Salvation outside the church

[mgrfin]

.

St. Ignatius created an army for the pope.

Obedience to the pope came before all else. If you thought something was ‘wrong’, you might be ‘crazy’. What you could always count on was obedience. If you were obedient to your Superiors, you would always be right.

Ottaviani was not only non-infallible, he was one of my least favorite churchmen. Papa John felt the same way.

peace

 

[GerardP]

All Councils are the same? Really? Shows how little you know of Church history.

That was sarcasm on my part because your posts indicate that all Councils are the same. Why else appeal to other Councils for comparison with Vatican II?

If you understand the history of Councils of the Church, you will understand the remark.

I can’t help but notice how haughty your comments are…“understand” the history of the Church. As if “knowing” the history of the Church is beyond people. It has to be “reinterpreted” by the “theologians.”

Vatican 2 is a great Council.

False.

It was held in our lifetime.

Irrelevent except to discern why God punished us with it.

We were fortunate to live while the Holy Spirit was at work overwhelmingly in our Church.

Pure fantasy.

You think the documents of the Roman Catholic Church were heretical? Go ahead tell us what you think.

No. I don’t think that. Why do you keep inventing my positions? Are you cognitively disabled in some way that makes you get everything wrong?

 

[GerardP]

St. Ignatius created an army for the pope.

True.

Obedience to the pope came before all else. If you thought something was ‘wrong’, you might be ‘crazy’. What you could always count on was obedience. If you were obedient to your Superiors, you would always be right.

That was obviously the fatal flaw once modernism started infiltrating the Church. Do you think obedience to Pedro Arrupe was what St. Ignatius envisioned?

Ottaviani was not only non-infallible, he was one of my least favorite churchmen. Papa John felt the same way.

Yes. And Fr. Feeney was correct and Card. Ottaviani was wrong.

 

[mgrfin]

No. I don’t think that. Why do you keep inventing my positions? Are you cognitively disabled in some way that makes you get everything wrong?

God freed us from the likes of Cardinal Ottaviani, under whom the Church had become stiffled. It was a time to end his ‘inquisition’. God blessed us with the presence of the Holy Spirit at this collegial convocation and Council. Praise God!

BTW, when all else fails, try an 'argumentum ad hominem".
Just another swipe by a reactionary. I am honored.

I have better things to do. It is 75 degrees on a bright, sunny and clear day down on the beach at Long Beach. It is time to enjoy God’s gift to me. Take my psalm book, my chair, and head for the sands!

peace

 

[SFD]

Are you saying that the Conciliar documents of Vatican 2 contradict ‘de fide’ dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church?

peace

The condemnation of religious liberty found in Quanta cura is infallible. It has been contradicted.

Now go right ahead and make some goofy comments about it…don’t disappoint us…we expect no less from you.

SFD

 

[stmaria]

=mgrfin;3299045]Let me say this. Cardinal Ottaviani was the Grand Inquisitor of the Holy Office. He was responsible for the censuring of Murray and Schillebeeckx. Schillebeeckx passed the inquisition, but Murray wasn’t so fortunate - he not being a European, and not knowing how to get around guys like Ottavani

.
Glad to see that you findally admit that there were censored theologians at Vatican II
Yet Murray contributed to the schema on* Religious Liberty*

Papa John called this Council because of men like the Cardinal were** right wing conservatives**, reactionaries, were holding the Church back from its mission in the modern world.

“Right winged Conservatives” replaced by liberals.{ by the way I consider myself a "right wing conservative]
What is the Church’s mission in the modern world? Is the mission saving souls or social justice?

Murray, Kung, Congar, duLubac, Rahner, Schillebeeckx - Ottaviani didn’t stand a change intellectually against the likes of them. He had the power structure, but Papa John would soon depose him of it. **Radical conservatism **would lose its place in the power structure.

I wouldn’t call it “radical”. Are you admitting that liberalism took over the council?

The Holy Office would not stop the progress of the Council, or of the Church.

So before the Council the Church was stagnant?

 

[DustinsDad]

The condemnation of religious liberty found in Quanta cura is infallible. It has been contradicted.

