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, 11:04 PM)Paul Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-14-2018, 08:35 PM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]These words directly from our Lord condemn non-Catholic religions like Judaism and Islam because they do not believe in Jesus, and are not baptized. There are many other quotes severely condemning prayer in common with non-Catholic religions. It's heresy to go against these and there are not multiple interpretations of these quotes!

And where in Vatican II does it say otherwise?
 
Let's not play games here. We all know well that the decrees on ecumenism and religious freedom opened the floodgates for acceptance of other religions, which led to the Assisi meetings over the last 4 decades. Now we have Pope Francis publicly stating heresy like in the following quotes, and we all know well this erroneous belief originated with Vatican II, as it certainly wasn't found during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII:

Pope Francis:
  • “Among the human rights that I would also like to mention today is the right to freedom of thought, conscience and of religion, including the freedom to change religion..." L’ Osservatore Romano, January 12, 2018, p. 9
  • “… promote religious freedom for everyone, everyone! Every man and every woman must be free in his or her profession of religion, whatever it may be.” L’ Osservatore Romano, May 22, 2013, p. 11
(06-14-2018, 11:30 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-14-2018, 11:04 PM)Paul Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-14-2018, 08:35 PM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]These words directly from our Lord condemn non-Catholic religions like Judaism and Islam because they do not believe in Jesus, and are not baptized. There are many other quotes severely condemning prayer in common with non-Catholic religions. It's heresy to go against these and there are not multiple interpretations of these quotes!

And where in Vatican II does it say otherwise?
Actually, to illustrate the double meaning of the nonbinding documents of Vatican II, that totally lack infallibility, just before DH begins to putatively dismantle infallible Catholic teaching, it says, 'Therefore it leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ.' Yeah, sure! LOL
 
There is no such thing as "nonbinding documents" of an ecumenical Council. Vatican II is either a valid ecumenical Council and we must accept all of it, or it is an invalid Council and we must accept none of it. Never has there been such a thing as Catholics sifting through the documents of an ecumenical Council, choosing what they want to believe or not believe. That is TOTALLY non-Catholic.
(06-15-2018, 12:02 PM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]Let's not play games here. We all know well that the decrees on ecumenism and religious freedom opened the floodgates for acceptance of other religions, which led to the Assisi meetings over the last 4 decades.

As was intended by the drafters of those documents, in the 'spirit' of Vatican II. But that's different from the actual language of the documents themselves, which can be interpreted in an orthodox manner, even if the most obvious meaning is heretical.

Something like Nostra ætate's "The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems" could mean the Church approves of Islam. Or it could mean that the Church recognises that Muslims are human beings created in the image and likeness of God, and holds them in the same esteem she holds all people - implying that they need to convert and become Catholic. Even if many among the current clergy choose the first interpretation - plenty of bishops were Arian, too.

And Pope Francis is not entirely wrong about freedom of religion. It's always been immoral to force someone to be Catholic. The Church has the right to coerce those who are baptised, including heretics, but doing so these days would do far more harm than good. Besides, Pope Francis's remarks in a newspaper, even the Vatican newspaper, aren't binding the faithful to anything, so infallibility isn't being invoked.
(06-15-2018, 12:08 PM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]There is no such thing as "nonbinding documents" of an ecumenical Council. Vatican II is either a valid ecumenical Council and we must accept all of it, or it is an invalid Council and we must accept none of it. Never has there been such a thing as Catholics sifting through the documents of an ecumenical Council, choosing what they want to believe or not believe. That is TOTALLY non-Catholic.

So why is Nicaea's prohibition on kneeling at Mass not binding today?

Every prior council actually defined things. Vatican II didn't. There's no 'let him be anathema' anywhere in the documents.

And you still haven't told us how we get a Pope again.
(06-15-2018, 12:14 PM)Paul Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-15-2018, 12:02 PM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]Let's not play games here. We all know well that the decrees on ecumenism and religious freedom opened the floodgates for acceptance of other religions, which led to the Assisi meetings over the last 4 decades.

As was intended by the drafters of those documents, in the 'spirit' of Vatican II. But that's different from the actual language of the documents themselves, which can be interpreted in an orthodox manner, even if the most obvious meaning is heretical.

