Author Topic: Vatican Council - Bad Omen (Read 1580 times)

Classiccom · « **Reply #1 on:** August 26, 2009, 07:05:50 PM »

New Springtime predicted for Vatican Council (1870)

Harper's new monthly magazine, Volume 42, Issues 247-252
By Henry Mills Alden

http://books.google.com/books?id=5489AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA28&lpg=PA28&dq=Bishop+Kendrick+infallibly&source=bl&ots=D86NPfmujT&sig=oPHXfcVDpmEmgjnOIFOsTkiPeTw&hl=en&ei=b8mVSt_MBMbblAe95oS3DA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2#v=onepage&q=&f=false

=================================

PDF Free Download

http://books.google.com/books/download/Harper_s_new_monthly_magazine.pdf?id=5489AAAAYAAJ&output=pdf&sig=ACfU3U2bsuQTfN5kiGQSoK0OHj3dkp2_9Q

radtrad · « **Reply #2 on:** August 26, 2009, 08:01:14 PM »

From the website used at the beginning of this thread:

Quote

FAQ #2: How is the United Catholic Church different from the Roman Catholic Church?

Answer: As a denomination, we differ from the Roman Catholic Church in important ways. Most of them are a rejection of man-made laws which grew up over the centuries, leading to an unacceptable legalism. Others involve our rejection of recent doctrines adopted by the Roman Catholic Church without biblical support or the concurrence of the church at large. Some of these major differences are:

1. We do not accept the infallibility of the Pope.

2. Following St. Jerome, we reject the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books.

3. We do not require belief in doctrines lacking biblical support. The various Marian doctrines therefore lose their status as dogma. (People are free to believe in them, but are not required to do so.) Likewise, we reject as dogma the non-biblical concepts of purgatory, indulgences, and prayers for the dead, which are unsupported in the canonical books.

4. While prayers to the saints are permitted in private devotions, they are not part of our public worship. Too often in the past they have led to superstition, and they represent a stumbling block to unity with our Protestant brethren.

5. We use the pre-1054 form of the Nicene Creed, considering the "filioque" added by the Pope at that time to be an unnecessary obstacle to unity with our Orthodox brethren. (See the docuмent "What Does It Mean To Be Catholic?" for a discussion of the "filioque.")

6. We have returned to the following practices of the early church:

a. optional celibacy for clergy (We have married priests and bishops.).

b. ordination of women (We allow women at all levels of the clergy.).

c. celebration of the Eucharist in the home.

d. rejection of violence (Our social conscience is much like that of the Quakers.).

e. participation of the laity in the election of bishops.

7. We believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist, but reject the 16th-century definition of "transubstantiation" as being unnecessarily detailed, mechanistic, and legalistic.

8. While we discourage divorce, we do not require an expensive and hypocritical annulment, but allow innocent parties to remarry.

CM · « **Reply #3 on:** August 26, 2009, 08:05:39 PM »

Shameless HERETIC!!!

Nobody cares about what you and your Old 'Catholic' and Protestant cronies think about infallibility.

It is SCRIPTURAL.

It has been HELD FROM ANTIQUITY.

And it is a LOGICAL CONCLUSION that Christ's Church, instituted by AN INFALLIBLE GOD would be graced with INFALLIBLE TEACHING AUTHORITY.

Quote from: Classiccom

Tradition and Scripture were no longer necessary

That's a stinking load of monkeypants! There has never been a dogma proclaimed over the course of the History of the Church that is NOT rooted in Scripture and Tradition! You can't point to a SINGLE ONE!

You have such a problem with infallibility, but you have never offered an accepted dogma of the Church as 'proof' that infallibility is wrong. All you have done, as far as I've seen, is point to the insane asylums in Italy overflowing with inmates at the end of the 19th century and say: "See! HA! Infallibility has bad fruits!"

How does that make even remote sense? It does not! Are you insane? Or just evil? Evil, yes.

I have never seen a post from you defending any Christian dogma, only attacking it. No apologetics from you at all as far as I have ever seen, just a constant barrage of inane repetitious BLASPHEMY AGAINST THE HOLY GHOST!

