FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Scottish Catholic Church and Church of Scotland celebrate the reformation
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
"The two Churches divided along sectarian lines have taken a big step in creating a joint liturgy for Baptismal vows and this year they will celebrate the Reformation together."

More Freemasonic one world religion from our Scottish "Catholic" "Bishops".

http://news.scotsman.com/scotland/Kirk-a...6310196.jp



Celebrate the Reformation?

Good, good...we're not very far from canonizing Luther and Calvin.
(05-22-2010, 06:45 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]Celebrate the Reformation?

Good, good...we're not very far from canonizing Luther and Calvin.

Not to far? Vetus the last time I was at a NO All Saints day the Priest mentioned Luther as a "Great man and one day Saint".
(05-22-2010, 06:53 PM)Baskerville Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-22-2010, 06:45 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]Celebrate the Reformation?

Good, good...we're not very far from canonizing Luther and Calvin.

Not to far? Vetus the last time I was at a NO All Saints day the Priest mentioned Luther as a "Great man and one day Saint".

I know. Yet another reason to reject the Conciliar Church.

I was talking more of an official pronouncement from the authorities in Rome that must not be that far off, not that these heresiarchs aren't already treated as saints in practice. The other day L'Osservatore Romano was praising Calvin.

In fact, the heretical "common martyrology" was a John Paul II's idea. It is a prelude of worse things to come.
(05-22-2010, 06:57 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]In fact, the heretical "common martyrology" was a John Paul II's idea. It is a prelude of worse things to come.

JPII doing something against the faith? Surely you jest.
(05-22-2010, 07:01 PM)Baskerville Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-22-2010, 06:57 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]In fact, the heretical "common martyrology" was a John Paul II's idea. It is a prelude of worse things to come.

JPII doing something against the faith? Surely you jest.

These are serious matters.

Unfortunately, the late Pope was a terrible scandal to the whole Church.
(05-22-2010, 07:05 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-22-2010, 07:01 PM)Baskerville Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-22-2010, 06:57 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]In fact, the heretical "common martyrology" was a John Paul II's idea. It is a prelude of worse things to come.

JPII doing something against the faith? Surely you jest.

These are serious matters.

Unfortunately, the late Pope was a terrible scandal to the whole Church.

Its sad isn't it.
Vetus Ordo Wrote:These are serious matters.

These are serious matter, so people better start sourcing their statements. We can start with citing talk of a "common martyrology."
Los Angeles Mission editor Christopher Zehnder interviews Atila Sinke Guimarães on his book Quo Vadis, Petre?

[...]

7. CZ: Is it clear that the “common martyrology” as proposed by the pope is tantamount to canonization?

ASG: The word martyrology is a term consecrated in the Catholic tradition to designate the list of Saints canonized by the Church. It is not the list only of martyrs, as one might think, but of all the canonized Saints. As far as I know, the new expression "common martyrology" was coined by John Paul II in the Encyclical Ut Unum Sint (n. 84) and, since then, has been used constantly by Vatican organs and personages. By the former usage that the word had, everything leads one to suppose that the "common martyrology" will include the Saints of the Catholic Church and those who are considered saints by other religions. To be admitted into the Catholic martyrology, the latter group would have to be canonized. This interpretation seems to be the only one that would be consistent with the past. I do not know of any official declaration that says anything different. Therefore, the “saints” of Protestantism, for example, who would enter the "common martyrology" would have to receive the acknowledgement of the Catholic Church. Such acknowledgement is called canonization. We are facing the possible canonization of Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc.

8. CZ: Does such a common martyrology indicate that salvation outside the Church is normal, when martyrdom itself is an extraordinary grace?

ASG: Let me distinguish the two parts of your question. In the second part, there is the common confusion between the concept of martyr and that of martyrology. I hope that the solution was clearly presented in the answer to the last question. I respond, therefore, only to the first part of the question. Yes, I believe that admitting that there are saints in other religions supposes that these persons are in eternal glory. This is equivalent to saying that there is salvation in other religions. Does this harmonize with the perennial Catholic doctrine? There seems to be a flagrant contradiction. For this reason I direct myself to John Paul II asking that he explaining the contradiction.

9. CZ: One might argue that your speculation that, in the future, Muslims who died during the Crusades and formal heretics might be considered martyrs is an exaggeration unwarranted by the facts. After all, the pope speaks only of those who, at best, are presumably material heretics and Msgr. Sepe speaks only of martyrs of atheistic regimes.

ASG: Your question is not exactly a question; it is a manifestation of an opinion contrary to mine. Departing from the presupposition that your interpretation is right, you fault me for exaggeration. I do not know of any negation of the facts that some heresiarchs – such as Luther – or some Muslims could be included in the new common martyrology. On the contrary, various recent actions from the highest cupola of the Church are moving in the direction I indicated. For example, in the Catholic-Lutheran accord signed on October 31, the city chosen for the event was Augsburg, Germany, in order to pay homage to Luther. In 1530 Luther officially founded the Protestant religion there. How can one not see this homage as an attempt to pretend that Luther was not wrong? The text of the accord follows this same line. Now, if Luther were not wrong, it would have been a great injustice to have condemned him as a heretic. He would be, then, one who was greatly persecuted, a type of saint. This is what underlies the accord and the ceremony of October 31.

