend unity". Modern Rome has lost their faith in God's grace to the non-Catholics. They have lost their hope that they really have the full truth and that it is what this poor world needs most! That is why they are compromising. As a citizen of God's kingdom, as an adopted child of God and heir of the blessings of God the Father, I can never desire "unity" that makes us go to different churches or even religions.

 

Edited January 17, 2016 by 3DOP

[strappinglad]

I admit ignorance on the topic, but what was the point of the ecumenical outreach that I saw in the 1960s ? Was it not an attempt to find common ground between the Catholic Church and others? Is the current Pope expanding this idea and by doing so, seeming to ' adjust ' doctrines so as to make dialogue less confrontational ? 

[Calm]

Quote

 But I fear I also have given an impression that I am only recently disturbed and that my faith is perhaps shaken.

Knowing the history makes it more understandable and at least for this one who has been around since 2004 (and before), I think your choice to remain silent has underlined for me the knowledge of the depth of your faith and commitment to it and the seriousness of the actions taken by church leaders in your view that you now speak up against those actions (but not the Church itself showing your enduring faith).

[3DOP]

1 hour ago, strappinglad said:

I admit ignorance on the topic, but what was the point of the ecumenical outreach that I saw in the 1960s ? Was it not an attempt to find common ground between the Catholic Church and others? Is the current Pope expanding this idea and by doing so, seeming to ' adjust ' doctrines so as to make dialogue less confrontational ? 

Maybe you should describe as you recall it, the ecumenical outreach you saw in the 1960's. I won't condemn everything that has ever worn the name of ecumenism.

I am not against "common ground". I believe very much in affirming that about which we agree, nurturing a desire for greater unity, before proceeding to what divides us. Pope Pius XI of recent memory admonishes us to “...hold it for certain that men destitute of all religious sense are very rarely to be found..." whereas the faithful Catholic must beware that... "they (the ecumenists of the years between the wars) seem to have founded on that belief a hope that the nations, although they differ among themselves in certain religious matters, will without much difficulty come to agree as brethren in professing certain doctrines, which form as it were a common basis of the spiritual life.”

The question at hand is whether Jews, Buddhists, and Voodoo witch doctors, who are certainly not "destitute of all religious sense", maintain by that nearly universal "religious sense", the aptitude for a "common basis of the spiritual life" with Christianity in general or Catholicism in particular. I am skeptical. I have no faith in that. According to Pius XI, conversion was necessary. According to modern Rome, it seems that there is hope for a common spiritual life not based on Gospel truths, but upon the slightest "religious sense", a false hope. It appears to me that there exists the same perhaps good, but unreasonable hope that Pius XI clearly warned against. As I see it, against the recent teachings of Pope Pius XI, modern Rome seems to believe that without conversion, souls of various and conflicting religious views "will without much difficulty come to agree as brethren" enjoying a common spiritual life as people who won't, and indeed, can't, for very practical reasons, even go to church together.

Who is correct? Modern Rome? The Rome of even the early parts of the last century? I can make a defense for being Catholic if the popes only became wrong in 1965. Fifty years is less than many lifetimes. If the popes and the Church were wrong until 1965, when it is hinted at, or 2015, when it became explicit, that the Church, has been in error for nearly 2,000 years regarding the need for Jews to convert? I would despair of finding a defense for such an odious and pernicious error. I am not saying I would be LDS, but I would be Restorationist.

3DOP

PS: This is why I have a continuing interest in Mormonism. Mormonism has played its role in forcing me to consider the problems associated with admitting that for practical purposes, the Catholic Church, in the 21st Century, is finally on the right track. That boat won't float; that bird won't fly. I don't think Pope Francis understands how his blithe disregard for Traditional Catholicism plays right into the hands of those who have been content to place an apostasy well over a millenium ago. I don't know if the Mormons who are so enamoured with Francis' politics understand either. In my opinion, if Pope Francis is correct, he does more for the Restoration cause than all the Barry Bickfords and Hugh Nibleys multiplied exponentially.

