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
(06-14-2018, 11:31 AM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]Absolutely false. The decrees on ecumenism and religious liberty both pertain to the faith and both were repeatedly condemned before Vatican II.

If you interpret them the way liberal clergy have since the Council, yes. But that's not the only interpretation, even if an orthodox interpretation requires what you call 'mental gymnastics' to get there.

And you still haven't told us how we get a Pope, since if there hasn't been one since John XXIII (or is it Pius XII), there are no cardinals.
(06-14-2018, 12:20 PM)ServusDei Wrote: [ -> ]Let the first one of you without fault cast the first stone.

Another misused saying of our Lord, up there with 'judge not, lest ye be judged'. The situation was a trap - either He refuses to stone the woman, which was denying the law of Moses and thus blasphemy, or He enforced the law of Moses, in which case they denounce Him to the Romans for carrying out a death sentence, which the Romans reserved for themselves.

The law also required that both participants in adultery be stoned, so where was the man? And remember they caught her in the act, so the man would have been there, too. Another violation of the law by the crowd - they were at fault in organising this mob, hardly the proper body for this sort of judgment, and they knew it - none of them were without fault in attempting to stone this woman, no different than a lynch mob in more modern times. The person might be guilty, but it's not for them to carry out the sentence.

And, as Dominicus said, it's a work of mercy to admonish sinners. It's not our place to punish our biological father, but if he's a drunk and beats up your mother, it's not a sin to tell him to quit doing it. If he's gambling away the rent money, you certainly should tell him how much of a danger that is to the rest of the family.
Of course, but "misused saying of our Lord" does not meet my interpretation of it. Our Lord pointed out that nobody is without fault, so we should reconsider before we harshly treat someone who has sinned. Besides that, what has the Pope done to make him un-Catholic, since you seem adament that he needs to be corrected about something?
(06-14-2018, 02:26 PM)ServusDei Wrote: [ -> ]Of course, but "misused saying of our Lord" does not meet my interpretation of it. Our Lord pointed out that nobody is without fault, so we should reconsider before we harshly treat someone who has sinned.

Well first of all, its not our place to interpret scripture.

Secondly, while it's true we shouldn't hold others sins against them at the same time we are doing them a disservice by not warning them against it. If you remember after preventing the woman from being stoned He said to her "Go and sin no more".
(06-14-2018, 02:26 PM)ServusDei Wrote: [ -> ]Of course, but "misused saying of our Lord" does not meet my interpretation of it. Our Lord pointed out that nobody is without fault, so we should reconsider before we harshly treat someone who has sinned. Besides that, what has the Pope done to make him un-Catholic, since you seem adament that he needs to be corrected about something?

Implying atheists go to heaven, for one. Also saying that those who refuse to stop committing adultery can receive Communion.

I've never said he isn't Catholic (although 'Is the Pope Catholic?' isn't just an obvious question anymore), since that's for his superior to judge, and the only superior of the Pope is God, but we can judge whether something the Pope says fits with what previous Popes have said. If multiple previous Popes said X, and Pope Francis says not-X, they can't both be right.

And how is it treating the Pope harshly to say Amoris lætitia is wrong? He's been asked to clarify it and has refused to do so, except to insist that the heterodox interpretation is the one intended.
I am not saying we should not warn sinners, but we should be as free with our forgiveness and charity as Our Lord Himself.
(06-14-2018, 02:32 PM)Dominicus Wrote: [ -> ]Secondly, while it's true we shouldn't hold others sins against them at the same time we are doing them a disservice by not warning them against it. If you remember after preventing the woman from being stoned He said to her "Go and sin no more".

If they repent, maybe, but it would probably be a bad idea to hire someone with a long history of theft to run the cash register at your store. Or, you know, allowing a priest who molests a boy to be around other children - it's very appropriate to hold someone's sins against them, even if God has forgiven them.

And the more a Pope says that appears heretical, the less likely it is that other things he says are orthodox, especially when most of it is off-the-cuff remarks to members of the public or to reporters.
(06-14-2018, 02:36 PM)ServusDei Wrote: [ -> ]I am not saying we should not warn sinners, but we should be as free with our forgiveness and charity as Our Lord Himself.

How is it charitable to allow adulterers to eat and drink damnation unto themselves by telling them it's okay to receive Communion? Or to allow people to think that all 'good people' go to heaven, even if they don't believe in God.

And our Lord had some pretty harsh words for the Pharisees, who were the magisterium of their day.
(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.
 
 
 
You missed my point. Pay attention:
 
Not every word written in an ecumenical council is intended to a binding teaching. Things mentioned in passing are not necessarily infallible.
 
Now, if you are right then please explain to me how the council of Florence was in err about Holy Orders, later corrected by Pius XII.
 
Or, how about this one which you keep dodging:
 
Gadium et Spes 24:
 
“For this reason, love for God and neighbor is the first and greatest commandment.”
 
Is this an error? Or did Vatican II correct Our Lord and teach Him the proper greatest commandment?
When did I caution against logic? Of course, a known thief should be watched but he must not be abused for his public faults. Do what Jesus would have done.

Our Pope has not said anything heretical, or even vaguely so. Moreover, do we trust pagan reporters more than our Sovereign Pontiff? especially reporters who have a knack for spinning the truth?

Your problem is with the interpretations of some of the more "controversial" of the Pope's letters, namely Amoris Laetitia. The problem is, interpretations are not infallible nor are they backed by the Pope formally. Stop slandering our Pope and instead write to the bishops and cardinals you don't agree with.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21