Let me give another example. On the trip that John Paul II made to India at the beginning of November, the private prayer he made next to the tomb of Gandhi, the fact that he took off his shoes to approach the place and then sprinkled rose petals over the sepulchre are actions normally considered symbolic expressions of a great admiration. If this example from above were followed by many Catholics, we would see the spread of an admiration for Luther and for Gandhi that would approach the veneration tributed to saints. From public veneration to canonization, the step nowadays is not so large. The facts point to this direction. Therefore, I do not see why you state that my prediction is unfounded and exaggerated.

10. CZ: What do you find wrong in the pope's desire to make a "more just and honest portrait of Luther"? Such a portrait should not necessarily lead to an exoneration of his heresy.

ASG: The expression "to make a more just and honest portrait of Luther" contains an implicit judgement that the prior sentence of the Church with regard to the heresiarch was not entirely just and honest. However, the condemnations made of Luther were the conclusions of two Ecumenical Councils: the Fifth Lateran Council and the Council of Trent. The doctrinairy decisions of these two councils were sealed by Papal Infallibility. This is equivalent to saying that these sentences cannot contain error. Therefore, the above expression tends to relativize the prior condemnations and to favor Protestantism.

11. CZ: Could Luther in no way be deemed "profoundly religious"? Must we assume the complete dereliction his character?

ASG: In theory, every heresiarch can be considered to be "profoundly religious," because his error was a religious error that profoundly affected him. But in the context in which this expression was employed regarding Luther, it has the sense of an eulogy. Up to Vatican Council II, eulogies of heretics were considered as a sign of suspicion of heresy. The crime of suspicion of heresy was always held to be one of the most serious in the bosom of the Catholic Church, surpassed only by the incursion into declared heresy. I do not know of any official document revoking the existence of the suspicion of heresy.

When someone is declared a heretic – as in the case of Luther – the recommendation of prudence that rules in the Church is to remove oneself from him. This is not to say that everything in the character of the heretic is bad, but it must be said that the error which he professed cannot be disassociated from his person. I think this norm is very wise. An analogous law of prudence warns that a cup of poisoned water should be avoided, because the poison – even if it is only a drop – spreads throughout the water. To accept positive points of Luther, even if in thesis they exist, in practice would be similar to drinking the poisoned water of the cup under the pretext that the poison is only in one drop.

[...]

14. CZ: On page 42 [of “Quo Vadis, Petre?”] you write, that the Vatican II Council stated that "there is a possibility of salvation in the practice of innumerable religions." Does the council say this, or simply that some in non-Catholic religions may be saved? The difference being, of course, that they are saved though they are in those religions, but not through them.

ASG: The decree Unitatis Redintegratio (3c, 3d) clearly states that salvation can exist outside of the Church. It is this text to which I refer: “The brethren divided from us also carry out many of the sacred actions of the Christian religion. Undoubtedly, in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community, these actions can truly engender a life of grace, and can rightly be described as capable of providing access to the community of salvation. …. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation ….”

You can see that Vatican II is quite clear regarding salvation outside of the Catholic Church. I could cite other excerpts. I hope this single text will resolve your doubt. 
(05-22-2010, 08:29 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]7. CZ: Is it clear that the “common martyrology” as proposed by the pope is tantamount to canonization?

ASG: The word martyrology is a term consecrated in the Catholic tradition to designate the list of Saints canonized by the Church. It is not the list only of martyrs, as one might think, but of all the canonized Saints. As far as I know, the new expression "common martyrology" was coined by John Paul II in the Encyclical Ut Unum Sint (n. 84) and, since then, has been used constantly by Vatican organs and personages. By the former usage that the word had, everything leads one to suppose that the "common martyrology" will include the Saints of the Catholic Church and those who are considered saints by other religions. To be admitted into the Catholic martyrology, the latter group would have to be canonized. This interpretation seems to be the only one that would be consistent with the past. I do not know of any official declaration that says anything different. Therefore, the “saints” of Protestantism, for example, who would enter the "common martyrology" would have to receive the acknowledgement of the Catholic Church. Such acknowledgement is called canonization. We are facing the possible canonization of Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc.

Primary source:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_p...nt_en.html

84. In a theocentric vision, we Christians already have a common Martyrology. This also includes the martyrs of our own century, more numerous than one might think, and it shows how, at a profound level, God preserves communion among the baptized in the supreme demand of faith, manifested in the sacrifice of life itself.138 The fact that one can die for the faith shows that other demands of the faith can also be met. I have already remarked, and with deep joy, how an imperfect but real communion is preserved and is growing at many levels of ecclesial life. I now add that this communion is already perfect in what we all consider the highest point of the life of grace, martyria unto death, the truest communion possible with Christ who shed his Blood, and by that sacrifice brings near those who once were far off (cf. Eph 2:13).

While for all Christian communities the martyrs are the proof of the power of grace, they are not the only ones to bear witness to that power. Albeit in an invisible way, the communion between our Communities, even if still incomplete, is truly and solidly grounded in the full communion of the Saints—those who, at the end of a life faithful to grace, are in communion with Christ in glory. These Saints come from all the Churches and Ecclesial Communities which gave them entrance into the communion of salvation.
Pages: 1 2 3