Monday, March 9, 2009

The Great Apostasy Brochure, Part 1

Recently, I received a pamphlet after mass regarding the validity of Vatican II and the Popes who called and followed that council. The gentlemen handing them out in front of the main doors calmly said "Did you know Vatican II has been condemned by the Catholic Church?" and walked away.

Below, I will address the points made in the brochure, and hopefully maintain the truth that has always been constant in the Catholic Church.

Non-Catholic Religions are a means to Salvation.

The quotes provided, unfortunately, are blatantly taken out of context. It's unfortunate, in continued attempts to show how contradictory Vatican II and the popes are, quotes are skewed, paraphrased, underlined, capitalized and bolded as if the true meaning is hidden, and unless this is shown through special formatting, we cannot see it.

For example...

Pope Leo XII, Satis Cognitum: "9. The Church alone...supplies those means of salvation"

What means of salvation? All means of salvation? Why would we not be provided the entirety of the quote? Let's assume it was for the purpose of saving space, as there is only so much room on the pamphlet.

The quote in its entirety is as follows:

It is then undoubtedly the office of the church to guard Christian doctrine and to propagate it in its integrity and purity. But this is not all: the object for which the Church has been instituted is not wholly attained by the performance of this duty. For, since Jesus Christ delivered Himself up for the salvation of the human race, and to this end directed all His teaching and commands, so He ordered the Church to strive, by the truth of its doctrine, to sanctify and to save mankind. But faith alone cannot compass so great, excellent, and important an end. There must needs be also the fitting and devout worship of God, which is to be found chiefly in the divine Sacrifice (The Mass) and in the dispensation of the Sacraments, as well as salutary laws and discipline. All these must be found in the Church, since it continues the mission of the Saviour forever. The Church alone offers to the human race that religion - that state of absolute perfection - which He wished, as it were, to be incorporated in it. And it alone supplies those means of salvation which accord with the ordinary counsels of Providence.

I will allow the reader to read the quote un-cut and unformatted, save for my insertion of "The Mass", as some readers may not know what the divine Sacrifice is.

Now, should we assume that all means of salvation are only present in the Church, or that the ones provided in the context of the paragraph are the ones that the church provides? In either case, this does not contradict Vatican II and its statement that 'the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as a means of salvation.'

Satis Cognitum in no place declares that the only place a means of salvation could exist is the Catholic Church. It does not state the Church contains 'all' and 'exclusively' every means of salvation.

Let us look at a practical example:

A Protestant church uses a billboard sign to say that 'Jesus Saves', with the picture of Jesus as a goalie. Now, Joe Blow drives by in his automobile and sees said sign. After reading said sign, he goes to his Islam friend and asks what this means. This man states, ' In Christianity, the prime belief is that faith in Jesus Christ brings eternal salvation, and no other way for eternal life is possible. We revere Jesus as a great prophet, but nothing more'. Joe Blow thanks his friend, and carries on. In turn, he meets an Atheist who runs a book store, and buys a book written by a Baptist pastor... etc. etc....

Finally, Joe Blow asks his father, a staunch traditional catholic, who promptly points him to a catholic priest who in turn teaches him how to obtain salvation. Joe Blow carries on to be brought into the Catholic fold.

What means of salvation are there in this story, and are they all Catholic sources? First off, what is a 'means'?

Means

1. Usually, means. (used with a singular or plural verb) an agency, instrument, or method used to attain an end: The telephone is a means of communication. There are several means of solving the problem.
2. means,
a. available resources, esp. money: They lived beyond their means.
b. considerable financial resources; riches: a man of means.


www.dictionary.com

I would say than, for the salvation of this man, should he continue in good faith and practice wholeheartedly his faith, several things were instrumental, and could be considered a 'means'.

First, the Protestant Sign.

Secondly, the Islam and his explanation.

The Atheist, and the book he sold.

Would these not be means by which a man came to salvation? Singularly, they are not enough, no one would deny that. However, they began the journey, and to say they had no importance would be ingnorant.

Now, those who would attempt to convince us of the contradiction of Vatican II and Satis Cognitum would have us believe that the Catholic church alone supplies those means. Indeed, the quote they provided say's as much.

Pope Leo XII, Satis Cognitum: "9. The Church alone...supplies those means of salvation"

But, in context, what means is Satis Cognitum speaking about? The encyclical clearly points to several things. They are the divine Sacrifice, the Sacraments, as well as salutary laws and discipline. It could allude to more, but says nothing definite, and if the document meant more, we have no way of truly knowing, save for the interpretation of a continuing, valid church.

