The Mass of Vatican II

[peregrinator_it]

Prove what? Your opinion?

If you’re going to claim that my conclusion deserves to be dismissed as unsupported personal opinion, provide some proof for your position. Or are you a relitivist, as well?

 

[Dr.Bombay]

If you’re going to claim that my conclusion deserves to be dismissed as unsupported personal opinion, provide some proof for your position. Or are you a relitivist, as well?

How can I prove your opinion is your opinion? Your opinion is what it is. Namely, your opinion.

 

[peregrinator_it]

How can I prove your opinion is your opinion? Your opinion is what it is. Namely, your opinion.

I’m going to assume you’re not just intentionally misreading my posts.

If you are sincere, and you are willing to sincerely dismiss arguments with the phrase “well, that’s just your opinion”, not by subjecting said arguments to a reasoned evaluation, then you really are a relativist. And your statement in your previous post that “you think words mean things” is false. You can’t believe that if you don’t believe that man can make objectively true statements.

[Of course, if you’re a relitivist, you wouldn’t accept the principle of non-contradiction, either…]

 

[Walking_Home]

Since Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical Libertas was brought up—this is what he says on religious liberty.

papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13liber.htm

LIBERTAS
ON THE NATURE OF HUMAN LIBERTY

ENCYCLICAL OF POPE LEO XIII JUNE 20, 1888

1. But, assuredly, of all the duties which man has to fulfill, that, without doubt, is the chiefest and holiest which commands him to worship God with devotion and piety. …And if it be asked which of the many conflicting religions it is necessary to adopt, reason and the natural law unhesitatingly tell us to practice that one which God enjoins, and which men can easily recognize by certain exterior notes, whereby Divine Providence has willed that it should be distinguished, because, in a matter of such moment, the most terrible loss would be the consequence of error. Wherefore, when a liberty such as We have described is offered to man, the power is given him to pervert or abandon with impunity the most sacred of duties, and to exchange the unchangeable good for evil; which, as We have said, is no liberty, but its degradation, and the abject submission of the soul to sin.
2. This kind of liberty, if considered in relation to the State, clearly implies that there is no reason why the State should offer any homage to God, or should desire any public recognition of Him; that no one form of worship is to be preferred to another, but that all stand on an equal footing…
   But, to justify this, it must needs be taken as true that the State has no duties toward God, or that such duties, if they exist, can be abandoned with impunity, both of which assertions are manifestly false. …Wherefore, civil society must acknowledge God as its Founder and Parent, and must obey and reverence His power and authority.justice therefore forbids, and reason itself forbids, the State to be godless; or to adopt a line of action which would end in godlessness – namely, to treat the various religions (as they call them) alike, and to bestow upon them promiscuously equal rights and privileges. Since, then, the profession of one religion is necessary in the State, that religion must be professed which alone is true, and which can be recognized without difficulty, especially in Catholic States, because the marks of truth are, as it were, engraven upon it. This religion, therefore, the rulers of the State must preserve and protect, if they would provide – as they should do – with prudence and usefulness for the good of the community. For public authority exists for the welfare of those whom it governs; and, although its proximate end is to lead men to the prosperity found in this life, yet, in so doing, it ought not to diminish, but rather to increase, man’s capability of attaining to the supreme good in which his everlasting happiness consists: which never can be attained if religion be disregarded.

 

[Dr.Bombay]

I’m going to assume you’re not just intentionally misreading my posts.

If you are sincere, and you are willing to sincerely dismiss arguments with the phrase “well, that’s just your opinion”, not by subjecting said arguments to a reasoned evaluation, then you really are a relativist. And your statement in your previous post that “you think words mean things” is false. You can’t believe that if you don’t believe that man can make objectively true statements.

[Of course, if you’re a relitivist, you wouldn’t accept the principle of non-contradiction, either…]

Name calling. How unbecoming. You’re gonna get this thread locked.

You’re the one who is trying to reconcile two seemingly obvious contrary statements by putting a very peculiar spin on them. Not me.

 

[AJV]

http://bestsmileys.com/eating1/1.gif

 

[peregrinator_it]

AJV,

LOL :D

Dr. Bombay,
It ain't name calling to call a spade a spade. Let me know when you've got an argument to answer me with.

 

[Dr.Bombay]

AJV,

LOL :D

Dr. Bombay,

It ain’t name calling to call a spade a spade. Let me know when you’ve got an argument to answer me with.

I don’t argue. I discuss. That’s your problem. You came here spoiling for a fight. Sorry, I don’t play that way.