Something like Nostra ætate's "The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems" could mean the Church approves of Islam. Or it could mean that the Church recognises that Muslims are human beings created in the image and likeness of God, and holds them in the same esteem she holds all people - implying that they need to convert and become Catholic. Even if many among the current clergy choose the first interpretation - plenty of bishops were Arian, too.

And Pope Francis is not entirely wrong about freedom of religion. It's always been immoral to force someone to be Catholic. The Church has the right to coerce those who are baptised, including heretics, but doing so these days would do far more harm than good. Besides, Pope Francis's remarks in a newspaper, even the Vatican newspaper, aren't binding the faithful to anything, so infallibility isn't being invoked.
 
You have a very, very serious case of denial going on here.

No one can possibly use the excuse that the Vatican II documents can be interpreted "this way or that way". It is plainly obvious how the local dioceses have interpreted the Vatican II documents. Plenty of examples can be given. A friend of mine asked his pastor how he should approach converting his Jewish friend, and his pastor replied, "leave him alone, he is fine where he is". A family member of mine went to a Novus ordo funeral and the priest announced to everyone present, "we all go to heaven". Pope Francis has made multiple public statements, now posted on the Vatican website, that we should not try to convert people like atheists and the Orthodox. Then we have the Assisi meetings. It is VERY clear how the Novus ordo have interpreted the Vatican II documents, so don't even bother trying to use the argument that it depends how you interpret them! Everyone has shown they know exactly what they mean and none of the hierarchy are putting a stop to it.

It has ALWAYS been the case throughout the 20 centuries of the Catholic Church that it would be wrong to force someone to be Catholic. But that never stopped the missionaries from trying to convert people! Nothing has changed in that regard, so to suddenly start preaching that conversion is no longer needed and can even be sinful is nothing but heresy.

All of Pope Francis' controversial statements have now been posted on the Vatican website, which is the main source that the Vatican uses to teach all the faithful of the world. The Vatican has assumed ownership of the statements by doing so. It is IMPOSSIBLE for the true Church of Christ to teach all the faithful of the world heresies like it is currently doing. That is not the Catholic Church but an imposter church.

And for the 100th time, the Church is not required to "invoke infallibility" for the faithful to believe something. Many past popes have confirmed this, so please spare us from that embarrassing argument.
(06-15-2018, 12:16 PM)Paul Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-15-2018, 12:08 PM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]There is no such thing as "nonbinding documents" of an ecumenical Council. Vatican II is either a valid ecumenical Council and we must accept all of it, or it is an invalid Council and we must accept none of it. Never has there been such a thing as Catholics sifting through the documents of an ecumenical Council, choosing what they want to believe or not believe. That is TOTALLY non-Catholic.

So why is Nicaea's prohibition on kneeling at Mass not binding today?

Every prior council actually defined things. Vatican II didn't. There's no 'let him be anathema' anywhere in the documents.

And you still haven't told us how we get a Pope again.

Kneeling at Mass is a rubric! It does not pertain to faith and morals.

Vatican II created the decrees on ecumenism and religious freedom, both of which pertain to faith and morals, so that is binding on Catholics. In fact Paul VI pronounced at the end of the Council that all the faithful were to comply and that the decrees were promulgated by the ordinary magisterium. So if you believe Vatican II is a true Council, you are bound by its decrees.

Only God knows how we will get a pope again. But that is irrelevant to what we are speaking about here.
(06-15-2018, 01:33 PM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-15-2018, 12:16 PM)Paul Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-15-2018, 12:08 PM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]There is no such thing as "nonbinding documents" of an ecumenical Council. 

So why is Nicaea's prohibition on kneeling at Mass not binding today?

Every prior council actually defined things. Vatican II didn't. There's no 'let him be anathema' anywhere in the documents.

And you still haven't told us how we get a Pope again.

Kneeling at Mass is a rubric! It does not pertain to faith and morals.

