FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes
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 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
(06-12-2018, 02:39 PM)Vulgate Wrote: [ -> ]
Quote:Gadium et Spes 24:

“For this reason, love for God and neighbor is the first and greatest commandment.”

This is an error, straight from Vatican II.

Unless by "error" you really mean "heresy," which is different form general “error.”

That's not an error, its straight out of the mouth of Jesus. 

“‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
(06-12-2018, 03:44 PM)Dominicus Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-12-2018, 02:39 PM)Vulgate Wrote: [ -> ]
Quote:Gadium et Spes 24:

“For this reason, love for God and neighbor is the first and greatest commandment.”

This is an error, straight from Vatican II.

Unless by "error" you really mean "heresy," which is different form general “error.”

That's not an error, its straight out of the mouth of Jesus. 

“‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

What Jesus said is not what Gaudium et Spes says. It turns the two into one commandment, equating love of neighbour with love of God. That's not necessarily heretical, since the two cannot be separated, but it's possible to interpret "love of neighbour" to include affirming them in their sin (since doing otherwise wouldn't be 'nice'), and risks turning the Church into merely being another organisation concerned only for the material needs of the poor and not about spiritual matters.

But it's not heresy.
(06-12-2018, 03:54 PM)Paul Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-12-2018, 03:44 PM)Dominicus Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-12-2018, 02:39 PM)Vulgate Wrote: [ -> ]
Quote:Gadium et Spes 24:

“For this reason, love for God and neighbor is the first and greatest commandment.”

This is an error, straight from Vatican II.

Unless by "error" you really mean "heresy," which is different form general “error.”

That's not an error, its straight out of the mouth of Jesus. 

“‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

What Jesus said is not what Gaudium et Spes says. It turns the two into one commandment, equating love of neighbour with love of God. That's not necessarily heretical, since the two cannot be separated, but it's possible to interpret "love of neighbour" to include affirming them in their sin (since doing otherwise wouldn't be 'nice'), and risks turning the Church into merely being another organisation concerned only for the material needs of the poor and not about spiritual matters.

But it's not heresy.

And, in fact, the most frequent problems with Vatican II (aside from the big three), are precisely such things, craftily manipulating the text so it does not say precisely the truth, but also is not offensive to pious ears. It's almost diabolical in its craftiness, really.

The same happens with the ends of marriage and with the duties of the priest. The ends and duties are inverted. They still exist, so it's impossible to say that Vatican II teaches something contrary to the Faith on those points, but it is clear it was so written to change the teaching by afterward emphasizing the now first end.

On marriage Gaudium et Spes speaks of "communion of life" which leads the spouses to "experience the meaning of their oneness and attain to it with growing perfection day by day. As a mutual gift of two persons, this intimate union as well as the good of the children imposes total fidelity on the spouses and argues for an unbreakable oneness between them." (§48 and §50).

Rather, it's the other way around. Their union is firstly for children, and secondarily to attain their perfection and oneness. With this slight change, however, now the children take a back seat, and the "oneness of the spouses" is of prime importance. Thus one can easily say, "it can no longer simply be said that all those in any 'irregular' situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace." (AL, 301) since they are growing in perfection and oneness.

Same with a priest whose first duty is traditionally, to offer Sacrifice, then to preach, teach and govern. Vatican II speaks of his first duty as preaching, and lastly of intercession and celebrating Mass.

It's error by manipulating how something is said, not what is said.

Still, whatever the intention, what constitutes the matter of heresy is not an intention.
(06-12-2018, 03:44 PM)Dominicus Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-12-2018, 02:39 PM)Vulgate Wrote: [ -> ]
Quote:Gadium et Spes 24:

“For this reason, love for God and neighbor is the first and greatest commandment.”

This is an error, straight from Vatican II.

Unless by "error" you really mean "heresy," which is different form general “error.”

That's not an error, its straight out of the mouth of Jesus. 

“‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”


You missed the error.

Vatican II says the greatest commandment is to love God and neighbor. Christ says the greatest commandment is to love God and the second greatest is to love your neighbor.
(06-12-2018, 04:36 PM)Vulgate Wrote: [ -> ]You missed the error.

Vatican II says the greatest commandment is to love God and neighbor. Christ says the greatest commandment is to love God and the second greatest is to love your neighbor.

It's still all in the interpretation. Strictly speaking, yes, it changes what our Lord said. But it's also true that if we fail to love our neighbour, we're not loving God - remember the parable of the sheep and goats ('I was hungry, and you fed me, I was naked, and you clothed me', etc.) - and when the damned asked Him when they failed to do these things for Him, He said when they failed to do them for the poor. So it's not entirely improper to combine the two.

But, like MagisterMusicae said, this is exactly what the liberals at Vatican II did. It's possible to give it an orthodox interpretation, but they're going to tell everyone it means something else.
(06-12-2018, 05:17 PM)Paul Wrote: [ -> ]It's possible to give it an orthodox interpretation, but they're going to tell everyone it means something else.