Edited January 18, 2016 by 3DOP

[jwhitlock]

1 hour ago, 3DOP said:

What I would remind those who are familiar with my "career" here at MD&DB, is that it gives me no pleasure to share my misgivings about what has been happening in the Catholic Church. I refrained from sharing that there were problems for many years. But then Jorge Bergoglio became pope. His outrageous distancing from the faith of his fathers has been embraced and praised right here on this board by Mormons. I could no longer hide my difficulties with modern Rome. In some respects, it has been a relief to "let us know how you really feel about this". But I fear I also have given an impression that I am only recently disturbed and that my faith is perhaps shaken. My faith is as firm as ever, in eternal Rome. I seek the faith of Romans who vanquished a pagan empire by the blood of her martyrs. I do not embrace a city. I embrace a people, though they be dead, who weren't given over to the spirit of the age, but unto timeless truths that will never be popular with the world.

I appreciate what you've shared, along with the depth of your faith. There's a great deal to be learned from how you have approached the issues in the Catholic Church in recent years. Ultimately, we all have to deal with such issues involving our religious denominations, or rather, the people in them - even some in leadership positions. Yet, the changes evolving in the Catholic Church seem to be particularly troubling because they're coming from the top, as you mentioned.

I'm not one who has embraced or praised the current Pope. His visit to Philadelphia further reinforced my uneasiness with him; that uneasiness comes, at least in part, with the gushing admiration that the world displays for him. I've been loathe to be too critical publicly about him, and I'm not going to do so now. But I don't think the changes coming out of the Vatican are going to steer the world in a better direction. It seems far more like attempts to make reconciliation with the world, something that some LDS are trying to have our church do with SSM, for example - not that it's going to happen.

I agree with you about not being interested in mutual admiration societies. The foundational truth claims of Mormons and Catholics are such that only one (if any) can be correct. Yet even with that, there is much that Catholics and Mormons together do and should be doing when it comes to dealing with issues in the world. We don't have to be at war; the McConkie days are hopefully behind us, and though we doctrinally will remain apart, we can recognize the basic foundational belief in Christ both of us have, and work together in Christian ways to better the world. The distinctions can and should remain clear; those of us who have embraced the restored gospel will continue to invite all, including Catholics, to receive the ordinances of salvation in the church. But there should always be respect for those with deep and heartfelt faith. The world is a far better place when people of faith (and I'm not talking about fundamentalism!) are influential.

So God bless you also. I hope that one day we will worship in unity in Zion where all will truly be well.

 

[saemo]

11 hours ago, 3DOP said:

saemo writes

"Ignorance about Jesus and Who He is, is not a sin. See John 15:22. Our judgement will not be based on what we don't know."

3DOP replies

Ignorance can be sinful. That is why the Church distinguishes between ignorance that is vincible and ignorance that is invincible.

Summa Theologica, First Part of the Second Part, q. 76, art. 2

So jwhitlock, it appears that we ain't see nuthin' yet. It appears that things will be even weirder in Rome pretty soon. It will be ironic next year if "the Vatican" follows through with plans to honor one of the most anti-semitic religious leaders of all time. 2017 marks the 500th year since Martin Luther started the German revolt against the Church that arguably led to conditions in Germany that opened the way to the Holocaust. The opinion of "Hitler's Spiritual Ancestor" on the Jews will not be highlighted. Confusing? To say the least. It begins to seem that to be in agreement with "the Vatican", Catholics must somehow become convinced that the Gospel, which we thought had something to do with eternal salvation by grace though faith, is actually about inter-religious "dialogue". Read the document on this Jewish nonsense and keep your eyes open in 2017. You'll see that the goals are political and temporal, not spiritual and eternal.

