FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: I owe some of you an apology..
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
(09-22-2011, 02:05 PM)City Smurf Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-22-2011, 02:04 PM)Stubborn Wrote: [ -> ]Not.

So you don't believe the Holy Father and the Magisterium of the Church is Teaching error?

Well, lessee...........read ggreg's post above my last post.

What, you trying to say you do not believe your own eyes?
(09-22-2011, 02:04 PM)ggreg Wrote: [ -> ]Religious Liberty.  Salvation of the Jews.  Salvation outside the Church.  There are a number of areas where the Church teaches and Popes promote beliefs in DIRECT OPPOSITION to what was taught as truth in the past.

I don't think you understand what Teaching means.  For example, Dignitatis Humanae (religious liberty) is not an exercise of the Church's ordinary and universal Magisterium.   The Church today is not Teaching the Jews are saved and they are not saying anyone is saved outside of the Church.
(09-22-2011, 02:09 PM)City Smurf Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-22-2011, 02:04 PM)ggreg Wrote: [ -> ]Religious Liberty.  Salvation of the Jews.  Salvation outside the Church.  There are a number of areas where the Church teaches and Popes promote beliefs in DIRECT OPPOSITION to what was taught as truth in the past.

I don't think you understand what Teaching means.  For example, Dignitatis Humanae (religious liberty) is not an exercise of the Church's ordinary and universal Magisterium.   The Church today is not Teaching the Jews are saved and they are not saying anyone is saved outside of the Church.

Then all is swell!  :)
(09-22-2011, 01:50 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]Catholic theologians generally admit several other popes to have been heretical, including, most famously Liberius and Honorious. It is not particularly controversial amongst Catholic theologians to say that popes have been heretical. Indeed, Pope Adrian VI stated as follows:

“If by the Roman Church you mean its head or pontiff, it is beyond question that he can err even in matters touching the faith. He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgement or decretal. In truth, many Roman pontiffs were heretics. The last of them was Pope John XXII.” (Quaest. in IV Sent.)

This!
In that case City Smurf there is no problem is there.

It's just mistaken private opinion.  Ignore it.
Okay help me understand this.. how can a Pope TEACH error, how can the Magisterium of the Church exercise its office of Teaching in teaching error.. and not have to either a) state the seat is vacant or b) the gates of hell have prevailed?  I very am likely in an either-or position as described in the quoted article but please.. help me understand how this is possible.  I beg you, write it out in clear and concise language.  What the f**k am I missing?
http://lxoa.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/...bility.pdf - looks to have been written in 1928

I can't copy and paste - just read the first few paragraphs on the right side - -should only take a minute.
aye there is no plm. its al dancing through the new church tulips. kumbaya and all that fancy jazz.
it nice  to know there is no plm. cancer too is cured by just declaring it a non plm. when it kills you it wasnt the cancer as cancer isnt  a plm  it was soemthing other we don't know but since  its never a plm alls well. alls well clap clap shwing shwing
sip
eh city smurf can you pass that dope your smokin cuz it sounds like a blast. whats it called scotty bud?

(09-22-2011, 02:14 PM)City Smurf Wrote: [ -> ]Okay help me understand this.. how can a Pope TEACH error, how can the Magisterium of the Church exercise its office of Teaching in teaching error.. and not have to either a) state the seat is vacant or b) the gates of hell have prevailed?  I very am likely in an either-or position as described in the quoted article but please.. help me understand how this is possible.  I beg you, write it out in clear and concise language.  What the f**k am I missing?

Father Ratzinger: says in his work entitled  Die Sacramentale Begründung der Christlichen Existenz
(1966):

“Eucharistic devotion such as is noted in the silent visit by the devout in church must not be thought of as a conversation with God. This would assume that God was present there locally and in a confined  way. To justify
such an assertion shows a lack of understanding of the Christological mysteries of the very concept of God. This is repugnant to the serious thinking of the man who knows about the omnipresence of God. To go to
church on the ground that one can visit God who is present there is a senseless act which modern man rightfully rejects.”


Just private opinion according to you.  Nothing to worry about.
(09-22-2011, 02:14 PM)City Smurf Wrote: [ -> ]Okay help me understand this.. how can a Pope TEACH error, how can the Magisterium of the Church exercise its office of Teaching in teaching error.. and not have to either a) state the seat is vacant or b) the gates of hell have prevailed?  I very am likely in an either-or position as described in the quoted article but please.. help me understand how this is possible.  I beg you, write it out in clear and concise language.  What the f**k am I missing?