 

[peregrinator_it]

argument: n. [Fr. < L. *argumentum evidence, proof < arguere: se ARGUE] 1. a reason or reasons offered for or against something 2. the offering of such reasons, reasoning

(source: Webster’s New World Dictionary)

I don’t argue. I discuss

You can’t do the latter without the former. And I don’t play juvenile word games. You begin to resemble something out of a Monty Python skit. Good night.

 

[bear06]

Oh, I see. You are denying that false religions exist at all.

Oh please, use some intergrity when you debate! Where did I say this? The definition given (which you refused to give) was any religion that was not Catholic. I asked how faiths with baptisms excepted by our Church could be considered “false”. Again, if these faiths were false, how could the Catholic Church have ALWAYS accepted these baptisms? This might be why I asked for your definition of “false faiths” and it would seem that the one given was false. I doubt you’d find anyone here agreeing with your straw argument that I am saying there are no false religions. Of course there are.

 

[bear06]

Pius XI asked that Muslims be delivered “from the darkness of Islam”.

Again, did you guys read the post?! I never mentioned Islam. Since the definition given for “false faiths” was any faith that wasn’t Catholic, I questioned that definition due to the fact that our Faith has always accepted the baptisms of many Protestant denominations.

 

[bear06]

Oh my, I just noticed that you, Bombay, backed Nick up on his definition. So let’s just go over the whole thing again. How can you say that the definition of “false religion” is any religion that is not Catholic. While I agree that there are “false religions” out there, I don’t see how one can make a blanket statement that any religion that is not Catholic is a “false religion”. Wouldn’t you agree that the Prostant churches who’s baptisms are accepted by the Catholic Church as valid cannot be “false religions”?

Also Bombay, while I agree that it is not in your purview to declare heresy, it is well within your boundaries to tell us whether or not YOU believe that the Vatican II documents are contrary to Tradition. It would seem that if you can suggest that Vatican II documents contradict other popes’ writings, you could at least tell us what you think. So?

 

[bear06]

…faiths with baptisms* excepted* by our Church

LOL! I mean accepted not excepted. Too little sleep and spelling goes out the window.

 

[Walking_Home]

Oh please, use some intergrity when you debate! Where did I say this? The definition given (which you refused to give) was any religion that was not Catholic. I asked how faiths with baptisms excepted by our Church could be considered “false”. Again, if these faiths were false, how could the Catholic Church have ALWAYS accepted these baptisms? This might be why I asked for your definition of “false faiths” and it would seem that the one given was false. I doubt you’d find anyone here agreeing with your straw argument that I am saying there are no false religions. Of course there are.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

It is beyond my purview to declare heresy.

I’m a doctor. Not a protestant.

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

 

[bear06]

---

So you are basing your reasoning that this religions are not false–on baptism. How about the rest of their beliefs. Do they follow all of our doctrine—our teachings. Christ instituted ONE christian Faith that is true—is it not the Catholic Faith.

Sigh! Here’s part of the original post

Certainly it’s incomplete and inferior, maybe even illicit would be a good word,

I never indicated that the Protestant church was the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Can you show me one Church document that says the Protestant faiths (at least he ones with valid baptisms) are “false religions”. Maybe there’s one out there, I just can’t recall it.

 

[Walking_Home]

Sigh! Here’s part of the original post

I never indicated that the Protestant church was the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Can you show me one Church document that says the Protestant faiths (at least he ones with valid baptisms) are “false religions”. Maybe there’s one out there, I just can’t recall it.

---

The fact that we are the ONE True Church says it all. It is not what they have in common with us -----it is what they do not have in common that makes them false. Either we are Truth or we are not—which is it.

 

[Rara_Avis]

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,

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

 

[Dr.Bombay]

Oh my, I just noticed that you, Bombay, backed Nick up on his definition. So let’s just go over the whole thing again. How can you say that the definition of “false religion” is any religion that is not Catholic. While I agree that there are “false religions” out there, I don’t see how one can make a blanket statement that any religion that is not Catholic is a “false religion”. Wouldn’t you agree that the Prostant churches who’s baptisms are accepted by the Catholic Church as valid cannot be “false religions”?

Also Bombay, while I agree that it is not in your purview to declare heresy, it is well within your boundaries to tell us whether or not YOU believe that the Vatican II documents are contrary to Tradition. It would seem that if you can suggest that Vatican II documents contradict other popes’ writings, you could at least tell us what you think. So?

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.)

 

[bear06]

---

The fact that we are the ONE True Church says it all. It is not what they have in common with us -----it is what they do not have in common that makes them false. Either we are Truth or we are not—which is it.

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”.