/christianity/ - Christian Theology & Philosophy

>>10336

>divorce and remarriage is fine with traditional western catholics now, only people age 70+ remember when it was a problem.

I didn't want to extend myself in the OP but stuff like this is making me reconsider Catholicism. When even the so-called Traditionals are OK with stuff that would have been unthinkable 100 years ago. Divorce used to be something scandalous, something people talked about with shame. It feels like the Traditionals 200 years from now will be defending female priests as part of the tradition and saying "Robot priests are an abomination!!".

>This way the wife can get remarried and have kids, not sure if the annulment restores her virginity in the eyes of The Church or not

Frankly, I think women who marry and are not virgins should be, by law, forbidden to wear white. That's how Trad I am and I feel so alone in a world of reprobates. Where do I turn? It's not like most protestants and orthodox are any better. What happened to SHAME?!

>>10338

>>10339

Those numbers are absolutely wild. I had no idea. And the ease with which the Church offers annulments? It's like they're giving out candy.

>“Whoever divorces his wife, except on the ground of fornication, and marries another commits adultery.”

- Matthew 19:9

God hates a deceitful, treacherous divorce. He will personally hold accountable those who frivolously leave their mate, especially when they do so with the motive of taking another partner. (Malachi 2:13-16; Mark 10:9)

I feel like a sucker, like I take stuff more seriously than it needs to. How come everyone is so OK with divorce when the Bible explicitly condemns it?!

>>10376

>>10382

My source is that God said "What God has brought together, let no man separate" (Matthew 19:6).

My source is that we say "Till death do us apart" in our vows.

DOES THAT MEAN NOTHING?! Do you seriously believe some legalistic mumbo-jumbo is going to fool Saint Peter?

This is something I notice with a lot of Catholics and it's seriously starting to get on my nerves: "Oh, I can sin all I want, then I confess to the Priest and I'm clean and good for another round". It's like they are joking or something. I'm not saying people should go around with fear of committing sins, we are all fallible, but at least show some contrition. Show some repentance.

>>10406

>When even the so-called Traditionals are OK with stuff that would have been unthinkable 100 years ago.

What manner of Traditional Catholics are you talking about? The only Traditional Catholics are those who view the Novus Ordo as an abomination. Don't listen to ANYONE that goes to the Novus Ordo "mass"–moving on,

Traditional Catholics, from the very beginning, have held 3 essential principles:

1. Leave the Conciliar Church and Novus Ordo behind completely, regardless of having a Trad option lined up for Mass. Stay home on Sunday if no Tridentine Mass available.

2. Seek out SURE sacraments in "lifeboats": valid priests to offer both the Tridentine Mass and traditional Sacraments, and support them wherever they are, even at independently set up "Traditional chapels" which Rome considers "illicit" or "un-canonical". Treat them for all practical purposes like one's local parish.

3. Believe "I don't need permission from the Pope, or Modernist Rome, to stay Catholic". That is, believe in supplied jurisdiction for Mass and ALL sacraments, and have NO scruples about attaching oneself to, and fully supporting, such Trad chapels and building them up.

Those elements are common to 100% of Traditional Catholics, past or present, from the very beginning in 1970. Anyone who scruples about going to Confession to a Trad priest because he doesn't have official jurisdiction or faculties from the local Bishop, for example, is not a Trad. He might be conservative, but if he doesn't understand that Catholics have a right to keep their Faith, and a need for the Sacraments, they have a lot to learn and therefore are not yet "Traditional Catholic".

For example, the FSSP:

Since part of their essence is "approval/permission from Rome" they are technically not Trad, since such approval was not part of the Trad package from the beginning. But more importantly, it actually contradicts principle #3, above. From the beginning of the movement in the 1970's, getting permission from Rome was certainly NOT one of the elements of the Traditional movement. So the FSSP is a new kind of conservative Catholic at best ("Indult Catholic"? "Latin Mass Catholic"?).