Now go right ahead and make some goofy comments about it…don’t disappoint us…we expect no less from you.

SFD

Enjoy the goofy comments while you can, our friend’s positions (if one can call automatically contradictory responses to anything traditionaly Catholic as a “position”) are of a dying breed of liberal cafeteria catholicism.

This camp sees emptying pews, vacant seminaries, and priestless parishes as evidence of a new powerful outpouring of the Holy Spirit - tangible evidence of the ultimate “Good Thing” - Vatican II (not to be confused with the “Spirit of Vatican II” of course) and the overthrow of Old Church with the rise of New Church.

Real world arguments will in no way sway our friend or the thinning populace of said camp.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[mgrfin]

The condemnation of religious liberty found in Quanta cura is infallible. It has been contradicted.

Now go right ahead and make some goofy comments about it…don’t disappoint us…we expect no less from you.

SFD

The true Christian can live in this world faced with opposing views, of those who love God, and who take seriously the command also to love our neighborm versus those who mock us for our attempt at christian charity. You ask me a deep and serious question, and before I answer you mock my response.

When you learn that love of neighbor contains love of God, you are not deserving of an honest answer to your question, which is pocketed with hate and disgust.

If you would like an answer to your question, in the interim, you can read John Henry Newman’s “Letter to the Duke of Norfolk”, concerning citizenship, church and conscience.

peace

PS The next time you address a question to me, please do so with christian charity, or don’t bother at all.

 

[SFD]

The true Christian can live in this world faced with opposing views, of those who love God, and who take seriously the command also to love our neighborm versus those who mock us for our attempt at christian charity. You ask me a deep and serious question, and before I answer you mock my response.

I had achieved moral certainty that you would say something ridiculous.

mgrfin:

When you learn that love of neighbor contains love of God, you are not deserving of an honest answer to your question, which is pocketed with hate and disgust.

You, my friend, have shown nothing but contempt for traditional Catholics and traditional doctrines. You are not a serious person.

mgrfin:

If you would like an answer to your question, in the interim, you can read John Henry Newman’s “Letter to the Duke of Norfolk”, concerning citizenship, church and conscience.

Oh…that’s more authoritative than Quanta cura? Was this before or after he converted…or opposed Papal Infallibility during Vatican I.

mgrfin:

PS The next time you address a question to me, please do so with christian charity, or don’t bother at all.

You misunderstand…I don’t care what your answers are.

SFD

 

[mgrfin]

I had achieved moral certainty that you would say something ridiculous.

You, my friend, have shown nothing but contempt for traditional Catholics and traditional doctrines. You are not a serious person.

Oh…that’s more authoritative than Quanta cura? Was this before or after he converted…or opposed Papal Infallibility during Vatican I.

You misunderstand…I don’t care what your answers are.

SFD

You say I am not a serious person, yet, you say you don’t care what my answers are to the questions you ask.

Lacking charity, you also lack humility.

Any ‘Apologia pro vita sua’ from me is therefore not required.

BTW, you dishonor Venerable John Newman on the issue of Infallibility. It is you who dishonor the Faith, attacking near-saints, but supporting Schimatics, Heretics, and Apostates.

Quote:“I have for these 25 years spoken in behalf of the Pope’s infallibility. The other day a review (I forget what) observed with surprise that even in my article on la Mennais in 1838 I had tacitly accepted the Pope’s infallibility. I think I have spoken for it in my Essay on Development of Doctrine in 1845. In 1850 I have introduced the Pope’s Infallibility several times into my lectures at the Birmingham Corn Exchange. In 1852 I introduced it most emphatically and dogmatically into my lectures delivered at the Rotundo at Dublin. In 1856 I spoke of it in a new Preface I prefixed to the new Edition of my Church of the Fathers—and in 1868 I reprinted the passage from my Dublin Lectures in a collection of passages made by a Roman Jesuit Father on the dogma, in an Italian translation.” John Henry Newman.
Unquote
peace

 

[SemperFidelis]

You say I am not a serious person, yet, you say you don’t care what my answers are to the questions you ask.

Lacking charity, you also lack humility.

