Q's for Traditionalists who believe Vatican II and NO were wrong/invalid:

[AJV]

Please read through this thread and its posts including mine (#156, #163, #165, #166). Check the cited references over yourself and by all means verify them on the Vatican website.
These are the words of Popes of different eras, at their words speak for themselves.

For example (and there are many): In Ad Gentes, this is the Vatican II sects Decree on Missionary Activity, there is this heresy:

Vatican II document, Ad Gentes # 6: “For although the Church possesses totally and fully the means of salvation, it neither always nor at once puts or can put them all into operation, but is subject to beginnings and stages in the activity by which it strives to bring God’s plan into effect. Indeed, at times, after a successful start and advance, it has to grieve at another reverse, or at least it halts in a certain state of semi-fulfillment and insufficiency.” (Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, p. 1015. )

The Vatican II sect position is that the Catholic Church is not sufficient for salvation (that is what it is saying).

Is it? Or is that merely Bro. Dimond’s inference?

Maybe I am misinterpreting it but this was what I thought. “In that activity” refers to the missions. Now of course there are setbacks: persecution for example, that may hinder the total evangelisation of the people. It’s not as if the missionaries go there and . boom! everyone gets converted within the week. Sometimes indeed it lingers in a state of semi-fulfilment- like in China in the previous century when all the foreign missionaries were expelled before the had completed their work of evagelisation.

 

[AJV]

Please read through this thread and its posts including mine (#156, #163, #165, #166). Check the cited references over yourself and by all means verify them on the Vatican website.
These are the words of Popes of different eras, at their words speak for themselves.

For example (and there are many): In Ad Gentes, this is the Vatican II sects Decree on Missionary Activity, there is this heresy:

Vatican II document, Ad Gentes # 6: “For although the Church possesses totally and fully the means of salvation, it neither always nor at once puts or can put them all into operation, but is subject to beginnings and stages in the activity by which it strives to bring God’s plan into effect. Indeed, at times, after a successful start and advance, it has to grieve at another reverse, or at least it halts in a certain state of semi-fulfillment and insufficiency.” (Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, p. 1015. )

The Vatican II sect position is that the Catholic Church is not sufficient for salvation (that is what it is saying).

Is it? Or is that merely Bro. Dimond’s inference?

Maybe I am misinterpreting it but this was what I thought. “In that activity” refers to the missions. Now of course there are setbacks: persecution for example, that may hinder the total evangelisation of the people. It’s not as if the missionaries go there and . boom! everyone gets converted within the week. Sometimes indeed it lingers in a state of semi-fulfilment- like in China in the previous century when all the foreign missionaries were expelled before the had completed their work of evagelisation.

I feel it would be a contradiction to say in the first line “the Church posses totally and fully the means of salvation” and then say that it is insufficient.

The Lord, having now received all power in heaven and on earth before He was taken up into heaven (, founded His Church as the sacrament of salvation and sent His Apostles into all the world just as He Himself had been sent by His Father, commanding them: “Go, therefore, and make disciples of a nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit; teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you” . “Go into the whole world, preach the Gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized shall be saved; but he who does not believe, shall be condemned”.

Whence the duty that lies on the Church of spreading the faith and the salvation of Christ, not only in virtue of the express command which was inherited from the Apostles by the order of bishops, assisted by the priests, together with the successor of Peter and supreme shepherd of the Church, but also in virtue of that life which flows from Christ into His members; “From Him the whole body, being closely joined and knit together through every joint of the system, according to the functioning in due measure of each single part, derives its increase to the building up of itself in love”.

The mission of the Church, therefore, is fulfilled by that activity which makes her, obeying the command of Christ and influenced by the grace and love of the Holy Spirit, fully present to all men or nations, in order that, by the example of her life and by her preaching, by the sacraments and other means of grace, she may lead them to the faith, the freedom and the peace of Christ; that thus there may lie open before them a firm and free road to full participation in the mystery of Christ.

Oh, and

AJV:

Why did Autorum fidei

Auctorem Fidei

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

And TBCO1, here’s a nifty article that rebutts most of you supposedly contrary papal quotes but watch out, it’s from that extremely leftist publication, the Wanderer.

thewandererpress.com/b5-29-03.htm

I rest my case. By your own admission you partake in/contribute to/promote/endorse articles and groups who rebut papal addresses, encyclicals, etc.

