Vatican II

[choy]

Manners? Proper manners dictates not answering a direct question with a question. I’m challenging you to answer the question. This is a public forum, not a private exchange. If you refuse, then the honourable thing would be to withdraw from this thread.

wow, still finding a way to get rid of me
i suggest saving your energy because it will never happen. most especially not for you

 

[Layman]

One way is that the homebound can now participate, as our parish has about a dozen lay ministers who can cover many more people than the pastor could hope to.

Alan

1. Weekly reception is not a requisite.
2. I’m speaking about CITH, standing, from a laywoman, in a Mass.

 

[Ockham]

wow, still finding a way to get rid of me
i suggest saving your energy because it will never happen. most especially not for you

Answer the question please.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

1. Weekly reception is not a requisite.
2. I’m speaking about CITH, standing, from a laywoman, in a Mass.

1. True. Once a year is all the homebound are required to receive, right? Or are they required to receive at all, since they can’t come to Mass?
2. I don’t see how it helps anyone in their quest for sanctification, but then I also don’t see how it hurts anyone in their quest for sanctification. I don’t know why the Church changed to allow it.

But I promised I wouldn’t post more about CITH in this thread, and I mean it this time. Don’t come any closer! I have a “new thread” button and I know how to use it!

Alan

 

[Layman]

1. True. Once a year is all the homebound are required to receive, right? Or are they required to receive at all, since they can’t come to Mass?
2. I don’t see how it helps anyone in their quest for sanctification, but then I also don’t see how it hurts anyone in their quest for sanctification. I don’t know why the Church changed to allow it.

But I promised I wouldn’t post more about CITH in this thread, and I mean it this time. Don’t come any closer! I have a “new thread” button and I know how to use it!

Alan

1. Yes, I think they are excused.
2. An opportunity to express humility, a heavenly virtue, before the Real Presence, at the central rite of our religion, has been lost.
3. I regret I must post on this topic. Please, take your finger off the “new thread” button. Gently does it, there now …

 

[CWBetts]

I began this thread looking for responses to the maxim, “No salvation outside the Catholic Church” and how the application of it has changed since Vatican II. It has been quite a while since this thread has been on topic.

The understanding is that “the Church” is not just the Catholic Church, theough the normative way for salvation is through the Church and her teachings, God is not restricted by the institutional Church.

 

[Ockham]

The understanding is that “the Church” is not just the Catholic Church, theough the normative way for salvation is through the Church and her teachings, God is not restricted by the institutional Church.

Care to expand on that? Do you mean the mystical body of Christ being the “Church” thus any follower of Him is in union witl all others?

 

[Genesis315]

The Catholic Church is “the Church.” The CDF has recently ruled that “the Church” cannot be said to subsist anywhere other than in the Catholic Church. This is a dogma of the faith. However, this does not necessarily mean that only those who explicitly identify themselves as Catholic are found within her bosom. For example, a baptized person who is wrong in good faith, and not pertinacious in their error, is not cut off from the Church like a true heretic is.

 

[CWBetts]

Care to expand on that? Do you mean the mystical body of Christ being the “Church” thus any follower of Him is in union witl all others?

The Church is not purely institutional. There is also a spiritual dimension. I believe it was St. Augustine that said (I believe it was in City of God, but I am not 100% sure–it may have been in one of his many homilies) that some who appear to be inside the church are outside the church and vise versa. To say that God is only capable of saving Catholics does a couple of things that are disconcerting at best. The first is that God had bound himself to the Sacraments. Gd can save who He wills, and is not bound by the Sacraments, although it is the normative mode of salvation. The second thing is that it implies that God holds people accountable to graces that they were not given. If someone was born Methodist (for example) prays daily, is baptized and receives communion according to their tradition, fully believes in Christ as savior of the world, and bears no ill will towards the Catholic Church, does that mean they have no chance at salvation because they were never given the graces to fully enjoy the fullness of the Catholic faith, then they have no chance at salvation? I disagree. And so does the Catholic Church. Lumen Gentium (the Dogmatic Constitution on the People of God states addresses this in sections 14-16. To say that absolutely no one can be saved because they are not fully Catholic is in direct conflict with the teachings of the Church.

