The Mass of Vatican II

[Walking_Home]

Again, where is the Church documentation on the definition of “false religions”? I have yet to see that. I have seen the term “false doctrines”.

---

Do they have---- the TRUE GOSPEL.

 

[bear06]

Just because a man made religion contains an element of Truth (such as a valid baptism) does not mean it is not a false religion. protestants are heretics in that they deny one or more infallibly defined dogmas of the One True Church. Any religion that denies a divinely revealed Truth is false.

protestantism in all its myriad incarnations and inspired as it was by the Father of Lies, is a false religion. Notwithstanding the fact that our brave, new post-Conciliar Church has an almost pathological aversion to declaring it so. (Talk about not calling a spade a spade.)

Sigh! I’ve seen Protests referred to as our “separated brethren” before and after Vatican II. I have not seen them referred to as a “false religion”. After looking into it, the only places I can find Protestanism referred to as a “false religion” are on the SSPX sites and those sympathetic to them. All I’m asking for is one Church document that declares it such. Really, is it too much to ask for? Erroneous, incomplete, substandard I can agree with but as far as I know they were still considered “Christians” though separated from the One, True, Church before and after Vatican II.

 

[bear06]

---

Do they have---- the TRUE GOSPEL.

As far as I know they have the same gospels as we do but an erroneous and subjective interpretation of them. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Yep, I’m pretty sure they use them.

So, are you ever going to answer the question regarding the Church’s documents or are you going to continue to answer a question with a question?

 

[Dr.Bombay]

Pax tecum!

You clearly think that the words of Pius XI mean that VII was heresy, even if you won’t say it straight out. So what you are doing is putting yourself as the foremost authority on interpreting the words of previous popes and Church councils. Pope John XXIII, Pope Paul VI, Pope John Paul, Pope John Paul II, and Pope Benedict XVI have all been wrong, in your opinion, about VII. You are saying that you know more than the popes do about this stuff. Who else said that, in regards to Scripture rather than Tradition? Oh, yes, Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli, Martin Bucer, John Calvin, Thomas Cramner, ect. You are saying that you are right and the popes are wrong. That is EXACTLY what the Protestants did.

In Christ,
Rand

I know you are but what am I?

Why must I be subjected to constant name-calling as I have been in this thread? I’ve been called a protestant, a moral relativist, juvenile, accused of lacking inegrity and invited to leave the Church. Y’all can’t handle the Truth, I guess.

**Blessed are ye when they shall revile you, and persecute you, and speak all that is evil against you, untruly, for my sake: Be glad and rejoice, for your reward is very great in heaven. ** Matthew 5:11-12

I’m rejoicing. http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/29/29_1_20.gif

 

[netmilsmom]

Why must I be subjected to constant name-calling as I have been in this thread? I’ve been called a protestant, a moral relativist, juvenile, accused of lacking inegrity and invited to leave the Church.

But when we do it, we are tossed.
Love ya anyway!

 

[Walking_Home]

As far as I know they have the same gospels as we do but an erroneous and subjective interpretation of them. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Yep, I’m pretty sure they use them.

So, are you ever going to answer the question regarding the Church’s documents or are you going to continue to answer a question with a question?

---

What does an erroneous interpretation make----untrue–false.
What did St. Paul warn us about.

Ps. Nice trick there----bringing in the SSPX.

 

[Dr.Bombay]

Sigh! I’ve seen Protests referred to as our “separated brethren” before and after Vatican II. I have not seen them referred to as a “false religion”. After looking into it, the only places I can find Protestanism referred to as a “false religion” are on the SSPX sites and those sympathetic to them. All I’m asking for is one Church document that declares it such. Really, is it too much to ask for? Erroneous, incomplete, substandard I can agree with but as far as I know they were still considered “Christians” though separated from the One, True, Church before and after Vatican II.

Is the Missale Romanum an authoratative Church document? From the Great Intercessions of Good Friday:

**Let us pray also for heretics and schismatics: that our Lord God would rescue them from all their errors, and recall them to their holy Mother, the Catholic and Apostolic Church

Let us pray.
Let us kneel down.
Arise.