Obviously you (BEAR06) and JKIRK and AJV are on the same frequency. So for a better understanding, let me ask this:

(1) Is their salvation outside the Catholic Church ? or Does one need be Catholic to be saved?
(2) Is scripture filled with myths?
(3) Do Non-Catholics need to be converted?
(4) Do Pagan religions, such as Hinduism, exhibit purity?
(5) Did Vatican II alter or Refuse to Accept Catholic dogma?
(6) In the Liturgy, should their be the Words of Consecration? and last but not least:
(7) Is there Resurrection of the Body?

Respectfully and God+ Bless

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

Vatican II document, Ad Gentes # 6: “For although the Church possesses totally and fully the means of salvation, it neither always nor at once puts or can put them all into operation, but is subject to beginnings and stages in the activity by which it strives to bring God’s plan into effect. Indeed, at times, after a successful start and advance, it has to grieve at another reverse, or at least it halts in a certain state of semi-fulfillment and insufficiency.” (Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, p. 1015. )

I feel it would be a contradiction to say in the first line “the Church posses totally and fully the means of salvation” and then say that it is insufficient.

That is how it reads. It is what it is. I agree with you it is in Contradiction to Catholic dogma. Thanks:thumbsup:

 

[bear06]

I rest my case. By your own admission

you partake in/contribute to/promote/endorse articles and groups who rebut papal addresses, encyclicals, etc.

Obviously you didn’t read to carefully again. That’s not what I said. Read it again for accuracy and then you might actually want to read the article.

rebutts most of your supposedly

 

[bear06]

That is how it reads. It is what it is. I agree with you it is in Contradiction to Catholic dogma. Thanks:thumbsup:

So what’s this, the third time I’ve asked? Are you a sedevacantist? I don’t see why you feel the need to avoid the question. It’s either yes or no. Do you recognized Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II and Pope Benedict as valid popes? Gorman’s been forthcoming with his position.

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

Another example:
Pope Leo XII has already made the contradiction to the Vatican II sect document Nostra aetate # 2:

Pope Leo XIII, Ad Extremas (#1), June 24, 1893: “Our thoughts turn first of all to the blessed Apostle Thomas who is rightly called the founder of preaching the Gospel to the Hindus. Then, there is Francis Xavier… Through his extraordinary perseverance, he converted hundreds of thousands of Hindus from the myths and vile superstitions of the Brahmans to the true religion. In the footsteps of this holy man followed numerous priests… they are continuing these noble efforts; nevertheless, in the vast reaches of the Earth, many are still deprived of the truth, miserably imprisoned in the darkness of superstition.”(The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 2 (1878-1903), p. 307).

Vatican II document, Nostra aetate # 2: “Thus in Hinduism the divine mystery is explored and propounded with an inexhaustible wealth of myths and penetrating philosophical investigations, and liberation is sought from the distresses of our state either through various forms of ascetical life or deep meditation or taking refuge in God with loving confidence.”(The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 2 (1878-1903), p. 307.)

PLEASE NOTE: Vatican II sect is praising hinduism, a religion that has 1000’s of false gods among other things.

Both documents are telling the truth.There is no ideal response to evil, that is one of the ways we can tell it is evil. Vatican II is maybe in danger of misleading the Hindus as to the real status of a lot of their teachings, such as the notion of an “untouchable” caste, Leo XIII is in danger of hardening their hearts. However when Leo was writing communications were less developed and so his words would not be wrenched from context and place in media soundbites in a billion Indian homes, which Vatican II had to be aware of.

There is only one right answer to a sum, but some of the wrong answers are much more wrong than others. A Hindu who separates himself from the world in order to live a life of contemplation isn’t quite right - one must love the world as well as renounce it - but he is much less wrong than the Western youth who thinks that plenty of money and cool friends and lost of casual girlfriends will bring him happiness.

In addition:
all religions are not equal]
This is substantial grounds to indicate the invalidity of the Vatican II. If this is not correct, please relay your explanation with justification for all on this thread.

