Contradictions of the modern popes
#61
YOU NEED TO LEARN WHAT A HERETIC IS.

(08-14-2012, 02:49 PM)TrentCath Wrote:
(08-14-2012, 02:42 PM)SaintSebastian Wrote:
(08-14-2012, 02:35 PM)jonbhorton Wrote: There are four major points to address here:

i) the obsession with ecumenicism
ii) the argument that all christians are in some way united through baptism, that they have some form of communion
iii) the argument that whole schismatic churchs and heretical sects are in some way in some form of communion with the Catholic Church
iv) as a follow on from the above that heretics and schismatics have 'access to the community of salvation'
i) having all the Baptized one in Catholic unity is bad how?
ii,iii) tradtionally, all baptized persons were considered to fall within the jurisdiction of the Church. How could this be if there was no link at all? Pagans and Jews are not subject to that jurisdiction.
iv) aren't you one of the guys on here constantly arguing that heretics and schismatics can be saved against the alleged "feeneyites"? (if in good faith, of course)

i) don't be coy, what pope john paul ii means by ecumenicism and what the previous popes mean are two very different things
ii) formal heretics aren't in the church, even material heretics aren't part of its body. To carte blanche claim theres a type of communion for all baptised as Pope John Paul 2 does is wrong, the popes themselves have said it
iii) a caricature, if in invincible ignorance there is a chance they may be saved, Pope John Paul II goes far further and does so explicitly.

Quote:1. The Apostle Paul has said: "A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject, knowing that he that is such is subverted and sins, being condemned of himself." Titus 3:10-11 But though the doctrine which men hold be false and perverse, if they do not maintain it with passionate obstinacy, especially when they have not devised it by the rashness of their own presumption, but have accepted it from parents who had been misguided and had fallen into error, and if they are with anxiety seeking the truth, and are prepared to be set right when they have found it, such men are not to be counted heretics.
St. Augustine, Letters 43:1
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102043.htm
Reply
#62
(08-14-2012, 02:53 PM)jonbhorton Wrote: YOU NEED TO LEARN WHAT A HERETIC IS.

(08-14-2012, 02:49 PM)TrentCath Wrote:
(08-14-2012, 02:42 PM)SaintSebastian Wrote:
(08-14-2012, 02:35 PM)jonbhorton Wrote: There are four major points to address here:

i) the obsession with ecumenicism
ii) the argument that all christians are in some way united through baptism, that they have some form of communion
iii) the argument that whole schismatic churchs and heretical sects are in some way in some form of communion with the Catholic Church
iv) as a follow on from the above that heretics and schismatics have 'access to the community of salvation'
i) having all the Baptized one in Catholic unity is bad how?
ii,iii) tradtionally, all baptized persons were considered to fall within the jurisdiction of the Church. How could this be if there was no link at all? Pagans and Jews are not subject to that jurisdiction.
iv) aren't you one of the guys on here constantly arguing that heretics and schismatics can be saved against the alleged "feeneyites"? (if in good faith, of course)

i) don't be coy, what pope john paul ii means by ecumenicism and what the previous popes mean are two very different things
ii) formal heretics aren't in the church, even material heretics aren't part of its body. To carte blanche claim theres a type of communion for all baptised as Pope John Paul 2 does is wrong, the popes themselves have said it
iii) a caricature, if in invincible ignorance there is a chance they may be saved, Pope John Paul II goes far further and does so explicitly.

Quote:1. The Apostle Paul has said: "A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject, knowing that he that is such is subverted and sins, being condemned of himself." Titus 3:10-11 But though the doctrine which men hold be false and perverse, if they do not maintain it with passionate obstinacy, especially when they have not devised it by the rashness of their own presumption, but have accepted it from parents who had been misguided and had fallen into error, and if they are with anxiety seeking the truth, and are prepared to be set right when they have found it, such men are not to be counted heretics.
St. Augustine, Letters 43:1
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102043.htm

Thats the definition for formal heretic.
Reply
#63
And yet, the standard you are holding them to is just that.