"The Vatican" just wants to keep talking and talking and talking, and to blazes with ever arriving at anything but admiration for religions where faith in Jesus Christ is gravely imperfect at best (Protestants) and usually rejected altogether. Besides Jews, they want to do this with Protestants and Muslims and Buddhists and Atheists and pretty much anybody that is non-Catholic that will agree to have "dialogue". On the other hand faithful Catholics, who question this policy, are labelled as dangerous, fundamentalists, and Pharisees who hate everybody and want to keep our religion to ourselves. "The Vatican" seems to have identified many of her own children as the greatest obstacle to its crazy endeavours to "evangelize" non-Catholics without Catholic doctrine. In its delusion, "the Vatican" seems to believe that if only we can achieve mutual admiration among equally false religions, we can all enjoy a new millenium, a new "Pax Romana" of peace, justice, and planetary awareness in a world that rejects the Prince of Peace, and the King of Creation, our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

 

Yes I know. I don't imagine you or I will be the one making a judgement for anyone but ourselves. 

 

I I know you style yourself Defender Of The Faith, but I see you are increasingly bitter with every post. Don't know what you expect. Everyone hold hands while walking out of our parishes into the arms if the blatant anti-Semites? I'm currently acquainted with a man who is Jewish and converting. He has made it quite clear that there would be no sane Jew who would convert to SSPX. If you view that as the road to Jesus, so be it, but I for one am glad to be Roman Catholic.

 

This thread has an under current of anti-Semitism going on in it. I'm done taking part in it.

 

Edited January 18, 2016 by saemo

[Storm Rider]

6 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Maybe you should describe as you recall it, the ecumenical outreach you saw in the 1960's. I won't condemn everything that has ever worn the name of ecumenism.

I am not against "common ground". I believe very much in affirming that about which we agree, nurturing a desire for greater unity, before proceeding to what divides us. Pope Pius XI of recent memory admonishes us to “...hold it for certain that men destitute of all religious sense are very rarely to be found..." whereas the faithful Catholic must beware that... "they (the ecumenists of the years between the wars) seem to have founded on that belief a hope that the nations, although they differ among themselves in certain religious matters, will without much difficulty come to agree as brethren in professing certain doctrines, which form as it were a common basis of the spiritual life.”

The question at hand is whether Jews, Buddhists, and Voodoo witch doctors, who are certainly not "destitute of all religious sense", maintain by that nearly universal "religious sense", the aptitude for a "common basis of the spiritual life" with Christianity in general or Catholicism in particular. I am skeptical. I have no faith in that. According to Pius XI, conversion was necessary. According to modern Rome, it seems that there is hope for a common spiritual life not based on Gospel truths, but upon the slightest "religious sense", a false hope. It appears to me that there exists the same perhaps good, but unreasonable hope that Pius XI clearly warned against. As I see it, against the recent teachings of Pope Pius XI, modern Rome seems to believe that without conversion, souls of various and conflicting religious views "will without much difficulty come to agree as brethren" enjoying a common spiritual life as people who won't, and indeed, can't, for very practical reasons, even go to church together.

Who is correct? Modern Rome? The Rome of even the early parts of the last century? I can make a defense for being Catholic if the popes only became wrong in 1965. Fifty years is less than many lifetimes. If the popes and the Church were wrong until 1965, when it is hinted at, or 2015, when it became explicit, that the Church, has been in error for nearly 2,000 years regarding the need for Jews to convert? I would despair of finding a defense for such an odious and pernicious error. I am not saying I would be LDS, but I would be Restorationist.

3DOP

PS: This is why I have a continuing interest in Mormonism. Mormonism has played its role in forcing me to consider the problems associated with admitting that for practical purposes, the Catholic Church, in the 21st Century, is finally on the right track. That boat won't float; that bird won't fly. I don't think Pope Francis understands how his blithe disregard for Traditional Catholicism plays right into the hands of those who have been content to place an apostasy well over a millenium ago. I don't know if the Mormons who are so enamoured with Francis' politics understand either. In my opinion, if Pope Francis is correct, he does more for the Restoration cause than all the Barry Bickfords and Hugh Nibleys multiplied exponentially.

Although I think Pope Francis has been a positive influence in many areas I agree with you that he does seem to have some areas that are cause for alarm.

