Bl. John XXIII and Vatican II

  • Thread starter Thread starter GrzeszDeL
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, John, I can understand your frustration.
Click to expand...
Ah, but, Jay, I’m not frustrated at all. I’m a completely development-of-doctrine Novus Ordonian. The Church has changed; the Church is changing; the Church will change.

I have no problems accepting what the leader of my Church says is the proper view of ecumenism. Remember there were also encyclicals and papal bulls against loaning money with interest, and Christians living near Jews.

John
 
40.png
GrzeszDeL:
but the they’re-all-Masons hypothesis does not adequately explain the facts as we have them.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Anyone who knows anything about the Vatican knows that at no time, in no place, with no curia have they “all” been one thing. That;'s what makes Vatican watching eternally fascinating stimulating, frustrating and of great historical interest. The question always is “Who’s on First”? 😛
 
Correction John, you are a modernist, not a Catholic. Plain and simple.

Jay Dyer
 
40.png
ThomasAugustine:
If John Paul II came to your parish and told you to pray with the Dalai Lama at a prayer service in his honor, what would you do?
Click to expand...
Why, I’d go, of course. I’d probably have gone to see the Dalai Lama anyway. I admire him. BTW, the Holy Father calls the Dalai Lama by his proper title too. They call each other Your Holiness.

John
 
I never claimed they were all Masons. Anyone ever read Bp. Rudolph Graber’s book “Athanasius and the Church of our Times”? Good stuff. I think many of them probably are Masons. However, you dont have to be a Mason to be a heretic.

Another interesting observation as I posted elsewhere: how come theres a whole slew of popes from the 18th century onwards warning about Masonic plots, and then, suddenly, after Vatican II no one ever talks about that except the fruity trads? Did the Masons quit? How come the new code of canon law no longer lists masons as enemies of the Church?

Jay
 
John Higgins:
Who are YOU to question my Catholicism?

John
Click to expand...
**14 Q: Who are heretics?

**A: Heretics are those of the baptized who obstinately refuse to believe some truth revealed by God and taught as an article of faith by the Catholic Church; for example, the Arians, the Nestorians, and the various sects of Protestants.

**15 Q: Who are apostates? **

A: Apostates are those who …abjure, or by some external act, deny the Catholic faith which they previously professed.

I dont have to question it. By your words its clear its not there.

Jay
 
John Higgins:
Why, I’d go, of course. I’d probably have gone to see the Dalai Lama anyway. I admire him. BTW, the Holy Father calls the Dalai Lama by his proper title too. They call each other Your Holiness.

John
Click to expand...
Thus you are an apostate.

Jay Dyer
 
John Higgins:
BTW, the Holy Father calls the Dalai Lama by his proper title too. They call each other Your Holiness.

John
Click to expand...
Thats also why neither of them are Catholic, too. The head of one of the largest, totally demonic religions in the world is in no wise holy. To say so is to commit blasphemy as well as heresy.

Jay
 
Thats also why neither of them are Catholic, too
Click to expand...
Well, I guess if my Pope is not Catholic either, then I’m in good company.

Aside to all you lurkers: This cannot possibly be serious.

John
 
John, to call a totally demonic religious leader, leading millions to hell “holy” is damn derious. With the utmost sincereity am I saying this.

Jay Dyer
 
Where’s the demon?

Since you can’t seem to find a current catechism, I’ll quote for you:
843 The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as “a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life.”
Click to expand...
Sure doesn’t sound demonic to me.

John
 
ThomasAugustine said:
1. John Paul II says non-Xian religions are guided by the Holy Spirit (Redemptor Hominis). Trent says they are demonic.
  1. John Paul II conducts ecumenical services that Mortalium Animos says are total rejections of the Catholic Faith.
  2. Universalists are heretics. John Paul II made a known universalist (Hans Urs Von Balthasar) a “Cardinal.” To be a fautor of heretics is apostasy.
  3. John Paul II says the Old Covenant is still valid. The Council of Florence says to hold the Old Covenant as valid is heretical.
Click to expand...
This thread is spinning down rapidly into absurdity and I strongly suspect that once the moderators take notice that they will shut it down (and rightly so, if I may say). Before it gets locked up, I would just like to take this opportunity to say that I would be delighted to discuss any or all of the above claims (each in its own thread) once this thread is gone. My one condition would be that there be no hearsay - if you are going to claim that a churchman said X, then quote me chapter and verse. If you cannot cite a source then do not make the claim. 🤓 Here’s looking forward to a number of fascinating conversations. 🙂
 
40.png
ThomasAugustine:
I am well aware of phototshop’s abilities. You fail to recognize, however, that JP2’s recieving the sign of the Hindu worshippers happened in 1986, well before photoshop.
Jay
Click to expand...
Your an idot Photoshop was available in 1984.
 
I was wrong. Photoshop was available in 1984. I guess the photo was a sham and the secular press was wrong, right? Wasnt that my point. Was Assisi a sham photo, too?

jay dyer
 
Feel free to continue this in my thread “Syllabus of Errors VS Dignitatis Humanae” under Apologetics. I agree to provide documentation for all the quotes, and if we continue this discussion, I will stay doctrinal.

Jay
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top