SSPX or Orthodox
DK fishie for defending the Faith with style and aplomb. Rosarium you get one too for putting a smile on my dial - but if it turns out the blackberry inventor really did make DKs thumbs you have to pay the ifhsie back!
thanks for the help with that other ting btw.
Reply
(10-17-2009, 12:32 AM)Rosarium Wrote:
(10-16-2009, 06:14 AM)devotedknuckles Wrote: The menonite who invented these damn blackberries takes the credit lad me thumbs r to big for the wee keys. But if it puts a smilke on your face by all means
Sip sip
As for the slip its trad but u know shit happens
Sip

It is interesting that you blame the inventor for your having thumbs which are too big. It should be:

"The menonite who inveted this damn blackberries takes the credit lad the keys r too small for my thumbs"

The way you have written it, you are blaming a technical inventor for your big thumbs, which makes no sense, unless your thumbs were in fact designed by the same person.


"me thumbs" I suspect.
Reply
(10-16-2009, 11:29 PM)calicatholic Wrote: I haven't read any Vatican II document that says what you're claiming.  You must be interpreting it wrong.  Please try to interpret it in light of Tradition as the Pope says.  If you have any doubt, why not write the Pope and wait for an answer from the Vatican.  Or, show the specific parts of the documents that you think claim there is salvation outside of the Church.  Best to contact your local theologian on the subject.

Scipio, taking your negative attitude seriously would put my Faith in danger, so I don't.

If you're saying that to be a Traditional Catholic I have to be bitter and uncharitable as you all are being to me, then please label me as a non-traditional Catholic that frequents the TLM.
In the light of tradition...you still don't get that the SSPX is glad to read the doc in the "light of Tradition" since that execise reads them out of existance...we're glad to read them in that light all day long


Do I have a negative attitude...?


huh oh  charity police...RUN...LOL
Reply
Calicatholic I am interested to know what exactly it is you are trying to achieve on this forum.
Reply

All I want is a fair representation of the Catholic Faith.
Reply
Oh by the way...I want to thank Cauliflower for his generosity and high opinion of the strength of my faith...I don't know if y'all caught it but he paid me a greatly undeserved compliment...I hope I can live up to it....He said I had a stronger faith that he does...

If he had my negative outlook his faith would be in trouble (faith wise)...assumes mines not despite the fact that I live in my hopeless negativism.

Now see...we all CAN get along.

Reply
Lol
Reply
(10-16-2009, 11:29 PM)calicatholic Wrote:
(10-16-2009, 04:35 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: How can He guide a council to teach that other heretical and idolatrous faiths can provide valid means for salvation? - not just that one may be saved within these faiths, but that these faiths themselves are valid means by which one may obtain salvation? These are but a few of the incongruences of the "Magisterium" - a teaching authority which cannot contradict itself nor err in matters of faith and morals.

I haven't read any Vatican II document that says what you're claiming.  You must be interpreting it wrong.  Please try to interpret it in light of Tradition as the Pope says.  If you have any doubt, why not write the Pope and wait for an answer from the Vatican.  Or, show the specific parts of the documents that you think claim there is salvation outside of the Church.  Best to contact your local theologian on the subject.


DK I'm just as Catholic as you are, like it or not.  Name calling does not lead to useful conversation.  Why do you insist on it?  It belittles your arguments.  If you printed out your uncharitable comments and showed them to your Priest I'm sure he'd have a lot to say to you.

Scipio, taking your negative attitude seriously would put my Faith in danger, so I don't.

If you're saying that to be a Traditional Catholic I have to be bitter and uncharitable as you all are being to me, then please label me as a non-traditional Catholic that frequents the TLM.

Nic,  it was never my intent to offend you. If you were greatly offended, then you probably read my comments the wrong way.  It is easy to do so in this venue, which likely leads to much more combating and arguing than would happen if we were all in the same room. 

The pope says: "interpret Vatican II in light of Tradition."  That is a very valid statement.  When the documents of Vatican II are interpreted "in the light of Tradition" then only about half of what is contained can be kept, because there are BLATANT and obvious errors contained within the texts that in NO way jive with what Catholics believed and taught for the previous 1,900 years.  Here are a few to start with, many from the famous Lumen Gentium:


"The Moslems together with us adore the one merciful God." Lumen Gentium

A) "The Holy Catholic Church teaches that God cannot truly be adored except within its fold." Pope St. Gregory the Great

B) "The Catholic Church alone preserves true worship." Pope Pius XI

C) "A true worshipper is one whose mind has not been defiled with any false belief." Pope St. Leo the Great

D) Right Reason. No man can worship the one true God "together with us" if they do not share our one true faith. Islam teaches that Jesus is not God and that there is only one person in God; hence, they do not believe in the God we worship. Thus, they can in no way worship "with us" our God. A man cannot worship in any way that which he does not believe in, for the Law of Praying is the Law of Believing, and vice-versa. If they believe in a one-person deity, THAT is what they worship, and in no way "with us" can they worship the Holy Trinity, the Second Person of Which is a human being like us in all things but sin.