There is an on-going distortion and/or reliance on this wonderful vision of inclusiveness, diversity, and equality that is more often than not based on unrealistic inhuman perceptions.  The result is the obliteration of families, community, and personal identity.  The result is an on-going classification of people into those who have capitulated, those in the process of capitulation, and war on those who attempt to retain any degree of realistic, human relationships.  What is so disingenuous about the entire movement is that it does not result in any degree of its stated goals of inclusiveness. 

Merit has a place within humanity.  Relationships have a place within humanity.  The fact that there are relationships will result in those who are not in relationship or who are not members of the group.  A faithful Muslim, Jew, Protestant, Catholic, and Mormon can find numerous ways to engage in respectful, enlightening dialogue, but the fact that there is dialogue does not negate or must never diminish the reality of the doctrines held by the respective teachings.  It may lead to conversion of individuals as new truths are discovered, but the individual groups will remain separate - joyfully so. 

To attempt to make us all nameless, automatons without any ability to distinguish between us results in a loss of humanity.  There is a drastic difference between being created equal and remaining equal by ignoring all behavior.  God, the gospel of Jesus Christ flatly dispels this illusion.  If ye love me keep my commandments.  To through out all commandments in order that there is no judgment thus resulting in all being equal is the farce that Francis and others chase.....all in the name of being inclusive and finding equality among all humans. 

[Robert F. Smith]

On 1/16/2016 at 2:37 AM, saemo said:

If you read the document it says explicitly that there is not two ways to salvation, one for Jews and one for Gentiles. It is also explicit that Christianity does not replace Judaism, but as St. Paul teaches in Romans 11 to Gentiles, that we Gentiles are grafted onto the tree that already exists and is rooted in holiness  

Also, what St. Paul teaches in Romans 11, that is, that the call and gifts of God ar irrevocable. And also, that Jews remain elect, even in their unbelief, and this election is is what leads to their salvation, AND the salvation of all nations. 

Yes, and the Jews believe that salvation is by grace, and cannot be earned.

Romans 11 says that the Jews will come back into the fold after the fulness of the Gentiles, not before -- thus making any program to convert or eliminate the entire Jewish community laughable.  Has never worked and never will.  Jesus the Jew will come down from Heaven at Mt Olivet and greet his Jewish brethren in their hour of most extreme need.  Then He will show them the wounds in his hands and feet, and they will realize that they crucified Yahweh Himself (Zech 12:10, 13:6, 14:4-5; D&C 45:43-53).  The final Messianic Age comes alright, not perhaps quite as Jews and Christians had expected.

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, 3DOP said:

...........................................................................

............................I don't know if the Mormons who are so enamoured with Francis' politics understand either. In my opinion, if Pope Francis is correct, he does more for the Restoration cause than all the Barry Bickfords and Hugh Nibleys multiplied exponentially.

I am not so sure that any Mormons on this board are enamoured of Pope Francis' politics, Rory, but rather with his concern for the poor -- for the same reason that many non-Catholics have deep respect for Sojourners and for Catholic Relief.  It is Francis' humility and lack of ostentation which I find most impressive, while his doctrinal choices are naturally of no concern to me.  In any case, most Mormons are politically far to the right of even the most right-wing Catholics, and would certainly not be interested in Francis' left-wing political views.

It is typically the case that interfaith fellowship and ecumenism deals more with man's temporal needs rather than with his spiritual ones -- agreement on the latter is far too difficult, while agreement on the former comes quite easily.

[3DOP]

19 hours ago, saemo said:

Yes I know. I don't imagine you or I will be the one making a judgement for anyone but ourselves. 

 

I I know you style yourself Defender Of The Faith, but I see you are increasingly bitter with every post. Don't know what you expect. Everyone hold hands while walking out of our parishes into the arms if the blatant anti-Semites? I'm currently acquainted with a man who is Jewish and converting. He has made it quite clear that there would be no sane Jew who would convert to SSPX. If you view that as the road to Jesus, so be it, but I for one am glad to be Roman Catholic.

 

This thread has an under current of anti-Semitism going on in it. I'm done taking part in it.