Any ‘Apologia pro vita sua’ from me is therefore not required.

BTW, you dishonor Venerable John Newman on the issue of Infallibility. It is you who dishonor the Faith, attacking near-saints, but supporting Schimatics, Heretics, and Apostates.

Quote:“I have for these 25 years spoken in behalf of the Pope’s infallibility. The other day a review (I forget what) observed with surprise that even in my article on la Mennais in 1838 I had tacitly accepted the Pope’s infallibility. I think I have spoken for it in my Essay on Development of Doctrine in 1845. In 1850 I have introduced the Pope’s Infallibility several times into my lectures at the Birmingham Corn Exchange. In 1852 I introduced it most emphatically and dogmatically into my lectures delivered at the Rotundo at Dublin. In 1856 I spoke of it in a new Preface I prefixed to the new Edition of my Church of the Fathers—and in 1868 I reprinted the passage from my Dublin Lectures in a collection of passages made by a Roman Jesuit Father on the dogma, in an Italian translation.” John Henry Newman.
Unquote
peace

You see many things that just aren’t there. In no way that I could tell did SFD attempt to dishonor Ven. Cardinal Newman. He just stated a fact. I highly doubt Cardinal Newman won’t be canonized (in fact, I think he should be, but that’s up to the Vatican), but his arguments against Papal Infallibility at the First Vatican Council (he later changed his mind) are well known. As a theologian, you should know this bit of history. Come on!

 

[mgrfin]

SemperFidelis

John Henry Newman voted in favor of Infallibility at the General Council, Vatican I.

peace

 

[SemperFidelis]

[SemperFidelis

John Henry Newman voted in favor of Infallibility at the General Council, Vatican I.

peace

I didn’t say he didn’t, but he was not initially for it.
[/quote]

 

[mgrfin]

I didn’t say he didn’t, but he was not initially for it.

Wrong, again, as you usually are.

You said he was against Papal Infallibility, initially.

Check the quote from post #469, Venerable Newman said he was for the doctrine for 25 years. As a theologian, I expect you would know that, or, be able to read his own words, a few posts back.

Of course, you could accuse a candidate for sainthood of lying. Anything is possible.

peace

 

[SemperFidelis]

Wrong, again, as you usually are.

Coming from you, I consider that to be a positive statement. If I was ever to be considered right by your standards, then I would probably need to stop and think.

You said he was against Papal Infallibility, initially.

I said he wasn’t for defining it at the First Vatican Council.

From wiki:

“At the time of the First Vatican Council (1869—1870) he was known to be hesitant about formally defining the doctrine of Papal infallibility, and in a private letter to his bishop (William Bernard Ullathorne), surreptitiously published, he denounced the “insolent and aggressive faction” that had pushed the matter forward.”

From Dr. Warren Carroll:

“Cardinal Newman, who originally argued against the prudence of the declaration, though never against the doctrine itself was eventually persuaded of its wisdom.”

From George Salmon’s Infallibility of the Church:

“Those who passed for the men of highest learning in that communion, and who had been wont to be most relied on, when learned Protestants were to be combatted, opposed with all their might the contemplated definition, as an entire innovation on the traditional teaching of the Church, and as absolutely contradicted by the facts of history. These views were shared by Dr. Newman…The Pope’s personal infallibility…was a doctrine so directly in the teeth of history, that Newman made no secret of his persuasion that the authoritative adoption of it would be attended with ruinous consequences to his Church…He wrote in passionate alarm to an English Roman Catholic Bishop [Ullathorne] : Why, he said, should an aggressive insolent faction be allowed ‘to make the heart of the just sad, whom the Lord hath not made sorrowful.’”

Of course, you could accuse a candidate for sainthood of lying. Anything is possible.

You tend to blow things way out of proportion. Where did I ever do this? You for some reason have the zeal for drama that a 13 year old girl has. The above: case in point.

 

[mgrfin]

Coming from you, I consider that to be a positive statement. If I was ever to be considered right by your standards, then I would probably need to stop and think.

I said he wasn’t for defining it at the First Vatican Council.

