Vatican II Council:"all who have been justified by faith in Baptism ARE MEMBERS of Christ's body,

[jam070406]

The passage you quote in post 55 is specifically talking about being obedient in matters outside the purview of infallibility, but on which the Church (and specifically, the Pope individually) still has authority to bind.

For example, no specific version or translation of the Mass is (or could be) proclaimed infallibly as the one and only allowable variation, but it would still be disobedient for an English-speaking priest to refuse to offer the Ordinary Form liturgy in the most recently approved translation.

That teaching (obedience to those whom God has placed in legitimate authority over us even when we are not guaranteed that they will always make the best decisions, so long as they don’t command anything actually sinful) is hardly new or unique with LG, though. We find it even in Scripture (doesn’t Paul say to obey those who are above us in the Lord?). The issue for an Anglican looking at Catholicism would be one of who may rightfully exercise legitimate authority in religious matters, surely, and not whether such authority exists.

Usagi

I don’t think it’s so black and white.
Michael Davies states in his book Liturgical Time Bombs that some documents written by liberal progressives were written in such a way that can be read orthodox but ambiguous enough that they could be twisted later. Such as the Mass. There are Bishops that have said had they foreseen the damage that would be done to the Liturgy and the Faith in general they would not have signed those documents.
An example. The document says something about the greatest concern being participation by the Faithful in the Mass. The conservative Bishops took that as inner participation, joining themselves in prayer with the Priest, the responses, etc.
But liberals, who wanted to be more ecumenical to Protestants, used it to introduce novelties that the Church had always objected. Folk music, vernacular, Priest facing people, CITH, etc. under the guise of greater participation.

 

[Mickey]

Folk music, vernacular, Priest facing people, CITH, etc.

Blech! :imsorry:

 

[Frank_J]

Folk music, vernacular, Priest facing people, CITH, etc. I would add this “Roman Protestant” to that too.

 

[hn160]

At my Lutheran Church the pastor faces the altar until the reading of Scripture. From what I have seen of the new Mass, the wording is very similar to our Lutheran Divine Service III, We do not have lay readers, the pastor does all readings.

 

[YoungTradCath]

At my Lutheran Church the pastor faces the altar until the reading of Scripture. From what I have seen of the new Mass, the wording is very similar to our Lutheran Divine Service III, We do not have lay readers, the pastor does all readings.

If only…

 

[GaryTaylor]

Folk music, vernacular, Priest facing people, CITH, etc. I would add this “Roman Protestant” to that too.

Excuse me? What exactly are you talking about? Pehaps we should take a solid look at Russia and Jimmy Swaggart who BTW bought Christian television to Russia in 1988.

Are you saying you were there at the time of the Apostles and know how the Liturgy of the Eucharist was performed? Do tell us then “exactly” how it went?

 

[GaryTaylor]

I don’t think it’s so black and white…

I do

I Michael Davies states in his book Liturgical Time Bombs that some documents written by liberal progressives were written in such a way that can be read orthodox but ambiguous enough that they could be twisted later…

So what? And that means something to you I would assume?

I Such as the Mass. There are Bishops that have said had they foreseen the damage that would be done to the Liturgy and the Faith in general they would not have signed those documents…

Who and where is the content of what they stated? Otherwise its just good good talk.

I An example. The document says something about the greatest concern being participation by the Faithful in the Mass. The conservative Bishops took that as inner participation, joining themselves in prayer with the Priest, the responses, etc.
But liberals, who wanted to be more ecumenical to Protestants, used it to introduce novelties that the Church had always objected. Folk music, vernacular, Priest facing people, CITH, etc. under the guise of greater participation.

The Vote at V-II indicates nothing of what your stating here. What kind of Music was played at Pentecost? You alluding to a point you “think” the church had it all right. That period would have to date back “before” 300-AD when the church was persecuted. How about we start there? Or you would lead us to believe sometime after 300-AD

Music, is that where the salvation is? How so do explain? I always throught it was in the Eucharist?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Is anyone able to give a “yes” or “no” answer regarding whether or not Lumen Gentium is infallible?

Peace,
Anna

Did you read the link I posted on page 4? There is your answer. The teachings on morals and faith are infallible. And your other questions are answered there also.