 

Dear sister in Christ,

I apologize for mistakenly trying to correct you. I apparently misunderstood you and did not wish non-Catholics to misunderstand an article of Catholic teaching. Additionally, it would appear that vanity and pride has led to a way of presenting myself that is distasteful to you. I accept your correction. A bitter zeal is also a trait to which I am susceptible that needs to be suppressed. These are faults which remind me how misplaced is the self-love that makes me think too complacently of myself and my abilities. What little that is good by grace or nature is God's anyway. I thank you for being an instrument of God's grace to put me in mind of my inability to do anything good except it be by charity. I sincerely covet any patient prayers you can offer in behalf. I earnestly desire to overcome these faults. Even as I write I can see vanity and pride hoping that the Mormons will be impressed with my "humility"...which means it isn't humility.

Dear Mormon friends: This is all true. Even if you like me, and I know some of you do, saemo is not wrong about me.

saemo is wrong about the Society of St. Pius X. SSPX priests are not anti-semitic. I cannot let that pass. I went to my first SSPX Mass on Jan. 1, 2005, and the priest who offered that Mass was the grandson of a Jewish rabbi who fled for America from Germany in 1933, when Adolf Hitler came to power. In a sermon which was recorded at our chapel just last summer, he tells his family story as well as giving good examples of how faithful Catholics have and should intervene for Jews in distress. I would be delighted if anyone listened to the entire 25 minutes. To skip the readings and announcements you may skip the first three minutes. The story of his family and his father's conversion begins at the 12:24 mark for those who don't have time for the whole thing. I think you will not be able to help but like my former pastor, and even if you need to start at 12:24, you may find yourself going back to the beginning later! Thanks.

https://onedrive.live.com/?authkey=!AIa3x_YqQ0-V_eQ&id=FB895AC3F4FDB37C!540&cid=FB895AC3F4FDB37C

I think there will be three of Father's sermons available. You will want to access the second of these from July 19, 2015

Rory 

Edited January 19, 2016 by 3DOP

[3DOP]

17 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I am not so sure that any Mormons on this board are enamoured of Pope Francis' politics, Rory, but rather with his concern for the poor -- for the same reason that many non-Catholics have deep respect for Sojourners and for Catholic Relief.  It is Francis' humility and lack of ostentation which I find most impressive, while his doctrinal choices are naturally of no concern to me.  In any case, most Mormons are politically far to the right of even the most right-wing Catholics, and would certainly not be interested in Francis' left-wing political views.

It is typically the case that interfaith fellowship and ecumenism deals more with man's temporal needs rather than with his spiritual ones -- agreement on the latter is far too difficult, while agreement on the former comes quite easily.

I agree that the latter is far too difficult. This corresponds to what Pius XI said above. My fear is that in our concern for the poor, we can so easily become, in reverse of the common complaint against religion, "so earthly minded as to do no heavenly good." But I also fear that regarding what I find to be of prime importance, I have perhaps done more harm than good. In the past, you have also pointed out a bitter spirit with which my posts seem to be heavily laden. It should not disturb my peace when others admire the pope as they do. That is a "me problem". I am hoping that I can learn to present myself with less sarcasm, less heat, and more serene analysis.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, 3DOP said:

I agree that the latter is far too difficult. This corresponds to what Pius XI said above. My fear is that in our concern for the poor, we can so easily become, in reverse of the common complaint against religion, "so earthly minded as to do no heavenly good." But I also fear that regarding what I find to be of prime importance, I have perhaps done more harm than good. In the past, you have also pointed out a bitter spirit with which my posts seem to be heavily laden. It should not disturb my peace when others admire the pope as they do. That is a "me problem". I am hoping that I can learn to present myself with less sarcasm, less heat, and more serene analysis.

On the other hand, Rory, it is very much your business to engage the issues (as you see them) within your own faith.  You needn't apologize for that, or beat yourself up.  We learn a great deal about Catholicism here on this board due to your kindly comments, and (via  extrapolation)  we also learn a thing or two about our own religion.  Thank you.

