Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Caminus on September 27, 2011, 11:50:40 PM
-
Please exposit one identifiable and evident heresy, strictly so-called, that can be found within the texts of Vatican II. Please refer to dogmatic theology with regard to the strict definition of heresy.
-
Reference charts:
-
I don't think there's any point in discussing these issues with Caminus, since past experience indicates there's no point in attempting to have a good faith discussion with him.
Let's consider the following from an SSPX publication:
The Decree on Ecuмenism of the Second Vatican Council gives us a very different understanding of the Church, of her divine mission and of her relations with the other religions. First of all it speaks of different Churches. My dear friends, that is already an expression which is very close to heresy.
It is clear that already before the Council, the idea of different churches existed. But what was meant by this expression? It meant the different local churches around the bishop and his clergy: viz. the church of Paris, or the church of Dublin, or the church of Westminster, or the church of Cologne, or the church of Rome: the bishop with his clergy, surrounded by his flock. But this notion ‘Churches’ in the plural, was never used and applied to other denominations.
The Second Vatican Council endorses the new meaning of this expression saying:
"It follows that these separated Churches and Communities, though we believe they suffer from defects already mentioned, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as a means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church." (No. 3)
No salvation outside the Church
Ladies and Gentleman, it is clear that followers of other religions can be saved under certain conditions. That is to say, if they are in invincible error. If they are trying to the best of their abilities, God will give them actual graces and if they are faithful to these graces and work with these graces, God will finally give them sanctifying grace and so, they might be saved. But they are always saved as individuals. Although they are saved in the other religions, they are never saved by the other religions.
It is not possible that errors should lead to the kingdom of truth. It is not possible that God, having descended to this earth, having become incarnate and having appeared among us, having founded one Church which continues Himself, which represents Himself, which is His Church, His spouse, that anybody can be saved by false religions not founded by Him. Because He says about Himself: "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. Nobody comes to the Father but by Me." This applies also to His Church.
These false religions were not founded by Him but rather by men and very often have been inspired by the devil. So, if one can be saved eventually as a member of another religion, or in another religion he will always be saved by the Catholic Church, by the Cross of Our Lord, by His sacrifice and by His prayers. So, he is not saved by other religion but in spite of the other religion.
So, this statement that the Holy Ghost has used these other religions and denominations as a ‘means of salvation’ is almost heretical and I think it is one of the worst statements from the Council, absolutely contrary to the teaching of the Church to the present day. It is absolutely contrary to what was previously taught, to what the Holy Scripture says, to what the Fathers of the Church, the theologians, the Councils and the Popes have always said. Absolutely contrary.
http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Society_of_Saint_Pius_X/Catholic-Church-and-Second-Vatican-Council.htm
Why is it called "close to heresy" and not heresy?
Of course we could multiply the statements in Vatican II that can be criticized in this way and can no doubt cite authorities within the SSPX to this effect.
The SSPX apologists set things up so that they can fall back on the claim that no one can be called a heretic without a formal judgment or canonical trial. They'll never admit something is really heresy so there's no point in trying to debate it with them.
So much then, for the ipso facto deposition of manifest heretics that we know theologians say occurs.
-
If Vatican II contains statements proximate to heresy it cannot be accepted at all.
-
Lol, I remember him pulling this exact stunt before. Caminus, your type of SSPX sophistic attack dog is well-known in France. I wonder what kind of organization breeds such people? Something tells me if you had the truth you wouldn't have to resort to such evasiveness.
Even if there were no heresies, a true Catholic Council can't even have error. It's true there aren't many heresies in VII; but one at least exists. It has been spoken of on this site many times. Dignitatis Humanae, maybe it escaped your attention after having had dozens of pages of ink spilled on it?
Then there is the sacrilegious and doubtful New Mass -- the true Church could not have promoted that; the Mass accepted by JPII that has no consecration of the Eucharist at all; the invalid New Rite of Consecration; heresies GALORE in the encylicals of the non-Popes of VII; the outrageously heretical Joint Doctrine on Justification, which alone proves this is not the true Church, it is a veritable anti-Trent; an act of open apostasy from Ratzinger at the Blue Mosque; heresy from JPII and Ratzinger; etc. etc.
-
Here:
Tradition:
"And from this wholly false idea of social organisation they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, especially fatal to the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by our predecessor, Gregory XVI, insanity, namely that the liberty of conscience and worship is the proper right of every man, and should be proclaimed by law in every correctly established society... Each and every doctrine individually mentioned in this letter, by Our Apostolic authority We reject, proscribe and condemn; and We wish and command that they be considered as absolutely rejected by all the sons of the Church." Catholic Doctrine.
Varican II:
"The Council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person... This right to religious freedom is to be recognised in the constitutional law whereby society is governed. Thus it is to become a civil right."2 (Declaration on Religious Liberty Dignitatis Humanae, paragraph 2) Error in regard to Catholic Doctrine.
Tradition:
The general revelation was concluded with the death of the last apostle. Theologically Certain
Vatican II:
"Finally, He brought His revelation to completion when He accomplished on the Cross the work of redemption by which He achieved salvation and true freedom for men." (Declaration on Religious Liberty Dignitatis Humanae, paragraph 11) Theological error.
Tradition:
"The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the Devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with her..." Of Divine Faith, So defined.
Vatican II:
""The separated churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from the defects already mentioned, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fulness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church." (Decree on Oecuмenism Unitatis Redintegratio, paragraph 3) Formal and Gravel Heresy.
Tradition:
Now We consider another abundant source of the evils with which the Church is afflicted at present: indifferentism. This perverse opinion is spread on all sides by the fraud of the wicked who claim that it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained. Surely, in so clear a matter, you will drive this deadly error far from the people committed to your care. With the admonition of the apostle that "there is one God, one faith, one baptism"[16] may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever. They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that "those who are not with Christ are against Him,"[17] and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him. Therefore "without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate."[18] Let them hear Jerome who, while the Church was torn into three parts by schism, tells us that whenever someone tried to persuade him to join his group he always exclaimed: "He who is for the See of Peter is for me."[19] A schismatic flatters himself falsely if he asserts that he, too, has been washed in the waters of regeneration. Indeed Augustine would reply to such a man: "The branch has the same form when it has been cut off from the vine; but of what profit for it is the form, if it does not live from the root?" Pope Gregory XVI Mirari Vos.[20] Catholic Doctrine
Vatican II:
"The Catholic Church rejects nothing of what is true and holy in these [non-Christian] religions. She has a high regard for the manner of life and conduct, the precepts and doctrines which, although differing in many ways from her own teaching, nevertheless often reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all men." (Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions Nostra Aetate, paragraph 2) Error in Catholic Doctrine
Tradition:
"As Christ is the head of the Church, so is the Holy Ghost her soul. ONLY those are really to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and who profess the true Faith and who have not unhappily withdrawn from the Body or, for grave reasons, been excluded by legitimate authority. It follows that those who are divided in faith or in government cannot be living in one Body such as this, and cannot be living the life of its one Divine Spirit. Pius XII Mystici Corporis Christi.
"The Holy Catholic Church teaches that God cannot truly be adored except within its fold." Pope St. Gregory the Great
"The Catholic Church alone preserves true worship." Pope Pius XI
"A true worshipper is one whose mind has not been defiled with any false belief." Pope St. Leo the Great
We judge itCatholic Doctrine
Surprise from Antipope Paul VI:
"The Catholic Church alone is the Body of Christ, of which He is Head and Savior. We must always remember the unity of the Mystical Body outside which there is no salvation; for their is no entering into salvation outside the Church. Truth, grace, the Sacraments: all the certain norms for our journey to God come from the Church. The Catholic Church is the extension of Jesus Christ in time and space. Outside this Body the Holy Spirit does not give life to anyone. Those who are enemies ot unity do not participate in the charity of divine life; those outside the Church do not possess the Holy Spirit. A Christian must fear nothing so much as to be separated from the Body of Christ. If he is separated from Christ's Body, he is not one of His members; he is not fed by His Spirit." Pope Paul VI
Vatican II:
"The brethren divided from us also carry out many liturgical actions of the Christian religion. In ways that vary according to the condition of each church or community, these liturgical actions most certainly can truly engender a life of grace, and, one must say, can aptly give access to the communion of salvation." (Decree on Oecuмenism Unitatis Redintegratio, paragraph 3) Error in Catholic Doctrine.
This should be enough to establish the highly erroneous and heretical nature of Vatican II. The question is; Why defend that which is erroneous? I condemn it is as useless and destructive to the faith.
-
Even if there were no heresies, a true Catholic Council can't even have error.
This is not true, a pastoral Council can, if you read up on history there have been quite a few, the Council that attacked Athanatius for instance. People get this mixed up all the time, I'm not sure where the source is for this belief. The Problem is that the Neo-Cath's declare it as if it invoked the Extraordinary Magisterium, which it of course never did.
Just thought I'd point that out.
-
The Problem is that the Neo-Cath's declare it [Vatican II] as if it invoked the Extraordinary Magisterium, which it of course never did.
Just thought I'd point that out.
I'd like to point out that if it is a valid Catholic Council, then, even if it did not invoke the Extraordinary Magisterium, it is still a part of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium which is also protected by infallibility.
-
To deny there was heresy during Vatican II is being stubborn and naive. More heresy from Vatican II:
The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth,(5) who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting.
If you deny Jesus Christ is God, then you cannot worship God.
We must get to know the outlook of our separated brethren. To achieve this purpose, study is of necessity required, and this must be pursued with a sense of realism and good will. Catholics, who already have a proper grounding, need to acquire a more adequate understanding of the respective doctrines of our separated brethren, their history, their spiritual and liturgical life, their religious psychology and general background. Most valuable for this purpose are meetings of the two sides-especially for discussion of theological problems-where each can treat with the other on an equal footing-provided that those who take part in them are truly competent and have the approval of the bishops. From such dialogue will emerge still more clearly what the situation of the Catholic Church really is. In this way too the outlook of our separated brethren will be better understood, and our own belief more aptly explained.
Before the whole world let all Christians confess their faith in the triune God, one and three in the incarnate Son of God, our Redeemer and Lord. United in their efforts, and with mutual respect, let them bear witness to our common hope which does not play us false. In these days when cooperation in social matters is so widespread, all men without exception are called to work together, with much greater reason all those who believe in God, but most of all, all Christians in that they bear the name of Christ. Cooperation among Christians vividly expresses the relationship which in fact already unites them, and it sets in clearer relief the features of Christ the Servant. This cooperation, which has already begun in many countries, should be developed more and more, particularly in regions where a social and technical evolution is taking place be it in a just evaluation of the dignity of the human person, the establishment of the blessings of peace, the application of Gospel principles to social life, the advancement of the arts and sciences in a truly Christian spirit, or also in the use of various remedies to relieve the afflictions of our times such as famine and natural disasters, illiteracy and poverty, housing shortage and the unequal distribution of wealth. All believers in Christ can, through this cooperation, be led to acquire a better knowledge and appreciation of one another, and so pave the way to Christian unity.
-
I'd like to point out that if it is a valid Catholic Council, then, even if it did not invoke the Extraordinary Magisterium, it is still a part of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium which is also protected by infallibility.
I'm afraid you're mistaken slightly, my friend. For a Church Council (which V2 was NOT; it was a crowd of heretics shouting down the traditionalists in attendance) to even be part of the Ordinary Magisterium, it must, just like any other infallible pronouncement, be established by ALL OF THE BISHOPS OF THE CHURCH IN UNANIMITY. That, of course, did not and could not have happened by any stretch of the imagination.
Remember that the Holy Father must promulgate dogmatic statements as Head of the Church IN CONCORD with ALL of the Bishops. Dissent among our shepherds OBVIOUSLY indicates the lack of the convicting power of the Holy Spirit, Who would otherwise "teach [you] all truth" (St. John 16:13).
-
The SVC doesn't really need to be "accepted", for the most part, by Catholics who know the Faith, in my opinion. Just go on with life as you knew it before the Council. Nothing new has been defined, many things have just been restated. Only those things themselves, which were already known, can compel anyone's assent.
-
The Problem is that the Neo-Cath's declare it [Vatican II] as if it invoked the Extraordinary Magisterium, which it of course never did.
Just thought I'd point that out.
I'd like to point out that if it is a valid Catholic Council, then, even if it did not invoke the Extraordinary Magisterium, it is still a part of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium which is also protected by infallibility.
Actually you are mistaken, I explained this in another thread, the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium is that which was taught by Jesus and the Apostles, when people say that something "PARTICIPATES" in the Ordinary Magisterium, they mean that it can be used to prove that something is a part of the Ordinary Magisterium. Since to prove that something is part of the Ordinary Magisterium one must prove that it was always believed, thus, they look at everything from the Authentic Magisterium and see if there is a continuity.
But nothing can be added to the Ordinary Magisterium, Dogma's cannot be created, they can be defined if they already exist however.