Now, if my understanding is invalid, and I am wrong on some point, who is there to make the final call. Who has the final decision?

I would think, theologically, my reasoning is sound. It reconciles the Council with the Encyclical, and maintains the truth the catholic church has taught.

15 comments:

  1. Guns & Jesus, Chris. You're attracting quite a crowd.

    You need to get out of the new mess of antipope Paul VI. It is corrupting your knowledge of the Faith and you are being delivered up to spiritual blindness, resulting in your commission of grievous sins against the first commandment by defending these idolatrous and heretical blasphemers.

    You are falling for it hook line and sinker, and you are now a willing pawn of satan, glibly trying to explain away unpardonable heresies.

    You are still trying to find ways to say that the words of Jesus and the See of Peter mean something other than what they plainly say.

    You are truly on the road to hell.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thank you for your concern.

    I respect your position, for certainly we could take everything we read as we ourselves understand it. Even the protestants do that. It's a different thing completely to understand it as the Church teaches it, and adhere to it with strength, faith and charity.

    Your blog clearly shows your understanding of the Catholic faith. Mine shows my understanding. Both have valid points. I would say mine makes more sense when full context is taken, but I will not point fingers at who is right and wrong. I will provide what I can and let the reader decide.

    In direct response to your comment, I could reply to you by saying something like...

    "Your stubbornness in not accepting the valid explanation I provided shows the hardness of your heart. Clinging to your understanding without a valid reason, after an acceptable resolution has been provided, such would be the actions of the Pharisees.

    I could say you are like a Pharisee, because you continue to interpret the law without love. You cling to that which was given in the old, as you understand it, but when the truth is given, you crucify it because of your fear and lack of understanding.'

    But, if I do that, neither of us have proven anything. If you wish to show me the 'truth', do so not with your feelings, but with the knowledge and wisdom our Lord gave us. We all have feelings, but we know we can not trust them.

    ReplyDelete
  3. No valid reason? The 'church' you are a part of has made up new explanations for nearly every facet of the faith. Antiquity is where the truth is. I have had many emails back and forth with you and I am no longer concerned with trying to prove anything to you since you deny dogma at every turn. There is not one dogma that you have not said essentially "Yeah well it doesn't have to be taken exaclty as written"

    True love for God and fellow man comes from acceptance of His teachings, and zeal for souls. If you want to know the truth, you need to read my newest post and stop playing WOW as it is a mortally sinful game that encourages false gods, immodesty, immorality and the occult.

    http://willingcatholicmartyr.blogspot.com/2009/03/lead-holy-life.html

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Yeah well it doesn't have to be taken exactly as written"

    I am taking it exactly as written. Satis Cognitum clearly talks about he divine Sacrifice, the Sacraments, as well as salutary laws and discipline.

    No quote you have provided has definitely stated everything you try to prove as Dogma, or even that what you are saying must be is Dogma. You 'interpret' or 'deduce' your way to the end you want, and than decide that is what the Dogma has always been. You place yourself as 'infallible'.

    If you can't validly address what I provide, refute the proof I give, than you don't have a foot to stand on in terms of condemning me.

    And if we are to point out mortal sins, than wouldn't living in the home of a Heretic be as mortally sinful as me playing a video game?

    ReplyDelete
  5. I thought about that. I don't think it is. I am not communing with him, befriending him (anymore, since I now know better), supporting him or in any other way endorsing his evil lifestyle. I have given him material to watch, which proves creation and the reality of the Catholic faith, I have had him and the other tenant witness and sign my abjuration and profession of faith, so they both know I believe they're on the road to hell. I simply live in his basement and avoid him as much as possible.

    The prophet Daniel lived among pagans. There's little choice in this world.

    And why do you keep capitalizing heretic?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Refuting your posts is unnecessary. All I have to do is ask you a few simple questions and your answers will be either Catholic, or non-Catholic.

    I wonder if you can do it with a simple yes or no.

    1. Can a person who has never heard of Jesus get to heaven?

    2. Do Muslims worship the one true God?

    3. Is Lutheran doctrine on justification heretical?

    4. Are the Eastern 'Orthodox' schismatic?

    5. Can a heretic be a Catholic?

    6. Can a layman recognize heresy without it being pointed out by the Church?

    ReplyDelete
  7. 1. Yes. Defended by Thomas Aquinas, Pius IX, and a multitude of others.
    2. Yes. Never condemned by the church, and defended by St. Paul
    3. No Idea, I have not studied Lutheran, but if it is 'Sola Fide', than yes.
    4. I have not studied eastern orthodoxy.
    5. A Heretic can be a Catholic by self profession, and as recognized by his peers, but would not be a Catholic in reality. Depending on which you speak, it could be yes or no. It would also depends on the circumstances of his Heresy, whether it was through ignorance, or stubbornness.
    6. I have not researched that. I would say yes, but there is nothing to say that he is not in error. His understanding is not infallible.