[saemo]

4 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Dear sister in Christ,

I apologize for mistakenly trying to correct you. I apparently misunderstood you and did not wish non-Catholics to misunderstand an article of Catholic teaching. Additionally, it would appear that vanity and pride has led to a way of presenting myself that is distasteful to you. I accept your correction. A bitter zeal is also a trait to which I am susceptible that needs to be suppressed. These are faults which remind me how misplaced is the self-love that makes me think too complacently of myself and my abilities. What little that is good by grace or nature is God's anyway. I thank you for being an instrument of God's grace to put me in mind of my inability to do anything good except it be by charity. I sincerely covet any patient prayers you can offer in behalf. I earnestly desire to overcome these faults. Even as I write I can see vanity and pride hoping that the Mormons will be impressed with my "humility"...which means it isn't humility.

Dear Mormon friends: This is all true. Even if you like me, and I know some of you do, saemo is not wrong about me.

saemo is wrong about the Society of St. Pius X. SSPX priests are not anti-semitic. I cannot let that pass. I went to my first SSPX Mass on Jan. 1, 2005, and the priest who offered that Mass was the grandson of a Jewish rabbi who fled for America from Germany in 1933, when Adolf Hitler came to power. In a sermon which was recorded at our chapel just last summer, he tells his family story as well as giving good examples of how faithful Catholics have and should intervene for Jews in distress. I would be delighted if anyone listened to the entire 25 minutes. To skip the readings and announcements you may skip the first three minutes. The story of his family and his father's conversion begins at the 12:24 mark for those who don't have time for the whole thing. I think you will not be able to help but like my former pastor, and even if you need to start at 12:24, you may find yourself going back to the beginning later! Thanks.

https://onedrive.live.com/?authkey=!AIa3x_YqQ0-V_eQ&id=FB895AC3F4FDB37C!540&cid=FB895AC3F4FDB37C

I think there will be three of Father's sermons available. You will want to access the second of these from July 19, 2015

Rory 

I feel I should really bow out of this thread, but could not rightly do so and not respond to your post.

 

You are too kind and I am sorry if I offended you.  I worry I am too blunt sometimes and then I think I should just shut up. You always have my prayers, and I hope I have yours. You just worry me, as I think SSPX should not be SSPX but Catholic, without the special title. But it seems it can't be noticed, the workings of the Holy Spirit in VII and now 50 years later. 

I am glad to hear of your priest, but I don't know how such a man reconciles SSPX teachings on Judaism to himself. With the man I previously mentioned, he came to me and asked about what he was reading from SSPX. This is a man who had family murdered in the holocaust. I honestly thought to myself, what would 3DOP say? I had no idea on the matter! So I only asked what he had read, what he thought about it, and he most certainly shared what he thought. Holocaust deniers, were of his greatest concern.

People have difficult questions, for which I have no answers. I don't know why SSPX bishops or priests have said what they've said, or why no one in SSPX speaks out and says, hello, these people are idiots!

I don't know why you would defend a Mormon as possibly being saved without a valid baptism but you can't do the same for those who have been gifted to them, as a people, the Covenant to which Christ, all the Apostles, and Our Blessed Mother, were born.  *shrug*  Perhaps I have misread what you write. 

Edited January 19, 2016 by saemo

[3DOP]

21 hours ago, saemo said:

I feel I should really bow out of this thread, but could not rightly do so and not respond to your post.

 

You are too kind and I am sorry if I offended you.  I worry I am too blunt sometimes and then I think I should just shut up. You always have my prayers, and I hope I have yours. You just worry me, as I think SSPX should not be SSPX but Catholic, without the special title. But it seems it can't be noticed, the workings of the Holy Spirit in VII and now 50 years later. 

I am glad to hear of your priest, but I don't know how such a man reconciles SSPX teachings on Judaism to himself. With the man I previously mentioned, he came to me and asked about what he was reading from SSPX. This is a man who had family murdered in the holocaust. I honestly thought to myself, what would 3DOP say? I had no idea on the matter! So I only asked what he had read, what he thought about it, and he most certainly shared what he thought. Holocaust deniers, were of his greatest concern.

