The Mass of Vatican II

  • Thread starter Thread starter Brennan_Doherty
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Just for fun, define “false religions”.
Click to expand...
i think we have all been brain washed into thinking that plurality and secularism as is practiced in the usa is somehow more enlightened and more in tune with how the post vii church defines the ideal church and state relationship.

much of what has been written was directly geared towards communist regimes where state sponsored atheism was forced onto the people or to secular democracies like we have in the west. the church only condemns governments when they don’t respect the dignity of the people. this idea that catholicism can’t be explicitly taught or practiced by the state is silly.

if a state were to support and recognize catholicism as the one true faith, they would be doing well. if the president would say the rosary weekly on satellite tv, he would do well. if every public school in the country taught the catechism, they would do well.

what the church can’t do is force people to pray the rosary, or become catholic. religions that teach contrary to the natural law should be made illegal and discriminated against in an ideal world. all that the public should be forced to obey is the natural law. dogmatic and revealed truths can’t be forced on people.

the state can’t tell the church what to do. and the church doesn’t run affairs that pertain to the state. the two have different roles, but are not necessarily isolated from one another.
 
Dr.Bombay said:
Governments have a right to prohibit the public practice of false religions.
Click to expand...
I’ll satisfy myself with a brief reply. What support do you have for the statement above?

Quanta Cura does not support this statement.

Pope Pius IX condemns those who claim that “liberty of conscience” means no one, not the civil government and not the Church may make laws for men on religious matters.

Thus Pius’ complaints in the 4th and 5th paragraph are against those who:

-“claim that permission should be refused to citizens and to the Church ‘whereby they may openly give alms for the sake of Christian charity’”

-"not content with removing religion from public society…wish to ban it also from private families. For, teaching and professing the most fatal error of “Communism and Socialism,” they assert that “domestic society or the family derives the whole principle of its existence from the civil law alone; and, consequently, that on civil law alone depend all rights of parents over their children, and especially that of providing for education.”

… etc.

Nowhere does Quanta Cura support your above statement. Nor does Dignitatis Humanae contradict Quanta Cura, because they are not talking about the same subject. QC is condemning a false notion of freedom and DH is supporting a legitimate freedom.

These quotations do not prove that Vatican II "breaks with Tradition."
 
Further, (my other post was getting too long) in rooting about trying to find the Latin for QC, I discovered that if Vatican II “breaks with Tradition” then so does Pius IX’s successor, Leo XIII.

From his encyclical Libertas Praestantissimum ["

But I also discovered that this “Quanta Cura vs. Vatican II” red herring is also a common Traditionalist canard, which tempts me to return to my former harsh judgement on text-slingers.But it may also be taken to mean that every man in the State may follow the will of God and, from a consciousness of duty and free from every obstacle, obey His commands. This, indeed, is true liberty, ****which nobly maintains the dignity of man ****a liberty which the Church has always desired and held most dear.](http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/13liber.htm)
 
AlexV said:
The SSPX has “cookies”?

Actually, they have the Body of Christ, since their Masses are quite valid.
Click to expand...
Pax tecum!

I was not referring to their Eucharist, which I know is valid.

In Christ,
Rand
 
Dr.Bombay said:
I’m not saying anything. Pius IX and Vatican II can speak for themselves.
Click to expand...
Pax tecum!

I asked you before if you have ever even read the VII documents. Have you? This is as close as you have come to calling VII heresy. Who are you to make that call? Do you not realize that you are doing the EXACT SAME THING with Tradition and papal documents that the Protestants did with Scripture hundreds of years ago? You are interpreting it for yourself and saying that the popes have been wrong. That is Protestantism, just with Tradition instead of Scripture. Who do you think you are, to do that?

In Christ,
Rand
 
CatholicNick said:
Easy - Anything that is not Catholicism
Click to expand...
Well, I’m sure this will open the flood gates here but I’m not sure how you can say that anything not Catholic is false. Certainly it’s incomplete and inferior, maybe even illicit would be a good word, but if the Catholic church has ALWAYS said that baptisms in some of these non-Catholic churches are valid, yes? How could something be false if it’s ALWAYS been deemed valid by our Church. If it was a false religion then we certainly would have to do baptisms over again, wouldn’t we?
 
Rand_Al_Thor said:
Pax tecum!

I asked you before if you have ever even read the VII documents. Have you? This is as close as you have come to calling VII heresy. Who are you to make that call? Do you not realize that you are doing the EXACT SAME THING with Tradition and papal documents that the Protestants did with Scripture hundreds of years ago? You are interpreting it for yourself and saying that the popes have been wrong. That is Protestantism, just with Tradition instead of Scripture. Who do you think you are, to do that?

In Christ,
Rand
Click to expand...
Rand, I’m sure he will not say that HE’s saying it. All he will do is allude to the fact that he thinks that HE thinks that Pius IX is saying that although he won’t even go as far to make that statement. It seems if one believes it, one should be willing to come out and say it clearly.
 
Ham1 said:
Scary position you have staked out here…good luck with that.
Click to expand...
Would you be less scared if I claimed if it teaches heresy it is authoritative and all Catholics are bound to obey the heresy?
 
The funny thing about this thread is that the “Mass of Vatican II” was the 1962 Missale Romanum. The Council Fathers celebrated it daily.
 
peregrinator_it said:
But I also discovered that this “Quanta Cura vs. Vatican II” red herring is also a common Traditionalist canard, which tempts me to return to my former harsh judgement on text-slingers.
Click to expand...
Your beef would appear to be with the liberals who seem to also believe the “common canard.”

See here.
 
Rand_Al_Thor said:
Pax tecum!

I asked you before if you have ever even read the VII documents. Have you? This is as close as you have come to calling VII heresy. Who are you to make that call? Do you not realize that you are doing the EXACT SAME THING with Tradition and papal documents that the Protestants did with Scripture hundreds of years ago? You are interpreting it for yourself and saying that the popes have been wrong. That is Protestantism, just with Tradition instead of Scripture. Who do you think you are, to do that?

In Christ,
Rand
Click to expand...
It is beyond my purview to declare heresy.

I’m a doctor. Not a protestant.
 
bear06 said:
Well, I’m sure this will open the flood gates here but I’m not sure how you can say that anything not Catholic is false. Certainly it’s incomplete and inferior, maybe even illicit would be a good word, but if the Catholic church has ALWAYS said that baptisms in some of these non-Catholic churches are valid, yes? How could something be false if it’s ALWAYS been deemed valid by our Church. If it was a false religion then we certainly would have to do baptisms over again, wouldn’t we?
Click to expand...
Oh, I see. You are denying that false religions exist at all. That would seem to put you at odds with something taught repeatedly by the ordinary magesterium.
 
Pius XI asked that Muslims be delivered “from the darkness of Islam”.
 
Seems----someone forgot the warning from St. Paul.

drbo.org/chapter/55001.htm

6 I wonder that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ, unto another gospel. 7 Which is not another, only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. 9 As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema. 10 For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? If I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.
 
peregrinator_it said:
Prove it.

???
Click to expand...
Prove what? Your opinion? That’s your job, not mine.

And I don’t know why you ??? my link. It proves conclusively that liberals believe that *Dignitatis Humanae *was a clear break with Tradition.

Oh, that’s right. Liberals are misinterpreting Vat II also. I forgot. :rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top