Who can go to heaven?

[bobzills]

If my math professor said “1+1 = 3”, in clear contravention of what mathematics tells us, it is my belief that he should be removed from his post. The fact that he’s a mathematics professor doesn’t give him the right to change what math is.

Actually, it depends on the circumstances of the question and on the context. Under certain conditions and relative to a certain context, it can be true that 1+1 = 3, contrary to what you have said here.

 

[bobzills]

That being said, I’m continually flabbergasted by the Vatican’s obsession with Jews. I just don’t get it. Why don’t we ignore them when they ask us to change our faith? What purpose can “dialogue” have if it’s not to convert them? Why is “mutual respect” seen by some as more important than salvation?

Things have changed since Vatican II.

 

[bobzills]

Here’s the Canon under discussion:

ß3 Catholic ministers may lawfully administer the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick to members of the eastern Churches not in full communion with the catholic Church, if they spontaneously ask for them and are properly disposed. The same applies to members of other Churches which the Apostolic See judges to be in the same position as the aforesaid eastern Churches so far as the sacraments are concerned.

This does not mention the salvation of Eastern Orthodox. The Catholic faith holds that the Eastern Orthodox are not saved unless in a state of purely material, and not formal, heresy.

Being “properly disposed” would of course entail a rejection of Eastern Orthodox errors, and a full acknowledgement of the Catholic faith. Proper disposition involves being in a state of grace, which is only possible if one is not in a state of formal heresy.

I would like to see an official acknowledgement that proper disposition means a rejection of the Eastern Orthodox errors and a full acknowledgement of the Catholic faith. It seems to me that what you claim would mean that an Eastern Orthodox would have to be a Catholic before he would be allowed to receive Holy Communion and this is not the way it is according to the US Bishops.
On November 14, 1996, the National Conference of Catholic Bishops approved the following.: …" Members of the Orthodox Churches, the Assyrian Church of the East, and the Polish National Catholic Church are urged to respect the discipline of their own Churches.** According to Roman Catholic discipline, the Code of Canon Law does not object to the reception of communion by Christians of these Churches**"…
usccb.org/liturgy/q&a/mass/communion.shtml
So, these are the guidelines, whether you like it or not.

 

[bobzills]

What is truly sad is all of you on this thread have spoken the truth, (at least partially) but continue to align yourself’s with the apostates of the Vatican II sect. Kasper, Ratzinger, Mahoney, and All who teach the heresies promulgated at Vatican II.

What is your opinion of the papal encyclical of Pope John XXII Quia quorundam? Here’s what Pope John XXII condemned:
“That which the Roman Pontiffs had defined by [means of] the key of knowledge, in faith and morals, once for all, persists unchangeable to such an extent, that it is not lawful for a successor to call it again into doubt, nor to affirm the contrary,”
Now if that is infallibly condemned, it seems like the Popes would have the power to change things as they have recently since Vatican II? Otherwise, how would you explain this encyclical?

 

[Dauphin]

Actually, it depends on the circumstances of the question and on the context. Under certain conditions and relative to a certain context, it can be true that 1+1 = 3, contrary to what you have said here.

True! After all, it’s much more creative and broad-minded to believe that 1+1 = 3! Why can’t everyone just decide for themselves what 1+1 equals?

 

[Dauphin]

Things have changed since Vatican II.

That much is obvious. The question is, why have they changed? What’s to be gained? Is salvation no longer the goal? Is patting everyone on the back what’s most important now?

 

[Dauphin]

I would like to see an official acknowledgement that proper disposition means a rejection of the Eastern Orthodox errors and a full acknowledgement of the Catholic faith. It seems to me that what you claim would mean that an Eastern Orthodox would have to be a Catholic before he would be allowed to receive Holy Communion and this is not the way it is according to the US Bishops.
On November 14, 1996, the National Conference of Catholic Bishops approved the following.: …" Members of the Orthodox Churches, the Assyrian Church of the East, and the Polish National Catholic Church are urged to respect the discipline of their own Churches.** According to Roman Catholic discipline, the Code of Canon Law does not object to the reception of communion by Christians of these Churches**"…
usccb.org/liturgy/q&a/mass/communion.shtml
So, these are the guidelines, whether you like it or not.

Yes, they’re the guidlines in the United States. Members of Eastern Churches cannot receive communion unless properly disposed.

Proper disposition means freedom from grave sin. It is a grave sin, for example, to reject the immaculate conception. If a member of an eastern church did not recant of this error (assuming they hold to it), then there is no way they could be properly disposed to receive communion. Do you disagree?

Am I permitted to enter the communion line while rejecting the filioque, the immaculate conception, purgatory, and papal supremacy? Obviously not. It’s no different for Eastern Orthodox.

 

[Dauphin]

What is your opinion of the papal encyclical of Pope John XXII Quia quorundam? Here’s what Pope John XXII condemned:
“That which the Roman Pontiffs had defined by [means of] the key of knowledge, in faith and morals, once for all, persists unchangeable to such an extent, that it is not lawful for a successor to call it again into doubt, nor to affirm the contrary,”
Now if that is infallibly condemned, it seems like the Popes would have the power to change things as they have recently since Vatican II? Otherwise, how would you explain this encyclical?

This is false. Read the Encylical carefully and in context. This is what is said just before the text you quoted:

"Moreover, they have used as much as word as writing to impunge the aforesaid constitutions, for the alleged reason, as is shown: They say that “That which the Roman Pontiffs had defined…”"

The Pope says that his detractors seek to impunge his constitutions, for the alleged reason that they change something that Pontiffs of the past had declared.

Pope John XXII goes on to deny this charge. If understood in context, it is clear that the Pope agrees that something defined as a matter of faith or morals by a Pope cannot be changed.

 

[bobzills]

True! After all, it’s much more creative and broad-minded to believe that 1+1 = 3! Why can’t everyone just decide for themselves what 1+1 equals?

There are specific circumstances when 1+1 will equal 3 and there are different specfic circumstances when 5 + 5 will equal 8, or more precisely when 5/10 + 5/10 will equal 8/10.

 

[bobzills]

Am I permitted to enter the communion line while rejecting the filioque, the immaculate conception, purgatory, and papal supremacy? Obviously not. It’s no different for Eastern Orthodox.

I don;t think you are correct here. If what you say is correct, it would effectively mean that the person would have to renounce his religion, which is not being required.

 

[bobzills]

This is false. Read the Encylical carefully and in context. This is what is said just before the text you quoted:

"Moreover, they have used as much as word as writing to impunge the aforesaid constitutions, for the alleged reason, as is shown: They say that “That which the Roman Pontiffs had defined…”"

The Pope says that his detractors seek to impunge his constitutions, for the alleged reason that they change something that Pontiffs of the past had declared.

Pope John XXII goes on to deny this charge. If understood in context, it is clear that the Pope agrees that something defined as a matter of faith or morals by a Pope cannot be changed.

Here is the exact quote from the encyclical:
“On account of which moreover, since it was previously mentioned in the aforesaid consideration, namely, that “It is not licit for their successors to call again into doubt those things, which were defined once for all by the key of knowledge in faith or morals by the Supreme Pontiffs, although it is otherwise,” so they say, “ in regards to those things, which have been ordained by the Supreme Pontiffs by [means of] the key of power,” it is evidently clear from the following things [that] this is directly contrary to the truth.”