People have difficult questions, for which I have no answers. I don't know why SSPX bishops or priests have said what they've said, or why no one in SSPX speaks out and says, hello, these people are idiots!

I don't know why you would defend a Mormon as possibly being saved without a valid baptism but you can't do the same for those who have been gifted to them, as a people, the Covenant to which Christ, all the Apostles, and Our Blessed Mother, were born.  *shrug*  Perhaps I have misread what you write. 

1) Goodness sake, I am not offended. I am grateful to you. You are what I needed! I have never been more pleased with the outcome of a series of posts. God love you and yours, always and forever, saemo.

2) I am Catholic. SSPX priests always remind us that there is no teaching that "Outside the SSPX there is no Salvation". They teach that we must be Roman Catholic. They always come if Rome calls.I use the pronoun, "they", because I have procrastinated about joining the third order. I associate with them. But I am in no way a "member", at this time, of the Society of St. Pius X. (If I should ever become third order, while a "member", it will be one with no recognition who is only wishing to receive the extra graces that come from associating oneself officially with any religious order.)

3) That is so good of you to worry about me. Thank you so much. I have mentioned that our first SSPX Mass was Jan 1, 2005. We learned that while away at college, our oldest son had begun attending SSPX Masses in November of 2004. We were worried about him as you can well imagine. Then, independently of that, some close friends invited us to go with them to Mass on that first day of 2005. It seemed to my wife and I that we were being compelled by God to make an evaluation. Besides going to that Mass, we began to educate ourselves about the history involved. As I recall, by summer of 2005, about the time when Fr. Brandler's brain tumor took him away from us, we had decided that it was God's will as Catholics, to approve of what our son was doing, and also to begin to offer support to the local Society chapel.  

4) Fr. Brandler, if you listened to the sermon obviously has a deep burden as well as respect for his people. He and his brother David as young people dreamed of being the "Ratisbonne brothers", Jewish priest converts, buried in Jerusalem who had laboured for the conversion of Palestinian Jews in the 19the Century. Of course Father explains how it didn't work out as he and his brother had planned. God had other plans. But maybe, like myself after ten years of association without hearing a single word from any SSPX that sounds anti-semitic, Fr. Brandler has never heard anything in his 31 years of priesthood along those lines? I think there is nothing to reconcile. The SSPX are not anti-semitic. Goodness sake, it is well-known among all SSPX that Abp. Lefebvre's own father died in a Nazi concentration camp.

5) If you would like, when I have more time I could explain a pretty reasonable theory for why Bp. Williamson, before he was suspended and eventually dismissed (without protest from himself) from the Society, went public during the reign of Pope Benedict with his view that the numbers who were gassed in the Holocaust, while significant, have been exaggerated. I would suspect this is the main and even only source that anyone could cite reasonably for SSPX  "anti-semitism". Unless the Ratisbonne brothers (Jewish) were also "anti-semitic" because they sought to convert Jews to the Catholic faith, I have seen no evidence that the Society of St. Pius X is anti-semitic. While no SSPX to my knowledge has suggested that Bp. Williamson is an idiot, I have heard it seriously suggested that he is senile. 

6) Baptism of Desire is always possible for any Jew or any Gentile. It is not my position that Mormons are more likely to be so "baptized" than Jews. I do not believe it is prudent to act as though we have "good hope" for large numbers in any non-Catholic group to be so saved. That is why I think it is not charitable to say that Jews are "saved by the Old Covenant" without careful clarification. Yes, corporately speaking, there are promises in both testaments that they will in large numbers turn to God. But individually speaking, even in those days, they will still need some kind of baptism, be it of desire, blood, or water. And as much so in our own day. I fear that "the Vatican" has been a little misleading about this, although never saying anything exactly false. I am happy to agree with you that false doctrine has not been definitively taught. But in my opinion, they are not doing individual Jews of our times any favors by speaking the way that they do.

Rory 

[saemo]

2 hours ago, 3DOP said:

1) Goodness sake, I am not offended. I am grateful to you. You are what I needed! I have never been more pleased with the outcome of a series of posts. God love you and yours, always and forever, saemo.