-
The Problem is that the Neo-Cath's declare it [Vatican II] as if it invoked the Extraordinary Magisterium, which it of course never did.
Just thought I'd point that out.
I'd like to point out that if it is a valid Catholic Council, then, even if it did not invoke the Extraordinary Magisterium, it is still a part of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium which is also protected by infallibility.
Actually you are mistaken, I explained this in another thread, the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium is that which was taught by Jesus and the Apostles, when people say that something "PARTICIPATES" in the Ordinary Magisterium, they mean that it can be used to prove that something is a part of the Ordinary Magisterium. Since to prove that something is part of the Ordinary Magisterium one must prove that it was always believed, thus, they look at everything from the Authentic Magisterium and see if there is a continuity.
But nothing can be added to the Ordinary Magisterium, Dogma's cannot be created, they can be defined if they already exist however.
So how do you explain "Pope" Paul VI solemnly closing off all docuмents with this?
“Each and every one of the things set forth in this Decree has won the consent of the fathers. We, too, by the Apostolic Authority conferred on us by Christ, join with the venerable fathers in approving, decreeing, and establishing these things in the Holy Spirit, and we direct that what has thus been enacted in synod [council] be published to God’s glory… I, Paul, Bishop of the Catholic Church.”
Let us now examine what Pope Pius IX teaches with regards to infallibility:
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Session 4, Chap. 4:
“… the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, [1] WHEN CARRYING OUT THE DUTY OF THE PASTOR AND TEACHER OF ALL CHRISTIANS [2] IN ACCORD WITH HIS SUPREME APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY [3] HE EXPLAINS A DOCTRINE OF FAITH OR MORALS TO BE HELD BY THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH, through the divine assistance promised him in blessed Peter, operates with that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wished that His Church be instructed in defining doctrine on faith and morals; and so such definitions of the Roman Pontiff from himself, but not from the consensus of the Church, are unalterable. But if anyone presumes to contradict this definition of Ours, which may God forbid: let him be anathema[/u].”
Paul VI intended for Vatican II to be infallible. All the evidence for infallibility, provided that he is a true Pope (which he was not), is plainly there for all to see.
Another thing you should take note of is this lovely nugget of Paul VI:
Paul VI, “Papal” Brief declaring Council Closed, December 8, 1965:
“At last all which regards the holy Ecuмenical Council has, with the help of God, been accomplished and ALL THE CONSTITUTIONS, DECREES, DECLARATIONS, AND VOTES HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THE DELIBERATION OF THE SYNOD AND PROMULGATED BY US[/u]. Therefore, we decided to close for all intents and purposes, WITH OUR APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY[/u], this same Ecuмenical Council called by our predecessor, Pope John XXIII, which opened October 11, 1962, and which was continued by us after his death. WE DECIDE MOREOVER THAT ALL THAT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED SYNODALLY IS TO BE RELIGIOUSLY OBSERVED BY ALL THE FAITHFUL[/u], for the glory of God and the dignity of the Church… WE HAVE APPROVED AND ESTABLISHED THESE THINGS, DECREEING THAT THE PRESENT LETTERS ARE AND REMAIN STABLE AND VALID, AND ARE TO HAVE LEGAL EFFECTIVENESS[/u], so that they be disseminated and obtain full and complete effect, and so that they may be fully convalidated by those whom they concern or may concern now and in the future; and so that, as it be judged and described, ALL EFFORTS CONTRARY TO THESE THINGS BY WHOEVER OR WHATEVER AUTHORITY, KNOWINGLY OR IN IGNORANCE, BE INVALID AND WORTHLESS FROM NOW ON[/u]. Given at Rome, at St. Peter’s, under the [seal of the] ring of the fisherman, December 8… the year 1965, the third year of our Pontificate.”
It is simply mythological for anyone to assert that Paul VI did not intend for Vatican II to be infallible.
I'm sure you're already familiar with Vatican II's teachings of collegiality, subsistence, religious liberty and those outside the Church which Vatican II "defined".
-
Thanks for making this thread, Caminus. Only highlights the bad will of you modern oblong-head pseudo-trads and the berserko-theology of the SSPX.
This thread will only bring more souls to Christ because you Caminus are acting as a darkness for error.
-
Thanks for making this thread, Caminus. Only highlights the bad will of you modern oblong-head pseudo-trads and the berserko-theology of the SSPX.
This thread will only bring more souls to Christ because you Caminus are acting as a darkness for error.
That's quite an odd statement considering that we supposedly share the same divine faith and reject the same errors. Are you saying that only SV's "walk in the light"? Are you saying that Catholics need something other than the true faith to remain faithful to Christ, for he who is in Christ is not in darkness, but in light.
Ya know, the more you talk, the more it seems like your're really some kind of mole making these absurd comments to sow discord. Did you say you were once a Jew?
-
Thanks for making this thread, Caminus. Only highlights the bad will of you modern oblong-head pseudo-trads and the berserko-theology of the SSPX.
This thread will only bring more souls to Christ because you Caminus are acting as a darkness for error.
That's quite an odd statement considering that we supposedly share the same divine faith and reject the same errors. Are you saying that only SV's "walk in the light"? Are you saying that Catholics need something other than the true faith to remain faithful to Christ, for he who is in Christ is not in darkness, but in light.
Ya know, the more you talk, the more it seems like your're really some kind of mole making these absurd comments to sow discord. Did you say you were once a Jew?
What was the point of asking the last question? Do you think PIO has some kind of ulterior motives because he was once a Jew?
Condemning someone who has repented of their past for having that past is pharisaical.
You, of all people, should not be talking about anyone being a mole, given your vast history of sophistry and intellectual obfuscation on these forums. Anyone who looks back at old threads can tell that Raoul has especially taken digs at you in the past for that.
I also don't think it's accurate of you to say that you and PIO share the same faith. After all, you believe that people who obstinately reject the Faith can still somehow be Catholic. Do you think PIO believes that? I know I certainly don't.
-
Caminus, do you have anything to say to my post? I gave you what you wanted. A heretical proposition by Vatican II. Admit, or Deny?
Or are you content with error?
-
:popcorn:
Caminus, I couldn't help but laugh hearing this accusation that I'm the mole.
Search through my posts and you'll see (if not infer) my sentiments towards the Jews, toward Judaism, and everything that was abolished in the Old Law. As well as my feelings of false-trad contortionism and the mind acrobatics thereof that rival that of Cirque de soleil.
Come. Come meet me in person (PM me and I'll tell you what city in what state I live in) and see if I'm a mole. I'll even invite you into my home so you can see my place, my books, my life. I am proud to be Catholic. But please don't get offended if I watch you like a hawk once you're here... never know if you'll plant a bug in my house or something. On second thought, maybe we can just meet at a restaurant or something neutral.
See me , Cam? I'm such a big bad sede aren't I. Chock full of self-righteousness and indignation towards everything and all that isn't sedevacantist. WRONG. I am , by God's grace alone, seeking Truth in all things. The more I read spiritual works by saints of old, the more I stand back in awe at why God picked me and how deficient I feel to even hold the torch. I am nothing. I am nothing without Jesus.
:incense:
-
The Problem with "Sedevacantism,"is that it is a loaded term that makes people think of cults.
We need a new word, but none seems to fit as well.
Perhaps: Negator-pontificiarum-haeresim-ist?
-
That's quite an odd statement considering that we supposedly share the same divine faith and reject the same errors. Are you saying that only SV's "walk in the light"? Are you saying that Catholics need something other than the true faith to remain faithful to Christ, for he who is in Christ is not in darkness, but in light.
Ya know, the more you talk, the more it seems like your're really some kind of mole making these absurd comments to sow discord. Did you say you were once a Jew?
Are you going tot answer any of the actual responses to your OP Mr. Caminus?
-
Ya know, the more you talk, the more it seems like your're really some kind of mole making these absurd comments to sow discord. Did you say you were once a Jew?
I'm not one to demand apologies, but you owe one to PIO, like stat. That was bullshit.
-
The SVC doesn't really need to be "accepted", for the most part, by Catholics who know the Faith, in my opinion. Just go on with life as you knew it before the Council. Nothing new has been defined, many things have just been restated. Only those things themselves, which were already known, can compel anyone's assent.
Then you don't understand how the hierarchy YOU consider valid views the council. They have redefined the nature of the Church and SAY so. The Novus Ordo Establishment is not the Catholic Church. The "Pope" is not the Pope of the Catholic Church, he is only the Patriarch of the Novus Ordo Establishment. They admit to this and SAY so.
-
I'd like to point out that if it is a valid Catholic Council, then, even if it did not invoke the Extraordinary Magisterium, it is still a part of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium which is also protected by infallibility.
I'm afraid you're mistaken slightly, my friend. For a Church Council (which V2 was NOT; it was a crowd of heretics shouting down the traditionalists in attendance) to even be part of the Ordinary Magisterium, it must, just like any other infallible pronouncement, be established by ALL OF THE BISHOPS OF THE CHURCH IN UNANIMITY. That, of course, did not and could not have happened by any stretch of the imagination.
Remember that the Holy Father must promulgate dogmatic statements as Head of the Church IN CONCORD with ALL of the Bishops. Dissent among our shepherds OBVIOUSLY indicates the lack of the convicting power of the Holy Spirit, Who would otherwise "teach [you] all truth" (St. John 16:13).
You should re-read my comment, please. I said, "IF...
Actually you are mistaken, I explained this in another thread, the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium is that which was taught by Jesus and the Apostles, when people say that something "PARTICIPATES" in the Ordinary Magisterium, they mean that it can be used to prove that something is a part of the Ordinary Magisterium. Since to prove that something is part of the Ordinary Magisterium one must prove that it was always believed, thus, they look at everything from the Authentic Magisterium and see if there is a continuity.
But nothing can be added to the Ordinary Magisterium, Dogma's cannot be created, they can be defined if they already exist however.
You really need to learn what the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium is. This is the living, teaching authority of the Catholic Church. You are correct that the Church cannot make new doctrines, but the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium need not be identical through time, since doctrine has indeed developed since the beginning of the Church. What the Church teaches, we are bound in conscience to believe. If it was not this way, we could never be sure of anything without searching through all theological manuals through history to determine how every teaching is in conformity of with the Fathers and Doctors. We have to be able to trust the Church. The term, "Authentic Magisterium" is a novelty.
I realize I am not the most eloquent writer. Perhap one should read someone who can make an argument a little better than I. You can find the text (and a link to the audio) at:
http://www.thefourmarks.com/Daly.htm
The Problem with "Sedevacantism,"is that it is a loaded term that makes people think of cults.
We need a new word, but none seems to fit as well.
Perhaps: Negator-pontificiarum-haeresim-ist?
I would like to suggest: Catholicism. Others can be called Neo-Traditionalists or Modernists, as appropriate.
-
The Problem with "Sedevacantism,"is that it is a loaded term that makes people think of cults.
We need a new word, but none seems to fit as well.
Perhaps: Negator-pontificiarum-haeresim-ist?
Dunno if that'll catch on! :wink:
Maybe "Interregnumism".
-
Ya know, the more you talk, the more it seems like your're really some kind of mole making these absurd comments to sow discord. Did you say you were once a Jew?
I'm not one to demand apologies, but you owe one to PIO, like stat. That was bull####.
Almost as much bullshit as claiming I'm a force for darkness without any reason whatsoever. This is not the first, nor the second, but part of a long series of little gratuitous cheapshots from the virulent sedevacantist peanut gallery; dangerous sectarians that unwittingly destroy the essential nature of the Church no less effectively than Ratzinger's ecclesiology.
As to your first comment, no one has really fulfilled the request in the OP sufficiently, though at least Gregory I attempted, to which I shall reply in due time. I also see that the same fundamental error regarding the nature of the ordinary and universal magisterium has popped up again which, I believe, is at root of much of the problem in analyzing the matter in a correct light, but that has been dealt with elsewhere. Tele fouled out with his first post considering that the note "proximate to heresy" is a perfectly legitimate expression used by theologians and the magisterium. Of course, he takes a foreign term that he does not understand and uses it as imaginary fodder for more shallow and gratuitous cheapshots only discovering his own ignorance and malice in the process. Truly an embarrassment.
-
That's quite an odd statement considering that we supposedly share the same divine faith and reject the same errors. Are you saying that only SV's "walk in the light"? Are you saying that Catholics need something other than the true faith to remain faithful to Christ, for he who is in Christ is not in darkness, but in light.
Ya know, the more you talk, the more it seems like your're really some kind of mole making these absurd comments to sow discord. Did you say you were once a Jew?
Caminus, for some reason you have really changed lately. Just a few months ago you were making contributive posts and blowing neo-Caths out of the water, now here you are defending the Vatican II docuмents and calling PartyIsOver a mole. First of all I've never seen PIO say he was a Jew, and even if he used to be you can't hold people's past sins that they've already repented for against them. You need to do some repenting of your own after that post.
And how about addressing the points we've made on this thread? We've all answered your question and have provided proof that Vatican II was a heretical council, now we're waiting for your response.
