[LefseRae]

Originally Posted by Bryan

FYI, if you are non-Denominational then you are a protestant.

I know that, I'm just saying that I haven't sorted out my own theology yet, so I have no business trying to prove I'm right!

[KFBobInsanesMom]

Originally Posted by goldenchild

no maam it's not. Well, they have some good information in regards to the very basics and in regards to pointing obvious heresies. But they hold to a number of non-Catholic positions themselves and are take Sedevacantism to an extreme level that is not needed. Not to mention that their knowledge of basic canon law and theology is not quite there yet. It is a site I visit every once in awhile when I'm looking for a basic quote that is taking me awhile to search for, or to catch up on some more recent heretical news from the Vatican. But it's not at all a site I would recommend to newbies in this area of study as they can lead one down a very dangerous path, as they almost did me.

One of their heretical positions is that of the Feeneyite position, meaning water baptism is the only form of baptism. This is probably more in line with your (mis)understanding of Outside the Church There is No Salvation. They don't believe in Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood, nor of Invincible Ignorance which the Church has infallibly spoken on all three. You might like them for this belief, but it doesn't fit in Catholic Theology and takes one down a dangerous road of exclusion. Meaning, it is also a schismatic act for a Catholic to deny communion with anybody else who is a true Catholic. MHFM isolates themselves from the vast majority of Traditional Catholics because we don't agree with their denial of these key Church doctrines.

There are much more orthodox sites one can get their information from. A favorite of mine, though most of the information comes from the discussions in the forums, is www.strobertbellarmine.net . John Lane, who runs that site is a leader in the Sedevacantist philosophy and is quite solid in his theology. www.cmri.org has a lot of information on their website as well. They are the Order of priests, brothers and sisters where I attend my masses. Among others those are my two basic favorites. www.wftsradio.com is a radio program site run by the SSPV another great order and they have really good programs to listen to all day. Listening to that for a few days will give one a good basic idea of the principles and basic heresies. Although for you guys you would not like to listen to the rosary constantly or a great number of their programs. www.traditionalmass.org is great with articles by Fr. Anthony Cekada whom I respect greatly, another leader in the Sedevacantism philosophy. http://www.traditionalcatholicsermons.org/ is an amazing resource where one can listen to Catholic sermons on many topics, one of which being the issues with the Novus Ordo Church. http://www.christorchaos.com/ is another good resource although I find it a little hard to navigate for people who aren't really sure what they are looking for and are just browsing.

Considering I believe that baptism is in no way necessary for salvation, I really don't pay much attention to what they teach. I think baptism of desire and baptism of blood are "crafty" ways around an error that was made, but that really is a different subject. I guess in that regard, I would be much more in agreement with them than with the RCC.

Thank you for the information though. They do a good job pulling information together, which really does help when I just don't have time to look through 50 bookmarks to find something.

[goldenchild]

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

Considering I believe that baptism is in no way necessary for salvation, I really don't pay much attention to what they teach.

I understand this, but I'm sure you would also believe that the Church's claim of no salvation outside the Church is also faulty and yet you seem to do quite a bit of research on that. The two are integral to each other. If you want to understand a Catholic belief about salvation of non-catholic persons then an understanding of the Catholic teaching on baptism is essential, whether you agree with it or not. The council of Trent, and confirmed by Aquinas show that baptism, or the desire of it, are necessary to salvation. This alone allows for at least some visibly outside the Church to be saved. You may disagree, and I respect that, but it really is only fair scholarship to understand the issue before making a judgment on it.

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

I think baptism of desire and baptism of blood are "crafty" ways around an error that was made, but that really is a different subject. I guess in that regard, I would be much more in agreement with them than with the RCC.

I'm sure you would be, but I suppose it lies in the fact that the Catholic Church is not nearly as rules-based or reliant upon laws for salvation. There is allowed much room for God to do what He will with an individual. God is not tied down by the Church. If there is an individual outside the Church who would most definitely get baptised in the Church would he have understood its importance then a baptism of desire is fairly applied. I think a contemporary example might be (and I'm not making a judgment one way or the other because his heart could have been in any state and we do not know) the protestant singer Rich Mullins who died in a plane accident on his way to be baptised by his priest. He believed in the doctrine, and would certainly (at least most likely) have been baptised had he lived through that accident. I think it fair to use his case as a basic example of the understanding of the doctrine. Most Holy Family Monastery would deny this man the right to salvation, simply because he had not made it physically to the water baptism. God is not to be restricted in such a way and the Catholic Church teaches thus.

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

Thank you for the information though. They do a good job pulling information together, which really does help when I just don't have time to look through 50 bookmarks to find something.