As far as submission to the Pope? That is something you’ll have to decide. Everyone in whatever church they are in are submitting to someone. In this case the Chair of St Peter, and the unbroken line of Apostolic Succession through the Divine Providence of Jesus Christ.

If your supervisor tells you to do this, this and this. You don’t have to agree with him, in fact you don’t even have to like it, but the obedience is required nonetheless. Its no different in the CC or any church for that matter. Though many would lead you believe otherwise. So there would be the response to the earlier question to submission.

The encyclical from earlier centuries can only be viewed in regards to what they taught and to whom, the V-II doctrines cannot teach contrary to another church teaching. Thats just misunderstanding and often promoted by Traditionalists in error.

The church can never teach in error. For the simple fact is, as Christ stated “The Gates of Hell shall never prevail” and had the church taught in error or heresy? Then Christianity would in fact be a lie, and the Gates of Hell would have prevailed. Its impossible and has never happened.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Heres what Michael Davies actually has to state on V-II and Indefectibility …

google.com/url?q=http://www.catholictradition.org/Eucharist/melchisedech-appx10.htm&sa=U&ei=YYvSTp2kN8jz0gHLt-EK&ved=0CB8QFjAC&usg=AFQjCNHyQyGPehrlIDchU_pmHwnL7g6vLw

 

[jam070406]

I do

So what? And that means something to you I would assume?

Who and where is the content of what they stated? Otherwise its just good good talk.

The Vote at V-II indicates nothing of what your stating here. What kind of Music was played at Pentecost? You alluding to a point you “think” the church had it all right. That period would have to date back “before” 300-AD when the church was persecuted. How about we start there? Or you would lead us to believe sometime after 300-AD

Music, is that where the salvation is? How so do explain? I always throught it was in the Eucharist?

I’m sorry your fondness for liberalism made my points lost on you.

 

[jam070406]

The encyclical from earlier centuries can only be viewed in regards to what they taught and to whom, the V-II doctrines cannot teach contrary to another church teaching. Thats just misunderstanding and often promoted by Traditionalists in error.

“The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as part of the entire living tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero. The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of super dogma which takes away the importance of all the rest.” - Cardinal Ratzinger

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Simmer down and post charitably.

 

[jam070406]

I do

So what? And that means something to you I would assume?

Who and where is the content of what they stated? Otherwise its just good good talk.

The Vote at V-II indicates nothing of what your stating here. What kind of Music was played at Pentecost? You alluding to a point you “think” the church had it all right. That period would have to date back “before” 300-AD when the church was persecuted. How about we start there? Or you would lead us to believe sometime after 300-AD

Music, is that where the salvation is? How so do explain? I always throught it was in the Eucharist?

I don’t appreciate your comments. I mentioned the book I referenced. Michael Davies Liturgical Time Bombs in Vatican II.
You are free to disagree. But don’t twist my post out of context to attack me personally.

 

[Frank_J]

I feel what got to you is when I used “Roman Protestant” the answer is easy Pope Paul VI made up a Protestant form of worship. The Novus Ordo Missal is a form of Protestant. Pope Paul VI said it best when asked about in later year for the reason for the Mass change, was to make if more expectable too Protestants. So what you put into it is what you get out. So instead of Roman Catholics you have Roman Protestant. Vatican II will always have the lingering of errors and mistakes that took place. When you look at the growth and the restoration of the Latin Tridentine Mass in the world. You are looking at the coming changes in the Roman Church.

Vatican II is what allowed the smoke of Satan to enter your Church by having 6 Protestants draft the Novus Ordo Missal with the request of the pope. In later year Pope Paul VI lamented the collapse. “The Gates of Hell shall never prevail against it” remember it depend on who is the real Church. The Orthodox Church say it is the True Church found by Jesus Christ not the Roman Church. Satan attacks the Orthodox Church happen every day, but it holds out against the evil one. We are still here and we are not going anywhere. “The Gates of Hell shall never prevail against the Orthodox Church. GOD protects the Church every day.

What I said is not to affend but answer what we all know is the truth.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

This is the subject of the thread:

“all who have been justified by faith in Baptism ARE MEMBERS of Christ’s body, and have a right to be called CHRISTIAN, and so are correctly accepted as BROTHERS by the children of the Catholic Church.”

I suggest we stay there.