Almighty and everlasting God, who savest all and wouldst that none should perish: turn Thy gaze to souls deceived and led astray by the devil; may they cast off the evil of their heresy and in true repentance of their errors return to the unity of Thy truth. Through our Lord…Amen.**

Spin, spin, spin. I can hear it coming a mile away.

 

[Dr.Bombay]

But when we do it, we are tossed.
Love ya anyway!

From your keyboard to God’s ears…

Love ya, too.

 

[Damascus]

The back of one of my Bibles defines Protestant as this:

One who Protests.; generally taken to mean one who belongs to any of the sects which arose at the time of the Reformation or to any new religious organization arising therefrom. The term originated in 1529 when a group of Luterans “protested” against the Diet of Speyer, which decreed that Catholic doctrines and the Mass should be free from interference in those countries where the “new religion” had been established. Since then the name Protestant has been applied to all non-Catholic Christian religious sects.

So a sect is all it is.

 

[bear06]

---

What does an erroneous interpretation make----untrue–false.
What did St. Paul warn us about.

Ps. Nice trick there----bringing in the SSPX.

When we sin, are we still not Catholic? When they interpret erroneously, are they not still Christians? Because we sin doesn’t make us false Catholics, it makes us stupid. Because they are in error doesn’t make them “false Christians”, it makes them erroneous Christians.

So, are they Christians or are they not? Is Christianity outside of the Catholic Church a “false religion”? The Church called them Christians before and after Vatican II. Do you not?

Sorry you didn’t like my SSPX reference but the fact is, the term “false religions” in relationship to the protestants is only found on such sites. I’m still waiting for that term relating to the protestants in a Church document.

 

[bear06]

Is the Missale Romanum an authoratative Church document? From the Great Intercessions of Good Friday:

Let us pray also for heretics and schismatics: that our Lord God would rescue them from all their errors, and recall them to their holy Mother, the Catholic and Apostolic Church

Let us pray.
Let us kneel down.
Arise.

Almighty and everlasting God, who savest all and wouldst that none should perish: turn Thy gaze to souls deceived and led astray by the devil; may they cast off the evil of their heresy and in true repentance of their errors return to the unity of Thy truth. Through our Lord…Amen.

Spin, spin, spin. I can hear it coming a mile away.

And? What does this have to do with what I said? Error is from the devil. I agree. This says nothing about “false religion”. It says errors to which I already said, I agree that they are in. See Damascus’ post.

 

[Walking_Home]

When we sin, are we still not Catholic? When they interpret erroneously, are they not still Christians? Because we sin doesn’t make us false Catholics, it makes us stupid. Because they are in error doesn’t make them “false Christians”, it makes them erroneous Christians.

So, are they Christians or are they not? Is Christianity outside of the Catholic Church a “false religion”? The Church called them Christians before and after Vatican II. Do you not?

Sorry you didn’t like my SSPX reference but the fact is, the term “false religions” in relationship to the protestants is only found on such sites. I’m still waiting for that term relating to the protestants in a Church document.

---

You wanted a document—

ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.HTM#4

FIRST VATICAN COUNCIL (1869-1870)

Session 3 : 24 April 1870

Dogmatic constitution on the Catholic faith

1. And so we, following in the footsteps of our predecessors, in accordance with our supreme apostolic office, have never left off teaching and defending Catholic truth and condemning erroneous doctrines. But now it is our purpose to profess and declare from this chair of Peter before all eyes the saving teaching of Christ, and, by the power given us by God, to reject and condemn the contrary errors. This we shall do with the bishops of the whole world as our co-assessors and fellow-judges, gathered here as they are in the Holy Spirit by our authority in this ecumenical council, and relying on the word of God in Scripture and tradition as we have received it, religiously preserved and authentically expounded by the Catholic Church.

Chapter 3
On faith

1. Consequently, the situation of those, who by the heavenly gift of faith have embraced the Catholic truth, is by no means the same as that of those who, led by human opinions, follow a false religion; for those who have accepted the faith under the guidance of the Church can never have any just cause for changing this faith or for calling it into question.