While Sedevacantists ALSO added another element to the Traditional manifesto, "4. The putative pope is not pope at all.", this is different in two main ways:

1. A good number of Trads believed this from the beginning. It was there, just not universal. So they are a specific sub-type of Trad, rather than SOMETHING OTHER THAN Trad.

2. Their additional belief doesn't contradict Trad principles 1-3.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=N0cBA0kOGFc

https://youtube.com/watch?v=_A3iVQixyTg

Here is where you can find a Mass near you:

http://www.traditio.com/tradlib/masslat.pdf

>>10546

My problem is that I don't want to be animated by a spirit of rebellion. I spent so many years of my life thinking I knew better than anyone else and a great part of my conversion to Catholicism was putting my faith in what the Church teaches. But the more I read, the angrier I get. I feel like something beautiful was taken from us. And I'm still struggling with if it was deliberate to destroy the Church from within or if it was a bad decision trying to attract the secular world that backfired immensely.

The are a few FSSP masses where I live but it's only once a month.

>>10549

That video is beautiful. Almost drove me to tears. Makes me so angry knowing that's what the Holy Mass used to be like. The music is divine, the ritual is ordered, no women in the pew but you can hear their voices and they are angelic… everything is in its right place. Everyone plays their part in the natural order of things. There is no confusion, no rebellion, no anger at God like we see in Novus Ordo. By anger at God I mean people taking Communion without confessing first or asking "Why can't women be priests?" and so on.

(((They))) really did a number on Catholicism, didn't they? They showed absolutely no mercy.

>>10559

>a great part of my conversion to Catholicism was putting my faith in what the Church teaches

sounds like implicit faith

see how the defensive catholic reasons: >>10562

>The Church does not see divorce as a sin therefore it's not a sin

>You are deeming divorce to be a sin based off of your own individualistic interpretation of the scripture

>There's no way the Church has not considered your sources before concluding to leave divorce as a non-sin so it must not be a sin

>>10562

>The Church does not see divorce as a sin therefore it's not a sin.

That doesn't sit right with me. I'm not saying it's wrong but I definitely have to read and meditate on it a little better.

I have two questions that are asked in bona fine and would love some answers. These are:

1) In Exodus 20:4-5 it says

>“You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God."

Doesn't this mean that statues of Our Lord Jesus and of the Virgin Mary and of the Saints are a form of idolatry, according to the Scriptures? I understand that we do NOT worship these statues but we do in fact bow down to them. Many Catholics also pray to statues. Is there any argument besides the "venerate ≠ worship" argument?

2) In 1 Timothy 2:5-6 it says:

>"For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all people.

Doesn't this imply that the only mediator between ourselves and The Father is The Son, Jesus Christ? Why do we then pray to the Virgin Mary and the Saints, who are not referred to in the Scriptures as mediators?

The Catechism states, in Canon 82:

>"The Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence'."

This implies that Holy Tradition is EQUAL in worth to the Scriptures, complementing it.

As to praying to the Virgin Mary [and the Saints], in Canon 2677, it reads:

>"Holy Mary, Mother of God: With Elizabeth we marvel, "and why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" Because she gives us Jesus, her son, Mary is Mother of God and our mother; we can entrust all our cares and petitions to her: she prays for us as she prayed for herself: "Let it be to me according to your word." By entrusting ourselves to her prayer, we abandon ourselves to the will of God together with her: "Thy will be done." Pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death: By asking Mary to pray for us, we acknowledge ourselves to be poor sinners and we address ourselves to the "Mother of Mercy," the All-Holy One. We give ourselves over to her now, in the Today of our lives. and our trust broadens further, already at the present moment, to surrender "the hour of our death" wholly to her care."

My internal conflict has to do with the fact that, one thing is for Sacred Tradition to be based upon and complementary of Scripture, but it seems to me that far from complementing Scripture, we are placing Tradition ABOVE Scripture and in fact supplanting it.

I know, and everyone knows, that it's just a matter of TIME until female priests and married priests are authorized by the Church. Will you extend your "The Church says divorce isn't a sin therefore divorce isn't a sin" sentiment when that eventually happens? And please don't tell me it will never happen, that would be throwing sand in my eyes. I'm not blind, I can see where the Church is going.

