New Sungenis vs Dimond debate
I don't know where John Paul II's soul is. I just cringe when one calls him 'the Great' or 'saint'. Is he really with the likes of Leo I, Gregory I, Pius V, etc.? He was not the worst pope we've had, but in absolutely no way is he as good as pop culture tells us. The fact that society and the media loved him so much means something must be wrong.
Excuse me, but Catholics are OBLIGATED to hold to the majority position of the Church's theologians. THAT is Church teaching, taugh by POpe Pius IX in Quanta Cura.

NO, I do not WANT JPII to be in hell. I just don't see how he could have avoided it. I hope isn't though.

But if he IS, obviously it is JUST, because it is God's Decision.

Thesis: The unanimous teaching of theologians in matters
of faith and morals establishes certitude for the proof of a

A. First Proof: The connection of theologians with the Church.
1. As  men who study theological science, theologians have
only a scientific and historical authority. But as servants, organs, and
witness of the Church, they possess an authority that is both dogmatic and certain.
2. Church doctrine on matters of faith and morals possesses
an authority that is dogmatic and certain. (a) The unanimous teaching of theologians  testifies and expresses  the doctrine of the Church,
because the Church accepts the common teaching of theologians as
true and as her own when she either tacitly or expressly approves
it. (b) Theologians as ministers and organs of the Church instruct the — 6 —
faithful in the doctrines of the faith. So, in fact those things
preached, taught, held and believed are those same things the theologians propose and teach.
3. And so, because of the theologians’ connection with the
Church, their agreement on a doctrine has an authority that is both
dogmatic and certain, because otherwise the authority of the
Church herself would be endangered, because she admitted, fostered or approved the [false] doctrine of theologians.
4. This proof is confirmed because the dogmatic authority of
theologians is denied by all those and only those who: (a) Deny or
refuse to admit the dogmatic authority of the Church; or (b) At least
refuse to consider the connection of theologians with the Church. It
is no wonder that all enemies of the Church or Catholic truth are
likewise enemies of Catholic theology.
B. Second Proof: False principles behind opposing arguments.
• Opponents deny the dogmatic authority of theologians by:
(1) Breaking the link between the Church and theologians, or by at
least denying or diminishing the dogmatic authority of the Church
herself. (2) Directly opposing Catholic doctrine which theologians
propose and defend. (3) Attempting to introduce erroneous philosophy or other false concepts incompatible with the teaching of
the faith.
C. Third Proof: The Effects
• The teaching of the theologians, especially the scholastics,
best explains and defends the doctrine of the faith, nourishes and
begets faith, and helps and perfects the Christian life. On the contrary, whenever and insofar as the doctrine of the theologians is
abandoned, especially that of the scholastic theologians, theological
errors, indeed heresies, rise up,  and the Christian life falls. All ecclesiastical history bears witness to this, from the Middle Ages to
our own time. On one hand, the magnificent explanation and elucidation of Christian doctrine by the scholastic theologians, approved and acclaimed by the Church — whose job it is to judge the
truth of theological doctrine — and faith and exemplary Christian
life. On the other hand, heresies, theological errors, declining Christian life — all is proved by the history of the Protestants, Baianists,
Jansenists, Modernists, and other opponents of recent theological
(08-22-2011, 08:03 PM)Gregory I Wrote: Excuse me, but Catholics are OBLIGATED to hold to the majority position of the Church's theologians.

Hmmm, the problem with that is that most of those theologians agree with what Vatican II teaches and with what recent popes have taught. So where does that leave you Gregory?
When the second vatican council was convened, the key theologians were theologians who were formerly blacklisted by Pope Pius XII and others: Ratzinger, Kung, , RHANER, especially Rhaner...

These theologians, who were formerly blacklisted do not command respect nor do they compel with any kind of Authority.

Ratzinger denies the abiding presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and he also denies the significance of the Physical resurrection of Christ.

Now, since I believe, through REAL AND POSITIVE DOUBT (which is sufficient) that the last 5 popes were not legitimate, or they defected from the Catholic Faith, thus tacitly resigning their offices, I naturally do not hold to any theologians in communion with them. THey are modernists and heretics.

I will not assent to vatican II, or its theologians, because they denied articles of faith, the council ITSELF proclaimed heresy, and they assented to it.

If there were nothing wrong, where do you think the resistance comes from in the first place? Do you think that we are just bored and make stuff up, or that it occurs in a vacuum?