 

[chrisb]

Grace and Peace be with you all,

I just wanted to drop in and say that I’ve been following this thread and I’ve found it very interesting. God Bless each of you for your individual contributions. I’ve found them very enlightening.

Thank you and God Bless.

Pax

 

[Dr.Bombay]

And? What does this have to do with what I said? Error is from the devil. I agree. This says nothing about “false religion”. It says errors to which I already said, I agree that they are in. See Damascus’ post.

Then you are claiming protestantism is a true religion.

A religion that subscribes to error is a false religion. Period. Because a true religion does not subscribe to error. It’s either/or. Don’t play semantic games.

 

[bear06]

Then you are claiming protestantism is a true religion.

A religion that subscribes to error is a false religion. Period. Because a true religion does not subscribe to error. It’s either/or. Don’t play semantic games.

Actually, I’m not claiming anything. I’m wondering and asking for documentation. If you’d stop being so vindictive, you’d notice. And it might be more helpful if you actually searched for the documentation than to give your take on the situation. Thanks, Walking Home, for the document!

 

[Dr.Bombay]

Actually, I’m not claiming anything. I’m wondering and asking for documentation. If you’d stop being so vindictive, you’d notice. And it might be more helpful if you actually searched for the documentation than to give your take on the situation. Thanks, Walking Home, for the document!

Oh, now I’m vindictive, am I?

Ok. I see how you are.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

I know you are but what am I?

Why must I be subjected to constant name-calling as I have been in this thread? I’ve been called a protestant, a moral relativist, juvenile, accused of lacking inegrity and invited to leave the Church. Y’all can’t handle the Truth, I guess.

**Blessed are ye when they shall revile you, and persecute you, and speak all that is evil against you, untruly, for my sake: Be glad and rejoice, for your reward is very great in heaven. ** Matthew 5:11-12

I’m rejoicing. http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/29/29_1_20.gif

Pax tecum!

I didn’t call you a Protestant. I pointed out similarities in what they did with Scripture and what you do with Tradition. That is not calling you a Protestant; it is simply pointing out that they did the same thing with Scripture.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

Ya don’t need to be an authority to notice that they are clearly different with 2 different messages … so someone has to be wrong - you pick!

I know what side I am on

Pax tecum!

How do you guys not see that this is EXACTLY what the Protestants say? They say that Scripture and what the Church teaches are two different “messages”. They say that it is “clear”. Now let’s take a look at what you say. You say that, with Tradition, there are two different messages from Pius XI and the popes since VII. You say it is “clear”. You are saying that you are right and the popes are wrong. Just admit that you don’t accept the authority of the pope. Just admit it and we’ll all be better off. But no, you and Dr. Bombay say that you are Catholic, more Catholic than all of us who actually accept the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council as being inspired by the Holy Spirit, as all Church councils are. You say you are Catholic and yet you say that VII the popes since VII have taught heresy. Forgive me if I think that sounds quite sedevacant-ish.

And I know what side I’m on, too. I’m on the side of the Catholic Church and the Vicar of Christ. The same Church that existed before Vatican II and the same Church that exists now.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[Damascus]

You want a document? Here is an eye opener for you guys picking on Bombay-

Read this and try not to laugh your butt off.

HERETICS my friend

catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/catechism.htm

I think its gonna be on my sig line from now on!

Warning: do not drink milk or soda when reading this—

 

[Dr.Bombay]

Pax tecum!

I didn’t call you a Protestant. I pointed out similarities in what they did with Scripture and what you do with Tradition. That is not calling you a Protestant; it is simply pointing out that they did the same thing with Scripture.

In Christ,
Rand

Oh, well that’s good to know. I’m glad you cleared that up. I suppose I didn’t get called vindictive or juvenile either. I suppose I didn’t get accused of aligning myself with the tinfoil hat crowd who think the See of Peter is vacant.

I’m glad we have absolute clarity now.