 

[GaryTaylor]

“The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as part of the entire living tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero. The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of super dogma which takes away the importance of all the rest.” - Cardinal Ratzinger

This is answered on the link on the previous page …4.

 

[CopticChristian]

John 316 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever **believes **in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

This notion with this verse has watered down what Christ means. All I have to do is take that word and believe. I sit in my room, I believe, I have eternal life. Read the entirety of John 3…there is a dialogue with Nicodemus, a reference to Moses and command…

21But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

Belief that what Moses said, belief that what Christ says…to believe negates that you must also do truth…it is not just belief.

I believe in Penicillin. I have strep throat. I believe in Penicillin. If I do not take the Penicillin as prescribed I can believe all I want and nothing will happen.

I believe that surgery will remove my cancer, however until I exercise that belief and allow someone to perform the surgery nothing will happen.

I believe in Christ. He taught many things. I believe in Christ is not enough. It is necessary to know all he taught, all he asks, and then recognize that Paul, who also believed in Christ said that you must have Obedient Faith…Faith in action…as James says Faith that works…

This verse means nothing if it stands alone as “I believe”…

 

[Frank_J]

I feel what got to you is when I used “Roman Protestant” the answer is easy Pope Paul VI made up a Protestant form of worship. The Novus Ordo Missal is a form of Protestant. Pope Paul VI said it best when asked about in later year for the reason for the Mass change, was to make if more expectable too Protestants. So what you put into it is what you get out. So instead of Roman Catholics you have Roman Protestant. Vatican II will always have the lingering of errors and mistakes that took place. When you look at the growth and the restoration of the Latin Tridentine Mass in the world. You are looking at the coming changes in the Roman Church.

Vatican II is what allowed the smoke of Satan to enter your Church by having 6 Protestants draft the Novus Ordo Missal with the request of the pope. In later year Pope Paul VI lamented the collapse. “The Gates of Hell shall never prevail against it” remember it depend on who is the real Church. The Orthodox Church say it is the True Church found by Jesus Christ not the Roman Church. Satan attacks the Orthodox Church happen every day, but it holds out against the evil one. We are still here and we are not going anywhere. “The Gates of Hell shall never prevail against the Orthodox Church. GOD protects the Church every day.

What I said is not to affend but answer what we all know is the truth.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

As far as the Council of Trent goes
See Session 22 Chapter 8

The rite for Roman Catholics was/is the Latin Mass.

My point was disciplines like what language the Mass is celebrated in can be changed. It had to be in Latin then, but V2 could change it.

 

[YoungTradCath]

As far as the Council of Trent goes
See Session 22 Chapter 8

The rite for Roman Catholics was/is the Latin Mass.

that is just what I said—The only path that leads to heaven is Jesus Christ THROUGH the Catholic Church.

Let’s set this straight. Session 22, Chapter 8 on its own is really a poor justification for having the mass only in Latin.

I think what you are actually looking for is Session 22, Canon IX, part of which says, “If any one saith, …that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only…, let him be anathema.” That is a more compelling argument, at least in how it is presented. But you will notice that in the GIRM for the Ordinary Form of the mass, the priest is fully free, always and everywhere to celebrate mass in Latin. He doesn’t have to celebrate in the vernacular at all, and no one can make him. But if you take Canon IX with Chapter 8, which says, “Although the mass contains great instruction for the faithful people, nevertheless, it has not seemed expedient to the Fathers, that it should be every where celebrated in the vulgar tongue,” then it is clear that mass may be celebrated in the vulgar tongue, which is only a concession. It is doctrine that mass in the sacral Latin (or whatever other language for Eastern liturgies, presumably), I’m pretty sure, is and must always and everywhere be allowed, and that can never change, because doctrine can never change.

Now, please don’t take me for one of those old, tired, trying-to-desperately-regain-ground, National Catholic -]Reporter/-] (ahem Distorter ahem) Vatican II cheerleaders. I’m not. I LOVE the Extraordinary Form and, to be honest, it wouldn’t hurt my feelings a bit if it was the only Form once again. I’m even discerning a vocation with the FSSP or ICRSS. But I do acknowledge the Ordinary Form in the vernacular as valid (and so must you), even thought I don’t much care for it, and I wouldn’t go to it if the Extraordinary Form was anywhere near.