I give up. I've laid out multiple sources for you and you just hold to some idiotic view that is plainly charged false by all.

Have fun.
Reply
#64
(08-14-2012, 02:40 PM)Cooler King Wrote: In Regards to baptism and salvation outside the Church.

I was listening to Al Kresta interviewing a priest last week.
They were talking about Colombine.
Fr. said that a very good example of salvation outside the Church was what happened to the little girl whom one of the shooters asked "Are you Christian?". She could have answered "no". But she said "Yes!". He executed her while kneeling. End of story.

:)
(And no, that's not one for "the books")
Bump
Reply
#65
That's how the Church has defined the term ecumenism.  Use a new word if you want to talk about something else.  In Ut Unum Sint, John Paul II explicity rules out false types of unity in, for example, these sections:

9. Jesus himself, at the hour of his Passion, prayed "that they may all be one" (Jn 17:21). This unity, which the Lord has bestowed on his Church and in which he wishes to embrace all people, is not something added on, but stands at the very heart of Christ's mission. Nor is it some secondary attribute of the community of his disciples. Rather, it belongs to the very essence of this community. God wills the Church, because he wills unity, and unity is an expression of the whole depth of his agape.

In effect, this unity bestowed by the Holy Spirit does not merely consist in the gathering of people as a collection of individuals. It is a unity constituted by the bonds of the profession of faith, the sacraments and hierarchical communion.
----
18. Taking up an idea expressed by Pope John XXIII at the opening of the Council,31 the Decree on Ecumenism mentions the way of formulating doctrine as one of the elements of a continuing reform.32 Here it is not a question of altering the deposit of faith, changing the meaning of dogmas, eliminating essential words from them, accommodating truth to the preferences of a particular age, or suppressing certain articles of the Creed under the false pretext that they are no longer understood today. The unity willed by God can be attained only by the adherence of all to the content of revealed faith in its entirety. In matters of faith, compromise is in contradiction with God who is Truth. In the Body of Christ, "the way, and the truth, and the life" (Jn 14:6), who could consider legitimate a reconciliation brought about at the expense of the truth? The Council's Declaration on Religious Freedom Dignitatis Humanae attributes to human dignity the quest for truth, "especially in what concerns God and his Church",33 and adherence to truth's demands. A "being together" which betrayed the truth would thus be opposed both to the nature of God who offers his communion and to the need for truth found in the depths of every human heart.


Reply
#66
(08-14-2012, 02:59 PM)jonbhorton Wrote: And yet, the standard you are holding them to is just that.

I give up. I've laid out multiple sources for you and you just hold to some idiotic view that is plainly charged false by all.

Have fun.
#

Pretty much sums up my feelings  :)
Reply
#67
(08-14-2012, 03:01 PM)SaintSebastian Wrote: That's how the Church has defined the term ecumenism.  Use a new word if you want to talk about something else.  In Ut Unum Sint, John Paul II explicity rules out false types of unity in, for example, these sections:

9. Jesus himself, at the hour of his Passion, prayed "that they may all be one" (Jn 17:21). This unity, which the Lord has bestowed on his Church and in which he wishes to embrace all people, is not something added on, but stands at the very heart of Christ's mission. Nor is it some secondary attribute of the community of his disciples. Rather, it belongs to the very essence of this community. God wills the Church, because he wills unity, and unity is an expression of the whole depth of his agape.

