You're right about exploring the missal before going to Mass. Set the bookmarks or use post its to mark that day's readings. I also placed thin post its throughout the Ordinary of the Mass so I don't lose my place when flipping back to the day's readings. Hope that helps. God bless you and welcome home. Never be afraid to ask questions, lots of good people and priests willing to help
love casts out all fear. I always find it odd when "traditional Catholics" fear contamination from "non-traditional Catholics" when it was the very Church that gave us tradition and it is this very Church that continues to save souls within the fog of modernity by and large though "non-traditional" Catholicism as it were. The truth is these distinctions do little to help but rather divide, there is only Catholicism, no such as thing as traditional Catholicism.
The problem with the SSPX is that their priests do not have the faculties to say public Mass. Therefore, the Lefebvrian priest who says Mass is in direct disobedience, not only to the local See but also to the Vatican. This is not a Mass that I would want to attend.
Yeah....Didache chapter 11 says that when we have a teacher who stops teaching the faith we are not to obey them anymore. Like it or not...Pachamama....Assisi 1, 2 and 3, Fidducia Supplicans, Ecumenism (condemned as early as Ignatius of Antioch letter to the Smynereans who forbade prayer in common with those who deny real presence) That's kind of what happened. I'd be WAYYY more worried about all these things than legalism about faculties "Blind guides, who strain out a gnat, and swallow a camel." Matthew 23:24
@@ThomasBelieves The "obedience of faith" is my main concern. This started with Lefebvre opposing Pope St Paul VI. This finished with Lefebvre opposing Pope St JPII. in his ordaining the bishops in direct opposition to the Pope. This was years before the election of Pope Francis. I'm afraid that you will have to find someone else to blame. It's not legalism since the Pope has the authority to remove or allow the faculties of priests. Disobedience was the cause of the fall of the fallen angels and still applies now as it did at the beginning. Obedience to the Pope is not an option but a must.
How sad that you didn’t sing at your grandmothers funeral because you believed it was a sin to participate/ pray with professing Christians from another denomination. As a former Roman catholic, who left the church with my entire family four decades ago, I feel so bad for you , yet I fully understand the strong deception you are under, and I know it’s only God who can set us free when we are under any type of deception, including religious deception I do believe religious deception is one of Satan‘s most effective tools that has deceived millions of people in the world .
@@sebastianbaran9645 And how exactly do you know if his Grandmother had placed her faith and trust in Christ alone?? Let me ask you- Who and What do you put your TRUST in? God's Word proclaims "There is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven given among men, by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12). Scripture reveals that Jesus saves... * by faith in Him, not baptism * by His grace, not our merit * by His finished work, not our works * by His righteousness, not ours * by His one offering for sin, not the Mass * by His blood, not purgatory * by His obedience, not ours * by His Gospel, not man's perversion of it. Which Jesus will you trust? The Jesus of the Bible promises eternal life, the complete forgiveness of sins, a permanent right standing with God and the power to live a victorious life. The Catholic Jesus is a Jesus that was never preached by the Apostles (2 Cor. 11:4). This counterfeit Christ of Roman Catholicism provides only conditional life, partial forgive- ness of sins, an ongoing need for priests and mediators, uncertainty, fear and doubt. Those who reject the true Jesus, who is clearly and conclusively revealed in His Word, will be judged accordingly. The Lord Jesus Christ said, "The word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day" (John 12:48).
@@sebastianbaran9645 I want to thoughtfully respond which might take several comments here. Rule # 1 When studying Gods word we must understand that scripture interprets scripture. Rule # 2. Context, Context, Context. As with any single verse or passage, we discern what it teaches by first filtering it through what we know the Bible teaches on the subject at hand. In the case of baptism and salvation, the Bible is clear that salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, not by works of any kind, including baptism (Ephesians 2:8-9). So, any interpretation which comes to the conclusion that baptism, or any other act, is necessary for salvation, is a faulty interpretation. So let’s look at the context of John 3:5 and examine it to the whole council of Gods word. John 3:3-7, “Jesus answered and said to him, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.' Nicodemus said to Him, 'How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born, can he?' Jesus answered, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.'" When first considering this passage, it is important to note that nowhere in the context of the passage is baptism even mentioned. While baptism is mentioned later in this chapter (John 3:22-30), that is in a totally different setting (Judea instead of Jerusalem) and at a different time from the discussion with Nicodemus. This is not to say Nicodemus was unfamiliar with baptism, either from the Jewish practice of baptizing Gentile converts to Judaism, or from John the Baptist’s ministry. However, simply reading these verses in context would give one NO reason to assume Jesus was speaking of baptism, unless one was looking to read into the passage a preconceived idea or theology. To automatically read baptism into this verse simply because it mentions “water” is unwarranted.