    Now, I expect you to condemn me shortly, but, I would think you're responsible to explain why and defend your faith.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I need not condemn you. The Catholic Church does that. Have you forgotten that infallible decrees are the highest authority?

    For question #1. Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: "It is also necessary for salvation to believe faithfully the incarnation of our lord Jesus Christ. The right faith, therefore, is that we believe and confess that our lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, is God and man.

    Nobody who has not heard of Jesus can fulfill this, but I guess you stubbornly think it doesn't mean what it clearly says. Ask the Church Fathers what they say about this.

    As for #2, Muslims did not exist in the time of St. Paul, so I don't know what you're talking about, but St. John the evangelist surely had something relative to say:

    1 St. John 2:23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father. He that confesseth the Son, hath the Father also.

    2 St. John 1:9 Whosoever revolteth, and continueth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that continueth in the doctrine, the same hath both the Father and the Son.

    3. You got #3 right...but the 'church' you're a part of tries to make excuses for them so they can get along peaceably and not have to 'offend' them by denouncing and trying to convert them.

    The answer to #4 is: Yes, they deny the primacy of Peter.

    5. Do you plead ignorance or stubbornness? You cannot plead ignorance since you obviously are well read, yet you still deny that a dogma is in and of itself irreformable, and always to be to be understood as it has at once been declared.

    6. Yes is the right answer, but there IS something to show the error. It's called accepting Scripture and Tradition, including and especially the infallible authority that defines it for us.

    Chris, I love you, turn aside from the path of destruction, that you might turn aside the wrath you are storing up for yourself. It will be hard and it will mean many changes and sacrifices, but the alternative is unthinkable and unbearable. Don't go there.

    ReplyDelete
  9. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Sorry about the deleted comment...typo

    You do know what a revolution is don't you?

    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-US:IE-SearchBox&rlz=1I7GGLR_en&defl=en&q=define:revolution&ei=YTO_SaCzEZD4MLnvnKsN&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

    ReplyDelete
  11. You realize that the name the Dimonds provided for there apparently destructive article to the current Catholic Church is called the same. Hence why I named my blog as such, so anyone searching for some answers to it's blatant lies would hopefully find this site.

    ReplyDelete
  12. The only blatant lies that I have so far found that they are perpetrating are:

    1. That it is okay to knowingly receive the sacraments of a heretic. This is sacrilege and will damn a soul to hell.

    2. That baptized post age of reason children in Protestant and schismatic 'churches' are not bound by divine law and do not become schismatic once they reach the age of reason.

    Both of these positions can be proven false when certain Church teachings are not withheld as the Dimonds like to do. The Dimonds mix these lies in with their 99.9% truth, and as such damn souls who make an effort to learn the true faith.

    Mind you I have not read every single thing on their site, and am leery to do so now, lest I am led astray by their occasional dishonest representation of Catholic doctrine when it suits their heretical fancy, such as their desire to receive sacraments, despite being unable to do so without incurring denying dogma and incurring divine penalties.

    Anything else on their site that you think is a lie?

    ReplyDelete
  13. That which condemns Vatican II. Unfortunately, or fortunately, depending upon who may read, I was sidetracked from my original intent of addressing the article.

    I do plan on returning to it at some point.

    ReplyDelete
  14. You said Islam was never condemned by the Catholic Church.

    pope Eugene IV, Council of Basel, 1434: Moreover, we trust that with God's help another benefit will accrue to the Christian commonwealth; because from this union, once it is established, there is hope that very many from the abominable sect of Mahomet will be converted to the catholic faith.

    Sounds like the Church is clear on how it views the false religion of Islam. It is an abominable sect.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Your grasping at straws. Firstly, saying something is abominable does not make it condemned. The two are not synonymous.

    Secondly,If I did say Islam was never condemned by the Catholic Church, post your comment in the combox that relates to said post.

    However, I never said Islam had never been condemned. What I did point out was that that Catholic Church never said the Moslems can not and do not worship the one true God.

    http://vatican-revolution-defense.blogspot.com/2009/03/continuing-upon-topic-of-great-apostasy.html

    ReplyDelete