Read Pope Pius IX's Quanta Cura, Read Pius X's Pascendi, Read Pius X, Lamentabilis, and then read the First Vatican Council.

Now, compare it to Vatican II:

The abomination of Desolation standing in the holy place.
(08-22-2011, 10:37 AM)nmoerbeek Wrote: No offense Greg but if you are actively willing that God damned someone your not going to heaven already. That is if you take your statement to the extreme that you did not hope that he repented or his sins. Your statement is just as silly as a JP2 worshipper saying "If JP2 is not canonized then I am going to leave the church" or "If JP2 is in hell than that is where I want to go" 

It is not just as silly for this simple reason.

If the Church was preaching and teaching the truth for 1900 years then JP2 was wrong.  If JP2 was right then truth is mutable, or, the Church was wrong for 1900 years and somehow in the 1960s at Vatican II; truth was finally arrived at.

But the fruits of Vatican II have been awful.  Millions of Catholics have lost their faith, bishops and priests are buggering adolescents, and each other, and Cardinals and Popes are covering up their crimes for the sake of avoiding scandal.

The John Paul II worshipper is not being rational since there is no evidence nor claim that at Vatican II something magical happened to repair a broken church that was broken since the time of the apostles; since for 1900 years it taught things consistently that have now been abandoned and denied.

Canonizing someone is not merely saying they are in Heaven.  Canonizing someone is holding their life, or the last part of it at least, UP AS AN EXAMPLE of how to be holy.  There is nothing in JP2's later life that suggested he rejected his heretical beliefs, writings and teachings.  They are canonizing him as a way of canonizing the new springtime.  That is obvious to any clear thinking person.

I am being rational.  I cannot rationalise how God could allow JP2s canonisation to happen and I would still be expected to believe that the Church was protected from error.
, come on, he TAUGHT theresy of Jovinian, he TAUGHT that Christ is united to all mankind, and that MANKIND itself is the messiah, he TAUGHT that the Church is made up of all the particular churches of the world. BUt oh, guess what? THe Orthodox ALSO merit the title of particular churches. So the Catholic church Consists of the Orthodox and Roman Churches. This is ABUNDANTLY manifest by his "Two lungs" theory. "The church must learn to breathe with both lungs." That is the single most heretical thing I have heard.

THe catholic Church is the Bride of Christ, whole and inviolate, complete in and of herself, and unto herself. She has no NEED for others outside of her, though she wishes their CONVERSION, abandonment of error, and return.

TO say the Church needs to breathe with both lungs, implies it is only Breathing with ONE lung: The Roman Church. This blatantly manifests an ecclesiology of defect: The Catholic church is not complete without the Schismatics, because they "have so much to offer."

Schismatics offer nothing to the Church. Heretics have nothing of value in their churches. WHY? Because it is their ERRORS that distinguish them From true Roman Catholics. And what do truth and error have in common? NADT. There is nothing to get from them that the Catholic church does not already have. WHY? Because heretics and schismatics have what little truth they do, as STOLEN PROPERTY. It already belongs to the church.

(08-25-2011, 07:43 PM)faith3faith Wrote:
(08-22-2011, 08:03 PM)Gregory I Wrote: Excuse me, but Catholics are OBLIGATED to hold to the majority position of the Church's theologians.

Hmmm, the problem with that is that most of those theologians agree with what Vatican II teaches and with what recent popes have taught. So where does that leave you Gregory?
(08-25-2011, 08:09 PM)Gregory I Wrote: I will not assent to vatican II, or its theologians, because they denied articles of faith, the council ITSELF proclaimed heresy, and they assented to it.

So you tell others that they are OBLIGATED to hold to the majority position of the Church's theologians, but yet you refuse to practice what you preach?

I tell others they are obligated to hold to the opinions of theologians who are not modernist heretics.

That discounts nearly every theologian after 1964...

I STRIVe for consistency. And this is it:

The Council proclaimed heresy. The theologians who were AT the council therefore set forth heretical teaching. The theologians so-called, after the council promulgated the councils heretical teaching. They are therefore neither to be believed or acknowledged.

Oh, so now I am picking and choosing? DARN STRAIGHT!!! Choosing orthodoxy over heresy is the obligation of EVERY catholic. So yes, we are to hold to the unanimous consent of the Churches theologians. But HERETICAL THEOLOGIANS who put forth HERETICAL DOCTRINE (Fr. RAHNER) are NOT part of the unanimous voice of theologians, nor do they represent the mind of the church!