@@sebastianbaran9645 To continue examining the context of John 3:5 Those who hold baptism to be required for salvation point to “born of water” as evidence. As a former RC, I would have once argued that John 3:5 is a perfect description of baptism, Jesus could not have given a more detailed and accurate explanation of baptism. However, had Jesus actually wanted to say that one must be baptized to be saved, He clearly could have simply stated, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is baptized and born of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” Further, if Jesus had made such a statement, He would have contradicted numerous other Bible passages that make it clear that salvation is by faith a just a few that come to mind. 👇👇👇👇 John 3:16; John 3:36; Ephesians 2:8-9; Titus 3:5). We should also not lose sight of the fact that when Jesus was speaking to Nicodemus, the ordinance of Christian baptism was not yet in effect. This important inconsistency in interpreting Scripture is seen when one asks those who believe baptism is required for salvation why the thief on the cross did not need to be baptized to be saved? My common reply as a former RC to that question was this --The thief on the cross was still under the Old Covenant and therefore not subject to this baptism. He was saved just like anyone else under the Old Covenant.” So, in essence, the same people who say the thief did not need to be baptized because he was “under the Old Covenant” will use John 3:5 as “proof” that baptism is necessary for salvation. They insist that Jesus is telling Nicodemus that he must be baptized to be saved, even though he too was under the Old Covenant. If the thief on the cross was saved without being baptized (because he was under the Old Covenant), why would Jesus tell Nicodemus (who was also under the Old Covenant) that he needed to be baptized?
I’m guessing the other denomination would be the novus ordo religion which appears to not be catholic as it goes against catholic doctrines condemned by the church.
@@bobaphat3676 Nonsense. Charity means exposing fake Christian sects that lead to eternal damnation and guiding you to the true Christian Church that leads to eternal life.
@@bobaphat3676Nonsense. Charity means exposing fake Christian sects that lead to eternal fire and guiding you to the true Christian Church that leads to eternal life.
You're right about exploring the missal before going to Mass. Set the bookmarks or use post its to mark that day's readings. I also placed thin post its throughout the Ordinary of the Mass so I don't lose my place when flipping back to the day's readings. Hope that helps. God bless you and welcome home. Never be afraid to ask questions, lots of good people and priests willing to help
Thanks! God Bless!
love casts out all fear. I always find it odd when "traditional Catholics" fear contamination from "non-traditional Catholics" when it was the very Church that gave us tradition and it is this very Church that continues to save souls within the fog of modernity by and large though "non-traditional" Catholicism as it were. The truth is these distinctions do little to help but rather divide, there is only Catholicism, no such as thing as traditional Catholicism.
🍀🇺🇲🇮🇪❤️✝️✝️✝️
The problem with the SSPX is that their priests do not have the faculties to say public Mass. Therefore, the Lefebvrian priest who says Mass is in direct disobedience, not only to the local See but also to the Vatican. This is not a Mass that I would want to attend.
Lol.
@@TheMrLappis Do you disagree or did you just feel like trolling the thread?
Yeah....Didache chapter 11 says that when we have a teacher who stops teaching the faith we are not to obey them anymore. Like it or not...Pachamama....Assisi 1, 2 and 3, Fidducia Supplicans, Ecumenism (condemned as early as Ignatius of Antioch letter to the Smynereans who forbade prayer in common with those who deny real presence) That's kind of what happened.
I'd be WAYYY more worried about all these things than legalism about faculties
"Blind guides, who strain out a gnat, and swallow a camel." Matthew 23:24
@@ThomasBelieves The "obedience of faith" is my main concern. This started with Lefebvre opposing Pope St Paul VI. This finished with Lefebvre opposing Pope St JPII. in his ordaining the bishops in direct opposition to the Pope. This was years before the election of Pope Francis. I'm afraid that you will have to find someone else to blame.
It's not legalism since the Pope has the authority to remove or allow the faculties of priests. Disobedience was the cause of the fall of the fallen angels and still applies now as it did at the beginning. Obedience to the Pope is not an option but a must.
There’s just Catholicism.
agreed real Catholciism (SSPX and other Trads) and fake (Novus Ordo Ecumenists)
How sad that you didn’t sing at your grandmothers funeral because you believed it was a sin to participate/ pray with professing Christians from another denomination.
As a former Roman catholic, who left the church with my entire family four decades ago, I feel so bad for you , yet I fully understand the strong deception you are under, and I know it’s only God who can set us free when we are under any type of deception, including religious deception
I do believe religious deception is one of Satan‘s most effective tools that has deceived millions of people in the world .
Why would you celebrate someone who you know is suffering eternal damnation?
