Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
And here's another blunder of dogmatism, understanding the Conciliar Church simpliciter as a heretical sect and likening belonging to it as the same thing as being, say, a Greek Orthodox. Unlike the formally schismatic churches which have been condemned as such, the Conciliar Church still pretends to be the Catholic Church. Adhereing to it due to seeing it as such is in fact a MATERIAL error at best.
when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple
[8] But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.[9] As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.
The "Second Vatican Council theorized"? I'd say, the robber council abolished the First Commandment:The robber council mocks and accuses God and his Church: God, his First Commandment, and his Church have ridden roughshod over "the very dignity of the human person". The robber council denies dogma, infallibly declared by a Pope, using words which in an examplary way express infallibilty as defined by the Vatican Council.
Yes. He says it "theorized." It did more than that. That's risible.
I think that we need to stop jumping to conclusions. His word choice here may have been so as not to dignify Religious Liberty as Catholic "teaching". I read it in context as implying that it's a novelty that contradicition Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium.
If it wasn't, then, again, we have the issue of an ecuмenical council approved by a pope issuing non-Catholic teaching.
While DH is grave error, it is not heresy.
Secondly, it is not possible for an Ecuмenical Council of the Catholic Church which has papal approbation to teach grave error to the Church, but that's a separate discussion.
Yet if I'm right, it did.
I gave a link to the Daly article in this thread. I agree with him, and disagree with you. Yet if I'm right, it did. I believe that's a prophesied anomaly to what is otherwise a truth which you express - an (if not the) abomination of desolation. I'll leave it to you to try to explain otherwise how an ecuмenical council of the Catholic Church taught grave error, apparently if it requires a reading that betrays the language of the texts at issue in my opinion.
Well, you see, this is the sedevacantist position in a nutshell. An ecuмenical council in union with a true pope can't teach grave error. Ergo....
I know that. Then you have to explain how what happened happened - something appearing to be an ecuмenical council approving something that's heresy under a man that appears to be pope.I see that "appearance" - never before, and never again - as a prophesied anomaly, a one shot eclipse of the Church of Christ. I don't think it gets us very far, in understanding what this is all about, in simply saying, he wasn't a true pope, and let's go on from there to . . .
Well, yeah, but whether you're right is what's under discussion. "I'm right if I'm right" is a tautology.
Is there a contradiction between Vatican II’s declaration on religious liberty (Dignitatis Humanae) and traditional Catholic doctrine as expressed in numerous encyclicals, and most especially in Pope Pius IX’s Quanta Cura? In recent years some intellectual conservatives have audaciously denied that there is any such contradiction. Before commenting on their attempts, let us remind ourselves of the texts:Quanta Cura: “…against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that ‘the best condition of civil society is that in which no duty is attributed to the civil power of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except insofar as public peace may require.’“From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal to the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, insanity, viz., that ‘liberty of conscience and worship is the proper right of every man and ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society’.”Dignitatis Humanae (Vatican II): “This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious liberty. Such liberty consists in this: that all men must be immune to coercion whether on the part of individuals, social bodies or any human power so that in religious matters no one is constrained to act against his conscience or prevented from acting in accordance with his conscience in private and in public, alone or with others, within due limits [these due limits are defined in paragraph 7 as being those of public peace and morality].“It further declares that the right to religious liberty is truly founded on the very dignity of the human person as known by the revealed word of God and reason itself.“This right of the human person to religious liberty in the juridical ordering of society is to be recognised so as to become a civil right.”Now to all appearances these texts are in radical contradiction on three points. Pope Pius IX condemns the following ideas: 1. all men have a right to liberty of conscience and of worship; 2. this right of religious liberty should be made a civil right in every well-ordered society; 3. the best state of society is that in which men’s civil right to religious liberty is limited only by the demands of public peace.These three points condemned by Pius IX are all three apparently taught by the Vatican II text. Moreover Pope Pius IX is exercising the Extraordinary Magisterium and teaches that these propositions are opposed to Holy Scripture (written divine revelation) while Vatican II declares its opposing doctrine to be founded on the revealed word of God and requires all Catholics to observe its teaching religiously.https://romeward.com/articles/239750983/religious-liberty-the-failed-attempts-to-defend-vatican-ii