Why do you keep posting crap like this I wonder? Post your source for this idea.

It sounds like it might be a Fentonism, certainly it must be a new theologian's idea of some sort, but whatever, post your source for this or accept the fact that this is so wrong that it has helped lead many people into losing their faith.

Stubborn's Lies

Lie #1: You can't use Trent's profession for V2.

The Profession of Faith (POF) does not say just Trent. It says all things taught by the Ecuмenical Councils. So I can and must, if I want to call myself Catholic, profess what every Council professes.

Yes, all the Ecuмenical Councils up until Trent - you want it to say all future Councils - sorry, it doesn't even imply that.

Lie #2:  You have to use V2's profession - post that.

No I don't. The POF is clear about that. If it meant this POF only applied to Trent, then it definitely wouldn't say 'and especially by the sacred and holy Synod of Trent', this would be redundant.

Anything to keep your sedeism I suppose.


Lie #3: Does V2's have this in it?----> "and at the same time all things contrary thereto, and whatever heresies have been condemned, and rejected, and anathematized by the Church, I likewise condemn, reject, and anathematize."

This is not a lie per se but it is deceitful, falls in the same category. Stubborn here is attempting to say that because Vatican II didn't condemn etc... so this POF does not apply. This is not true because the POF says that one must profess everything that is merely taught in a Council. It's clear that this means a Council does not even need to use solemn language because of the nature of the Council itself.

I did not attempt anything of the sort -I asked you a question - why can't you simply answer a simple question for once?



Lie #4: You're problem is that *you say* that you believe everything in all councils are automatically infallible

This is a lie because I clearly never said that. In fact I have said multiple times that only the things that a Council teaches that concern faith or morals are infallible. Changeable disciplines do not fall into this category. Yet even then, if a Council changes something in the Church's discipline, the faithful may not disobey it or act like it doesn't apply to them.

You're the one who says all councils are automatically infallible - but you do not believe it yourself because if you believed it, you would be a card carrying NOer. You're confused because a true council actually taught error - this proves you to be wrong - live with it.


So as we can see, the Profession of Faith of the Council of Trent clearly says that whatever an Ecuмenical Council teaches and professes, every Catholic must do likewise. Stubborn has had to bear false witness four times in one post in order to try to refute the irrefutable. The answer to the questions I asked Stubborn, from Stubborn's heretical point of view, yes the Council was Catholic and no he does not profess everything in them. According to the Council of Trent, a Catholic Council, he is definitely NOT Catholic.

No, that is not what Trent's POF says, that's not even what the first part says - why don't you read what it says?

What is your understanding of the word "binding"?

Well, he still professes it, as I defined profession some time ago here, but his view of the Magisterium and the Church are not Catholic.  Perhaps the confusion caused by this unprecedented crisis opens the possibility that his heresies are material only.  I'm sure that, in ordinary times, Stubborn would have remained Catholic.  This is a horrific mess that tries every Catholic's soul.  Very few Catholic theologians alive before this crisis could have hypothesized about such as scenario as this in their worst nightmares.

... I'm not Catholic ...

Since not everything taught by the Ordinary Magisterium is infallible, we must ask what kind of assent we should give to its various decisions.
(1) The Christian is required to give the assent of faith to all the doctrinal and moral truths defined by the Church's Magisterium (there were no doctrinal or moral truths defined at V2).

(2) He is not required to give the same assent to teaching imparted by the sovereign pontiff that is not imposed on the whole Christian body as a dogma of faith (nothing from V2 was imposed upon the whole Church as a dogma of faith).

(2 b) In this case it suffices to give that inner and religious assent which we give to legitimate ecclesiastical authority. (this is why new-rome says we must give 'religious assent' to V2)

(2 c) This is not an absolute assent, because such decrees are not infallible, but only a prudential and conditional assent, since in questions of faith and morals there is a presumption in favor of one's superior (under normal circuмstances, yes, we trust our superiors.  Not in the case of post-V2)....Such prudential assent does not eliminate the possibility of submitting the doctrine to a further examination, if that seems required by the gravity of the question (Nicolas Jung, Le Magistère de L’Èglise, 1935, pp.153,154).  (Yes, based on the gravity and confusion of V2, their "teachings" need to be further examined, for they are not infallible, nor clear, nor are they trival matters.)