How can I be so sure that one is a heretic? Easy. We have magisterial documents, and we have historical precedent for the way they were applied. Read, and compare. If a theologina, so-called, teaches that dogma develops, he is a heretic. His beliefs were condemned by Pope St. Pius X in "lamentabilis."

Oh, but how do I know he is pertinacious? shouldn't we give him the benefit of the doubt?


Canon 2200.2, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “Positing an external violation of the law, malice (dolus) is presumed in the external forum until the contrary is proven.”

Guess what? Heretical writers are ASSUMED to be malicious. i.e. GUILTY until proven innocent.

But some may also contend, "Well, so much of what this pope or that theologian says is vague, but it can be interpreted according to tradition."


Pope Pius VI, in his Papal Bull, "Auctorem Fidei"

"Pope Pius VI, condemning the Synod of Pistoia, Bull “Auctorem fidei," August 28, 1794:  

“[The Ancient Doctors] knew the capacity of innovators in the art of deception. In order not to shock the ears of Catholics, they sought to hide the subtleties of their tortuous maneuvers by the use of seemingly innocuous words such as would allow them to insinuate error into souls in the most gentle manner [Like SUSBSITS IN -Gregory I] . Once the truth had been compromised, they could, by means of slight changes or additions in phraseology, distort the confession of the faith which is necessary for our salvation, and lead the faithful by subtle errors to their eternal damnation.  This manner of dissimulating and lying is vicious, regardless of the circumstances under which it is used.  For very good reasons it can never be tolerated in a synod of which the principal glory consists above all in teaching the truth with clarity and excluding all danger of error.

"Moreover, if all this is sinful, it cannot be excused in the way that one sees it being done, under the erroneous pretext that the seemingly shocking affirmations in one place are further developed along orthodox lines in other places, and even in yet other places corrected; as if allowing for the possibility of either affirming or denying the statement, or of leaving it up the personal inclinations of the individual – such has always been the fraudulent and daring method used by innovators to establish error. It allows for both the possibility of promoting error and of excusing it."

And just to establish that Paul VI acted against the Church's magisterial teaching in his construction of the Novus Ordo Mass:

Pope Pius VI condemned the idea that “ ‘recalling it (the liturgy) to greater simplicity of rites, by expressing it in the vernacular language or by uttering it in a loud voice’ as if the present order of the liturgy received and approved by the Church, had emanated in some part from the forgetfulness of the principles by which it should be regulated” as “rash, offensive to pious ears, insulting to the Church, favourable to the charges of heretics”. — Auctorem Fidei [33].

"I hear all around me innovators who wish to dismantle the Sacred Chapel, destroy the universal flame of the Church, reject her ornaments and make her feel remorse for her historical past.
"A day will come when the civilized world will deny its God, when the Church will doubt as Peter doubted. She will be tempted to believe that man has become God. In our churches, Christians will search in vain for the red lamp where God awaits them, like Mary Magdalene weeping before the empty tomb, they will ask, "Where have they taken Him?" (emphasis added)
... Pope Pius XII
Quoted in the book Pius XII Devant L'Histoire, pp. 52-53 (by Msgr. Georges Roche)
(08-29-2011, 01:13 AM)Gregory I Wrote: I tell others they are obligated to hold to the opinions of theologians who are not modernist heretics.

But you can't do that. Catholics are suppose to assent to the teachings of the majority position of theologians. Catholics don't have a right to pick and choose. If you pick and choose then you aren't assenting to the majority position, but instead the minority position.

However, there is another tactic you can take which I heard some traditional Catholic use. That traditional Catholic said that if you take into consideration today's theologians plus all the theologians throughout the Church's history, then obviously the majority of those theologians would not hold to the modernist position. That traditional Catholic said that Catholics are suppose to hold to the unanimous and constant consent of the Churches theologians. The key word is "constant", which means all theologians throughout the Church's history and not just today's theologians.
You don't understand: There has been no valid Pope since Pius XII, so there are no new theologians.

I DO pick and choose: I CHOOSE the unanimous consent of orthodox theologians and REJECT the modernists.

This is called common sense.

THe other thing is called blind obedience, which is tacit stupidity.

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)