Of course if you were to reject those future implementations, you'd be going against the Church, incurring in (technically) schismatic behavior.

>>10612

>My internal conflict has to do with the fact that, one thing is for Sacred Tradition to be based upon and complementary of Scripture, but it seems to me that far from complementing Scripture, we are placing Tradition ABOVE Scripture and in fact supplanting it.

Time to reform my friend.

>>10614

Yes I get what you're trying to say, you don't have a refutation for the single most tired Roman Catholic talking point.

The canon isn't made the authoritative word of God because the church says so, it was the word of God from the moment of writing. What the church did was to decide by scholarly debate which books are to be seen as divinely inspired. That decision is also not correct because of the decree of the church, but stands or falls on the reasons. We have full certainty that the gnostic gospels are illegitimate because of their content, which is supplemented by church history.

It was also not so black and white as most e-catholics try to assert. The apocrypha wasn't even finally canonized until the counter reformation.

>but Jesus said "The Gates of Hell will never prevail against the Church"

The church, not Rome.

>>10616

You're misunderstanding the criticism. Listen to the webm again, if you did the first time.

The eschatological Christian hope is not implicit in the sense we're using here, we hope for the things to come because we have a cause. Job likewise had cause to trust God, that was the entire point of the book. The example of Job is trusting God in the face of adversity, rooting yourself in the knowledge of God, not blindly appealing to an unknown God.

>>10604

>Simply, it's wrong. It's intellectual laziness, deferring your obligation to work out matters of doctrine to someone else.

Pictures related.

>God gave you hundreds of pages of holy scripture and commanded you to study it

Jesus Christ, the eternal Son of God, never commanded His Apostles to write, nor did He ever write.

>Why would you need to study the primary source if all you needed was to just affirm whatever Rome says about Mary, or salvation, or the end times?

Since the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ and teaches with His authority, anything the Church says, Jesus says.

“He who hears you hears Me and he who rejects you rejects Me and he who rejects Me rejects Him Who sent Me.”

Furthermore,

>>6577

>>10612

Divorce IS a sin. Don't listen to anyone that says otherwise.

>Doesn't this mean that statues of Our Lord Jesus and of the Virgin Mary and of the Saints are a form of idolatry, according to the Scriptures

God explicitly commands the Israelites to portray Angels on the Ark of the Covenant and in their Temples. He does not break His own commandments. Iconoclasm is literally Muslim in its origins, and they even weren't originally iconoclastic.

>Why do we then pray to the Virgin Mary and the Saints, who are not referred to in the Scriptures as mediators?

They're mediators to the Son. Look, communion of the Saints is literally taught by Apostolic Fathers and in Scripture (in Isaiah 6 Seraph is the method God uses to give His grace, David prays to angels in the Psalms, the Apocalypse talks about the saints praying for us in Heaven), for example, Fathers like Polycarp and Ignatius were directly taught by Saint John the Apostle. So, Saint John had to be mistaken about communion of the saints… right. I wish I had that much faith in the fake protestant gospel. What's also pants-on-head absurd is that Protestants have an extreme Augustinian view of original sin (they love to point Isaiah 64:6/Romans 3:10) and yet they believe these humans can go directly to God. It's absurd considering the bedrock of their entire religion (false dialectic between fath/works). And there's the issue of their mutilated Bible, and so much more.

>The Catechism states, in Canon 82:

First of all, avoid these modernist catechisms. Look at the Catechism of the Council of Trent. Also, the Bible is a product of Tradition.

>I know, and everyone knows, that it's just a matter of TIME until female priests and married priests are authorized by the Church

Ontologically impossible for a woman to consecrate the Eucharist.

>I'm not blind, I can see where the Church is going.

I'm not sure you see it the way it actually is. The modernist boomers are on their deathbeds, these latest schemes are only because they know they're dying and that their Novus Ordite religion will go with them. Young Catholics are fond of tradition.

>>10624

>Protestants don't study the fathers

>Protestantism is relativist

ok kid

>>10729

No problem, my friend. We're both learning.