RESPONSE: As the reader may expect, I reject this analysis of the current situation, that is, that the refusal of Vatican II and the subsequent changes are an exercise in private interpretation. Rather the refusal, as I said in Dissent of Faith, springs from the very act of divine and catholic Faith, which, at one and the same time, assents to the truth which is revealed by God and proposed by the Church, and dissents from its logical contradictory.

      For example, we assent, by faith, to the proposition that Christ is really present in the Holy Eucharist; at the same time, we dissent from the proposition that Christ is not really present in the Holy Eucharist. The dissent is as strong as the assent, and there is no faith without the dissent from what is opposed to the truths of the faith. Hence the Church not only proposes the truth, but condemns infallibly what is contrary to it.

      But Vatican II and the post-Vatican II “universal ordinary magisterium” has contradicted the teaching of the Catholic Church on many points. Therefore the Catholic must give his dissent, if he is to remain faithful to his Baptism.

      This dissent, in turn, gives rise, through a few simple logical steps, to a dogmatic fact that the perpetrator of the false teaching could not possibly be teaching with the authority of Christ. This would be blasphemous, and contrary to the promises of Christ.

      This argument does not even touch on the personal orthodoxy of the post-conciliar “popes”. It is a mere comparison of the ordinary universal magisterium of the pre-conciliar and post-conciliar Church. While faith is above reason, it is not opposed to reason, and the faith cannot tolerate a contradiction in teaching any more than reason can.

      The recognition of the true Church is not an act of faith but an act of reason. As Garrigou-Lagrange puts it in his De Revelatione, man must be brought to the conclusion that it is reasonable to make an act of faith in the Catholic Church.  Apologetics must bring a reasonable person to the point that he recognizes that the Catholic Church has the signs of being the one, true Church of Christ.

      An absolute requirement of the genuineness of the true Church of Christ is that it not contradict itself in its official doctrine. For contradiction in official doctrine would be a certain sign of human corruption and of a purely human institution. Therefore even before the act of faith, the oneness of doctrine — the non-contradiction of doctrine — of the Catholic Church must be apparent to all, even to those who do not have the faith.

      Vatican II destroys, therefore, the entire apologetical argument of the Catholic Church, for it clearly contradicts on:

      (1) religious liberty (condemned by Mirari vos of Gregory XVI and by Quanta Cura of Pius IX);

      (2) the unity and unicity of the Catholic Church as the one true Church (the ecclesiology of Vatican II was condemned by Pius XII in Mystici Corporis);

      (3) ecumenism (condemned by the Apostolic Letter of Pius VIII, Summo iugiter of Gregory XVI, and Mortalium animos  of Pius XI).

      The New Missal, furthermore, contains a heretical definition of the Mass. This is to mention only a few of the problems of Vatican II, but these are sufficient, indeed, one contradiction would be sufficient.

      The objection argues essentially that these teachings cannot be contradictory since they come from a duly elected Roman Pontiff, who cannot err in teaching and legislating concerning these matters. If there is contradiction, it must be only apparent, and a benign interpretation of the documents would solve the problem.

      I respond that in these points Vatican II is clearly contradictory — virtually word for word in some cases — and that the faith must reject these contradictions with even more vehemence than reason would. Your argument requires the faith to do what is intrinsically impossible, even for God, which is to affirm and deny the same thing at the same time.

      The faith cannot say that the statement “Mary was not assumed body and soul into heaven” is somehow reconcilable with the statement, “Mary was assumed body and soul into heaven”. Any church which would demand such an assent from its adherents, despite whatever “interpretation” may be given to it, is certainly not the Church, and would never stand the test of time, since it does not stand the test of reason.

      The acceptance of Vatican II and its reforms as Catholic does immeasurable harm to, in fact destroys, the unity of faith of the Catholic Church, and ruins the entire apologetical structure, which is its appeal to reason and common sense.

      The objection argues that the Church’s apostolicity is a sufficient guarantee of the orthodoxy of Vatican II. But apostolicity, thus understood, is excessively restricted, for the Church must be apostolic not only in its succession of popes and bishops, but also in its doctrine, worship, and government.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12