They certainly do a good job at that. Like I said, sometimes I scan their pages when I'm looking for something in particular that I can't find in my saved documents right away. I even have a large number of video clips taken from their videos documenting the errors of the Novus Ordo Church, uploaded onto my new website. However, I do make a note of caution to all viewers. Anybody that relies on their information will have the synthesis of heresies of the Novus Ordo church, but they will be without any understanding of theology and how and why one comes to the conclusions we do. So, for that reason I don't recommend it to someone who isn't already solidly Catholic and is aware of their errors.

[KFBobInsanesMom]

Originally Posted by goldenchild

I understand this, but I'm sure you would also believe that the Church's claim of no salvation outside the Church is also faulty and yet you seem to do quite a bit of research on that. The two are integral to each other. If you want to understand a Catholic belief about salvation of non-catholic persons then an understanding of the Catholic teaching on baptism is essential, whether you agree with it or not. The council of Trent, and confirmed by Aquinas show that baptism, or the desire of it, are necessary to salvation. This alone allows for at least some visibly outside the Church to be saved. You may disagree, and I respect that, but it really is only fair scholarship to understand the issue before making a judgment on it.

The reason I did so much research on the teaching "outside the church there is no salvation" is because what was stated in the teaching and what the vast majority of Catholics I spoke to said it meant, were two different things. Somewhere along the way, the teaching had either gotten changed/twisted/misunderstood, and I wanted to find out which it was for myself. The belief in baptism by desire is simple to understand and I have not heard anyone state it any differently than you have, so there really was no need to go research it. I have, however, at least done a cursory look into just to be sure what everyone seemed to be saying was what was taught. I didn't find anything contradictory, so I saw no need to spend any more time on it.

The church teaches that baptism is necessary for salvation, but I don't find this to be correct according to God's word, which is always my "final authority". From what I have read, I don't find that such a teaching was part of the early church (the idea of baptism of desire or by blood), especially in light of some of the statements which claim that even if one dies for the name of Christ (baptism of blood) they cannot be saved if outside the church. This seems to make a non-catholic able to be saved by baptism of blood an impossibility.

[Reedolo]

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

Bull 'Unam Sanctam' Boniface VIII, 1302 ex cathedra

"Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

If one cannot be saved unless subject to the Roman Pontiff, then it follows that one is going to Hell.

This is something that I totally disagree with, and it is not in line with what the Church teaches today. If this statement was really ex Cathedra, then I am going to have to consider to re-thinking my belief in papal infallibility and converting to Eastern Orthodox Catholicism.

[KFBobInsanesMom]

Originally Posted by Reedolo

This is something that I totally disagree with, and it is not in line with what the Church teaches today. If this statement was really ex Cathedra, then I am going to have to consider to re-thinking my belief in papal infallibility and converting to Eastern Orthodox Catholicism.

I see it more a problem with Catholicism than I do with Papal infallibility.

[KFBobInsanesMom]

Originally Posted by Reedolo

This is something that I totally disagree with, and it is not in line with what the Church teaches today. If this statement was really ex Cathedra, then I am going to have to consider to re-thinking my belief in papal infallibility and converting to Eastern Orthodox Catholicism.

My opinion is that the Catholic church realized that it was severely in error and tried, with Vatican II, to correct the error. Where they went wrong is in denying the error. I can understand why they did it, the RCC would basically cease to be believable if they did, but it's hard to hide something so obvious.

[Reedolo]

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

Does the church need to have an "earthly" head to continue? I don't see that being the case. The church (all believers) have a head, Christ Jesus. God made some teachers, some apostles, some......, this has not changed. The teaching of the apostles went on and on and on through those they taught teaching others.

Since I"m lazy this morning, can you quote me the passages that speak of the office of apostle being filled? (other than the choosing of the one to replace Judas)

I'm also feeling lazy today because I was on the road for over 4 hours going to visit family and coming back, and I didn't get home till this evening and I'm not really feeling like making long posts.

Here's one verse that I remember:



1 Tim. 3: 1The saying is sure: whoever aspires to the office of bishop desires a noble task.

1 Tim. 5: 22Do not ordain anyone hastily, and do not participate in the sins of others; keep yourself pure.

And office implies a successor, someone to fill an office or take over a vacancy, etc. In other places in Scripture, we see the laying on of hands which is traditionally understood to be the means by which Apostolic Succession is passed on.

[Reedolo]

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

I see it more a problem with Catholicism than I do with Papal infallibility.

Eastern Orthodoxy has never accepted papal infallibility, and they have valid Apostolic Succession and valid sacraments. The main cause of the Great Schism was over the issue of papal authority.

[KFBobInsanesMom]

Originally Posted by Reedolo

I'm also feeling lazy today because I was on the road for over 4 hours going to visit family and coming back, and I didn't get home till this evening and I'm not really feeling like making long posts.

