The Mass of Vatican II

[peregrinator_it]

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.

For the record:

I’m not willing to discuss with you anymore because of your unwillingness to discuss actual issues. But I am tired of seeing my words bandied around.

I posted:

And I don’t play juvenile word games.

In this sentence the word “juvenile” modifies (or refers to) the words “word games.” To misconstrue someone’s words in a discussion when there is no ambiguity in them merits the term “juvenile,” because it is, in fact, what a child would do.

The word “juvenile” in this sentence does not refer to you, Dr. Bombay - in fact, you’re not even mentioned in the sentence.
If I’d wanted to call you personally, rather than your posts, juvenile, I would have done it.

 

[peregrinator_it]

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.

For the record:

I’m not willing to discuss with you anymore because of your unwillingness to discuss actual issues. But I am tired of seeing my words bandied around.

I posted:

And I don’t play juvenile word games.

In this sentence the word “juvenile” modifies (or refers to) the words “word games.” To misconstrue someone’s words in a discussion when there is no ambiguity in them merits the term “juvenile,” because it is, in fact, what a child would do.

The word “juvenile” in this sentence does not refer to you personally, it refers to your posts. You, Dr. Bombay, are not even mentioned in the sentence.

 

[Damascus]

Double posting double talk I say.

 

[Rara_Avis]

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”.

That is not what I say … Scripture and the Church are the same … but what church are you talking about?

You are saying that you are right and the popes are wrong. Just admit that you don’t accept the authority of the pope.

Can’t speak for anyone else but I accept the authority of all valid popes

Second Vatican Ecumenical Council

could this be why bear thinks there is no such thing as a false religion - I personally don’t know why anyone would go to a Catholic Church … when everybody knows the rest of them are just as good and worship the same God - really what is the point

Forgive me if I think that sounds quite sedevacant-ish.

ooohhhh nasty! there you go use’n the “S” word

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

Pax tecum!

That is not what I say … Scripture and the Church are the same … but what church are you talking about?

I didn’t say that’s what you said. Read my whole post again. I was making a COMPARISON. I know that Scripture and the Church go together. What I said is that the Protestants said that Scripture contradicted what the Church was teaching. You say that the post-VII Church contradicts what Tradition teaches. So I said that what the Protestants did with Scripture, you have done with Tradition.

Can’t speak for anyone else but I accept the authority of all valid popes

It seems like you made sure to use the word “valid” here. And the popes from John XXIII to Benedict XVI? Are they valid, in your opinion?

could this be why bear thinks there is no such thing as a false religion - I personally don’t know why anyone would go to a Catholic Church … when everybody knows the rest of them are just as good and worship the same God - really what is the point

Well, as soon as you show me where in the VII documents, the CCC, or any other Church documents since VII that says all religions are equal and there are no false religions… But the problem is, nothing the Church has put out has said those things.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[bear06]

could this be why bear thinks there is no such thing as a false religion - I personally don’t know why anyone would go to a Catholic Church … when everybody knows the rest of them are just as good and worship the same God - really what is the point

Get a grip. How many times do I have to tell you that you are incorrect. I never said there was no such thing as a false religion and to say otherwise is either a lie or a completely idiotic statement. Maybe you might want to actually read the threads.

 

[TradyDaddy]

Is the teaching of the Church confined to what it writes only? I think not. If a dad writes a rule for his household and posts it, but then by his actions and example, does not follow it, he teaches comfusion and lack of respect for his own rule.

Likewise, Vatican approved events such as the Assisi fiasco’s highligted by the Budha placed on the tabernacle, the Joint Declaration on Justification with the Lutherans, and the host of examples of JP-II and B-XVI worshiping with Protestants and Jews, all combined to scream out, “we all worship in our own special way… and it’s ok as long as we have peace!!!”

Actions speak louder than words, as the saying goes. They don’t have to write it down. At least the current pope hasn’t kissed the Koran…yet…

 

[TradyDaddy]

Get a grip. How many times do I have to tell you that you are incorrect. I never said there was no such thing as a false religion and to say otherwise is either a lie or a completely idiotic statement. Maybe you might want to actually read the threads.

Hi bear… I hope I didn’t just miss this, but have you given your definition of a false religion?

 

[Marian_Carroll]

**GENTLE REMINDER

The discussion is an interesting one with many good posts in the thread. Please decline to lose it’s informational content by starting to “snipe” at one another. Onward… **

 

[bear06]

Is the teaching of the Church confined to what it writes only? I think not. If a dad writes a rule for his household and posts it, but then by his actions and example, does not follow it, he teaches comfusion and lack of respect for his own rule.

Poor actions are not binding on the faithful.

Likewise, Vatican approved events such as the Assisi fiasco’s highligted by the Budha placed on the tabernacle,

 

[Walking_Home]

Poor actions are not binding on the faithful.

 

[bear06]

bear06;1594449:

---

The difference here bear06—is that the SSPX have valid Apostolic Succession and the Church has not (as far a I know) declared them to be a false religion. The protestant and non-christians erroneous doctrines have been condemned

by the Church and are false religions.

You may well be right, WH, but then (more pondering)it would seem to have to be based solely on on Apostolic Succession since the SSPX would reject in deed Pastor Aeternus. They are essentially following a false doctrine by not following Pastor Aeternus.

 

[Walking_Home]

Walking_Home;1594598:

You may well be right, WH, but then (more pondering)it would seem to have to be based solely on on Apostolic Succession since the SSPX would reject in deed Pastor Aeternus. They are essentially following a false doctrine by not following Pastor Aeternus.

---

It would seem that way----but I do not think the Church considers the SSPX doctrine----false. If the Church were to consider the SSPX a false religion ----- then She would no longer recognize the validity of their bishops and priests. The SSPX would not have a valid consecration. The Church would have declared them invalid----which She has not done.

 

[Damascus]

What does the word Schismatic mean?

 

[bear06]

What does the word Schismatic mean?

newadvent.org/cathen/13529a.htm

 

[Damascus]

Thanks Bear 06.,

So are the SSPX schismatic or not? Yeah or neigh?

 

[bear06]

bear06;1594886:

---

It would seem that way----but I do not think the Church considers the SSPX doctrine----false. If the Church were to consider the SSPX a false religion ----- then She would no longer recognize the validity of their bishops and priests. The SSPX would not have a valid consecration. The Church would have declared them invalid----which She has not done.

I’m thinking there was a reason they quoted Pastor Aeternus in Ecclesia Dei. That said, I imagine that the Church will thankfully not come out and say anything until all options for unity have been tried.

 

[bear06]

Thanks Bear 06.,

So are the SSPX schismatic or not? Yeah or neigh?

Yes. Here’s Ecclesia Dei, the document concerning Msgr. Lefebrve and all of those adhering to the schism.
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html

 

[Walking_Home]

Walking_Home;1594922:

I’m thinking there was a reason they quoted Pastor Aeternus in Ecclesia Dei. That said, I imagine that the Church will thankfully not come out and say anything until all options for unity have been tried.

---

As long as the SSPX do not deviate from their doctrine—I do not think the Church will declare them as such—even if reunification does not occur.

 

[bear06]

bear06;1595120:

---

As long as the SSPX do not deviate from their doctrine—I do not think the Church will declare them as such—even if reunification does not occur.

They may not but I think that the Church would be well within the boundaries to do so.