Vatican II created the decrees on ecumenism and religious freedom, both of which pertain to faith and morals, so that is binding on Catholics. In fact Paul VI pronounced at the end of the Council that all the faithful were to comply and that the decrees  were promulgated by the ordinary magisterium. So if you believe Vatican II is a true Council, you are bound by its decrees.

Only God knows how we will get a pope again. But that is irrelevant to what we are speaking about here.

You said, and I quote, 'There is no such thing as "nonbinding documents" of an ecumenical Council.' Then, you dismiss the Solemn Decree of an undoubted Oecumenical Council as a rubric? Do you know what a rubric is? It is a direction in a liturgical book, usually printed in red, hence 'rubric' from latin 'rubeus'='red'.

The Holy and Oecumenical Council of Nicaea issued no books of liturgy containing runrics. It issued decrees which you claim are always binding, and then dismiss one of them as a rubric. Interesting logic! LOL
(06-15-2018, 08:42 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-15-2018, 01:33 PM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-15-2018, 12:16 PM)Paul Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-15-2018, 12:08 PM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]There is no such thing as "nonbinding documents" of an ecumenical Council. 

So why is Nicaea's prohibition on kneeling at Mass not binding today?

Every prior council actually defined things. Vatican II didn't. There's no 'let him be anathema' anywhere in the documents.

And you still haven't told us how we get a Pope again.

Kneeling at Mass is a rubric! It does not pertain to faith and morals.

Vatican II created the decrees on ecumenism and religious freedom, both of which pertain to faith and morals, so that is binding on Catholics. In fact Paul VI pronounced at the end of the Council that all the faithful were to comply and that the decrees  were promulgated by the ordinary magisterium. So if you believe Vatican II is a true Council, you are bound by its decrees.

Only God knows how we will get a pope again. But that is irrelevant to what we are speaking about here.

You said, and I quote, 'There is no such thing as "nonbinding documents" of an ecumenical Council.' Then, you dismiss the Solemn Decree of an undoubted Oecumenical Council as a rubric? Do you know what a rubric is? It is a direction in a liturgical book, usually printed in red, hence 'rubric' from latin 'rubeus'='red'.

The Holy and Oecumenical Council of Nicaea issued no books of liturgy containing runrics. It issued decrees which you claim are always binding, and then dismiss one of them as a rubric. Interesting logic! LOL
 
You misunderstand. Scripture is considered Divine Law, which cannot be changed. Then the Church also creates ecclesiastical laws on top of the Divine Law. The Church can change these ecclesiastical laws anytime it wishes. Looking at the statement from the Council of Nicaea it says:

"Since there are some who kneel on Sunday and during the season of Pentecost, this holy synod decrees that, so that the same observances may be maintained in every diocese, one should offer one's prayers to the Lord standing"

This is not Divine Law (from Scripture), but ecclesiastical law, which the Church can modify at any time.
I didn't 'misunderstand' anything. You said, 'There is no such thing as "nonbinding documents" of an ecumenical Council.' That is a document of the Sacred Oecumenical Council of Nicea. Which is it? 'There is no such thing as "nonbinding documents" of an ecumenical Council', or 'Only those documents of an Oecumenical Council that Papple defines as binding are binding'?
(06-15-2018, 01:33 PM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]Kneeling at Mass is a rubric! It does not pertain to faith and morals.

Who says?

What if I were to say that I thought it does touch on Faith and Morals since it concerns the Mass and this is the primary act of our worship, thus our Faith.

Were I to say that I could then assert this is a binding, and infallible decree of a General Council. Thus the fact that the Latin Church kneels at Mass constitutes heresy and the Pope that allowed such undermining of the Faith must clearly not have been Popes (including the one that called Vatican I, thus in fact those "Fathers of Vatican I" you keep quoting are actually not Catholics).

Pabbie, you're playing the Protestant here. You're picking and choosing what you have decided "pertains to faith and morals" -- this does, but this is just a "rubric".

But a liberal could claim the exact same thing.

Unless we have a clear arbiter, namely the Church, who decides what belongs to faith and morals, and what constitutes a harm to such faith and morals, we're left in Protestantville, deciding what the Faith is on our own, based on our on evaluation. That's not a Catholic attitude. Full stop.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21