In effect, this unity bestowed by the Holy Spirit does not merely consist in the gathering of people as a collection of individuals. It is a unity constituted by the bonds of the profession of faith, the sacraments and hierarchical communion.
----
18. Taking up an idea expressed by Pope John XXIII at the opening of the Council,31 the Decree on Ecumenism mentions the way of formulating doctrine as one of the elements of a continuing reform.32 Here it is not a question of altering the deposit of faith, changing the meaning of dogmas, eliminating essential words from them, accommodating truth to the preferences of a particular age, or suppressing certain articles of the Creed under the false pretext that they are no longer understood today. The unity willed by God can be attained only by the adherence of all to the content of revealed faith in its entirety. In matters of faith, compromise is in contradiction with God who is Truth. In the Body of Christ, "the way, and the truth, and the life" (Jn 14:6), who could consider legitimate a reconciliation brought about at the expense of the truth? The Council's Declaration on Religious Freedom Dignitatis Humanae attributes to human dignity the quest for truth, "especially in what concerns God and his Church",33 and adherence to truth's demands. A "being together" which betrayed the truth would thus be opposed both to the nature of God who offers his communion and to the need for truth found in the depths of every human heart.

Actually no it hasn't, go back and read the 1949 declaration on ecumenicism to see how it defined it. It most certainly does not include having lots of prayer sessions with other religions and saying nice things about them, nice things which by the way verge on apostasy and heresy.
Reply
#68
(08-14-2012, 01:37 PM)TrentCath Wrote: Oh and Jayne before you make yourself look anymore foolish, you should know that condemnations of the reversal of the two ends of marriage are common and well known among the SSPX, in fact I can't believe you haven't heard of them, so you're going to have do better than just 'thats so silly!'

While I attend Mass at an SSPX chapel quite often, I am not much exposed to their theology.  I did some reading on the subject a few years ago, and found some areas of strong disagreement.  I do not consider them authorities on theology.

This "reversing the ends of marriage" argument is silly.  It is somewhat disturbing that you would use something so absurd to cast doubt on the orthodoxy of a Pope
Reply
#69
(08-14-2012, 03:03 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(08-14-2012, 01:37 PM)TrentCath Wrote: Oh and Jayne before you make yourself look anymore foolish, you should know that condemnations of the reversal of the two ends of marriage are common and well known among the SSPX, in fact I can't believe you haven't heard of them, so you're going to have do better than just 'thats so silly!'

While I attend Mass at an SSPX chapel quite often, I am not much exposed to their theology.  I did some reading on the subject a few years ago, and found some areas of strong disagreement.  I do not consider them authorities on theology.

This "reversing the ends of marriage" argument is silly.  It is somewhat disturbing that you would use something so absurd to cast doubt on the orthodoxy of a Pope

No I leave that to the New mass and other monstrosities he cooked up.

The reason I quoted from the document was to show that even the most orthodox document he produced or rather the one most famous for supposedly being so hardline etc.., was in fact not fully orthodox.

If you don't like that, lay the blame at ABL and others who stated this and repeatedly so.
Reply
#70
(08-14-2012, 03:01 PM)TrentCath Wrote:
(08-14-2012, 02:59 PM)jonbhorton Wrote: And yet, the standard you are holding them to is just that.

I give up. I've laid out multiple sources for you and you just hold to some idiotic view that is plainly charged false by all.

Have fun.
#

Pretty much sums up my feelings  :)

The difference is I'm right, because I merely hold to Catholic doctrine, as painful as it might be for you, and you hold to heresy. Fortunately, you're probably a material heretic having been improperly taught, or are just yourself invincibly ignorant. I sure hope so.

Re: Abp. Lefebvre's statement in Open Letter to Confused Catholics, JC said if he was wrong, it wasn't condemnable. That statement makes no effing sense. Neither you do. If BJPII said it, you'd yell heretic. If Abp. Lefebvre says it, he's a confused old man or something. Hell NO. A standard is a standard. Bishop Fellay, similarly, explains it by using the example of a hindu.

You are arguing for what is essentially a Feeney variant by misusing terminology on heretic, doctrine on age of reason, you're skewing Baptism into a place of incorrect understanding, what obstinate truly means in context (plain the Church is the Church in culture versus the hodge-podge of today etc), and essentially just all around find yourself wrong.

I'm done addressing you. Have fun sticking square blocks in circular holes.

Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)