You’ve got to remember that one of the purposes of the second Vatican Council was to reunite the Church with the Protestants. In the Sixties it was recognised that the old Lutheran negotiation of the individual’s rights versus the church, and the church’s versus the state, had run its course. The old arguments no longer mattered, but there was a four hundred year hangover of division.
One of the advantages of Chamberlains’ policy of appeasement, as Churchill pointed out, was that no-one could pretend that Britian rather than Nazi Germany was responsible for the war. Similarly whatever else one thinks of Vatican II, one advantage was that no-one can claim that the Church did not make huge adjustments and efforts to accomodate Protestants. Sadly the policy has largely failed. It very nearly worked, but in the event what happened was that the Protestant centre collapsed. Nowadays Protestants are either ultra-liberals who bless homosexual unions, or ultra-conservatives who insist that the Earth is only 6000 years old. Both present considerable obstacles to unity.
Since Protestant theologians did turn up to Vatican II - a similar inviation had been made at Trent but political tensions meant it wasn’t taken up - it was no good anathematising anything. If after serious and sincere discussions the Protestant found his position rejected and solemnly declared to be in error it would have sabotaged proceedings. If after similarly serious and sincere discussions the Protestant dropped of his previous postions, it could not be anathematised either, because that would imply that the first Protestant was approved.
However one way of saying politely that “You Protestants are not better than heathens” is “in heathenism too we see an earnest yearing for the individual’s closeness to God”. The soothing, conciliatory tone of the Council rubbed off on every pronouncement.
Councilsd are political as well as theological events. The statements must always be considered in the context of the problem they were designed to address. That is pretty obvious in the case of the medieval councils, but it also applies to the modern councils.

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

… you are giving a different meaning to the encyclical Pascendi. What the encyclical is condemning is that the worship has developed as a response to man’s needs. This is entirely false because it is not that the Mass, the sacraments, or anything else started because we had a gradual and better understanding in the subconcious of what Christ did at the Last Supper and so we began to esteem it more grealy and eventually from a simple commeorative meal it it took on a different meaning of sacrifice and somesuch.

Pope Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis (# 26), Sept. 8, 1907, On the Worship of Modernists:
“THE CHIEF STIMULUS IN THE DOMAIN OF WORSHIP CONSISTS IN THE NEED OF ADAPTING ITSELF TO THE USES AND CUSTOMS OF PEOPLES, as well as the need of availing itself of the value which certain acts have acquired by long usage.” (The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 3 (1903-1939), p. 83.)

Obviously It is you not I that is creating a new meaning in Pascendi.

Oh and by the way, it has always been a sacrifice, unless of course you are disagreeing with Jesus+ the Christ+?

St. JOHN 47-60 Amen,amen I say unto you: He that believeth in me, hath everlasting life. I AM the bread of life…I AM the living bread which came down from heaven. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world…Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed: and my Blood is drink indeed…He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. This is the bread that came down from heaven…
Also St. Mt 26:26-29, St. Mk 14:22-24, St. Lk 22:19-20, St. Paul 1Cor 11:23-26

What you are suggesting is a blatant contradiction of Jesus+ the Christ+ and a radical assault on the Most Holy Catholic Church.

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

So what’s this, the third time I’ve asked? Are you a sedevacantist? I don’t see why you feel the need to avoid the question. It’s either yes or no. Do you recognized Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II and Pope Benedict as valid popes? Gorman’s been forthcoming with his position.

Please refer to post #217 if you can at least answer some of those questions I will gladly reciprocate immediately. I request this because YOU ONLY CRITICIZE and not discuss or answer any of my queries. Oh another member claimed you assaulted their character. I am online right now, I will respond in seconds. The ball is in your court, BRING IT.
.

 

[bear06]

Please refer to post #217 if you can at least answer some of those questions I will gladly reciprocate immediately. I request this because YOU ONLY CRITICIZE and not discuss or answer any of my queries. Oh another member claimed you assaulted their character. I am online right now, I will respond in seconds. The ball is in your court, BRING IT.
.

Geez, if it’ll get you to answer a simple question with a simple answer, OK, I’ll answert the questions which I’m clear on what you are asking.