From wiki:

“At the time of the First Vatican Council (1869—1870) he was known to be hesitant about formally defining the doctrine of Papal infallibility, and in a private letter to his bishop (William Bernard Ullathorne), surreptitiously published, he denounced the “insolent and aggressive faction” that had pushed the matter forward.”

From Dr. Warren Carroll:

“Cardinal Newman, who originally argued against the prudence of the declaration, though never against the doctrine itself was eventually persuaded of its wisdom.”

From George Salmon’s Infallibility of the Church:

“Those who passed for the men of highest learning in that communion, and who had been wont to be most relied on, when learned Protestants were to be combatted, opposed with all their might the contemplated definition, as an entire innovation on the traditional teaching of the Church, and as absolutely contradicted by the facts of history. These views were shared by Dr. Newman…The Pope’s personal infallibility…was a doctrine so directly in the teeth of history, that Newman made no secret of his persuasion that the authoritative adoption of it would be attended with ruinous consequences to his Church…He wrote in passionate alarm to an English Roman Catholic Bishop [Ullathorne] : Why, he said, should an aggressive insolent faction be allowed ‘to make the heart of the just sad, whom the Lord hath not made sorrowful.’”

You tend to blow things way out of proportion. Where did I ever do this? You for some reason have the zeal for drama that a 13 year old girl has. The above: case in point.

You are right, your level of theology is at the level of a 13 year old girl.

You are as redundant as ‘case in point’.

And who is the author of the article in wikipedia? You are quoting that as a source???

I’m a little tired of the trio of hacks on this particular thread. They huff and puff, but there is no substance.

please

 

[SemperFidelis]

You are right, your level of theology is at the level of a 13 year old girl.

I don’t know where I’m discussing any particular point of theology. I’m discussing a historical truth that you fail to see or understand. I’m sorry that it’s beyond your comprehension skills.

You are as redundant as ‘case in point’.

Coming from the guy who’s made about 140 of the same whiny posts in the same thread.

And who is the author of the article in wikipedia. You are quoting that as a source???

I was just using wiki to point out that even wiki can get it right. You also failed to acknowledge my other two sources.

I’m a little tired of the trio of hacks on this particular thread.

You really haven’t realized it have you? I’ll give you a little hint: the hack is you…

 

[mgrfin]

IQUOTE]

Here is one of your more adult posts:
Quote
This is STUPID, STUPID, STUPID, STUPID, STUPID!!!

Political Correctness is a disease, a terrible disease. I was hoping Pope Benedict XVI was running away from this course, but alas, I guess he’s not. Letting the secular Jews win is NOT the answer. “Negotiations” with the SSPX are going to go out the window after this one. Can’t say I would disagree with their actions either. Looks like I might have to make a trip to a SSPX Chapel for Good Friday this year.

I can not post enough of these to show my disappointment, but it’ll only let me post eight of them so here we go:

(8 childish heads)

unquote

 

[SemperFidelis]

Here is one of your more adult posts:
Quote
This is STUPID, STUPID, STUPID, STUPID, STUPID!!!

Well, I still do think it’s stupid to change an almost 1,500 year prayer to appease a group of secular Jews, who if you haven’t already noticed are not happy about the changed prayer.

Political Correctness is a disease, a terrible disease. I was hoping Pope Benedict XVI was running away from this course, but alas, I guess he’s not. Letting the secular Jews win is NOT the answer. “Negotiations” with the SSPX are going to go out the window after this one. Can’t say I would disagree with their actions either. Looks like I might have to make a trip to a SSPX Chapel for Good Friday this year.

This sounds pretty good. I wonder who the smart guy was who said this…

I can not post enough of these to show my disappointment, but it’ll only let me post eight of them so here we go:

(8 childish heads)

unquote

This is the best you got? You can’t actually make an argument? You can’t even accept the fact that you don’t know your history regarding Cardinal Newman and Papal Infallibility, so you bring up one of my old posts to make me look bad. When I said you have the zeal for drama of a 13 year old girl, I meant it. After the above post, it’s all too easy to see. You are a lost cause.

 

[mgrfin]

.

You got nothing. Time to send out for reinforcements.

peace