Unless confronted by someone saying it's contrary to the Faith, then they'll say, "no it's not, see ..." and explain how it still says the same as the traditional doctrine, all while then also saying that because of Vatican II it is clear that the traditional doctrine was not as definitive as we make it to be, so there's now room for "pastoral adaptations".

It's Hegel, pure and simple.
(06-11-2018, 11:41 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-11-2018, 10:43 PM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not trying to insult you, but you've been mistaken on several very key subjects, and this has led to repeated inconsistent replies from you.

Pabbie, where did you study theology and logic?

I think you need to ask for your money back.
 
You have been thoroughly disproven in this discussion and you know it. You are trying to reconcile the blatant errors taught by Vatican II and approved by Paul VI, which of course can't be done. In trying to do so, you have been spewing out contradiction after contradiction. I have backed up everything I have said with approved Church resources, and you have not. The ONLY way to reconcile the blatant errors that were approved at Vatican II is to say Paul VI, once he solemnly approved the errors, immediately lost his pontificate, which made Vatican II an illegitimate Council. Trying to justify all the errors we are seeing today as coming from the Church is an IMPOSSIBILITY and blasphemous since it denies the dogma of the infallibility of the Church. You clearly believe that the Catholic Church has taught error all along, which shows you don't even believe in this dogma. That is not Catholic!

The definition of the Infallibility of the Church is described very clearly in "The Catechism Explained" (Spirago-Clarke) under the section, "The Infallibility of the Church", page 237:
Quote:"As Christ was not to remain always on earth, He appointed another infallible teacher, His Church, and provided it with the necessary gifts, especially with the assistance of the Holy Spirit. Christ conferred on His Apostles and their successors the teaching office and promised them His divine assistance. Thus He said at His ascension into heaven: "Going, teach ye all nations...and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world" (Matt, xxviii. 19, 20) ; and at the Last Supper: "I will ask the Father and He shall give you another Paraclete that He may abide with you forever, the Spirit of truth"; (John xiv. 16, 17). To St. Peter He said: "The gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church" (Matt. xvi. 18). Since Christ is the Son of God, His words must be true. If the Church, in the carrying out of her teaching office, could lead man into error, Christ would not have kept His word. Hence St. Paul calls the Church "the pillar and ground of truth" (1 Tim. iii. 15), and the measures decided upon by the apostles in the Council of Jerusalem were introduced with the words: "For it hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us" (Acts xv. 28)."
(06-12-2018, 02:39 PM)Vulgate Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-05-2018, 12:43 PM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]The dogma of "infallibility of the Church" states that the Catholic Church is divinely kept from the possibility of error in teachings on faith and morals, so it is impossible to say that Vatican II is from the Church and at the same time teaches error. Is also impossible to say the Church has canonized someone and made any errors in the process. This dogma, that the Church cannot teach error, is something that all Catholics must believe, yet people in these discussions constantly show they don't trust the Church. If you see error, and the source claims to represent the Catholic Church, we know with certainty that they cannot be legitimate representatives.

(06-11-2018, 10:43 PM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]
  • You have stated that a true Ecumenical Council can teach error which goes against all past teaching of the Church.


You have an excessive interpretation of infallibility which is beyond what the Church has defined.
 
Then please provide us the traditional interpretation of infallibility as defined by the Church. Please provide source as well.
(06-12-2018, 05:17 PM)Paul Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-12-2018, 04:36 PM)Vulgate Wrote: [ -> ]You missed the error.

Vatican II says the greatest commandment is to love God and neighbor. Christ says the greatest commandment is to love God and the second greatest is to love your neighbor.

It's still all in the interpretation. Strictly speaking, yes, it changes what our Lord said. But it's also true that if we fail to love our neighbour, we're not loving God - remember the parable of the sheep and goats ('I was hungry, and you fed me, I was naked, and you clothed me', etc.) - and when the damned asked Him when they failed to do these things for Him, He said when they failed to do them for the poor. So it's not entirely improper to combine the two.

But, like MagisterMusicae said, this is exactly what the liberals at Vatican II did. It's possible to give it an orthodox interpretation, but they're going to tell everyone it means something else.

It's not about interpretation as it logically follows you must love God more than your neighbor. 

Right?

You must love God more.

Hence, Vatican II has "taught error."
(06-12-2018, 05:37 PM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]Then please provide us the traditional interpretation of infallibility as defined by the Church. Please provide source as well.


Okay.
 
First Vatican Council:
 
Quote:Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.
 
 
So, when an ecumenical council mentions something in passing, it doesn’t necessarily fall into this category, i.e. defining a doctrine of faith and morals. Much like the quote form Gadium et Spes I keep asking you about, but you will not answer.
 
In short: You said ecumenical councils cannot teach error. Vatican II taught error on the greatest commandment. Ergo, your perception of infallibility is too excessive as is does not touch every single word from a council.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21