In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, I rebuke thee satan, go back to hell where you belong!

radtrad · « **Reply #4 on:** August 26, 2009, 08:14:17 PM »

Classicom, where do you find these things?

From Butler's The Vatican Council 1869-1870:

Quote

In the council there was a long dispute over the enunciation. In the first vote it stood 451 in favor, 88 opposed, and 62 conditionally in favor; at the last vote 433 were in favor of the promulgation, two opposing, 55 abstaining. All the fathers of the council accepted the dogma as true. After the council a great deal of discussion of infallibility took place among non-Catholics; violent attacks were made on the pope, the church, and the council. Within the church the papal infallibility had been generally believed for many centuries. A few groups departed from the church. The most important was the Old Catholics in Germany, under Döllinger; in France a small group headed by Père Hyacinthe (Charles Loyson) also seceded.

Here's the link.

NewAdvent's Catholic Encyclopedia corroborates this as well.

Classiccom · « **Reply #5 on:** August 26, 2009, 08:54:13 PM »

Radtard - Please stay on topic. -

Vatican Council Bad Omen.

Read the Harpers magazine account.

I would like to quote Roman Catholic sources but they squashed any dissenting printed opinion. Just like Communist Russia !

Years later, Orthodox theologian Sergei Bulgakov, observed with disdain that, The Vatican Council has as much right to call itself a Council as todays meetings of delegates from the Soviet republics can claim to be a free expression of the will of the people. 31

31. Hasler, page 143.

=================================================

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/papaldogma.aspx

Question to Bishop Murray

Q: Is the decree of the Pope valid without the consent of the Council?

A: A decree of the Pope in matters of doctrine is not considered binding on Catholics, if it have not the consent of the whole Church, either dispersed or assembled by its Bishops in Council. 9

In 1826, the declaration of the Archbishops and Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland, was endorsed by the signatures of 30 bishops, declaring that The Catholics of Ireland declare on oath their belief that it is not an article of the Catholic faith, neither are they required to believe that the pope is infallible.10 Archbishop Kendrick of St. Louis pointed out in his undelivered speech, which he had published in Naples, that for two hundred years a book had been in circulation entitled Roman Catholic Principles in Reference to God and the King. It enjoyed such a wide circulation that from 1748 to 1813 it underwent 35 editions and the Very Reverend Vicar Apostolic Coppinger in England had 12 printings of it. On the question of Papal Infallibility it states:

It is no matter of faith to believe that the Pope is in himself infallible, separated from the Church, even in expounding the faith: by consequence of Papal definitions or decrees, in whatever form pronounced, taken exclusively from a General Council, or universal acceptance of the Church, oblige none, under pain of heresy, to an interior assent.11
Papal Infallibility - A Protestant Hoax?

One of the most popular catechisms circulating in 19th century England was the Controversial Catechism by the Reverend Stephen Keenan. The one I have is the third edition of 1854, published by Marsh and Beattie of Edinburgh and Charles Dolman of London and Manchester. On page 112 we find the following question and answer:

Q: Must not Catholics believe the Pope in himself to be infallible?

A: This is a Protestant invention; it is no article of the Catholic faith; no decision of his can oblige, under pain of heresy, unless it be received and enforced by the teaching body; that is, by the bishops of the Church.

This catechism carries the enthusiastic approbation of four bishops:

This hate of the truth still persists right here on Cathinfo.
=================================================

Roman Catholic Principles in Reference to God and the King

this book published in 35 editions between 1748 and 1813 which denies infalliblity of the Pope alone.