One cannot charge with the sin of separation those at present born into communities separated from full communion with the Catholic Church and, in them, brought up in the faith of Christ; and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers. For, men who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. Decree on Ecumenism, "Unitatis Redintegratio," Nov. 21, 1964

A) Since it is recognized that it is extremely rare to find men entirely devoid of religious sense, some people entertain the hope that nations, in spite of their differing religious viewpoints, may be brought to unite as brothers in the profession of certain doctrines as a common foundation of the spiritual life. Certainly, such efforts as these cannot receive the approval of Catholics, for they rest on the false opinion which regards any religion whatsoever to be more-or-less praiseworthy and good. Those who hold this opinion are in grave error; they even debase the concept of the true religion and lapse, little by little, into naturalism and atheism. Pope Pius XI

B) It is error to believe that Protestantism is nothing other than a different form of the same true Christian religion, in which it is permitted to please God equally as in the Catholic Church. There is no equality between the condition of those who have adhered to Catholic truth by the gift of Faith and of those who follow a false religion. Venerable Pope Pius IX C) Christ is one and His Church is one; one is the Faith, and one the people cemented together into the strong unity of a Body. That unity cannot be split nor cut up into fragments. Nothing that is separated from the parent stock can ever live or breathe apart - ALL hope of its salvation is lost. If a person calls himself a "Christian," the Devil too often calls himself "Christ" -- and is a liar! Just as the Devil is not Christ, so likewise a man cannot be taken as a Christian if he does not abide in Christ's Gospel and in the true Faith. St. Cyprian, Doctor of the Church

D) Children baptized in other communions cease to be members of the Church when, after reaching the age of reason, they make formal profession of heresy; as, for example, by receiving communion in a non-Catholic church. St. Augustine

E) Right Reason: Not being able to "charge with the sin of separation those at present born" into non-Catholic communities is once again the Illogic of A Straw Man, a Dodge. It is synechdotal irrationality, trying to force a judgment of adult heretics into that of innocent new-borns. As St. Augustine points out, such newly-born souls are guilty of no sin at all, except the Original (and then only if unbaptized) until such time as they reach the use of reason and commit their first sin. Saint Cyrpian sufficiently and rationally destroys the V2 error about "full" communion in the Church of heretics, their possibility of "imperfect" communion and possession of the Faith.




All who have been justified by Faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ: they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.  Unitatis Redintegratio," Nov. 21, 1964

A) Who is to be called a Christian? He who confesses the doctrine of Jesus Christ IN HIS CHURCH. Hence, he who is truly a Christian thoroughly detests all cults and sects found OUTSIDE the doctrine and OUTSIDE the Church of Christ, everywhere and among all peoples, as for example the Jewish, the Mohammedan, and the heretical cults and sects [of Protestants]. St. Peter Canisius, SJ, Doctor of the Church

B) Christianity is incarnate in the Catholic Church; it is IDENTIFIED with that perfect and spiritual society which has the Roman Pontiff for its visible head. Pope Leo XIII

C) We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. Pope Boniface VIII

D) No one is our brother unless he has the same Father we do [see no. C]. St. Jerome, Father and Doctor of the Church

E) In NO way can men be counted among the children of God unless they take the Church for their Mother. Pope Leo XIII

F) No one can have God for his Father if he does not have the Church for his Mother. One cannot love Christ without loving the Church which Christ loves. The spirit of the Church is the spirit of Christ, and to the extent to which one loves the Church of Christ does he possess the Holy Spirit. Pope John Paul II

G) Right Reason: To declare "All who have been justified by Faith in Baptism" is seriously to Beg The Question, an error in Logic. For as St. Thomas and theologians in general (and Trent specifically and infallly) state: no one who rejects an iota of the Faith can be justified (in the State of Grace). And no one can be in the Mystical Body of Christ without actual reception of the Sacrament of (Water) Baptism, as Pius XII points out in his Encyclical of the same name. Hence, only those who have not yet reached the use of reason, and who are validly baptized, "are incorporated into Christ" and "therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church" -- for the simple reason that they are fully Catholic. An infant cannot be validly baptized a Protestant, for he protests nothing yet. All infants validly baptized outside the Church are genuinely Catholics.



--- This is just a taste of the many ambiguities and even outright errors contained in the texts of Vatican II.  The main body of error lies in the documents about Religious Liberty and Ecumenism - and notions can be seen contained in such documents as Lumen Gentium and several other VII documents that were condemned infallibly by popes only decades earlier.
Reply
Califlumps
Head just exploded no doubt
Sip sip
Reply
Also, calicatholic, concerning your beloved "council."

The outright ambiguity of the council makes it nearly impossible to make it coherent with the Tradition of the Church that was believed and taught for ages.  Show me ONE saint who believed that Moslems worshipped our God.  I can show you several saints who claimed that Protestantism was worthy of constant rebuke and was NO way worthy of praise - but Vatican II claims that all religions are worthy of praise - an error condemned with fervor by Pope Pius XI only years prior.

It doesn't matter what you or some other "conservative Catholics" state about Vatican II - when you say things about "interpretting it in light of Tradition."  Regardless of that notion, Vatican II HAS NOT been interpretted in light of Tradition by those who have implemented the revolution in the Church.  To not see this means that one has been absolutely, positively blinded by false obedience (or they love the new ecumenical church).

So, you can continue to interpret Vatican II in light of what you think "Tradition" is - but one thing I can tell you for absolute certain - MANY cardinals, bishops, priests and laymen in the Church are most definately NOT - for many of these are the ones who PURPOSELY worded the texts in such a way as to incite a revolution - to change our religion into Protestantism.

I will pray that your eyes are opened before it is too late.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)