-
SS,
I'm not sure if you realize it, but it is precisely because of sloppy thinking, poor philosophy and theology and a thousand distortions of fact and principle that has caused this mess. In assessing the situation, I refuse to tolerate the same kind of sloppy thinking, poor philosophy and a thousand distortions of fact and principle on our side. The emotionally driven neo-catholicism is not less abhorrent than an emotionally driven traditionalism. A physician is bound to correctly diagnose his patient, if he asserts that the heart is sick when it is really the brain, he will wrongly treat the patient. It is the same sick patient that we are dealing with, no one disagrees that he is stricken with an illness, but we must understand the nature of the sickness in order to provide a cure.
Just the other evening I read something from a "traditionalist" Catholic who mocked the Little Flower, St. Therese, calling her the Little Stinkweed. Why? Because he perceived that she undermined Catholic doctrine. It was a grotesque thing to behold.
So if we're going to venture into these waters, we must be absolutely certain of our statements and methods; of our premises and conclusions. This is no time for lazy thinking or tired canards that take the place of sound reasoning which takes, time, study and patience. The fact that one concludes that there are no heresies strictly so-called within the texts of Vatican II doesn't equate to defending one iota of the destruction of the Church or the errors it contains in seed. If there are no heresies strictly so-called in the Council, then one must stop asserting it and analyze the matter correctly. Don't you find it a bit odd that if there are so many heresies in Vatican II, no one can agree on what they are? Heresies of old were identifiable and definite, addressed by the Church as such. Additionally, if you'll note the OP, you must correctly apply a censure to any given proposition which is not an easy task to begin with.
-
In assessing the situation, I refuse to tolerate the same kind of sloppy thinking, poor philosophy and a thousand distortions of fact and principle on our side.
"Our side"? I don't think it's a very good idea to split Traditional Catholics into different groups/sides. Perhaps when dealing with people such as David Landry (assuming he's even a Traditional Catholic), but to do so in general is rather immature. I haven't seen anyone else do that much if any here since May when the sedes got into a big fight with stevus that started in January.
A physician is bound to correctly diagnose his patient, if he asserts that the heart is sick when it is really the brain, he will wrongly treat the patient. It is the same sick patient that we are dealing with, no one disagrees that he is stricken with an illness, but we must understand the nature of the sickness in order to provide a cure.
Who are we trying to diagnose? Sedevacantists? How about diagonising people who actually NEED it like modernists or extremists like David Hobson?
So if we're going to venture into these waters, we must be absolutely certain of our statements and methods; of our premises and conclusions. This is no time for lazy thinking or tired canards that take the place of sound reasoning which takes, time, study and patience.
I am certain of my statements and methods. But earlier you jumped to conclusions by saying I said John XXIII was a Mason. I never said that! I only said there is evidence. I never said it's a fact that he was one.
Don't you find it a bit odd that if there are so many heresies in Vatican II, no one can agree on what they are? Heresies of old were identifiable and definite, addressed by the Church as such. Additionally, if you'll note the OP, you must correctly apply a censure to any given proposition which is not an easy task to begin with.
We have all done so. We have provided heretical statments and have stated why they are heretical. You don't think it's heretical for them to say they "regard with high-esteem the Muslims" and that they adore God? They reject Jesus Christ! They cannot worship God. That is just one of numerous heretical statements in the docuмents.
-
Caminus, do you believe there was ANYTHING heretical taught at Vatican II? Have you READ all the docuмents of Vatican II and taken into account...
Pascendi, Lamentabilis, Quanta Cura, Mirari Vos, Auctorem Fidei, Mediator Dei, Humani Generis, Sacramentum Ordinis, Mystici Corporis Christi, Mortalium Animos, Pastor Aeternus, etc...These ALONE refute ALL of Vatican II.
I think perhaps you are saying Vatican II is WRONG...but you are trying to school us into the proper categories of thought so that we can see which parts are wrong, and how, correct?
But why are you qualified in this way?
I have a fun exercise for everyone. Read Pastor Aeternus. Then Read Lumen Gentium. If you see no contradiction, you are blind. :)
-
Just the other evening I read something from a "traditionalist" Catholic who mocked the Little Flower, St. Therese, calling her the Little Stinkweed. Why? Because he perceived that she undermined Catholic doctrine. It was a grotesque thing to behold.
So...what has this to do with the way you've been acting of late? Because some unidentified "traditionalist" Catholic (as characterized by you) author unjustly mocked St. Therese somewhere, you think it acceptable to make bitter and unjust comments about members of this forum?
No truly traditional Catholic mocks an undoubtedly Catholic saint (she was Canonized in 1925) in such a manner. The fact that you call him a "traditionalist" indicates to me that he is more a pseudo-traditionalist than truly traditional.
Your behaviour of late has been truly shocking.
-
Just the other evening I read something from a "traditionalist" Catholic who mocked the Little Flower, St. Therese, calling her the Little Stinkweed. Why? Because he perceived that she undermined Catholic doctrine. It was a grotesque thing to behold.
So...what has this to do with the way you've been acting of late? Because some unidentified "traditionalist" Catholic (as characterized by you) author unjustly mocked St. Therese somewhere, you think it acceptable to make bitter and unjust comments about members of this forum?
No truly traditional Catholic mocks an undoubtedly Catholic saint (she was Canonized in 1925) in such a manner. The fact that you call him a "traditionalist" indicates to me that he is more a pseudo-traditionalist than truly traditional.
Your behaviour of late has been truly shocking.
What is shocking is the inability to distinguish an idiotic comment clearly made in jest directed towards an equally idiotic and grotesque insult against my person. It's a form of "holding up the mirror." Thus, you've missed the real culprit, the man who follows people around hurling unwwarranted epithets, the one whom you should really be chastizing, but not surprisingly gets a free pass, while in turn have completely misapprehending the intent of my reply. I'm not sure what you mean by how I've "been acting of late." I hardly post anymore. So back to the topic at hand.
-
What is shocking is the inability to distinguish an idiotic comment clearly made in jest directed towards an equally idiotic and grotesque insult against my person.
PartyIsOver made no insult against your person, he told you that you were wrong. You then responded in a slanderous way by trying to dig up dirt on him by asking him if he was a Jew, when he actually was not. Furthermore, what I find shocking is that you accused me of something I never said and attacked my reasoning skills, and now you cowardly refuse to address the issue anymore because you know you were wrong. I never said John XXIII was certainly a Mason, I said there was evidence.
Thus, you've missed the real culprit, the man who follows people around hurling unwwarranted epithets, the one whom you should really be chastizing, but not surprisingly gets a free pass, while in turn have completely misapprehending the intent of my reply.
I sure haven't seen PIO hurl "unwarranted epithets" at anyone lately. PIO and I actually used to be bitter rivals who hurled insults at one another, but I slowly began to realize how good of a Traditional Catholic he is. He in turn began liking the posts I was making, and now we're friends. Has he been known to go overboard in the past? Yes, but that was in the PAST so it's rather foolish of you to bring up something the man no longer does (and really, don't we all go overboard sometimes?). He said nothing to you that I find worthy of chastizing him for.
I'm not sure what you mean by how I've "been acting of late."
You've been acting different lately, Caminus. You were making some great posts for a while but now you're starting to act the way you did when you got into that big fight with Raoul, you're insulting people and responding with ad hominem arguments rather than addressing the contentions made. Maybe you should go back to your old profile image or something, because something about your behaviour has changed lately.
-
SS, may God reward you for your charity. It is an interesting past we had, and yes now we are friends. I hope maybe one day to be friends with Caminus, but seeing him on these boards for more than a year now has nearly snuffed all hope of that. With him vs Raoul, that really showed me which side Cam is on.
I realize something though, SpiritusSanctus. We are not fighting Caminus or the modernists that post here, so much as we are fighting the dark spirits and principalities which are waging war on all good souls and Holy Mother Church. St. Paul was right. The only thing we can do, once our words cease to fall on any ears of good will, is to pray continually for conversions. Further dialogue does not do anything but stress us out, waste our energy, and end up with the modernist side saying "lets agree to disagree".
"Agreeing to disagree" is perhaps one the biggest evils ever to be uttered from a human mouth. It is tantamount to relativism, thus moral relativism, and thus anti-Christ.
-
Thanks, PIO.
Looks like you and I just picked up another ignore. :rolleyes:
I guess some people can't stand the Truth.
-
You both merit a severe tongue lashing, but I suspect you wouldn't grasp anything that would be said, thus, I'll simply ignore the inane drivel, that I must admit tests my patience. So little substance do you both add to Cathinfo, so little reasoning ability and basic reading comprehension skills do you possess, so infected are you with a pervasive myopia and the inability to self-reflect coupled with a certain defective faculty of moral judgment, makes your presence here annoying at best. So you two dimwits can hug each other all day long -- it's really a good match. But by all means, do not take offense, it's just mean old, evil Caminus speaking, whose opposition to you or the mere questioning of your statements is evident proof that he is in league with the devil. :laugh1:
Once again, back to the issue at hand.
-
How did I do?
-
How did I do?
Pretty good, thanks for trying at least. I'll analyze your post soon. Thanks.
-
You both merit a severe tongue lashing, but I suspect you wouldn't grasp anything that would be said, thus, I'll simply ignore the inane drivel, that I must admit tests my patience. So little substance do you both add to Cathinfo, so little reasoning ability and basic reading comprehension skills do you possess, so infected are you with a pervasive myopia and the inability to self-reflect coupled with a certain defective faculty of moral judgment, makes your presence here annoying at best. So you two dimwits can hug each other all day long -- it's really a good match. But by all means, do not take offense, it's just mean old, evil Caminus speaking, whose opposition to you or the mere questioning of your statements is evident proof that he is in league with the devil. :laugh1:
Once again, back to the issue at hand.
You sound just like my spiritually-blinded "Catholic" friend whenever I bring up traditional Catholic issues regarding morality today in the world, Vatican II, et al. With the accusations, reverse psychology, hints at my inferior intelligence, etc. Irony is he is farthest from the Church as one could be, yet think they are in it.
So yes, continue in believing you are above me and SpiritusSanctus. We are so dull, so in error, so deluded and immature in thought, speech , manner, belief, and reading comprehension as you so kindly phrased.
Your humility is blinding! It is as if I see a light coming from heaven whenever you chastise me and SS!
You remind me more of the light that beacons from the netherworld; a clever, masterful sophist with a mouth that could make the greediest of men like George Soros give all their possessions up to. You don't deceive me, or any other traditional Catholics on this forum.
-
You both merit a severe tongue lashing, but I suspect you wouldn't grasp anything that would be said, thus, I'll simply ignore the inane drivel, that I must admit tests my patience. So little substance do you both add to Cathinfo, so little reasoning ability and basic reading comprehension skills do you possess, so infected are you with a pervasive myopia and the inability to self-reflect coupled with a certain defective faculty of moral judgment, makes your presence here annoying at best. So you two dimwits can hug each other all day long -- it's really a good match. But by all means, do not take offense, it's just mean old, evil Caminus speaking, whose opposition to you or the mere questioning of your statements is evident proof that he is in league with the devil. :laugh1:
Once again, back to the issue at hand.
Hopefully no one takes this very vitriolic, satirical mess with any degree of solemnity.
Caminus speaks nothing but evil and sophistry and all of his posts prove that.
-
Dear Caminus,
Anyone who looks back at your posts can see that you're a faithless heretic. You believe someone who obstinately denies the Faith can be a Catholic. You're a sophist of the worst kind and your tongue is tainted with the pungent smell of Hell's rotting souls. Like a ravenous wolf you roam around seeking to consume any fresh meat that comes your way, but you cannot fool everyone into becoming your prey; You cannot fool me.
I see through all of your sad attempts at intellectually denigrating everyone else. Let me take this a step further by asking this: do you even have any arguments? Going off of your embarrassing display here it would appear as though all you have is a bunch of hackneyed jargon that no longer means much of anything because you keep regurgitating this same drivel over and over and over again. When will you learn, O Caminus?
I know you for the liar and child of Satan that you are. You, Santo Subito, stevus and many others have proven yourselves to be of the Devil.
-
Just the other evening I read something from a "traditionalist" Catholic who mocked the Little Flower, St. Therese, calling her the Little Stinkweed. Why? Because he perceived that she undermined Catholic doctrine. It was a grotesque thing to behold.
Well, St. Therese WAS prone to saying things that were indicative of her belief in universal salvation...but so was St. Gregory of Nyssa.
St. Therese wrote a Christmas play for her sisters, in which the Child Jesus insists, in correction of the Angel of Vengeance, that, “every soul will find forgiveness”. On the last day, the Child Jesus will remain “the God of love” who suffered to recompense all of the sins of the entire human race.
-
Tradition:
"The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the Devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with her..." Of Divine Faith, So defined.
Vatican II:
""The separated churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from the defects already mentioned, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fulness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church." (Decree on Oecuмenism Unitatis Redintegratio, paragraph 3) Formal and Gravel Heresy.