1. Is their salvation outside the Catholic Church ? or Does one need be Catholic to be saved?

No, Yes.

(2) Is scripture filled with myths?

Define what you mean by myths. Do you mean is everything in the Bible literal? If you mean this then I’d have to answer yes. Look at Jesus saying that we must forgive 70X7. That doesn’t mean that we only have to forgive 490 times. You’ll have to be specific in your examples or I can’t answer, I can only assume.

(3) Do Non-Catholics need to be converted?

What do you mean by “need”? Do they need to be converted to gain heaven?

(4) Do Pagan religions, such as Hinduism, exhibit purity?

Not sure what you’re talking about here.

(5) Did Vatican II alter or Refuse to Accept Catholic dogma?

No.

(6) In the Liturgy, should their be the Words of Consecration? and last but not least:

I’m not really up on the whole anaphora thing so I can’t really answer this one but I’m pretty sure you can’t condemn VII for this one…

(7) Is there Resurrection of the Body?

Yes.

Now remember, while you’re accusing me and the Church of heresy, can you bother to answer the question? Hope to hear from you when you get back. Thanks for letting me know you’d be leaving.

 

[AJV]

Pope Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis (# 26), Sept. 8, 1907, On the Worship of Modernists:
“THE CHIEF STIMULUS IN THE DOMAIN OF WORSHIP CONSISTS IN THE NEED OF ADAPTING ITSELF TO THE USES AND CUSTOMS OF PEOPLES, as well as the need of availing itself of the value which certain acts have acquired by long usage.” (The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 3 (1903-1939), p. 83.)

Obviously It is you not I that is creating a new meaning in Pascendi.

Oh and by the way, it has always been a sacrifice, unless of course you are disagreeing with Jesus+ the Christ+?

St. JOHN 47-60 Amen,amen I say unto you: He that believeth in me, hath everlasting life. I AM the bread of life…I AM the living bread which came down from heaven. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world…Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed: and my Blood is drink indeed…He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. This is the bread that came down from heaven…
Also St. Mt 26:26-29, St. Mk 14:22-24, St. Lk 22:19-20, St. Paul 1Cor 11:23-26

What you are suggesting is a blatant contradiction of Jesus+ the Christ+ and a radical assault on the Most Holy Catholic Church.

Yes, exactly. But could I suggest that you please read my post a little more carefully and you will realise that I was NOT expousing that view but suggesting that it was condemend under the encyclical? Worship does not result due to heightened perceptions of symbols.

From an explanation fo the encyclical Pascendi Dominis Gregis:

Q. What is the theological doctrine of the Modernists concerning worship and the Sacraments ?

A. Concerning worship there would not be much to be said, were it not that under this head are comprised the Sacraments, concerning which the Modernist errors are of the most serious character.

Q. Whence, according to them, does worship spring ?

A. For them worship is the resultant of a double impulse or need ; for, as we have seen, everything in their system is explained by inner impulses or necessities.

Q. What is this double need of which the Modernist theologians speak ?

A. The first need is that of giving some sensible manifestation to religion ; the second is that of propagating it, which could not be done without some sensible form and consecrating acts, and these are called Sacraments.

Q. What do the Modernists mean by Sacraments ?

A. For the Modernists, Sacraments are bare symbols or signs, though not devoid of a certain efficacy.

 

[AJV]

Vatican II document, Ad Gentes # 6: “For although the Church possesses totally and fully the means of salvation, it neither always nor at once puts or can put them all into operation, but is subject to beginnings and stages in the activity by which it strives to bring God’s plan into effect. Indeed, at times, after a successful start and advance, it has to grieve at another reverse, or at least it halts in a certain state of semi-fulfillment and insufficiency.” (Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, p. 1015. )

That is how it reads. It is what it is. I agree with you it is in Contradiction to Catholic dogma. Thanks:thumbsup:

No, it doesn’t. For that reason I am saying that it cannot logically “fully and totally posses the means of salvation” and be insufficient. The “insufficent” refers not the sufficiency of the Catholic faith but to the missionary activity and means of propagating the Catholic faith, when hindered by external factors.

 

[Jean_Anthony]

This thread is closed. Thank you to all who participated.