Vatican orders slight change in text for baptism
(08-27-2013, 12:42 PM)St. Pius of Trent Wrote: The fact is this: the ordinary universal magisterium understood the VII documents as the teaching authority in such a way that is contrary to tradition. How? Look at how they follow the examples of Paul VI, JPII and BXVI. They pray with non Catholics in public for all the world to see. This was expressly forbidden by the constant magisterium of the Church.

Yes, the VII POPES pray with non-Catholics (see Assisi), attend non-Catholic worship services (including Jewish and Lutheran), kiss Korans, teach that Muslim fasts bear spiritual fruit...and I'm sure I'm missing others.

Where are the mental gymnastics explaining these acts away?

Added:  ooops, that would be abundant spiritual fruit, not just spiritual fruit.

(08-27-2013, 03:45 PM)2Vermont Wrote:
(08-27-2013, 12:13 PM)SaintSebastian Wrote: The Eastern Orthodox have made many of the arguments some of you have made concerning alleged Catholic corruptions of doctrine.  For example, they claim by changing the traditional Creed to include the Filioque, we are now teaching a double spiration or double principle--and on its face it can look like we are.  This would be heresy.  The Church, however, has said over and over that this is not implied by the Filioque and we do not believe in two principles and two spirations, but the EO keep saying we do and keep saying we have contradicted the Faith of the Fathers and past Councils. 

The same sarcastic comments and quick dismissals with cutting and pasting of sentences from different texts if applied to other periods, would lead us to reject, in addition to the Filioque, the Church’s historical anti-Jansenist condemnations as opposed to the early anti-Pelagianism condemnations, or the Anti-Nestorian teaching and condemnations with the anti-Monophysite dogmatic letters and condemnations, or the anti-Sabellian teachings, with the anti-Arian teachings.  This is why Luther declared that Popes and Councils have contradicted themselves, why the non-Chalcedonians anathematized St. Leo and the Council of Chalcedon, why others opposed the condemnation of the Three Chapters, why the First Vatican Council led to a schism, etc.  All of these require thoughtful, and nuanced arguments to defend. 

As for your EO example, I would say that the Church always taught the Filioque as part of the faith, but chose to add it to the Creed.  Since this is vastly different than creating a new teaching that contradicts a previous teaching, I would say that that example doesn't prove anything. 

However, I am willing to hear more about the other "contradictions" you mentioned here.  Can you show me what the groups said was contradicting previous teaching and what the Church's response was?  I am not aware of any group having an issue with Church teaching because it said it contradicted previous (aka traditional) teaching.  I always thought there was more to those stories.

Bumping this up because I would like to read about the contradictions that SS is referring to here.
Still no reply.  I have to wonder whether I should assume that the issues really weren't contradictions to traditional teachings.  And therefore irrelevant.

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)