The Most Holy Family Monastery

[DJim]

What a joke! You worry whether I accept Vatican II but not whether My Hindu (pagan) and Muslim colleagues accept Christ. They in totality clearly deny him. I do not know how much clearer that can be for you.

I’m not worried about your acceptance of Vatican II, just wanting to know whether you do or don’t accept its clear magisterial authority. You know, “He who hears you, hears me” and all that…

Whether I accept or not accept Vatican II is of know consequence, because according to you and Pope Benedict XVI, I am not excluded from Salvation. I do not deny Christ who is God. I believe one must be Baptized to be saved. I believe, …, you know the rest, the creed, the sacraments, etc.

I’m beginning to think you are not clear on the use of the term “salvation”. No one is “excluded” from salvation until they reach life’s end and find themselves, through their own fault, separated from the grace God gave them for their salvation. Baptism, for example, is not absolutely necessary for salvation–only normatively necessary, and extremely salvific for those who have not attained the use of reason.

In any event, say one believes everything taught by the Church prior to Vatican II but not all of Vatican II (some), is one such as this doomed to the hellfire?

Wouldn’t that depend on exactly what that person rejected, and why? The question is never “can I be saved if I only reject a portion of the truth”–which is the scenario you present above. Vatican II is a font of truth for the Catholic faith–one “rejects” it at one’s own peril, for Christ promised to lead us to all truth.

Please, man wake up to reality. What shall happen to all those Catholics that have practiced the Faith prior to Vatican II?

Oh, I get it–the “least common denominator” of faith shall save us all–right? Reject Vatican II? No sweat. We can still be saved because people were saved before Vatican II.

Reject NICEA? No sweat. People were saved before 325 AD.

Reject Christianity? No sweat. Jews were saved before Christ.

Isn’t it intriguing how your thinking is exactly leading to where you least wish to go?

You condemn the Pope for his so-called laxity regarding other faiths, yet you would imply that setting aside Vatican II is no big deal…pot calling the kettle black, I think…

DJim

 

[kleary]

Oh NOOOOO—

Not Brother Michael again…

Thought we got rid of him for good .

[Most Holy Family Monastery used to be located at at 261 Cross Keys Road, Berlin, NJ.]

 

[japhy]

[Most Holy Family Monastery used to be located at at 261 Cross Keys Road, Berlin, NJ.]

SERIOUSLY? Wow. Nice to see Mater Ecclesiae is there now. I was there last week for my first TLM ever.

 

[MMLJ]

Show me where the contradiction resides instead of simply citing the same texts over and over. Point to the exact location of the contradiction, or, in your own words, explain it, please.

I have already posted Pope Benedict XVI contradiction and the Council of Florence. See post #59 for clarification, also #33 and in others as well.

Please define what you mean by “respect.” Then I’ll know whether or not I can agree with you.

You and I well know you do not need me to give you the definition, oh alright I shall see what it is:

OXFORD DICTIONARY

1. n. admiration, esteem,regard, reverence, heed,
2. v. admire, esteem, have a high opinion of, honour, look up to, revere, think highly of, value

(Oxford University Press 1997)

No. Other denominations are NOT more in line with true Catholicism. You are merely misrepresenting true Catholicism, sadly.

I am not misrepresenting anything, I have posted questionable and contradictory comments/remarks/etc. by Pope Benedict XVI and you have failed to prove otherwise. And Yes, what I meant is that Other Denominations are more in line with Catholicism than what is it your are Misrepresenting. You still have not addressed many of my posts and left out citations for your explanations/revisions that I asked nicely for, Now that sad.

You colleague even agreed with another ERRONEOUS remark by our Pope Benedict XVI, for your clarification see posts #94-96.

There. I’ve said it. I don’t think the Pope was correct in his address to the new Ambassador of Pakistan to the Holy See

GOD Bless.

 

[MMLJ]

I’m beginning to think you are not clear on the use of the term “salvation”.

I am clear with this term, Christ was extremely clear. (I have already clarified this in a previous Post)

Wouldn’t that depend on exactly what that person rejected, and why? The question is never “can I be saved if I only reject a portion of the truth”–which is the scenario you present above. Vatican II is a font of truth for the Catholic faith–one “rejects” it at one’s own peril, for Christ promised to lead us to all truth.

And Christ who is GOD has led us to truth, unfortunately some see or follow error even when all logic and Christ points to the Truth.

Oh, I get it–the “least common denominator” of faith shall save us all–right? Reject Vatican II? No sweat. We can still be saved because people were saved before Vatican II.