2) I am Catholic. SSPX priests always remind us that there is no teaching that "Outside the SSPX there is no Salvation". They teach that we must be Roman Catholic. They always come if Rome calls.I use the pronoun, "they", because I have procrastinated about joining the third order. I associate with them. But I am in no way a "member", at this time, of the Society of St. Pius X. (If I should ever become third order, while a "member", it will be one with no recognition who is only wishing to receive the extra graces that come from associating oneself officially with any religious order.)

3) That is so good of you to worry about me. Thank you so much. I have mentioned that our first SSPX Mass was Jan 1, 2005. We learned that while away at college, our oldest son had begun attending SSPX Masses in November of 2004. We were worried about him as you can well imagine. Then, independently of that, some close friends invited us to go with them to Mass on that first day of 2005. It seemed to my wife and I that we were being compelled by God to make an evaluation. Besides going to that Mass, we began to educate ourselves about the history involved. As I recall, by summer of 2005, about the time when Fr. Brandler's brain tumor took him away from us, we had decided that it was God's will as Catholics, to approve of what our son was doing, and also to begin to offer support to the local Society chapel.  

4) Fr. Brandler, if you listened to the sermon obviously has a deep burden as well as respect for his people. He and his brother David as young people dreamed of being the "Ratisbonne brothers", Jewish priest converts, buried in Jerusalem who had laboured for the conversion of Palestinian Jews in the 19the Century. Of course Father explains how it didn't work out as he and his brother had planned. God had other plans. But maybe, like myself after ten years of association without hearing a single word from any SSPX that sounds anti-semitic, Fr. Brandler has never heard anything in his 31 years of priesthood along those lines? I think there is nothing to reconcile. The SSPX are not anti-semitic. Goodness sake, it is well-known among all SSPX that Abp. Lefebvre's own father died in a Nazi concentration camp.

5) If you would like, when I have more time I could explain a pretty reasonable theory for why Bp. Williamson, before he was suspended and eventually dismissed (without protest from himself) from the Society, went public during the reign of Pope Benedict with his view that the numbers who were gassed in the Holocaust, while significant, have been exaggerated. I would suspect this is the main and even only source that anyone could cite reasonably for SSPX  "anti-semitism". Unless the Ratisbonne brothers (Jewish) were also "anti-semitic" because they sought to convert Jews to the Catholic faith, I have seen no evidence that the Society of St. Pius X is anti-semitic. While no SSPX to my knowledge has suggested that Bp. Williamson is an idiot, I have heard it seriously suggested that he is senile. 

6) Baptism of Desire is always possible for any Jew or any Gentile. It is not my position that Mormons are more likely to be so "baptized" than Jews. I do not believe it is prudent to act as though we have "good hope" for large numbers in any non-Catholic group to be so saved. That is why I think it is not charitable to say that Jews are "saved by the Old Covenant" without careful clarification. Yes, corporately speaking, there are promises in both testaments that they will in large numbers turn to God. But individually speaking, even in those days, they will still need some kind of baptism, be it of desire, blood, or water. And as much so in our own day. I fear that "the Vatican" has been a little misleading about this, although never saying anything exactly false. I am happy to agree with you that false doctrine has not been definitively taught. But in my opinion, they are not doing individual Jews of our times any favors by speaking the way that they do.

Rory 

Thanks again. 

Thanks too for help with questions. 

Well, religious orders like to stir things up, or so it seems. 

Where there is a high sensitivity to being wiped out as a people, and viewing actively working to remove a person from their Jewish faith is a viewed as a means towards eradicating Jews, well, I can see how it makes sense to extend an hand of friendship, so that people know Catholics aren't working towards the end of Jews, as a people. I see it as, the Holy Spirit brings people to Christ. Certainly when people come, the are seeking baptism, confirmation and Eucharist.  In my time working with converts I've never heard one person express that they want to be Catholic but don't want to  be baptized.  

Ahd they do come. People just show up, by the dozen, and there is no missionary effort where I live, from Catholics. 

Edited January 20, 2016 by saemo