Quoted By Archbishop Kendick of St. Louis Mo. - No pope is Infallible without the approval of the Church.

http://books.google.com/books?id=_X4PAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA69&lpg=PA69&dq=Roman+Catholic+Principles+in+Reference+to+God+and+the+King&source=bl&ots=_5PbvCWrzD&sig=dshIEtRbsLTMbnjEoUS6E2DGpXg&hl=en&ei=CeWVSs-jCYfOlAfYurC9DA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9#v=onepage&q=Roman%20Catholic%20Principles%20in%20Reference%20to%20God%20and%20the%20King&f=false

Classiccom · « **Reply #6 on:** August 26, 2009, 09:10:17 PM »

CM -

Classiccom said:
Tradition and Scripture were no longer necessary

====================================

You are mistaken . That is a quote from Bowman not me. But in fairness, Bowman is essentially correct that today's Catholics , including yourself, do not let the words of Jesus Christ get in the way of their beliefs. Your support for spiritual criminality will have to be accounted for one day.

radtrad · « **Reply #7 on:** August 26, 2009, 10:01:12 PM »

Quote from: Classiccom

Radtard - Please stay on topic. -

Vatican Council Bad Omen.

Read the Harpers magazine account.

Stay on topic? Please explain to me what exactly is the topic then. I thought we were discussing your denial of Papal Infallibility. No? You said:

Quote

Finally, when the dogma was met with its first vote, eighty-eight voted against it, ninety-one bishops refrained from voting, and sixty-two voted yea only conditionally

I showed that 451 voted in favor of Papal Infallibility:

Quote

In the first vote it stood 451 in favor, 88 opposed, and 62 conditionally in favor; at the last vote 433 were in favor of the promulgation, two opposing, 55 abstaining.

Secondly, your use of dubious sources is getting old. Harper's? We are discussing Papal Infallibility, an important theological issue, and you are quoting Harper's Magazine?

Classiccom · « **Reply #8 on:** August 26, 2009, 11:09:58 PM »

Quote:
In the first vote it stood 451 in favor, 88 opposed, and 62 conditionally in favor; at the last vote 433 were in favor of the promulgation, two opposing, 55 abstaining.

I guess that is where they got the title Farenheit 451.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit_451

=========================================

Did Bowman get it wrong ? I don't know, but my gut feeling that the council was run like a kangaroo court where it is docuмented they shouted down dissenting opinion. That is not a Christian attitude.

They did Vatican II the same way = a railroad job that is a disgrace.
===========================================

Free Controversial Catechism PDF

Published 1751 - refutes infallibity

http://books.google.com/books/download/A_catechism_moral_and_controversial__by_.pdf?id=1-4CAAAAQAAJ&output=pdf&sig=ACfU3U0q3gMSYrtpajp2HCkBmyjFGw8syg

==============================================

You people refuse to admit reality. They did teach against infalliblity in various Catholic books and catechisms.

Good luck with your Pope Benedict. You deserve him.

CM · « **Reply #9 on:** August 27, 2009, 02:26:30 AM »

Classiccom · « **Reply #10 on:** August 27, 2009, 06:01:57 AM »

OK CM, Who has the power to declare Pope Benedict XVI is not a pope. ? Are there any records of how this person obtained the authority to dispute the current Vatican Regime?

Who is your "Catholic" authority? What is the name of your Bishop?

======================================================

There is no doubt that the Vatican Council was a railroad job and had some very unsavory elements of a rude a brutal suppression of the truth. Probably the best thing to do is to reprint Catechisms printed before the 1870 Vatican Council and tell people the current crop of "Catholics" are really the false Church controlled by Jєωιѕн intrigue.

I am sorry to test everyone's patience. Do not take the mark of the beast even if an Infallible tells you so.

Classiccom · « **Reply #11 on:** August 27, 2009, 06:51:28 AM »

radtrad · « **Reply #12 on:** August 27, 2009, 08:00:28 AM »

Quote from: Classiccom

I am sorry to test everyone's patience. Do not take the mark of the beast even if an Infallible tells you so.

:surprised:

radtrad · « **Reply #13 on:** August 27, 2009, 08:03:55 AM »

CM · « **Reply #14 on:** August 27, 2009, 02:32:12 PM »

Quote from: Classiccom

OK CM, Who has the power to declare Pope Benedict XVI is not a pope. ?

Juridically? A future pope. EPISTEMOLOGICALLY? Everyone who knows Catholic dogma. But that doesn't include you so I understand your confusion, for which there is still no excuse, mind you.