So it is your opinion then, that Vatican II contains only one heresy, strictly so-called?
-
Just the other evening I read something from a "traditionalist" Catholic who mocked the Little Flower, St. Therese, calling her the Little Stinkweed. Why? Because he perceived that she undermined Catholic doctrine. It was a grotesque thing to behold.
Well, St. Therese WAS prone to saying things that were indicative of her belief in universal salvation...but so was St. Gregory of Nyssa.
St. Therese wrote a Christmas play for her sisters, in which the Child Jesus insists, in correction of the Angel of Vengeance, that, “every soul will find forgiveness”. On the last day, the Child Jesus will remain “the God of love” who suffered to recompense all of the sins of the entire human race.
It appears that you know of the author and the text to which I refer. I would strongly suggest you both rephrase your sentence above and repent for partaking in the sin of another man, namely by way of defense of blasphemy against the Saints of God.
It seems you haven't yet been able to distinguish someone's thought or meaning from your own imputation of meaning to any given text. It is a very bad habit that needs addressed if you are going to engage in this type of theological commentary.
But this is a side issue that can be dealt with in private.
-
The SSPX has a problem with people showing signs of what can only be called "mind-control."
-
Tradition:
"The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the Devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with her..." Of Divine Faith, So defined.
Vatican II:
""The separated churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from the defects already mentioned, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fulness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church." (Decree on Oecuмenism Unitatis Redintegratio, paragraph 3) Formal and Gravel Heresy.
So it is your opinion then, that Vatican II contains only one heresy, strictly so-called?
Upon a cursory examination using the definitions you provided. I intend, in the near future, to use your defintitions to take apart every phrase of every docuмent of Vatican II.
However, I intend to do so honestly; deception and embellishment help no one.
My findings are merely preliminary, and not conclusive: However, a MERELY preliminary investigation of the docuмents in a merely CURSORY manner has yielded ONE POSITIVE HERESY and several theological errors, the effects of which are MORTAL SINS to hold.
As for St. Therese: She said what shea said, I have nothing to apologize for. If she was prone to hope for universal salvation, oh well. Other Saints were also. They are no less saints.
Gregory of Nyssa, St. Gregory the Theologian, St. Maximus the Confessor, etc...They tended toward a universal reconciliation of all things in christ.
They were wrong. But they were by no means Malicious, it is more like it was their private hope. They ALL agreed you couldn't TEACH such an opinion or hope. I see St. Therese doing the same thing. She is not malicious, and it appears to be a private hope of hers. It is not as though she TAUGHT it.
I am not condemning her.
-
Vatican II, strictly speaking, might only have a FEW obvious heretical statements, and a bunch of others that could be applied in a heretical manner, but it's not JUST the Council... lots of people get stuck on the Council.
There's the FRUIT of the Council, as well... FYI, bishops and priests were already talking about 'modernizing' the church in the '40s... I just finished reading an account of an exorcism, and one of the reasons that the Church was initially reluctant to help a certain family (in 1949) was that there were ALREADY people trying to 'modernize' things and get rid of such 'old-fashioned' beliefs as exorcism, belief in the Devil as a literal, sentient spirit, etc.
Anyway, my point is that the 'Council' produced, among other things:
Verifiable religious indifference among parishioners (polls and surveys over the last 40 years have determined a SHARP increase in non-Catholic attitudes concerning false religions, the existence of the afterlife, the uniqueness of Christ, etc)
A STEEP drop in vocations, and a major exodus of traditional clergy FROM active ministry (again, secular AND Church research has determined these things to be true; I am not the researcher that some on here are, because I don't always have the time, but it's clear that these things took place)
And, WORST, as far as I can see it:
A MAJOR increase in EXCUSES for things like praying WITH and FOR heretics and pagans, participation in apostasy by hosting and promoting non-Catholic 'services' IN CATHOLIC CHURCH SANCTURARIES and the calculated cultivation of the reputation of the Novus Ordo's senior 'leadership' as tolerant ecuмenists, ALL under the banner of 'dialogue', which is nothing but Newchurch double-speak for 'building bridges' that don't exist in order to try and include heretics and infidels among the 'saved'.
Newchurch almost sounds EXACTLY like the Baptist Prot heretic I used to work for when I was on staff at one of their churches... as long as someone 'prayed' a 'prayer', in their 'heart of hearts', they were 'saved' and GUARANTEED Heaven. What nonsense, but these heretics kept right on trying to figure out ways to INCLUDE people in their economy of 'salvation' by bending and stretching and conveniently forgetting the Scriptural rules for what makes one a Christian and keeps one in the state of sanctifying grace.
So, there might be ONE verifiable heresy in the docuмents of VatII, or there might be dozens, or every other syllable might be damnable blashphemy; that's not the point. The point is that liberal, Modernist leaders decided to try to twist the Church's existence to suit their own ends, and they departed from the Faith in MANY obvious and demonstrable ways.
Bad trees don't give good fruit, and neither do good trees give bad fruit. Trees are known by their FRUIT, are they not? Someone once said that... Someone very, very wise. Care to venture a guess Who said that? I think He had a most unique vantage point from which to observe not only human nature at the time of those words, but also to prognosticate and dictate the conditions that would exist in the future for His Church.
Just another reason why we bow to HIM ALONE and not to those who are lying and stealing and raping and so on and pretending to be His shepherds.
Lord Jesus Christ, True Judge of the living and the dead, have mercy on us and drive out the money-changers again.
Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us.
Our Lady of Perpetual Help, pray for us.
-
Tradition:
"The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the Devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with her..." Of Divine Faith, So defined.
Vatican II:
""The separated churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from the defects already mentioned, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fulness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church." (Decree on Oecuмenism Unitatis Redintegratio, paragraph 3) Formal and Gravel Heresy.
The very first principle that needs to be established when examining the texts of Vatican II is that they are essentially subjective in their approach to certain matters. Thus, whereas Pope Eugene's Papal Bull defining this article of Faith is objective and immutably true; Unitatis Redintegratio is essentially subjective in its presentation of a new ecuмenical program.
That said, the first step in this procedure is to ask: do you concede that baptism administered in an heretical sect, all else being equal, is a valid baptism?
-
Of Course, I admit that baptism in a heretical sect is valid IF they use the proper form and matter and have the INTENTION of doing what the church does, which is implied by their use of the proper form.
Another important point, perhaps unrelated, is what Fr. Louis Kerfoot once said about canon law:
"Anyone who tells you what Canon law MEANS, if he is not the Roman Pontiff or an authentic delegate, is essentially giving you a private interpretation, and NOT an authentic interpretation. AUTHENTIC Interpretation belongs to the Roman Pontiff or his delegate (The Pontifical Comission) alone."
That is important to remember I think.
-
Of Course, I admit that baptism in a heretical sect is valid IF they use the proper form and matter and have the INTENTION of doing what the church does, which is implied by their use of the proper form.
Implied, my foot! Even a cursory scan of the average Prot website or book that deals with the issue of Baptism will tell you that their version DOES NOT intend to do what the Church does. Even those like the Anglicans and Lutherans, who practice a form of infant 'baptism' will qualify their statements about the efficacy of their baptism and what it actually accomplishes.
There's one thing we need to remember about the Catholic sacrament of Baptism: it not only washes away the stain of original sin, baptism also JOINS A PERSON TO THE MYSTICAL BODY OF CHRIST, which is the CHURCH. Whatever else the heretics want their baptisms to accomplish, they certainly DO NOT want, believe or desire that baptism should make the recipient part of the Roman Catholic Church, which ALONE is the Body of Christ on earth.
We need to remember that there is a LOT that is UNDERSTOOD as undergirding the words that were used by the Church to define all these dogmas and instructions for us. Those who declared and promulgated these teachings certainly did NOT have the false ecuмenism and wickedness of so-called religious 'liberty' of today in mind.
To their minds, we must assume that 'inten[t] to do what the Church does' is applicable only in those cases and among those sects for whom a reconciliation to the Faith was even possible.
Even the old-line schismatics, like the Anglicans and the Lutherans, have traveled so far off the 'deep end' these days that the only 'church' they could possibly 'reconcile' with, without completely obliterating their reasons to even exist, is Newchurch.
Frankly, if Newchurch wants to accept the Lutherans' 'intent', let them. I want nothing to do with those heretics, and neither did the Church of the ages, unless they were ready to repudiate their errors and beg forgiveness of their Pontiff and Our Lord.
-
Of Course, I admit that baptism in a heretical sect is valid IF they use the proper form and matter and have the INTENTION of doing what the church does, which is implied by their use of the proper form.
Okay, so what other spirit, other than the Spirit of Christ effects such sacramental validity (we are discussing mere validity, not necessarily it's fruit or virtue)?
-
Of Course, I admit that baptism in a heretical sect is valid IF they use the proper form and matter and have the INTENTION of doing what the church does, which is implied by their use of the proper form.
Implied, my foot! Even a cursory scan of the average Prot website or book that deals with the issue of Baptism will tell you that their version DOES NOT intend to do what the Church does. Even those like the Anglicans and Lutherans, who practice a form of infant 'baptism' will qualify their statements about the efficacy of their baptism and what it actually accomplishes.
There's one thing we need to remember about the Catholic sacrament of Baptism: it not only washes away the stain of original sin, baptism also JOINS A PERSON TO THE MYSTICAL BODY OF CHRIST, which is the CHURCH. Whatever else the heretics want their baptisms to accomplish, they certainly DO NOT want, believe or desire that baptism should make the recipient part of the Roman Catholic Church, which ALONE is the Body of Christ on earth.
We need to remember that there is a LOT that is UNDERSTOOD as undergirding the words that were used by the Church to define all these dogmas and instructions for us. Those who declared and promulgated these teachings certainly did NOT have the false ecuмenism and wickedness of so-called religious 'liberty' of today in mind.
To their minds, we must assume that 'inten[t] to do what the Church does' is applicable only in those cases and among those sects for whom a reconciliation to the Faith was even possible.
Even the old-line schismatics, like the Anglicans and the Lutherans, have traveled so far off the 'deep end' these days that the only 'church' they could possibly 'reconcile' with, without completely obliterating their reasons to even exist, is Newchurch.
Frankly, if Newchurch wants to accept the Lutherans' 'intent', let them. I want nothing to do with those heretics, and neither did the Church of the ages, unless they were ready to repudiate their errors and beg forgiveness of their Pontiff and Our Lord.
Francis, I understand your zeal but don't become a Donatist. A heretic can validly baptize someone. St. Cyprian of Carthage was WRONG when he said that baptism given by heretics needs to be re-administered in his controversy with Pope St. Stephen.
I do limit the situation though: I would not say a mormon or JW can validly baptize: They cannot since they do not correctly understand the trinity.
-
Of Course, I admit that baptism in a heretical sect is valid IF they use the proper form and matter and have the INTENTION of doing what the church does, which is implied by their use of the proper form.
Okay, so what other spirit, other than the Spirit of Christ effects such sacramental validity (we are discussing mere validity, not necessarily it's fruit or virtue)?
None. Christ himself Baptizes the individual if the baptism is properly administered.
I see where you are headed, but continue.
-
Of Course, I admit that baptism in a heretical sect is valid IF they use the proper form and matter and have the INTENTION of doing what the church does, which is implied by their use of the proper form.
Okay, so what other spirit, other than the Spirit of Christ effects such sacramental validity (we are discussing mere validity, not necessarily it's fruit or virtue)?
None. Christ himself Baptizes the individual if the baptism is properly administered.
I see where you are headed, but continue.
Thus, you agree then that it is possible to say that Christ uses this or that particular man as a transitory quasi-minister of the Church, even though he objectively sins in the external act of administering a sacrament illicitly, unless it be in an exigent case of urgency. For the sacrament would not be effected unless the man in question speaks the form and uses the matter with the correct intention as expressed in the form itself.
"He who is not baptized, though he belongs not to the Church either in reality or sacramentally, can nevertheless belong to her in intention and by similarity of action, namely, in so far as he intends to do what the Church does, and in baptizing observes the Church's form, and thus acts as the minister of Christ, Who did not confine His power to those that are baptized, as neither did He to the sacraments." St. Thomas, Summa Theol., III, q. 67, a. 5, ad. 2.
-
Of Course, I admit that baptism in a heretical sect is valid IF they use the proper form and matter and have the INTENTION of doing what the church does, which is implied by their use of the proper form.
Okay, so what other spirit, other than the Spirit of Christ effects such sacramental validity (we are discussing mere validity, not necessarily it's fruit or virtue)?
None. Christ himself Baptizes the individual if the baptism is properly administered.
I see where you are headed, but continue.
Thus, you agree then that it is possible to say that Christ uses this or that particular man as a transitory quasi-minister of the Church, even though he objectively sins in the external act of administering a sacrament illicitly, unless it be in an exigent case of urgency. For the sacrament would not be effected unless the man in question speaks the form and uses the matter with the correct intention as expressed in the form itself.
