Another Pope?

  • Thread starter Thread starter sharonh28
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
MTD said:
Does anybody see a connection between these two quotes?
Maria
Click to expand...
Um, Siamese Twins?
Err…Birds ov a Feather?
Err…Fruit fallen from the tree?
err, was it Fruit from the Fallen Tree?

did I guess it?
 
paramedicgirl said:
And what was the reason for first publishing the CCC in French?
Click to expand...
For revision and proofreading purposes, I believe. They wanted to smooth out any rough spots and find areas that needed more explanation or clarification.
paramedicgirl said:
The new dogma of ecumenism???
Click to expand...
I’m not exactly sure. 🙂 It’s certainly related to ecumenism, but it really has to do with the new doctrine that the Mystical Body of Christ resides perfectly (subsists) in the Catholic Church but that other Churches/ecclesial communities also are part of that Mystical Body. This is why they can function as means of salvation. It is why they contain “elements of sanctification and truth.” In other words, they participate in the Church’s role as the means of salvation!

Maria
 
MTD said:
For revision and proofreading purposes, I believe. They wanted to smooth out any rough spots and find areas that needed more explanation or clarification.
Click to expand...
I’ll bet Marcel Lefebvre would have liked to be on the proofreading committee.
MTD said:
I’m not exactly sure. 🙂 It’s certainly related to ecumenism, but it really has to do with the new doctrine that the Mystical Body of Christ resides perfectly (subsists) in the Catholic Church but that other Churches/ecclesial communities also are part of that Mystical Body. This is why they can function as means of salvation. It is why they contain “elements of sanctification and truth.” In other words, they participate in the Church’s role as the means of salvation!
Maria
Click to expand...
Did you say we have a new doctrine? :eek:
 
MTD said:
For revision and proofreading purposes, I believe. They wanted to smooth out any rough spots and find areas that needed more explanation or clarification.

I’m not exactly sure. 🙂 It’s certainly related to ecumenism, but it really has to do with the new doctrine that the Mystical Body of Christ resides perfectly (subsists) in the Catholic Church but that other Churches/ecclesial communities also are part of that Mystical Body. This is why they can function as means of salvation. It is why they contain “elements of sanctification and truth.” In other words, they participate in the Church’s role as the means of salvation!

Maria
Click to expand...
How can you be really really sure of that interpretation unless it was first cleared by …Mama Bear06?
 
TNT said:
Um, Siamese Twins?
Err…Birds ov a Feather?
Err…Fruit fallen from the tree?
err, was it Fruit from the Fallen Tree?

did I guess it?
Click to expand...
You’re making me dizzy.:hypno:
 
paramedicgirl said:
I’ll bet Marcel Lefebvre would have liked to be on the proofreading committee.

** Did you say we have a new doctrine?** :eek:
Click to expand...
YES! Well, actually it’s an AFFIRMATION.

n Global Warming is another.
n Global wetting is another.
 
paramedicgirl said:
Did you say we have a new doctrine? :eek:
Click to expand...
Yes. Exactly. I was shocked when I read that CCC 819 today; I already knew there were some dissident theologians who advocated that new doctrine and that they were active as periti (experts) at VII, but I didn’t know that doctrine was expressed so explicitly in the CCC. It is a very disturbing discovery to me.
TNT said:
How can you be really really sure of that interpretation unless it was first cleared by …Mama Bear06?
Click to expand...
I think it’s pretty clear as it stands; it doesn’t need a special interpretation. 🙂

Maria
 
MTD said:
Yes. Exactly. I was shocked when I read that CCC 819 today; I already knew there were some dissident theologians who advocated that new doctrine and that they were active as periti (experts) at VII, but I didn’t know that doctrine was expressed so explicitly in the CCC. It is a very disturbing discovery to me.

I think it’s pretty clear as it stands; it doesn’t need a special interpretation. 🙂

Maria
Click to expand...
Maybe the Conclavists were some of the proofreaders. :rolleyes:
 
TNT said:
YES! Well, actually it’s an AFFIRMATION.
Click to expand...
There can’t be an affirmation unless there is a doctrine to affirm. In this case, it’s a newly expressed doctrine, so it can only be affirmed in the future. In other words, it’s not an affirmation yet. 😃

Maria
 
MTD said:
There can’t be an affirmation unless there is a doctrine to affirm. In this case, it’s a newly expressed doctrine, so it can only be affirmed in the future. In other words, it’s not an affirmation yet. 😃

Maria
Click to expand...
When ya get time, I’m sponsoring ya to Liberalism101, where you realize that logic has *no *part in ecumenical or spiritual life situations…jist FEELINGS.
 
MTD said:
There can’t be an affirmation unless there is a doctrine to affirm. In this case, it’s a newly expressed doctrine, so it can only be affirmed in the future. In other words, it’s not an affirmation yet. 😃

Maria
Click to expand...
Shouldn’t newly expressed doctrines be made known via an infallible statement?
 
paramedicgirl said:
Maybe the Conclavists were some of the proofreaders. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
The CCC was directly supervised by then-Cardinal Ratzinger…who is now pope.
paramedicgirl said:
Shouldn’t newly expressed doctrines be made known via an infallible statement?
Click to expand...
Well, I would think Lumen Gentium would be such a statement. It is true that LG does not express that doctrine as clearly, but the CCC is supposed to explain VII, is it not? Indeed, CCC 819 quotes and footnotes LG 8, which in veiled language expresses this new doctrine.

Besides, I would note that it cannot be held that Pope Benedict XVI does not hold this new doctrine, as he was the head of the commission that produced the CCC.

Maria
 
MTD said:
The CCC was directly supervised by then-Cardinal Ratzinger…who is now pope.

Well, I would think Lumen Gentium would be such a statement. It is true that LG does not express that doctrine as clearly, but the CCC is supposed to explain VII, is it not? Indeed, CCC 819 quotes and footnotes LG 8, which in veiled language expresses this new doctrine.

Besides, I would note that it cannot be held that Pope Benedict XVI does not hold this new doctrine, as he was the head of the commission that produced the CCC.

Maria
Click to expand...
Well, it seems to me this “new” doctrine is in conflict with EENS.
 
After reading thru this thread—I am wondering if the protestant side of my family is better off where they are at. I mean—they fall under “invincible ignorance” or some other type of “new understanding” and are on their way to salvation. By the looks of it—Catholics are the only ones that may end up in hell. It would be “uncharitable” of me–to try to bring them into the Church—and for them to suffer that type of pressure.
 
Walking_Home said:
After reading thru this thread—I am wondering if the protestant side of my family is better off where they are at. I mean—they fall under “invincible ignorance” or some other type of “new understanding” and are on their way to salvation. By the looks of it—Catholics are the only ones that may end up in hell. It would be “uncharitable” of me–to try to bring them into the Church—and for them to suffer that type of pressure.
Click to expand...
You read through the whole thread? :eek:
 
MTD said:
The CCC was directly supervised by then-Cardinal Ratzinger…who is now pope.
Well, I would think Lumen Gentium would be such a statement. It is true that LG does not express that doctrine as clearly, but the CCC is supposed to explain VII, is it not? Indeed, CCC 819 quotes and footnotes LG 8, which in veiled language expresses this new doctrine.

Besides, I would note that it cannot be held that Pope Benedict XVI does not hold this new doctrine, as he was the head of the commission that produced the CCC.
Maria
Click to expand...
If I agreed with all that, I’d end up bein a sedevacantist!:eek: er even a Super Sede.:eek::eek: Therefore, it cannot be correct even if it’s true… err is it cannot be true even if it’s correct.
Now that’s liberal logic in action.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top