 

[choy]

Answer the question please.

you never asked a question, all you do is attack ad hominem

 

[Ockham]

you never asked a question, all you do is attack ad hominem

You were asked a direct question and refuse to answer. That says a lot about your credibility.

You don’t seem to know what ad hominem means

This discussion has moved above your rhetoric.

 

[Ockham]

I disagree. And so does the Catholic Church. Lumen Gentium (the Dogmatic Constitution on the People of God states addresses this in sections 14-16. To say that absolutely no one can be saved because they are not fully Catholic is in direct conflict with the teachings of the Church.

Did Christ establish one church for the salvation of souls or not? Why did He give us the Sacraments if they are optional?

 

[choy]

You were asked a direct question and refuse to answer. That says a lot about your credibility.

You don’t seem to know what ad hominem means

This discussion has moved above your rhetoric.

i really don’t care what you have to say at this point. you yourself have no further valid arguments aside from the same ones you post over and over and over again in every thread. then after all those has been shot down, resort to what you do right now which is to ad hom and ad hom and ad hom

 

[Ockham]

i really don’t care what you have to say at this point. you yourself have no further valid arguments aside from the same ones you post over and over and over again in every thread. then after all those has been shot down, resort to what you do right now which is to ad hom and ad hom and ad hom

You are a perfect example of the CITH and ‘spirit of V2’ position. Modernists don’t care what anyone else thinks as their own agenda is their prime directive. Facts are avoided and debate clouded with rhetoric and false accusations. I pray for those you 'catechize".

 

[choy]

You are a perfect example of the CITH and ‘spirit of V2’ position. Modernists don’t care what anyone else thinks as their own agenda is their prime directive. Facts are avoided and debate clouded with rhetoric and false accusations. I pray for those you 'catechize".

you described yourself and put my name in it
i pray for those who fall pray to your sedevacantist beliefs

 

[Vince1022]

V2 was called as a pastoral council, against the judgement of every pope since V1, the prep documents were thrown out at the commencement, and our current pontiff has stated that the ‘spirit of V2’ has been misinterpreted. Most of the changes in our Church since V2 were not called for by the council.

What do we do now?

I am new here…can you explain what you mean by saying Vatican II was called against the judgment of every Pope since VI? I don’t understand…most the Popes since Vatican I had no knowledge of Vatican II? Thanks.

 

[Vince1022]

Interesting point. I’m liking the new choy. It’s much more interesting to discuss things when someone isn’t incessantly refraining, “it’s allowed” or “it’s in the GIRM”.

Thing is, priest celibacy is the norm, not an indult. There are good reasons for it. Popes, saints, and doctors of the Church have endorsed it. Can you provide one example of that for CITH (other than the "make your palm a throne thingy)?

I’m new here, but I was wondering what’s wrong with following what the Church teaches? Thanks.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

I’m new here, but I was wondering what’s wrong with following what the Church teaches? Thanks.

Congratulations. You managed to find one of the major hotbeds of this forum. Vatican II, Communion-in-the-Hand, standing for Communion, laywoman Communion minister. All of these things will drive a wedge between what might otherwise look like brothers in Christ.

Note that if you stay away from the above topics you might find more charitable discussion.

Oh, but welcome to CAF. It is a wonderful resource, and I learn a lot here, and there really are some totally excellent discussions.

Alan

 

[Vince1022]

Congratulations. You managed to find one of the major hotbeds of this forum. Vatican II, Communion-in-the-Hand, standing for Communion, laywoman Communion minister. All of these things will drive a wedge between what might otherwise look like brothers in Christ.

Note that if you stay away from the above topics you might find more charitable discussion.

Oh, but welcome to CAF. It is a wonderful resource, and I learn a lot here, and there really are some totally excellent discussions.

Alan

Thank you.

As the Church approves all of the things you mention, thought with some of them individual bishops have appropriate discretion, I’m just surprised that Catholics have a problem with them. Guess I have a lot to learn! Thanks again.

 

[Layman]

It hinges around the word ‘approve’. I would say certain things are allowed but not ‘approved’.

i.e. point out a Bishop who says ‘CITH is great, go do it’, ‘EMHCs at small Masses, fantastic!’ or ‘we must get more pop music in the Mass’.

Not too many of 'em, I think.