"He who is not baptized, though he belongs not to the Church either in reality or sacramentally, can nevertheless belong to her in intention and by similarity of action, namely, in so far as he intends to do what the Church does, and in baptizing observes the Church's form, and thus acts as the minister of Christ, Who did not confine His power to those that are baptized, as neither did He to the sacraments." St. Thomas, Summa Theol., III, q. 67, a. 5, ad. 2.
Well, sure, but that is a far cry from asserting something like Vatican II asserts: "Protestant sects are means of salvation."
There may be quasi-ministers in these sects who can validly baptize, but these ecclesial communities of themselves have not received the spirit of Christ.
-
If you concede the individual case without denying the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, then on what grounds do you assert that the proposition in question is in fact a direct denial of this dogma? Do not misunderstand me, the proposition is extremely problematic, but the question is whether it is heretical in the strict sense of the term.
Keep the proposition in mind: "The separated churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from the defects already mentioned, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fulness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church."
This text is the equivalent of someone stating: "Satan is good insofar as he has being, which is a good in itself." Though technically true, it is gravely misleading and deficient in its presentation.
-
If you concede the individual case without denying the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, then on what grounds do you assert that the proposition in question is in fact a direct denial of this dogma? Do not misunderstand me, the proposition is extremely problematic, but the question is whether it is heretical in the strict sense of the term.
Keep the proposition in mind: "The separated churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from the defects already mentioned, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fulness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church."
This text is the equivalent of someone stating: "Satan is good insofar as he has being, which is a good in itself." Though technically true, it is gravely misleading and deficient in its presentation.
please allow some dissection
"The separated churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from the defects already mentioned, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation.
THERE is the heresy. For no schismatic or heretical corporate body AS SUCH has received the spirit of Christ.
There are INDIVIDUALS whom GOd, in his providence, utilizes as instruments in the conferall of baptism. THIS IS FAR from asserting that the whole "eeclesial community" AS SUCH has a role in the mystery of salvation. They do not. No heretical or schismatic church has any part in Christ AS SUCH. This is simple dogmatics. But HERE it is asserted they DO. This is a denial of dogma that is defined as revealed by the church; ergo, heresy.
In simpler terms, God's utilization of individuals to confer baptism is DEFINTIVELY DIFFERENT from supposing they have received the spirit of Christ and have a role to play in the mystery of salvation.
For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fulness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church."
Once again, there is an erroneous confusion here of providential individual utilitarianism, spiritually speaking (God's using individuals to confer baptism) with whole corporate bodies being used by "The Spirit of Christ."
So there are TWO problems:
1. THe heresy that schismatic and heretical communities AS SUCH participate in the mystery of salvation through their being used AS CORPORATE ENTITIES by the spirit of Christ, and
2. The error of confusing the providential permissive will of God in using individuals as catalysts for baptism with entire GROUPS of schismatics and heretics AS SUCH as means of salvation.
-
You evaded the question. If you concede the individual case is not a denial of dogma, on what grounds do you assert that an unidentified, ambiguous aggregate of individuals? If you carefully analyze the nature of an heretical sect you will see that the sect itself does not possess a transcendent unity, which the Council clearly abuses this truth by glossing over it, as such it is a mere collection individuals.
"The separated churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from the defects already mentioned, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation.
THERE is the heresy. For no schismatic or heretical corporate body AS SUCH has received the spirit of Christ.
It doesn't say that, rather such efficacy, if there be any is derived from the Catholic Church. Nevertheless, there is a gross equivocation of the use of the term "means" for they are obviously not a means of salvation in the same sense as the Catholic Church is the means of salvation. But evidently, this equivocation has led to the denial of Catholic dogma, but is not, in itself heretical.
In simpler terms, God's utilization of individuals to confer baptism is DEFINTIVELY DIFFERENT from supposing they have received the spirit of Christ and have a role to play in the mystery of salvation.
Merely asserting it is different is not a demonstration of how it is different. The Spirit of Christ works through the Sacraments in certain cases and as such they allegedly "play a role in the mystery of salvation."
Again, you have to take the Council on its own terms which is markedly subjective and extremely imprecise in its language. Heretical sects are, of their very nature, sects of perdition, as per St. Peter. But the Council doesn't address the essence of things, but rather mere accidentals. This is part of the reason why Catholics have lost the essence of things; as Romano Amerio put it, the crisis is partly a result of the loss of the essences of things.
We have now a Council that talks "nice" about false religions which completely distorts the Catholic mind, and if taken to extremes results in the loss of faith.
-
You both merit a severe tongue lashing, but I suspect you wouldn't grasp anything that would be said, thus, I'll simply ignore the inane drivel, that I must admit tests my patience.
I deserve a severe tongue lashing for telling you that you were wrong to sling mud at PIO? Whatever you say...
So little substance do you both add to Cathinfo, so little reasoning ability and basic reading comprehension skills do you possess, so infected are you with a pervasive myopia and the inability to self-reflect coupled with a certain defective faculty of moral judgment, makes your presence here annoying at best.
If all you say is true then why is my reputation rating over 900? And how can you say the above things if you haven't even responded to many of my posts in the past? But at the same time, you again refuse to say why you accused me of saying something I never said (that John XXIII was a Mason). That's being rather cowardly.
So you two dimwits can hug each other all day long -- it's really a good match.
ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ insult at us? Sorry, but I don't take offense that. Although, you may want to repent for accusing two Traditional Catholics of mortal sin.
-
You evaded the question. If you concede the individual case is not a denial of dogma, on what grounds do you assert that an unidentified, ambiguous aggregate of individuals? If you carefully analyze the nature of an heretical sect you will see that the sect itself does not possess a transcendent unity, which the Council clearly abuses this truth by glossing over it, as such it is a mere collection individuals.
"The separated churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from the defects already mentioned, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation.
THERE is the heresy. For no schismatic or heretical corporate body AS SUCH has received the spirit of Christ.
It doesn't say that, rather such efficacy, if there be any is derived from the Catholic Church. Nevertheless, there is a gross equivocation of the use of the term "means" for they are obviously not a means of salvation in the same sense as the Catholic Church is the means of salvation. But evidently, this equivocation has led to the denial of Catholic dogma, but is not, in itself heretical.
In simpler terms, God's utilization of individuals to confer baptism is DEFINTIVELY DIFFERENT from supposing they have received the spirit of Christ and have a role to play in the mystery of salvation.
Merely asserting it is different is not a demonstration of how it is different. The Spirit of Christ works through the Sacraments in certain cases and as such they allegedly "play a role in the mystery of salvation."
Again, you have to take the Council on its own terms which is markedly subjective and extremely imprecise in its language. Heretical sects are, of their very nature, sects of perdition, as per St. Peter. But the Council doesn't address the essence of things, but rather mere accidentals. This is part of the reason why Catholics have lost the essence of things; as Romano Amerio put it, the crisis is partly a result of the loss of the essences of things.
We have now a Council that talks "nice" about false religions which completely distorts the Catholic mind, and if taken to extremes results in the loss of faith.
Camoinus, for you to find fault with my description is ridiculous. I know you believe that the heretical and schismatic churches have NOT been given the Holy Spirit. I know you believe that INDIVIDUALS in these churches may be unwitting ministers of the sacraments, albeit sacrilegiously.
Now, when the council says that the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them (the ecclesial communities) with all their deficiencies AS SUCH, this is a direct assertion that the spirit of Christ USES HERETICAL AND SCHISMATIC CHURCHES as means of salvation.
He does not. Individuals are used according to God's permissive providence, but the churches are devoid of the Spirit of Christ.
That which constitutes a DENIAL of an article of faith is heresy.
-
But what article of faith is it directly denying? It doesn't say that they are a formal means of salvation, but that if a man finds salvation within this or that sect, per accidens, such efficacy of grace is derived from the Catholic Church. The last sentence saves it from formal heresy. Again, it is speaking subjectively, not objectively, which is why it has led to heresy, but is not heretical in itself. Speaking in such a manner of heretical sects is bordering on blasphemous, but, as sickening as it is, you must interpret it according to the actual import of the words and the general context of this bizarre Council which chose to put all things in a "positive" light. As was said, if you concede that an individual can act as an ignorant minister of the Church, you don't have a leg to stand on when you multiply possible individuals in various contingent circuмstances.
Thus, if a man were baptized in a sect and remained in good faith, it would be possible, based upon the basic truths of Christiantiy consequently acquired, to elicit a divine act of faith and charity and die in that state. Consequently, it would be technically correct to say that the sect, or individuals comprising the sect, were accidentally instrumental regarding his salvation. But the manner in which the Council presents this unnecessary teaching is a distortion at best precisely because it does not present the matter in its proper light and ignores other truths surrounding this issue. Incorporating terms like the "permissive will of God" doesn't add anything to your argument.
-
I take it your silence is a tacit concession. Shall we move on to the next heresy?
-
Sorry, been busy.
-
At the request of Caminus, I will continue to make my case on the heresies of Vatican II and its docuмents.
So, previously I posted a quote from the Vatican II docuмents which stated that Muslims love the One True God, while at the same time they acknowledge that Muslims reject Jesus Christ and the Trinity. According to the First Vatican Council:
1. If anyone denies the one true God, creator and lord of things visible and invisible: let him be anathema.
2. If anyone is so bold as to assert that
there exists nothing besides matter:
let him be anathema.
3. If anyone says that
the substance or essence of God and that of all things are one and the same:
let him be anathema.
4. If anyone says
that finite things, both corporal and spiritual, or at any rate, spiritual, emanated from the divine substance; or
that the divine essence, by the manifestation and evolution of itself becomes all things or, finally,
that God is a universal or indefinite being which by self determination establishes the totality of things distinct in genera, species and individuals:
let him be anathema.
5. If anyone
does not confess that the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, were produced, according to their whole substance, out of nothing by God; or
holds that God did not create by his will free from all necessity, but as necessarily as he necessarily loves himself; or
denies that the world was created for the glory of God:
let him be anathema.
In particular, pay attention to #1. Muslims, by denying the Trinity, cannot worship the One True God. Vatican I re-affirms this, and it is a Dogma of the Catholic Church that anyone who denies God is anathema. Vatican II directly contradicts that Dogma by stating that Muslims, despite denying the Trinity, still worship God. That is impossible and is one of many heresies of Vatican II.
-
I agreee. :applause:
If people who keep company with heretics can themselves be considered heretical, then Ideas that are conducive to or savouring of heresy ought themselves to be considered heretical.
-
Roman Catholic Faith: Jesus is God and the Son of God = Christian.
Mohammedans: Jesus is neither God nor God's Son = infidels.
That was simple.
ANYONE WHO DENIES THAT JESUS IS THE CHRIST IS A DECEIVER, A LIAR and AN ANTI-CHRIST. - That's straight from the Bible (from an Apostle, to be exact). In short, to believe that Jesus is 'the Christ' is to believe what Scripture says about Him. The Apostle St. Thomas fell to his knees at Our Lord's feet and said,
"MY LORD AND MY GOD!"
You. Cannot. Reject. The. Divinity. Of. Jesus. Christ. And. Still. Claim. To. Worship. The. One. True. God.
Come ON, people... read it slowly, take it all in. How hard can this BE???
-
caminus, not to be rude, but why should I take waht you say seriously? Why should I allow you to present yourself as an authority? Because you have a Dominican Avatar?
How about some qualifications?
Please.
-
Spiritus,
I will continue to make my case on the heresies of Vatican II and its docuмents.
The doctrine of Mohammed is merely a rather confused rehashing of several ancient heresies, Judaizer, Arian and maybe even Gnostic with regard to the Crucifixion.
Without a doubt, "Who is a liar but he that denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is AntiChrist, who denies the Father and the Son".
In the light of the need of proper and effective Catholic missionary outreaches to the Muslim world, I agree such a meaningless passage is of little use.
But I believe the point on which you make an equivocation is when you impliclitly assume that worship offered cannot be false worship. Muslims, like even Jews today who keep the law, call on the God of Abraham, but each of their worship is conducted and regulated not in Spirit and in truth, but is false and "in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men". Thus, the Baltimore Catechism says,
Q. 1148. How do we offer God false worship?
A. We offer God false worship by rejecting the religion He has instituted and following one pleasing to ourselves, with a form of worship He has never authorized, approved or sanctioned.
On a somewhat related note, forgive me for the length, St.John the Damascus (b.676 A.D), a declared Doctor of the Church, argued with the Mohammedans thus,
Moreover, they call us Hetaeriasts, or Associators, because, they say, we introduce an associate with God by declaring Christ to the Son of God and God. We say to them in rejoinder: ‘The Prophets and the Scriptures have delivered this to us, and you, as you persistently maintain, accept the Prophets. So, if we wrongly declare Christ to be the Son of God, it is they who taught this and handed it on to us.’ But some of them say that it is by misinterpretation that we have represented the Prophets as saying such things, while others say that the Hebrews hated us and deceived us by writing in the name of the Prophets so that we might be lost.
