Several questions

[GrumpyTroll]

Greetings to all,

I am asking several questions in this thread, because I cannot go opening a thread for each question to which I would like replies.

Firstly, does the Church say anything about the friendships a Roman Catholic may have in regard to non-Catholics?

Secondly, would it be sinful to remove my chain and Miraculous Medal when invited for a sleepover by my best friend, who would surely make fun of me if he saw it?

Thirdly, would Jews have a special status in a Roman Catholic country?

Thank you,

[lumengentleman]

Firstly, does the Church say anything about the friendships a Roman Catholic may have in regard to non-Catholics?

 

Not that I'm aware of, other than the usual good principles; keep your non-Catholic friends close, but your Catholic friends closer.  Don't cut the non-Catholics out of your life - you may be the last life-line they have to the Church.

 

Secondly, would it be sinful to remove my chain and Miraculous Medal when invited for a sleepover by my best friend, who would surely make fun of me if he saw it?

 

If that's why you removed it, yes - Jesus says in the Gospels that anyone who denies Him before men, He will deny before the Father.

 

Thirdly, would Jews have a special status in a Roman Catholic country?

No.  In the Church, there is no "Jew" or "Gentile"; all are one in Christ.  Or were you referring to non-Catholic Jews?

[QuisUtDeus]

What lumen said, except that I would add that if your best friend laughs, and you ask him to respect your faith yet he keeps laughing, what exactly kind of friend is he?

 

Unless it's teasing rather than mocking.  Then just tease him back about something else.  That's part of what friends do - tease each other.

 

[DominusTecum]

As for the miraculous medal, I would say that you should be able to defend your faith to your friend. It's not easy, and there are many times when we're tempted to deny our faith in public, in little ways. We should absolutely not give into this temptation, Satan loves it when we do, and we run the very real risk of falling into mortal sin.

 

As for the Jews, yes, they would often have a "special status," for very good reasons. Remember, Jews, even if they do not practice their religion and are atheistic/agnostic, are still influenced greatly by their "Jewish culture." This Jewish culture is influenced by their religion, and the Jewish religion is more "anti-Christian" than it is "Jewish," if that makes any sense. It is evil, and this usually comes to fruition in the form of Jewish opposition to Christianity and perhaps oppression of Christians. This happened many times in the medieval era, which is why you have the infamous (today) tales of "anti-Jewish pogroms," when the Christians would be oppressed by usury (charging of interest on loans, a sin for Christians) when they could not charge interest themselves. They would be run into debt and dealt with harshly, and when enough of them were in this circumstances, sometimes they would rise and "throw off the yoke," so to speak. It may not have been very Christian behavior, but it was relatively inevitable, and at least understandable, under the circumstances. Consequently, yes, Jews often had a special status. This was occasionally imposed by the government, but was often imposed by the Jews on themselves, who were sepearated from society by their religion and deliberately kept to themselves within cities, forming isolated enclaves and the like. Occasionally, Jews would rise to power (often through their financial success) and then intermarry with the Christian nobility, sometimes becoming false converts to Catholicism in order to gain ecclesiastical positions. (The Talmud allows Jews, as I understand it, to pretend conversion in order to avoid persecution.) This naturally became quite a problem, because sometimes these Jews would be zealously anti-Christian, and one could have a false convert priest preaching an anti-Catholic sermon from the pulpit at Mass. Hence, governements occasionally had to step in to protect the well-being of society and of the faith, and this manifested itself in the entirely laudable spanish inquisition. This is a very brief overview of a very extensive topic, but I do hope it answers some of your questions.

 

 

[Daniel]

Grumpy

 

A useful subject upon which to meditate here would be the third sorrowful mystery, the crowning of Our Lord with the crown of thorns. Our Lord had just been beaten and flogged almost to death The people who did this had now crowned him with a crown of thorns, mocked him, spat on him, and beaten him with a reed. Sometimes people will make fun of us, but who's problem is it really. They choose to mock us and Our Lord and we choose to try our best to be more like Him, particularly during his Passion.

 

Dominus Tecum said above that you should be able to defend you Faith and I do not disagree, but I realise that we are not always equally placed to do so, so sometimes just copping it and staying silent like Our Lord did or saying something basic like "I believe I am doing the right thing" is the only option.

 

Take my experience for example. I have only practiced my Religion for 3 years. In that time I have done a lot of reading and learning. My main areas have been Thomist Theology and Catechism. A protestant would use Biblical arguements against Catholicism and to be honest I would seem no match. I have used the Bible to assist me with Theology and Catechism but am only now at the stage where I am going to study it as a subject of it's own. I feel despite my comparible lack of biblical knowledge I am better placed to implement it's teachings because of the knowledge I have gained of Theology and Catechism. If it came to a discussion on the Bible I have to accept that the best option for me is silence regardless of the ridicule it may bring because it is, at the end of the day, not my problem but theirs.