Here's one verse that I remember:



1 Tim. 3: 1The saying is sure: whoever aspires to the office of bishop desires a noble task.

1 Tim. 5: 22Do not ordain anyone hastily, and do not participate in the sins of others; keep yourself pure.

And office implies a successor, someone to fill an office or take over a vacancy, etc. In other places in Scripture, we see the laying on of hands which is traditionally understood to be the means by which Apostolic Succession is passed on.

Not necessarily. I think most of the early bishops, etc. were new positions created out of need. I don't really see any support for succession as the Catholic church proposes.

It would be rather odd for one to "aspire " to the position of bishop if the way one became a bishop was to succeed someone else. I am sure there were those who stayed on while the original teacher went on to other places, but is that really a succession?

[Reedolo]

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

My opinion is that the Catholic church realized that it was severely in error and tried, with Vatican II, to correct the error. Where they went wrong is in denying the error. I can understand why they did it, the RCC would basically cease to be believable if they did, but it's hard to hide something so obvious.

I'm not yet willing to accept that the RCC was wrong. How do you know that that statement was ex Cathedra? Can you give me a link or something.

The RCC couldn't very well say it was wrong about something, since it claims infallibility.

If the RCC changed it's teaching, the only alternative I can see is Eastern Orthodoxy. I still don't understand where the Sedevacantists are coming from, since they still hold to the dogma of papal infallibility which says that the papacy cannot fall into heresy (it does not say that a pope ceases to be a pope if he dogmatizes heresy, which seems to be what goldenchild has been implying). If the papacy falls into heresy, then the doctrine of papal infallibility is wrong.

[Reedolo]

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

Not necessarily. I think most of the early bishops, etc. were new positions created out of need. I don't really see any support for succession as the Catholic church proposes.

We deny Sola Scriptura. Our beliefs odn't have to be explicit in Scripure.

It would be rather odd for one to "aspire " to the position of bishop if the way one became a bishop was to succeed someone else. I am sure there were those who stayed on while the original teacher went on to other places, but is that really a succession?

I can't remember the exact passages and i'm too tired to look them up, but there are verses where men are brought before the Apostles and hte Apostles lay hands on them. Again, the teaching may not be explicit, but we can certainly find evidence for it. In addition to the Scriptural evidence, there's also the fact that Apostolic Succession has been believed and practiced sinced the beginning of Christianity. You will especially see this if you ever read some of the writings of the Early Church Fathers.

[KFBobInsanesMom]

Originally Posted by Reedolo

In other places in Scripture, we see the laying on of hands which is traditionally understood to be the means by which Apostolic Succession is passed on.

Just doing a quick search, laying on of hands doesn't seem to have been for Apostolic succession. Acts 8:17 Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit. 2 Timothy 1:6-7 6 For this reason I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands, 7 for God gave us a spirit not of fear but of power and love and self-control.

Other verses show laying of hands to be for healing.

Others show that it was done when giving a specific calling/job to someone. There is the time when the apostles laid their hands on the 7 chosen to care for the widows, etc. Also in Acts when Barnabas and Saul were sent out. If done to indicate succession, wouldn't the one laying the hands on the other give up their position? I don't see this.

[Reedolo]

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

Just doing a quick search, laying on of hands doesn't seem to have been for Apostolic succession. Acts 8:17 Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit. 2 Timothy 1:6-7 6 For this reason I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands, 7 for God gave us a spirit not of fear but of power and love and self-control.

Other verses show laying of hands to be for healing.

Of course. Catholic Tradition states that the sacraments of Holy Orders, Confirmation, and Anounting of the Sick are all done by laying on of hands. You have to look at the context of the Scripture to see which Sacrament is being performed, if any sacrament at all.

Others show that it was done when giving a specific calling/job to someone. There is the time when the apostles laid their hands on the 7 chosen to care for the widows, etc. Also in Acts when Barnabas and Saul were sent out. If done to indicate succession, wouldn't the one laying the hands on the other give up their position? I don't see this.

No. Bishops still ordain men today by laying on of hands and they don't give up their position. And like I said, laying on of hands doesn't always indicate Holy Orders.

[KFBobInsanesMom]

Originally Posted by Reedolo

We deny Sola Scriptura. Our beliefs odn't have to be explicit in Scripure.



I can't remember the exact passages and i'm too tired to look them up, but there are verses where men are brought before the Apostles and hte Apostles lay hands on them. Again, the teaching may not be explicit, but we can certainly find evidence for it. In addition to the Scriptural evidence, there's also the fact that Apostolic Succession has been believed and practiced sinced the beginning of Christianity. You will especially see this if you ever read some of the writings of the Early Church Fathers.

Yes, they laid hands on men being sent out to do other jobs, not taking over their job. It was a form of blessing apparently.

It comes in after a couple hundred years, but I don't see it in the early writings we have in scripture. Of course, the apostles passed on what they had been taught, that was the purpose Jesus had for them. It wasn't succession, but increase by passing on knowledge and teaching others to do the same.