And again we say to them: ‘As long as you say that Christ is the Word of God and Spirit, why do you accuse us of being Hetaeriasts? For the word, and the spirit, is inseparable from that in which it naturally has existence. Therefore, if the Word of God is in God, then it is obvious that He is God. If, however, He is outside of God, then, according to you, God is without word and without spirit. Consequently, by avoiding the introduction of an associate with God you have mutilated Him. It would be far better for you to say that He has an associate than to mutilate Him, as if you were dealing with a stone or a piece of wood or some other inanimate object. Thus, you speak untruly when you call us Hetaeriasts; we retort by calling you Mutilators of God.’
It seems to me that one of the great Fathers of the Greek Church, while rejecting wholly this deplorable heresy, still did not hesitate to speak pure and simply in this way.
-
But I believe the point on which you make an equivocation is when you impliclitly assume that worship offered cannot be false worship. Muslims, like even Jews today who keep the law, call on the God of Abraham, but each of their worship is conducted and regulated not in Spirit and in truth, but is false and "in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men".
It's Catholic Dogma that anyone who rejects the Holy Trinity is anathema. You cannot reject the Trinity and still worship God, it is not possible. Muslims believe in a false god and reject Jesus Christ.
Q. 1148. How do we offer God false worship?
A. We offer God false worship by rejecting the religion He has instituted and following one pleasing to ourselves, with a form of worship He has never authorized, approved or sanctioned.
That would apply to Protestants. Not Muslims.
Let's remember what the Bible says (from the Douay-Rheims Bible):
But the things which the heathens sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God. And I would not that you should be made partakers with devils.
-
You evaded the question. If you concede the individual case is not a denial of dogma, on what grounds do you assert that an unidentified, ambiguous aggregate of individuals? If you carefully analyze the nature of an heretical sect you will see that the sect itself does not possess a transcendent unity, which the Council clearly abuses this truth by glossing over it, as such it is a mere collection individuals.
Okay, I would like to know why a transcendent unity is of any value. Why is that germane?
The nature of a heretical sect is that it is a community centered around a denial of one or more articles of faith, and the simultaneous affirmation of some truths of the faith. It has the Nature of a poisoned glass of wine. It affirms much, but the drinking in of its denials is deadly. As such, it is deprived, as a corporate and unique entity ("The Presbyterian Church"), of the grace of the Holy Spirit.
"The separated churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from the defects already mentioned, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation.
THERE is the heresy. For no schismatic or heretical corporate body AS SUCH has received the spirit of Christ.
It doesn't say that, rather such efficacy, if there be any is derived from the Catholic Church. Nevertheless, there is a gross equivocation of the use of the term "means" for they are obviously not a means of salvation in the same sense as the Catholic Church is the means of salvation. But evidently, this equivocation has led to the denial of Catholic dogma, but is not, in itself heretical.
Okay, I still disagree with you here. This passage is CLEARLY asserting that these heretical and schismatic groups ("The Greek Orthodox Church" for example), in SPITE of suffering the "defects" of being heretical and schismatic, AS heretical and schismatic groups have a role to play in the salvation of souls: AS HERETICAL and SCHISMATIC GROUPS. There is not only ambiguous equivocation, there is a clear denial of the uniqueness of the mission of the Catholic Church alone, and an implicit denial of the doctrine Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salva as wella s the Magisterial Teaching of Pius XII in Mystici Corporis Christi.
In simpler terms, God's utilization of individuals to confer baptism is DEFINTIVELY DIFFERENT from supposing they have received the spirit of Christ and have a role to play in the mystery of salvation.
Merely asserting it is different is not a demonstration of how it is different. The Spirit of Christ works through the Sacraments in certain cases and as such they allegedly "play a role in the mystery of salvation."
But the "sacraments" are not LUTHERAN sacraments, they are Catholic sacraments held hostage by heretics.
Okay, here is a demonstration of how they are different: A Lutheran Baptizes a Child, using the necessary form and matter. His intention is presumed due to the proper use of the form. The Child is validly baptized and cleansed of original sin and its just punishments. This salvation, this sanctifying grace came neither from the Lutheran Minister, nor from the Lutheran Church, but through the grace of the Holy Spirit who in this case has allowed a heretic to confect a valid sacrament, ex opere operato, through the very ACT of the work performed. The Baptism has its validity and efficacy immediately from God, the effects of which are not ONLY cleansing one from sin, but joining one to to his true church: The Roman Catholic Church; and not through the ministration of the Lutheran Church or the Lutheran Minister. As such, to say that the Lutheran Church or the Lutheran minister are anything special is to completely abandon the obvious fact: God sometimes utilizes unworthy individuals as secondary instruments of his grace. But this has NOTHING to do with any special significance the Lutheran minister or the Lutheran Church supposedly possesses.
Now, This docuмent is asserting that the CHURCHES, the HERETICAL CHURCHES DO have significance and DO play a role in sanctification of souls in the eyes of God. This is heresy; this is an implicit and tacit denial of the unique mediation of the Holy Spirit in Christ's one true Church; the Roman Catholic Church. AS such, it is heresy.
Again, you have to take the Council on its own terms which is markedly subjective and extremely imprecise in its language. Heretical sects are, of their very nature, sects of perdition, as per St. Peter. But the Council doesn't address the essence of things, but rather mere accidentals. This is part of the reason why Catholics have lost the essence of things; as Romano Amerio put it, the crisis is partly a result of the loss of the essences of things.
I agree, the Council basically abandoned "Essentialism" for "Existentialism," things are described and have value only in their outward appearance. But this very impreciseness of language is a sign of the overarching heresy of modernism promulgated by the council and John XXIII in his opening address to the Council!
We have now a Council that talks "nice" about false religions which completely distorts the Catholic mind, and if taken to extremes results in the loss of faith.
-
Spiritus,
That would apply to Protestants. Not Muslims.
I believe it applies not only to baptized heretics but even to all professors of heresy in general.
Let's remember what the Bible says
And this applies to pagans, pantheists, polytheists, idolaters etc.
For authority,
11 Q. Who are they who are outside the true Church?
A. Outside the true Church are: Infidels, Jews, heretics, apostates, schismatics, and the excommunicated.
12 Q. Who are infidels?
A. Infidels are those who have not been baptised and do not believe in Jesus Christ, because they either believe in and worship false gods as idolaters do, or though admitting one true God, they do not believe in the Messiah, neither as already come in the Person of Jesus Christ, nor as to come; for instance, Mohammedans and the like.
-
But the Dogma that one must believe in the Holy Trinity still stands. Therefore, Muslims cannot recognize the One True God because they reject the Trinity.
-
Well, of course it does. No one is saying that belief in the Holy Trinity is optional. No one is saying their worship is true, or profits anything at all. We still have the duty to lead them to Christ and to eternal happiness, and to the true religion God has instituted for the salvation of souls which they reject "following one pleasing to themselves".
-
Greg, I hate to get off topic, but let me ask this question regarding Muslim worship. Do you, or anyone here for that matter, admit that a man can offer a purely natural worship to the true God? When philosophers deduce that there is but one God and contemplate this truth, to which God are they ignorantly referring their natural worship?
-
Greg, I hate to get off topic, but let me ask this question regarding Muslim worship. Do you, or anyone here for that matter, admit that a man can offer a purely natural worship to the true God? When philosophers deduce that there is but one God and contemplate this truth, to which God are they ignorantly referring their natural worship?
There's something important to remember: God started the Traditional Catholic Faith, no other religion. Every other religion out there was started by satan (with the exception of the Jєωιѕн religion, although the Jєωιѕн religion is now a false religion).
Heck, even some of the modernists at Catholic Answers have said that Muslims, Buddhists, Hinduists, etc. are "accidental satan worshippers". In other words, they don't mean to worship the devil but do because they cannot possible worship God while at the same time rejecting the Trinity.
-
You didn't answer the question.
-
And when your finished with that, then please explain how asserting a factual matter is tantamount to heresy? What does the assertion that this particular man or that particular group worships the true God have to do with the integrity of the Catholic faith itself? It is certain that Councils can make factual errors, stating something is so and so in the concrete order when it is not so without denying any principle at all.
-
You didn't answer the question.
I did answer the question. I said that pagans, muslims, buddhists, hinduists, etc. worship satan. Protestants offer false or natural worship.
-
And when your finished with that, then please explain how asserting a factual matter is tantamount to heresy? What does the assertion that this particular man or that particular group worships the true God have to do with the integrity of the Catholic faith itself? It is certain that Councils can make factual errors, stating something is so and so in the concrete order when it is not so without denying any principle at all.
To say muslims can worship God while at the same time rejecting the Trinity is more than error, Caminus. It's heresy. Why are you so afraid to admit Vatican II was heretical?
-
You didn't answer the question.
I did answer the question. I said that pagans, muslims, buddhists, hinduists, etc. worship satan. Protestants offer false or natural worship.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
-
And when your finished with that, then please explain how asserting a factual matter is tantamount to heresy? What does the assertion that this particular man or that particular group worships the true God have to do with the integrity of the Catholic faith itself? It is certain that Councils can make factual errors, stating something is so and so in the concrete order when it is not so without denying any principle at all.
To say muslims can worship God while at the same time rejecting the Trinity is more than error, Caminus. It's heresy. Why are you so afraid to admit Vatican II was heretical?
You have no idea what you're talking about.
-
No offense Caminus, but your idea that someone can worship God while at the same time rejecting the Trinity is rather poor reasoning.
You didn't respond to my question, I asked why you can't admit Vatican II was heretical. You didn't respond to any of my points actually, rather you use ad hominem attacks to try and win the argument. I've noticed that you have been avoiding alot of questions and points lately.
-
No offense taken since you obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Have you ever heard of a thing called "Natural Theology"? I have neither affirmed nor denied anything; I'm trying to take the conversation slow, defining terms, starting from basic principles and nominal definitions in order to arrive at a precise understanding of doctrine and the problem of the Council itself. So either answer my questions or bow out of the conversation.
-
The problem of the Council is that it teaches heresy and promotes Freemasonic thought.
Sorry, but could you remind me what questions I have not answered?
-
No offense taken since you obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Have you ever heard of a thing called "Natural Theology"? I have neither affirmed nor denied anything; I'm trying to take the conversation slow, defining terms, starting from basic principles and nominal definitions in order to arrive at a precise understanding of doctrine and the problem of the Council itself. So either answer my questions or bow out of the conversation.
I would like to say Caminus, even though we disagree, I DO appreciate you taking it slow and being patient. I do admit you seem capable of Critical thinking.
So, here is my response to your OTHER question:
No, I do not believe God can be worshiped Naturally.
Here is why:
1. Humans, devoid of grace, no matter how hard they reason and deduct the existence of God, are clouded in their intellect by Original sin. It is INEVITABLE that what they consider "God" will at some point be more or less an exaggerated vision of themselves: They have nothing else to go off of. Therefore, they cannot worship God as he is; they therefore commit idolatry, which is not simply the worship of idols, but the FALSE worship of God; which is destined to inevitably be false.
2. Humans, devoid of Grace, are under the wrath of God. They are under the dominion of Sin, Death and Satan. Without baptism, they cannot perform ANY good work that is supernaturally meritorious, or pleasing, to God. If they are incapable of being supernaturally pleasing to God, it stands to reason that the worship offered "God" (Which is an inevitable distortion of God) is not supernaturally meritorious or pleasing to him. Therefore, they are displeasing to God: They are unregenerate and reprobate, a la session 5 and 6 of the Council of Trent.
What is your opinion of my response? Is it not grounded in Catholic Dogma?
-
I must say that the line about Muslims worshiping the one true God is not a clear-cut heresy like I used to think it was. It may still be heresy. But it's not a slam dunk really and I wouldn't use this to prove that Benedict and JPII are anti-Popes anymore.
Here is how I think about all of this now. When you read the various debates about invincible ignorance, the theologians are questioning just how much someone has to know about God in order to be saved. Many of them say that what must be known is that ( i ) God exists and that ( ii ) He is a rewarder of the good.
In this sense, perhaps certain Muslims can be said to be worshipping the one true God. They know he exists, and that he is a rewarder; as they believe, he'll reward them with fleshy delights. But if they are in invincible ignorance, maybe even to believe this is enough... No one knows.
So the Muslims are worshipping something according to their limited and false understanding. How do we explain what they're worshiping? Is it the devil? Is it a devilish perversion of the true God ( this gets my vote )? Or is it a limited and incomplete concept of God? What are the minimum attributes that must be known about God according to which He can still be called God?
Well, here's the trick, and this is why this Modernist statement smacks of heresy while being so hard to pin down. This line from Lumen Gentium basically assumes that all the Muslims have invincible ignorance when this can't be farther from the truth.
This may be pretty abstruse so let me explain further. Someone in invincible ignorance may be saved knowing as little about God as a Muslim. You could fairly say of that person that they worship the same God as a Catholic, because they are Catholic by desire.
