How This Crisis Ends
#31
(04-05-2021, 04:24 PM)Evangelium Wrote: It has to do with the tolerance toward other religions.  According to your logic, this could not even be condemned because it is like baseball.

What is "it"?  What is "tolerance toward other religions"?  We are called to be intolerant to other religions and tolerant only to the people trapped in them, much like sin.

Other religions have nothing to offer us or the Catholic religion. There is nothing lacking in the Catholic faith.
[-] The following 5 users Like ChairmanJoeAintMyPresident's post:
  • Augustinian, J Michael, jovan66102, MagisterMusicae, SeekerofChrist
Reply
#32
I'm not going to keep going around and around with you.  You're the one who brought up the example.  The teaching of Vatican II on the dignity of other religions is a major offense to traditionalists, who say it should be condemned.  You're saying it has nothing to do with faith or morals, like baseball, but I'm disagreeing with you, as I'm sure most traditionalists would.  On your logic, it would not even need to be condemned.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Evangelium's post:
  • AlNg777
Reply
#33
(04-05-2021, 04:40 PM)Evangelium Wrote: I'm not going to keep going around and around with you.  You're the one who brought up the example.  The teaching of Vatican II on the dignity of other religions is a major offense to traditionalists, who say it should be condemned.  You're saying it has nothing to do with faith or morals, like baseball, but I'm disagreeing with you, as I'm sure most traditionalists would.  On your logic, it would not even need to be condemned.

But the problem here is that the Church has never found dignity in other religions since its inception with Our Lord, and even further back in the Old Covenant. So, what exactly was wrong with how the Church handled other religions before Vatican II?
"The Heart of Jesus is closer to you when you suffer, than when you are full of joy." - St. Margaret Mary Alacoque

Put not your trust in princes: In the children of men, in whom there is no salvation. - Ps. 145:2-3

"For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables." - 2 Timothy 4:3-4
[-] The following 1 user Likes Augustinian's post:
  • jovan66102
Reply
#34
(04-05-2021, 04:40 PM)Evangelium Wrote: I'm not going to keep going around and around with you.  You're the one who brought up the example.  The teaching of Vatican II on the dignity of other religions is a major offense to traditionalists, who say it should be condemned.  You're saying it has nothing to do with faith or morals, like baseball, but I'm disagreeing with you, as I'm sure most traditionalists would.  On your logic, it would not even need to be condemned.

Where did it say that they have dignity?  V2 makes specific claims about them:

1. Mohammedans worship the same God.  (Laughably false because our God doesn't allow murder or lying.)

2. Buddhists can achieve complete detachment.  (Vaguely pelagian and insulting to Catholic mystics.)

3. Hindus "contemplate the divine mystery" (by worshiping six-armed two-headed monkey-elephant-man hermaphrodite "gods" who are definitely not the demons described in Psalm 95...)
[-] The following 1 user Likes ChairmanJoeAintMyPresident's post:
  • jovan66102
Reply
#35
Augustinian, I'm conceding that traditionalists find the teaching of Vatican II objectionable. The question is whether the teaching of the Church at Vatican II and subsequently has to do with faith and morals.
Reply
#36
(04-05-2021, 04:51 PM)Evangelium Wrote: Augustinian, I'm conceding that traditionalists find the teaching of Vatican II objectionable.

The issue here is not what is offensive to "traditionalists" but to the Catholic Faith.
"The Heart of Jesus is closer to you when you suffer, than when you are full of joy." - St. Margaret Mary Alacoque

Put not your trust in princes: In the children of men, in whom there is no salvation. - Ps. 145:2-3

"For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables." - 2 Timothy 4:3-4
[-] The following 3 users Like Augustinian's post:
  • jovan66102, MagisterMusicae, SeekerofChrist
Reply
#37
(04-05-2021, 04:51 PM)Evangelium Wrote: Augustinian, I'm conceding that traditionalists find the teaching of Vatican II objectionable.  The question is whether the teaching of Vatican II and subsequently has to do with faith and morals.
From what I have heard, I may be wrong, but v2 condemns state intervention in peoples faith (particularly if that state is secular) THAT is Church business. V2 apparently allows for a confessional state. I could be very wrong. So correct me if I am way off. That does not mean they are equal. They (false faiths) are subject to the Church. They cannot evangelize to Catholic or others. Catholicism is preferred. And I know not much about this, (so...don't tear me apart) But I think how each false faith is dealt should vary depending on how FAR it is from the faith, from kid gloves...to heavy restriction...to total annihilation. For example, Sedevacantists hould be treated with delicacy as they are wounded  Eastern Orthodox will be treated almost as equals, and close ecumenicalism. Protestantism will be treated variously among the denominations, some close...some not so much. Hindus will be forbidden public worship and ritual sacrifice.  Satanism/wicca/witchcraft...well...you know....
Reply
#38
(04-05-2021, 04:24 PM)Evangelium Wrote: It has to do with the tolerance toward other religions.

You do realize that "tolerance" is when one permits an evil things to happen, because to try to stop the evil would harm the common good more in the present circumstances, don't you?

I'd guess, likely not.

Joe tolerates his parent's acceptance of his sister's evil way of life at Thanksgiving dinner, because to insist that he would not visit mom and dad if the live-in-boyfriend comes with his sister removes any hope of good influence, and drives a wedge further into the family life.

Similarly because we live in a secular state, we tolerate that evil and false religions are allowed to publicly practice and promote their false religion, because to insist that they be prohibited (which is the Catholic teaching on what ought to be done in a Catholic state), means blowback that would hurt the practice of the Catholic Faith.

So, when you say "tolerance" necessarily you are implying what you are "tolerating" is an evil thing that, if possible, would be eliminated.
[-] The following 3 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • Augustinian, IudicaMe, jovan66102
Reply
#39
(04-05-2021, 04:51 PM)Evangelium Wrote: The question is whether the teaching of the Church at Vatican II and subsequently has to do with faith and morals.

The Church cannot teach error.

If it seems that the Church is teaching that Muslims worship the same God as us, then this is not the Church teaching this, because it is false.

Churchmen might teach this, but clergy are not, of themselves, infallible, even Popes. They are infallible only in very limited conditions clearly set out by Vatican I.
[-] The following 2 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • ChairmanJoeAintMyPresident, jovan66102
Reply
#40
I was trying to make a point in response to Mr. Jackson's article linked in the OP before the topic was derailed.  My point is that the Church has taught on faith and morals since Vatican II.  In doing so, the Church has at least sometimes exercised the ordinary and universal magisterium.  The ordinary and universal magisterium is infallible.  Therefore Mr. Jackson is not correct when he writes that the Church has not issued infallible teaching since Vatican II.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Evangelium's post:
  • Augustinian
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)