@@sebastianbaran9645
And how exactly do you know if his Grandmother had placed her faith and trust in Christ alone??
Let me ask you- Who and What do you put your TRUST in?
God's Word proclaims "There is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven given among men, by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12).
Scripture reveals that Jesus saves...
* by faith in Him, not baptism
* by His grace, not our merit
* by His finished work, not our works
* by His righteousness, not ours
* by His one offering for sin, not the Mass
* by His blood, not purgatory
* by His obedience, not ours
* by His Gospel, not man's perversion of it.
Which Jesus will you trust?
The Jesus of the Bible promises eternal life, the complete forgiveness of sins, a permanent right standing with God and the power to live a victorious life.
The Catholic Jesus is a Jesus that was never preached by the Apostles (2 Cor. 11:4).
This counterfeit Christ of Roman Catholicism provides only conditional life, partial forgive- ness of sins, an ongoing need for priests and mediators, uncertainty, fear and doubt.
Those who reject the true Jesus, who is clearly and conclusively revealed in His Word, will be judged accordingly. The Lord Jesus Christ said, "The word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day" (John 12:48).
@@Pablo19625 Jesus said in John 3:5 that baptism is required to enter His Kingdom.
@@sebastianbaran9645
I want to thoughtfully respond which might take several comments here.
Rule # 1 When studying Gods word we must understand that scripture interprets scripture.
Rule # 2. Context, Context, Context.
As with any single verse or passage, we discern what it teaches by first filtering it through what we know the Bible teaches on the subject at hand.
In the case of baptism and salvation, the Bible is clear that salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, not by works of any kind, including baptism (Ephesians 2:8-9).
So, any interpretation which comes to the conclusion that baptism, or any other act, is necessary for salvation, is a faulty interpretation.
So let’s look at the context of John 3:5 and examine it to the whole council of Gods word.
John 3:3-7, “Jesus answered and said to him, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.' Nicodemus said to Him, 'How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born, can he?' Jesus answered, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.'"
When first considering this passage, it is important to note that nowhere in the context of the passage is baptism even mentioned.
While baptism is mentioned later in this chapter (John 3:22-30), that is in a totally different setting (Judea instead of Jerusalem) and at a different time from the discussion with Nicodemus.
This is not to say Nicodemus was unfamiliar with baptism, either from the Jewish practice of baptizing Gentile converts to Judaism, or from John the Baptist’s ministry. However, simply reading these verses in context would give one NO reason to assume Jesus was speaking of baptism, unless one was looking to read into the passage a preconceived idea or theology.
To automatically read baptism into this verse simply because it mentions “water” is unwarranted.
@@sebastianbaran9645
To continue examining the context of John 3:5
Those who hold baptism to be required for salvation point to “born of water” as evidence.
As a former RC, I would have once argued that John 3:5 is a perfect description of baptism, Jesus could not have given a more detailed and accurate explanation of baptism.
However, had Jesus actually wanted to say that one must be baptized to be saved, He clearly could have simply stated, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is baptized and born of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”
Further, if Jesus had made such a statement, He would have contradicted numerous other Bible passages that make it clear that salvation is by faith a just a few that come to mind.
👇👇👇👇
John 3:16; John 3:36; Ephesians 2:8-9; Titus 3:5).
We should also not lose sight of the fact that when Jesus was speaking to Nicodemus, the ordinance of Christian baptism was not yet in effect.
This important inconsistency in interpreting Scripture is seen when one asks those who believe baptism is required for salvation why the thief on the cross did not need to be baptized to be saved?
My common reply as a former RC to that question was this --The thief on the cross was still under the Old Covenant and therefore not subject to this baptism. He was saved just like anyone else under the Old Covenant.” So, in essence, the same people who say the thief did not need to be baptized because he was “under the Old Covenant” will use John 3:5 as “proof” that baptism is necessary for salvation.
They insist that Jesus is telling Nicodemus that he must be baptized to be saved, even though he too was under the Old Covenant.
If the thief on the cross was saved without being baptized (because he was under the Old Covenant), why would Jesus tell Nicodemus (who was also under the Old Covenant) that he needed to be baptized?
Traditional Catholicism? What's that, another denomination?
I’m guessing the other denomination would be the novus ordo religion which appears to not be catholic as it goes against catholic doctrines condemned by the church.
Jesuit take over is "traditional". The RCC has never changed, NEVER !
@@BrianBenson-rc9mu nonsense, this is the sin of not being charitable.
@@bobaphat3676 Nonsense. Charity means exposing fake Christian sects that lead to eternal damnation and guiding you to the true Christian Church that leads to eternal life.
@@bobaphat3676Nonsense. Charity means exposing fake Christian sects that lead to eternal fire and guiding you to the true Christian Church that leads to eternal life.