 

Our Parish Priest once said "My dear bretheren, your religion is your life". This is true but unfortunately life begins at birth and so should religious practice, but you and I Grumpy have some catching up to do and must wait patiently for the time when we can take on all comers and deal with them exactly the way Christ would have, or close to it. After all He knew all and we never will know quite that much in this life on Earth.

 

Knowing that you have the Truth Eternal on your side but being unable to make your point the way you'd like isn't great but it beats being almost beaten to death, crowned with thorns, mocked and spat on.

 

I would recomend chilling out and plotting a sensible and realistic course. Start with a book called "My Way Of Life". It is a condensed Summa Theologica for laity. The real thing is OK if you have 6 years to spend in a seminary but this book is the first book any Catholic should read. It will make you think like a Catholic and read everything in the future with a Catholic mind.

 

http://www.angeluspress.org/index.php?act=warehouse&id=&aid=

[Daniel]

I was prompted earlier to look at Grumpy Troll's age. I was amazed to find that he is 16 years old. I don't know whether that would have changed what I have written to him on the forum but I do think it is worth acknowledging. He posted with a maturity that gave the impression he was older.

 

Anyone of that age who decides to make the decisions he has made deserves a lot of credit. There are, in fact several around here it would seem. My parents were not practicing Catholics but my own concience was working well enough and I lived close enough to a train station to make my own decisions and follow them through. In fact my concience haunted me all my life until I couldn't take it any more. The amazing thing is that I lasted until I was 33, not 16. How's that for resiliant. The same resiliance I am hoping will now see me out till the end. 

 

I still think what I said above applies, especially the "chill out" bit. I just think I heaped him in with the likes of me a bit ("you and I have a lot of catching up to do") when he deserves a lot more credit.

I'm sure you'll be right Grumpy. I don't know whether you have the support of your parents or not but I feel certain that you and all the others of your age here will be just fine.

  

[GrumpyTroll]

I have another question; please do tell me if I am becoming bothersome.

As I have said previously, before becoming a traditionalist I thought that everyone was saved except, or including, Roman Catholics in a state of mortal sin, and that someone could choose to convert after death; I saw this opinion expressed by several, and in fact, it seems to be a pretty widespread idea among Catholics. When I became a traditionalist I discovered the dogma extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, which is not only common sense but also, unlike the opinion which I have spoken of above, not in contradiction with what Our Lord Himself had said, as written in the Scriptures.

I would like to know why the great majority of Catholics now believe that everyone is saved and so believe that it is alright not to practice nor to convert others; does any Vatican II document touch on this?

Thank you,

[QuisUtDeus]

I would like to know why the great majority of Catholics now believe that everyone is saved and so believe that it is alright not to practice nor to convert others; does any Vatican II document touch on this?

Thank you,

I didn't quote this, but you mentioned the possibility of converting at death.  This is certainly a possibility, but that option is reserved to God to offer.  A sane person wouldn't risk their eternity on it.  In fact, the Bible states that God will come like a thief in the night - when we least expect it.  And we should always keep our garment clean.

 

This notion of "one last chance" goes against both Scripture and Tradition.  Again, it is possible, but it would be an exception at God's pleasure and not the rule.

 

This strange belief you mention in what I quoted is a result of false ecumenism and the acceptance of other religions rather than the tolerance of other religions.  I don't think you will find a statement saying the above anywhere in the V2 documents.

 

When you read the V2 documents and compare them with Tradition, the first thing that will strike you is how vague they are.  There are some places that are hard to reconcile with previous teaching at all (some people can, others cannot), but I think one would be hard pressed to argue they are clear and completely non-contradictory.

 

What this has resulted in is confusion.  If I had to describe the post-Conciliar Church in one word it would be: confused.  The liturgy is confused, the Sacraments are confused, the priests, bishops, and laity are confused.  It's unclear what "sin" means anymore to many people.  Heck, traditionalists are confused, too: we have sedes, SSPXers, indulties, independents, etc.

 

 

 

 

[GrumpyTroll]

Thank you very much for your answer.

I am wondering how we French are to restore the Social Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ if Roman Catholics are to submit to the law, as written by St. Paul. Are Catholics allowed to overthrow a government if it is to be submitted not to men but to God? Is the spilling of blood in that process acceptable? I am asking this, because some royalists believe that the restoration of the monarchy can be done through a violent insurgence only.
 
 Thank you,

[CampeadorShin]

Grumpy Troll,

Revolution is not Catholic, but restoration is.  Counter revolution.