But someone who is not in invincible ignorance would NOT be worshiping the true God by being a Muslim; rather he would be rejecting the true God. So to just say flat-out that ALL Muslims worship the same God as Catholics is probably heresy.
-
No offense taken since you obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Have you ever heard of a thing called "Natural Theology"? I have neither affirmed nor denied anything; I'm trying to take the conversation slow, defining terms, starting from basic principles and nominal definitions in order to arrive at a precise understanding of doctrine and the problem of the Council itself. So either answer my questions or bow out of the conversation.
I would like to say Caminus, even though we disagree, I DO appreciate you taking it slow and being patient. I do admit you seem capable of Critical thinking.
So, here is my response to your OTHER question:
No, I do not believe God can be worshiped Naturally.
Here is why:
1. Humans, devoid of grace, no matter how hard they reason and deduct the existence of God, are clouded in their intellect by Original sin. It is INEVITABLE that what they consider "God" will at some point be more or less an exaggerated vision of themselves: They have nothing else to go off of. Therefore, they cannot worship God as he is; they therefore commit idolatry, which is not simply the worship of idols, but the FALSE worship of God; which is destined to inevitably be false.
2. Humans, devoid of Grace, are under the wrath of God. They are under the dominion of Sin, Death and Satan. Without baptism, they cannot perform ANY good work that is supernaturally meritorious, or pleasing, to God. If they are incapable of being supernaturally pleasing to God, it stands to reason that the worship offered "God" (Which is an inevitable distortion of God) is not supernaturally meritorious or pleasing to him. Therefore, they are displeasing to God: They are unregenerate and reprobate, a la session 5 and 6 of the Council of Trent.
What is your opinion of my response? Is it not grounded in Catholic Dogma?
-
Don't worry, Greg, a response will be forthcoming soon. In the meantime, I would strongly suggest that you pick up a theology manual and read about topics such as natural virtue, theology and religion; whether a man can have a purely natural love of God or attain to some certain knowledge of the true God with certainty; whether men have a natural end as well as a supernatural end. I think you'll find that your analysis is entirely out of line viz. Catholic theology and possibly even Catholic doctrine, but I'm running short on time. I'll be back shortly.
-
Don't worry, Greg, a response will be forthcoming soon. In the meantime, I would strongly suggest that you pick up a theology manual and read about topics such as natural virtue, theology and religion; whether a man can have a purely natural love of God or attain to some certain knowledge of the true God with certainty; whether men have a natural end as well as a supernatural end. I think you'll find that your analysis is entirely out of line viz. Catholic theology and possibly even Catholic doctrine, but I'm running short on time. I'll be back shortly.
In this, I find you are correct. I have downloaded the Theology Manuals by Scheeben from the library and have been reading about Natural Revelation. Obviously, Vatican I taught that God can certainly be known by the light of reason alone, but imperfectly and obscurely. Man can also have a certain natural love for God as well.
But this alone is not sufficient to save man.
In the Section on the Beatific Vision:
"III. The absolute exaltedness of the beatific vision, and of The Beatific
its glory and beatitude above the powers of rational nature, likewise
places it above all the claims or requirements of
nature, and makes it supernatural in the sense of absolute
gratuity. The creature can only claim for its happiness
whatever contributes to or achieves the development of its
natural faculties. Besides, the gratuity of the beatific
vision and kindred privileges is attested so often in various
doctrines of faith, that we are bound to receive it as a
fundamental dogma. Thus, the vocation to the beatific
vision supposes a real and true adoption ; it can only be
known by a supernatural revelation. Nature, by its own
power, cannot merit it, nor even elicit a positive desire of it
worthy of being taken into consideration by God. All
these points have been defined against Baius, and dealt
45 8 A Manual of Catholic Theology. [BOOK III.
CHAP. ii. with in former sections. It is, moreover, evident, at first
sight, that no creature can have a claim to what is God's
most personal property."
SO, they may KNOW God, dimly, and they may think they have a kind of selfish love for him, but they cannot love him in such a way as to merit eternal life apart from grace.
Therefore, he is not truly worshiped, for worship is a property of faith, but those devoid of grace have no faith, for faith is a gift of God.
-
Even the wise and learned leaders of the Jews in the time of Christ were unable to grasp the concept of natural revelation vs. supernatural revelation. Nicodemus told Our Lord that all of the signs He showed and words He imparted were signs that 'God [was] with' Jesus (The Holy Gospel according to St. John, chapter 3, verses 1-3).
Our Lord plainly told Nicodemus that unless one is born of water and of the Holy Ghost, it is impossible to see the Kingdom of God. Surely recognition of God's KingDOM is analogous to recognition of God's KingSHIP, in other words, His Godhood, at least rightly understood.
Natural revelation is not only faulty because of its inability to see and understand God rightly, that is, to attain to the condition of heart and soul necessary for the Beatific Vision. Natural revelation is also deficient because, having its origin in the minds and hearts of sinful human beings, it will not stop at what it CAN understand correctly, but it will ultimately be 'hijacked' by the selfish desire of mankind to attain to righteousness on their own. Thus, natural revelation is NEVER devoid of the perverse desire possess divine knowledge without God's help, as in the Garden of Eden.
Whatever natural revelation CAN reveal as true and right about God and religion will always be awash in distortions, imaginings and relativism, which, as has already been mentioned, is nothing more than creating a 'god' in one's mind who is essentially just 'man writ large'.
This attitude of relying on natural revelation was one of the chief sins of the Jews of the Old Covenant period; God Almighty continually reminded them that His ways were (and are) NOT their ways, and that He is totally unlike them, as opposed to their erroneous belief that God was essentially their 'genie' who just approved and validated whatever they wished to do.
This error is nowhere more evident in our day than in the writings of the Mohammedan h-ly book; their god is no more than a supernatural warlord who just rubber-stamps all of the political and revolutionary ambitions of the 'prophet' just when he needs them.
Natural revelation is not a basis for establishing right religion any more than it is for being a fan of a movie or music star; the teenager might (by what is possible to be known) know all the facts and figures about so-and-so, but his imaginings about what-all they would do or say when they met are not only conjecture, but really just an overlay of the teen's personality onto the star he idolizes.
Natural revelation BEGINS with what CAN be known, but is always used as a vehicle of the selfish, unconverted sinner as no more than a platform for his or her ego.
The desperate reaching for Heaven without God's revelation and supernatural assistance was the hallmark of Eve's obedience to the serpent and it is the same today.
St. Bernadette of Lourdes, pray for us.
Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us.
-
No sede here can prove even ONE heresy contained in the texts of VCII. Not one.
They misinterpret the texts and then declare their own misinterpretation as heresy.
-
No sede here can prove even ONE heresy contained in the texts of VCII. Not one.
They misinterpret the texts and then declare their own misinterpretation as heresy.
This isn't about just whether or not sedes can prove a heresy contained in the Vatican II docuмents. I'm not a sede yet I have proven a heresy in the docuмents, yet given YOUR misinterpretations of the texts you don't know how to spot the heresies contained in them.
-
Humor me. Demonstrate one heresy in VCII.
-
Very well Santo.
The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth,(5) who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting.
We must get to know the outlook of our separated brethren. To achieve this purpose, study is of necessity required, and this must be pursued with a sense of realism and good will. Catholics, who already have a proper grounding, need to acquire a more adequate understanding of the respective doctrines of our separated brethren, their history, their spiritual and liturgical life, their religious psychology and general background. Most valuable for this purpose are meetings of the two sides-especially for discussion of theological problems-where each can treat with the other on an equal footing-provided that those who take part in them are truly competent and have the approval of the bishops. From such dialogue will emerge still more clearly what the situation of the Catholic Church really is. In this way too the outlook of our separated brethren will be better understood, and our own belief more aptly explained.
Before the whole world let all Christians confess their faith in the triune God, one and three in the incarnate Son of God, our Redeemer and Lord. United in their efforts, and with mutual respect, let them bear witness to our common hope which does not play us false. In these days when cooperation in social matters is so widespread, all men without exception are called to work together, with much greater reason all those who believe in God, but most of all, all Christians in that they bear the name of Christ. Cooperation among Christians vividly expresses the relationship which in fact already unites them, and it sets in clearer relief the features of Christ the Servant. This cooperation, which has already begun in many countries, should be developed more and more, particularly in regions where a social and technical evolution is taking place be it in a just evaluation of the dignity of the human person, the establishment of the blessings of peace, the application of Gospel principles to social life, the advancement of the arts and sciences in a truly Christian spirit, or also in the use of various remedies to relieve the afflictions of our times such as famine and natural disasters, illiteracy and poverty, housing shortage and the unequal distribution of wealth. All believers in Christ can, through this cooperation, be led to acquire a better knowledge and appreciation of one another, and so pave the way to Christian unity.
All three quotes I posted above contradict the Church's Dogma that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church.
-
Oh and Santo, see the contradiction between Vatican II and Saint Gregory the Great?
Saint Gregory the Great: "The holy universal Church teaches that God cannot be truly adored except within its fold; she affirms that all those who are separated from her will not be saved."
-
Please, we've already been through the Islam thing. How many Pre-VCII Bishops signed Nostra Aetate? Were they all apostate modernists? Were they all completely ignorant of Church tradition, history, and doctrine? Or maybe, just maybe, do you misunderstand what Nostra Aetate is saying?
All you have done is slap quotes together in a post. You have not even started to attempt to show how there is heresy in that statement.
-
No sede here can prove even ONE heresy contained in the texts of VCII. Not one.
They misinterpret the texts and then declare their own misinterpretation as heresy.
So what do YOU call this? From www.sedevacantist.org
"The separated churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from the defects already mentioned, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fulness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church." (Decree on Oecuмenism Unitatis Redintegratio, paragraph 3)
This contradicts a doctrine which has been repeated perhaps more times than any other by the Church and is unquestionably Divinely revealed. Only a single example of the magisterial teaching of the true doctrine is necessary and we select the following from the Council of Florence held under Pope Eugene IV (1441):
"The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the Devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with her..."
Caminus is trying to make the argument that The text here is indeed flawed, and erroneous and tending toward heresy, but not heretical in itself. I have to objections:
1. Those who keep company willfully with heretics and commune with them are themselves considered heretics. How does this not apply to ideas?
2. The HERESY here is the teaching that deficient heretical and schismatic church IN ITSELF, and AS SUCH is utilized by Christ as a means of salvation for souls. This is simply heretical, for it contradicts the teaching of the Church that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church ALONE are one and the same thing.
Life is not given to dead and cut-off members. Much less does God UTILIZE dead and defunct churches as means of salvation. He may call those within those Churches to repentance and conversion, but it is NOT through the instrumentality of the Heretical Church as an Heretical and Schismatic Organization AS SUCH. He may even speak through an heretical minister as he spoke through Annas the Jєωιѕн High Priest: Nevertheless, the occasion of instrumentality is not an ENDORSEMENT by the Spirit of Christ of the "church" as such. It is a momentary, perhaps irrepeatable, use of what God considers most expedient to get a person IN the Church: For he works all things with our salvation in mind, and there is NO salvation outside the Church.
Heresy.
-
Please, we've already been through the Islam thing. How many Pre-VCII Bishops signed Nostra Aetate? Were they all apostate modernists? Were they all completely ignorant of Church tradition, history, and doctrine? Or maybe, just maybe, do you misunderstand what Nostra Aetate is saying?
All you have done is slap quotes together in a post. You have not even started to attempt to show how there is heresy in that statement.
Abp. Pintonello Did not. He did not sign a SINGLE docuмent from Vatican II, that's a fact Jack.
-
Please, we've already been through the Islam thing. How many Pre-VCII Bishops signed Nostra Aetate? Were they all apostate modernists? Were they all completely ignorant of Church tradition, history, and doctrine? Or maybe, just maybe, do you misunderstand what Nostra Aetate is saying?
All you have done is slap quotes together in a post. You have not even started to attempt to show how there is heresy in that statement.
This isn't just about Islam. My point is that Vatican II says all religions have a chance of salvation, when the Church originially taught that there is no salvation outside the Church. Read what the Saints of the Church said:
"No man can find salvation except in the Catholic Church. Outside the Catholic Church one can have everything except salvation. One can have honor, one can have the sacraments, one can sing alleluia, one can answer amen, one can have faith in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and preach it too, but never can one find salvation except in the Catholic Church." -St. Augustine
"It is necessary for you to believe the Catholic Faith and to be baptized, as must every man in order to save his soul." -St. Catherine of Alexandria
"Hold most firmly and never doubt at all that not only pagans, but also all Jews, all heretics, and all schismatics who finish this life outside of the Catholic Church, will go into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels." -St. Fulgentius
-
Oh, please, Santo... you and the rest of the Conciliar sheep are just eating wherever you can find grass, not noticing that it has been sprayed with poison.
For well-nigh two thousand years now, the Roman Catholic Church has claimed uniqueness in faith, sole possession of the doctrines and graces necessary for salvation and continuity in Her authority. EVERY other 'christian' religion either rejects Her or tries to justify its existence by proving that they somehow possess, in fullness, at least one of Her marks.