Reject NICEA? No sweat. People were saved before 325 AD.

Reject Christianity? No sweat. Jews were saved before Christ.

Isn’t it intriguing how your thinking is exactly leading to where you least wish to go?

You have have finally understood what It is Benedict XVI position is. Let me let you in on a secret: Islam totally rejects Christianity, Pope Benedict XVI and anything related to Christ. They recognize nothing about them. As also do the people of Judaism. Yes I agree that the Jewish shall be saved before Christ, and according to Pope Benedict XVI they shall be saved after him as well, even with total Denial of the triune GOD.
You do not need to hear it from me go to your nearest Mosque (Sunni or Shi’ite), ask them what they think of Pope Benedict XVI, Christ, Trinity, and oh yeah what shall become of you if do not convert to Islam. If that is not possible, there are thousands of Islamic websites that will gladly express their position on the aforementioned topics.

You condemn the Pope for his so-called laxity regarding other faiths, yet you would imply that setting aside Vatican II is no big deal…pot calling the kettle black, I think…

I do not condemn the Pope at all, nor can I judge him. He shall be judged in due time by GOD. It is not as simple an issue as putting aside Vatican II, but this is a different discussion and I think it has already been exhausted on this website. In any event, there are many Catholics who still practice their faiths in the same way that it done was prior to Vatican II. Neither the Pope nor The Church has condemned them so why do you?

 

[MMLJ]

NO misconception to corroborate–Florence doesn’t oppose anything currently taught.

That is incorrect Pope Benedict XVI is in contradiction. Here is a contrast:

VATICAN CITY, NOV. 30, 2005, Zenit News Report- Benedict XVI: “Whoever seeks peace and the good of the community with a pure conscience, and keeps alive the desire for the transcendent, will be saved even if he lacks biblical faith, says Benedict XVI.”
(for full article: zenit.org/article-14695?l=english)

Compare with this:

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6 on Justification, Chap. 15: “…it must be maintained that the grace of justification, although received, is lost not only by infidelity, whereby even faith itself is lost, but also by any other mortal sin, although faith be not lost, thereby defending the doctrine of **the divine law which excludes from the kingdom of God not only the unbelievers, **but also the faithful who are ‘fornicators, adulterers, effeminate, liers with mankind, thieves, covetous, drunkards, railers, extortioners’ [1 Cor. 6:9], and all others who commit deadly sins…” (Denziger. 808)

Tell me in your own words exactly what St. John said.

St John and the Holy Ghost are perfectly clear? Are they not? Unless you are saying the Bible, the Word of God, is unclear? How can I a mere mortal say it better, clearer and more to the point than St. John? I cannot and you know very well it is good as it stands. Let us move on.

The propaganda is all false–some of the quoted snippets are false, some are real quotes yanked completely–and i mean completely–out of context…

Your failure to justify/give revised meaning/correct the multiple errors/contradictions made by Pope Benedict XVI does not make them false. See above full text, and yes with the ERROR. Also check my exchange with your colleague concerning the Pope’s comments in Pakistan.
GOD Bless you.

 

[DJim]

MMLJ–

I am now officially done with this discussion, as it is clear that you have no interest in pursuing the truth relative to the thread topic.

You have again cited a fabricated quotation from the Pope to bolster your position, after I have made it clear that the Pope never said it.

Goodbye, and Godspeed,

DJim

 

[japhy]

That is incorrect Pope Benedict XVI is in contradiction. Here is a contrast:

VATICAN CITY, NOV. 30, 2005, Zenit News Report- Benedict XVI: “Whoever seeks peace and the good of the community with a pure conscience, and keeps alive the desire for the transcendent, will be saved even if he lacks biblical faith, says Benedict XVI.”
(for full article: zenit.org/article-14695?l=english)

DJim’s point is that Benedict did not say “Whoever seeks peace and the good of the community with a pure conscience, and keeps alive the desire for the transcendent, will be saved even if he lacks biblical faith”. It’s not a direct quote.

But, honestly, what’s more troubling is the address itself. The issue came up several months ago here, I think, that if you read the address the Pope gave, it’s hard to find where he’s extracting the Augustinian quotes or sentiments. I’ve read St. Augustine’s Commentary on Psalm CXXXVI and I can’t see where the Pope got the idea that St. Augustine is talking about “people who are committed to peace and the good of the community, despite the fact that they do not share the biblical faith, that they do not know the hope of the Eternal City to which we aspire” (quote from the Zenit article, direct quote of Pope Benedict XVI).

 

[Michael_Francis]

Thank you to all who have participated in this discussion.
This thread is now closed.