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, 05:31 PM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]You have been thoroughly disproven in this discussion and you know it.

Thanks for letting me know. I wasn't aware.
(06-12-2018, 07:35 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-12-2018, 05:31 PM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]You have been thoroughly disproven in this discussion and you know it.

Thanks for letting me know. I wasn't aware.

Obviously you were aware because Pabbie says you were and Pabbie is always right. Clearly.  Sticking tongue out at you
(06-12-2018, 07:46 PM)Dominicus Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-12-2018, 07:35 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-12-2018, 05:31 PM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]You have been thoroughly disproven in this discussion and you know it.

Thanks for letting me know. I wasn't aware.

Obviously you were aware because Pabbie says you were and Pabbie is always right. Clearly.  Sticking tongue out at you

Was that defined at Vatican I or discussed by the Fathers at Vatican I?
Vatican I says

 "I affirm that the power of indulgences was left by Christ in the Church, and that their use is eminently beneficial to the Christian people."

Therefore this statement of Vatican I infallibly proves that  Pabbie is right and Magister is wrong. Regardless of actual context.  Big Grin
(06-13-2018, 01:45 AM)Dominicus Wrote: [ -> ]Vatican I says

 "I affirm that the power of indulgences was left by Christ in the Church, and that their use is eminently beneficial to the Christian people."

Therefore this statement of Vatican I infallibly proves that  Pabbie is right and Magister is wrong. Regardless of actual context.  Big Grin

I guess with such a clear rebuttal of my position, I must concede.  Blush
(06-12-2018, 06:54 PM)Vulgate Wrote: [ -> ]
(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.
 
You've got it exactly backwards.. The First Vatican Council also said:

"All those things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the written Word of God or in Tradition, and which are proposed by the Church, either in solemn judgment or in its ordinary and universal teaching office, as divinely revealed truths which must be believed."

This is a confirmation that all Catholics must believe what is taught by ecumenical councils and also the ordinary teaching of the Church. It goes without saying that the whole reason for an ecumenical Council is to define something regarding faith and morals. All books before Vatican II say that ecumenical councils are infallible. All of them, and this is because it is promised in Scripture. The very fact that Vatican II teaches erroneously regarding the faith is proof that it is not a valid Council.
(06-13-2018, 09:53 PM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]You've got it exactly backwards.. The First Vatican Council also said:

"All those things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the written Word of God or in Tradition, and which are proposed by the Church, either in solemn judgment or in its ordinary and universal teaching office, as divinely revealed truths which must be believed."

This is a confirmation that all Catholics must believe what is taught by ecumenical councils and also the ordinary teaching of the Church. It goes without saying that the whole reason for an ecumenical Council is to define something regarding faith and morals. All books before Vatican II say that ecumenical councils are infallible. All of them, and this is because it is promised in Scripture. The very fact that Vatican II teaches erroneously regarding the faith is proof that it is not a valid Council.

So is it forbidden to kneel at Mass, because the First Council of Nicaea said so?

All books before Vatican II call Councils infallible because prior councils actually defined things. Vatican II defined nothing and only changed discipline.
(06-14-2018, 10:08 AM)Paul Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-13-2018, 09:53 PM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]You've got it exactly backwards.. The First Vatican Council also said:

"All those things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the written Word of God or in Tradition, and which are proposed by the Church, either in solemn judgment or in its ordinary and universal teaching office, as divinely revealed truths which must be believed."

This is a confirmation that all Catholics must believe what is taught by ecumenical councils and also the ordinary teaching of the Church. It goes without saying that the whole reason for an ecumenical Council is to define something regarding faith and morals. All books before Vatican II say that ecumenical councils are infallible. All of them, and this is because it is promised in Scripture. The very fact that Vatican II teaches erroneously regarding the faith is proof that it is not a valid Council.

So is it forbidden to kneel at Mass, because the First Council of Nicaea said so?

All books before Vatican II call Councils infallible because prior councils actually defined things. Vatican II defined nothing and only changed discipline.
 
Absolutely false. The decrees on ecumenism and religious liberty both pertain to the faith and both were repeatedly condemned before Vatican II.
Every pope is guided by the Holy Spirit for his special task of protecting and leading the Church, and in religious matters, the pope is infallible when speaking ex cathedra. We are hardly saints, who are we to criticize any pope? Let the first one of you without fault cast the first stone.
(06-14-2018, 12:20 PM)ServusDei Wrote: [ -> ]Every pope is chosen by the Holy Spirit for his special task of guiding the Church, and in religious matters, the pope is infallible. We are hardly saints, who are we to criticize any pope? Let the first one of you without fault cast the first stone.

The pope is chosen by the college of cardinals and permitted by the Holy Spirit. There is no teaching which says that the Pope is hand picked by God.

The Pope is only infallible under very strict circumstances. He must be speaking ex cathedral regarding faith or morals without contradicting prior church teaching and the teaching must be binding on the entire Church.

To admonish the sinner is a work of mercy. The Pope sins like anybody else, we cannot judge him for this but he should be corrected.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21