The Anglicans still try to lean on the succession of bishops and/or priests; too bad, because their orders and sacraments have been dogmatically defined as invalid.
The Eastern Schismatics still have some valid succession, but Catholics, of course, are not to frequent their services, neither are they to partake of their sacraments except in rare cases of EXTREME peril in which it is otherwise not DIFFICULT or INCONVENIENT, but IMPOSSIBLE to procure a traditional Catholic priest. Those warnings, in this day and age, amount to almost total insignificance of even the presence of the Eastern sects in the world. They are a non-factor.
The average non-liturgical Protestant denomination is made from 'whole cloth', rejects sacramentalism altogether and has NOTHING to do with valid apostolic succession. Their doctrines and practices rest entirely upon private and subjective interpretations of Scripture from 'bibles' that have often been erroneously translated specifically because they wanted the text in English to reflect their theology. The Protestant denominations of the sixteenth century and later at least BEGAN with an idea towards so-called 'reformation'; the Prots today have no such agenda, not even among the Lutherans and Anglicans. Their goal today is self-preservation and the advancement of their theologies and liturgies.
These groups are ALL heretical. They either represent an intentional break from the Papal Authority or they represent a genesis IN anti-Catholic bias and laughably bad theology.
For Wojtyla, Ratzinger and their friends to associate with these people in their roles as religious leaders is bad enough, as if they had something to dialogue about except for the heretics to repudiate their errors against Holy Church and repent.
For these 'popes' to PRAY with heretics, FOR heretics and IN the buildings of heretics, along with their 'bishopesses', queer ministers and all the other errors, IS for these 'popes' to be guilty of heresy themselves.
Stop digging in the dung for nuggets of 'truth'... no one before Vatican II had any interest in promoting this false unity, heretical ecuмenism or illicit recognition of the so-called 'significance' of these Christ-deniers as 'means of salvation'.
St. Anthony of Padua, hammer of heretics, terror of Hell, pray for us.
Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us.
-
I'll say it again here:
" But at any rate the Jews say that they, too, adore God. God forbid that I say that. No Jew adores God! Who say so? The Son of God say so. For he said: "If you were to know my Father, you would also know me. But you neither know me nor do you know my Father". Could I produce a witness more trustworthy than the Son of God?
(3) If, then, the Jews fail to know the Father, if they crucified the Son, if they thrust off the help of the Spirit, who should not make bold to declare plainly that the ѕуηαgσgυє is a dwelling of demons? God is not worshipped there. Heaven forbid! From now on it remains a place of idolatry. But still some people pay it honor as a holy place."
Saint John Chrysostom
-
There are not two holy places in God's Kingdom, there is only ONE. The old 'holy place' was IN the temple of the Jews. The veil of that temple was ripped in two from top to bottom to show that it was no longer a sacred place to God. The temple itself was leveled in A.D. 70 by Titus and the Roman armies, in fulfillment of Our Lord's prophecy that there would not be 'one stone left upon another that will not be thrown down'.
There are not TWO peoples of God, there is only ONE people of God, namely, the Church. The Jews called God's wrath down upon themselves and all their progeny when they cried for the Blood of Christ to be on their heads and the heads of their children from then on.
The religion of the Jew today is representative of the legalistic Pharisaical religion of the time of Christ, which was already a severe departure from the faith of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Today's Jew is no closer to the Old Covenant Jew than they are to Christ. Their religion is a mish-mash of cultural accretions, superstitions and socio-political maneuvering designed to keep the Jews in the most advantageous positions in politics and finance.
Interestingly, the Jews of Israel are being handled much like the Conciliar church's membership is; they are being led around by the nose by people who don't even PRETEND to be Jews except by ethnicity UNTIL it's time for some holiday or time to raise more money for their Zionist causes. Then, the yarmulkes come out and they start singing the old Hebrew songs.
As I and many others have said already, the Magisterium of the Church has never had a problem with pronouncing the Jєωιѕн religion and its adherents 'perfidious' and 'infidel'.
Just as Jacob robbed his brother of his birthright and his blessing by pretending to be something and someone he was not, so, too, have the Jews played on people's sympathies by still trying to appear to be the 'people of God' when they have clearly rejected Christ, the Messiah of the Jew and Savior of the world.
Ditto for the Conciliar heretics; they are playing church when it behooves them, like when the anti-pope appears in the square for that 'prayer service' before the Assisi debacle. He'll need to pretend to be Catholic then. Once he gets around his Lutheran and Jew infidel friends, he dispenses with the heterodoxy and makes with the ecuмenism. It's sickening, but it is the blueprint that was drawn up by his Christ-denying Jew compatriots a long time ago.
Mary, help of Christians, pray for us.
Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us.
-
How does anyone explain this quote from the Council of Trent?
If anyone says that the Mass should be celebrated in the vernacular only, let him be Anathema . “ - Council of Trent (Session XXII, Canon 9)
And Pope Pius VI condemned the notion that the mass should said “in the vernacular” as “rash, offensive to pious ears, insulting to the Church, and favorable to the charges of heretics against it”
So there you have it. Vatican II and the Bogus Ordo: refuted.
-
How does anyone explain this quote from the Council of Trent?
If anyone says that the Mass should be celebrated in the vernacular only, let him be Anathema . “ - Council of Trent (Session XXII, Canon 9)
And Pope Pius VI condemned the notion that the mass should said “in the vernacular” as “rash, offensive to pious ears, insulting to the Church, and favorable to the charges of heretics against it”
So there you have it. Vatican II and the Bogus Ordo: refuted.
Not exactly. I am no defender of the Novus Ordo by any means. I am a sedevacantist. But the Novus Ordo does not require their priests to say mass in only the vernacular. They can say the New Mess in Latin too. It's a real option.
I agree in general with what you're getting at: Bogus Ordo for sure, but your comparison does not exactly match the reality. Just sayin'.
-
It does refute the Bogus Ordo because Pius VI said the Mass can never be offered in the vernacular. The Council of Trent's statement doesn't necessarily refute the NO but it does refute Vatican II for moving away from Latin.
-
The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth,(5) who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting.
We must get to know the outlook of our separated brethren. To achieve this purpose, study is of necessity required, and this must be pursued with a sense of realism and good will. Catholics, who already have a proper grounding, need to acquire a more adequate understanding of the respective doctrines of our separated brethren, their history, their spiritual and liturgical life, their religious psychology and general background. Most valuable for this purpose are meetings of the two sides-especially for discussion of theological problems-where each can treat with the other on an equal footing-provided that those who take part in them are truly competent and have the approval of the bishops. From such dialogue will emerge still more clearly what the situation of the Catholic Church really is. In this way too the outlook of our separated brethren will be better understood, and our own belief more aptly explained.
Before the whole world let all Christians confess their faith in the triune God, one and three in the incarnate Son of God, our Redeemer and Lord. United in their efforts, and with mutual respect, let them bear witness to our common hope which does not play us false. In these days when cooperation in social matters is so widespread, all men without exception are called to work together, with much greater reason all those who believe in God, but most of all, all Christians in that they bear the name of Christ. Cooperation among Christians vividly expresses the relationship which in fact already unites them, and it sets in clearer relief the features of Christ the Servant. This cooperation, which has already begun in many countries, should be developed more and more, particularly in regions where a social and technical evolution is taking place be it in a just evaluation of the dignity of the human person, the establishment of the blessings of peace, the application of Gospel principles to social life, the advancement of the arts and sciences in a truly Christian spirit, or also in the use of various remedies to relieve the afflictions of our times such as famine and natural disasters, illiteracy and poverty, housing shortage and the unequal distribution of wealth. All believers in Christ can, through this cooperation, be led to acquire a better knowledge and appreciation of one another, and so pave the way to Christian unity.
I find these statements to be erroneous and harmful to the Faith in Jesus Christ. All of these statements can be found in the New Catechism of the Catholic Church. A Catechism is used to teach new Catholics the Faith. Why on Earth would you put stuff about other religions in a book that is meant to teach new Catholics. It will not only cause confusion, but may cause them to abandon the Catholic Faith altogether to find out why some other religion holds the second person of the Trinity as just a "prophet", but yet the Church esteems them. Our Lord say, "seek ye first the Kingdom of God, and all else will be given unto thee". The fact that everyday people fall away from their V2 Faith is evidence of the corruption in this book, which takes it statements directly from the V2 council. The only thing this book and those statements are good for is to start a fire.
I would never hold in esteem those who see the second person in God as a meer prophet or deny him altogether, those who murder in the name of their erroneous God, those who show contempt for Family, contempt for the Saints, contempt for the Holy Ghost. No these are not people of God, these are the enemy of God that must be prayed for. Their hearts are so hardened that only a miracle from God can save them. Thank God he performs these miracles everyday, but the sheer amount of contempt for God, make new haters everyday. I suspect if they could the Vatican would try to justify anybody including followers of Satan, Aethiests, and probably even animals. I feel in the future these statements are going to be condemned and most people who were involved in writing them. I do not hope they went to Hell, but God's justice is certainly not in my control.
-
Agreed, ManofGosh. Great post.
Those were actually the Vatican II docuмents.
-
More heresy from the Vatican II docuмents:
This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others within due limits.
The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself.[2] This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right.
Still waiting for Caminus to try and prove me wrong rather than either attack my character or totally avoid me.
-
All in due time my friend. Keep studying.
-
Don't worry, Greg, a response will be forthcoming soon. In the meantime, I would strongly suggest that you pick up a theology manual and read about topics such as natural virtue, theology and religion; whether a man can have a purely natural love of God or attain to some certain knowledge of the true God with certainty; whether men have a natural end as well as a supernatural end. I think you'll find that your analysis is entirely out of line viz. Catholic theology and possibly even Catholic doctrine, but I'm running short on time. I'll be back shortly.
In this, I find you are correct. I have downloaded the Theology Manuals by Scheeben from the library and have been reading about Natural Revelation. Obviously, Vatican I taught that God can certainly be known by the light of reason alone, but imperfectly and obscurely. Man can also have a certain natural love for God as well.
But this alone is not sufficient to save man.
In the Section on the Beatific Vision:
"III. The absolute exaltedness of the beatific vision, and of The Beatific
its glory and beatitude above the powers of rational nature, likewise
places it above all the claims or requirements of
nature, and makes it supernatural in the sense of absolute
gratuity. The creature can only claim for its happiness
whatever contributes to or achieves the development of its
natural faculties. Besides, the gratuity of the beatific
vision and kindred privileges is attested so often in various
doctrines of faith, that we are bound to receive it as a
fundamental dogma. Thus, the vocation to the beatific
vision supposes a real and true adoption ; it can only be
known by a supernatural revelation. Nature, by its own
power, cannot merit it, nor even elicit a positive desire of it
worthy of being taken into consideration by God. All
these points have been defined against Baius, and dealt
45 8 A Manual of Catholic Theology. [BOOK III.
CHAP. ii. with in former sections. It is, moreover, evident, at first
sight, that no creature can have a claim to what is God's
most personal property."
SO, they may KNOW God, dimly, and they may think they have a kind of selfish love for him, but they cannot love him in such a way as to merit eternal life apart from grace.
Therefore, he is not truly worshiped, for worship is a property of faith, but those devoid of grace have no faith, for faith is a gift of God.
-
Spiritus, would you agree that each person has a "right to seek the truth" and to do what is necessary, within limits, to find it? Thankfully, DH at least mentions the that rights are founded in the truth, and apart from that, I think it is primarily concerned with the freedom of Catholics to preach the Gospel and primarily that of the Church.
It is in accordance with their dignity as persons-that is, beings endowed with reason and free will and therefore privileged to bear personal responsibility-that all men should be at once impelled by nature and also bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. They are also bound to adhere to the truth, once it is known, and to order their whole lives in accord with the demands of truth
The Church should enjoy that full measure of freedom which her care for the salvation of men requires. This is a sacred freedom, because the only-begotten Son endowed with it the Church which He purchased with His blood. Indeed it is so much the property of the Church that to act against it is to act against the will of God. The freedom of the Church is the fundamental principle in what concerns the relations between the Church and governments and the whole civil order.
-
Greg, look back at your posts and read where you were forced to admit that the offending sentence viz. salvation and false sects is qualified as an indirect denial of an article of faith. Now, supposing I granted this admission, you have just proven my point, since heresy is a direct denial of a defined article of the Catholic faith. An indirect denial is generally a proposition that leads to the denial of an article of faith by a process of inference or deduction, depending on how the sense of the proposition is taken.
As far as natural worship to God, you have conceded the point. Bringing in statement regarding supernaturally meritorious before God is irrelevant, no one, not even the Council claimed it was. The Council was (wrongly) explaining certain noble truths of the Muslim religion and esteemed them under that aspect (again, absolutely wrong objectively speaking, but true subjectively). Just as you would esteem a friend who is not Catholic but possesses certain natural virtues.