Would I be welcome here.... IF?

  • Thread starter Thread starter myrna
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I am truly horrified by what I’ve heard on this thread.:eek: I was born in 1966, post Vatican II. I was born and raised in a Roman Catholic environment and never ever heard such things said about the Pope. The Pope is the most Holy Person in the world. Even when I was a cafeteria Catholic, I never doubted who the leader of our church was. The church has overcome many things in 2004 years and I believe we will survive. Keep the faith!:amen:
 
40.png
puppylove:
I am truly horrified by what I’ve heard on this thread.:eek:
All should be truly horrified - because there is a problem! Do yourself and find out what it is!
 
40.png
puppylove:
I am truly horrified by what I’ve heard on this thread.:eek: I was born in 1966, post Vatican II. I was born and raised in a Roman Catholic environment and never ever heard such things said about the Pope. The Pope is the most Holy Person in the world. Even when I was a cafeteria Catholic, I never doubted who the leader of our church was. The church has overcome many things in 2004 years and I believe we will survive. Keep the faith!:amen:
I was born in 1966, too, and wouldn’t be familiar with the Latin Mass even if it did come back. But what I understand is that the SSPX was offered a universal indult for the Latin aMass and they rejected it. Talk about the greatest sin of pride.

My problem right now is how loosey-goosey the Novus Ordo mass is done around the country. It’s hardly a universal form of worship if anyone can change the words to the mass or the rubrics on a whim. So I hope some reigning in happens in the not too distant future.
–Ann
 
40.png
Sparky:
It’s hardly a universal form of worship if anyone can change the words to the mass or the rubrics on a whim.
The reason the current rite cannot truly be considered “universal” is not because anyone can change the words or rubrics on a whim. To do this is strictly forbidden by the current rite and those who do it are guilty of disobedience.

However, let’s not change the topic of this thread. There are other threads on the different liturgies in the Liturgy forum as I have already pointed out in previous posts in this thread. The only sense in which a discussion on the liturgy is appropriate in this thread is on the topic of VALIDITY, not on the topic of whether the changes were wise or if they followed what the Council directed, or even if they provided what they promised.
 
40.png
theMutant:
The reason the current rite cannot truly be considered “universal” is not because anyone can change the words or rubrics on a whim. To do this is strictly forbidden by the current rite and those who do it are guilty of disobedience.
I know.
However, let’s not change the topic of this thread. There are other threads on the different liturgies in the Liturgy forum as I have already pointed out in previous posts in this thread. The only sense in which a discussion on the liturgy is appropriate in this thread is on the topic of VALIDITY, not on the topic of whether the changes were wise or if they followed what the Council directed, or even if they provided what they promised.
Of course the present liturgy is valid. The only time it’s not is when a priest doesn’t do it properly.
–Ann
 
40.png
Sparky:
Of course the present liturgy is valid.
You will find that there are several who have been participating on this thread who don’t think so. That is why it is an appropriate topic for this thread.
 
40.png
newcrusader92:
From what I’ve read over the past several months, I understand that Vatican II teaches many heresies, so it can not be considered a valid council - and those who signed the documents (which would include John Paul II when he was a bishop at the time) gave consent to heresy, and were automatically excommunicated from the Church.
Newscrusader92, the heresies you think John Paul II has bin involved in are these (from your link to ‘heresies’): Ecumenism, Non-Christian Religions, Sacred Scripture, Education, Religious Liberty and Liturgy.

Here we will take a short look on Ecumenism:

I don’t want to repeat what has been said many times; Jesus wanted the Church to be one.


It was a sin when the reformators left Church. Ecumenism is about to try to repair some of the damages.

**Babtism in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit ** is the fundamental happening in a Christian persons life:

"Christian life rooted in, 1266
CCC: "The Most Holy Trinity gives the baptized sanctifying grace, the grace of justification:
  • enabling them to believe in God, to hope in him, and to love him through the theological virtues;
  • giving them the power to live and act under the prompting of the Holy Spirit through the gifts of the Holy Spirit;
  • allowing them to grow in goodness through the moral virtues.
    Thus the whole organism of the Christian’s supernatural life has its roots in Baptism. "
Babtism to the Holy Triinity is the fundament that makes eccumenism possible. Eccumenism is not about giving up the chatholic Church. It is a question about to be able to cooperate on topics we can agree about.

Link to the JOINT DECLARATION ON THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION by the Lutheran World Federation and the Catholic Church:

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html

If you can find anything there that is against the teaching of the Roman Chatholic Church, I want to hear it. Remember one HEAVY reason for the split in in Church in 1521 was about JUSTIFICATION.

To clear up in misunderstandings is genarally considered a good thing.

The Cathecism of the Catholic Church says on JUSTIFICATION:

conversion precedes, 1989
definition and significance of, 1987, 1989, 1991-92
effects of, 1266, 1990
forgiveness and justice from on high as aspects of, 2018
as the most excellent work of God’s love, 1994
purpose for justifying men, 402, 617, 654, 1987, 1992
ways to receive, 1446, 1996, 2001

I think it must be much better to look on all the good things our pope John Paul II has done then to call him a heretic.

"Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church".(CCC 846) IF ANYONE OUTSIDE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS SAVED IT IS BECAUSE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH EXISTS


That don’t contradict the Churchs old teaching: “Outside the Church there is no salvation” Christ is the head of the Catholic Church. HE has said: **“No one comes to the Father except through me.” (John 14:6). ** Jesus has also said: “I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd”. (John 10:16)

:bible1: Peace ❤️ :gopray:

G.G.
 
40.png
theMutant:
I have already addressed the quote you give in the second paragraph I have referenced in this post. I would respectfully ask that you review my post on this topic and explain to us why we must consider this text as authoritatively binding or why we cannot consider people who use this text without any evidence for suspecting the person or election of the Roman Pontiff to have fallen into schism.

Mutant,

I was not here for your last post.

But…

You claim there is no evidence. There is plenty of evidence for suspecting the person of JP2.

Kissing the Koran is just one example.

Muslims do that…not good Catholics.

Why don’t you give us a text, that is authoritatively binding, that says that every person who claims to be a pope, really is one.

Joe
 
Joe Omlor said:
You claim there is no evidence. There is plenty of evidence for suspecting the person of JP2.

Kissing the Koran is just one example.

Muslims do that…not good Catholics.

Why don’t you give us a text, that is authoritatively binding, that says that every person who claims to be a pope, really is one.

Joe

You know what the Pope teaches. He kissed the gift as a sign of respect, not out of sign that he adopted everything it stood for. We have a good Pope - enough with the slander.
 
Joe Omlor:
Why don’t you give us a text, that is authoritatively binding, that says that every person who claims to be a pope, really is one.
Mainly because I don’t make that claim. There have been plenty of times that people have falsely claimed to be the pope. The key to determining the truth of their claim is based entirely on the authoritative teaching of the Church; valid election and Apostolic succession. It is this point where you fail to prove your point. JLC has repeatedly attempted to assert that we must prove that JPII was validly elected and has clearly implied that we cannot consider him valid until we do so. I have already responded to this claim and shown that this position represents a NEW teaching that did not exist prior to Vatican II and contradicts the traditional teaching of the Church on this matter.

I’m sorry, but the burden of proof is on those who believe that his papacy is not valid. Every example, including your own, has failed to prove your position. The pope kissed the Koran. This may be considered a scandal. It may even be considered sinful or sacraligeous. Neither of these constitute heresy because the pope’s teaching about other religions has not waivered and is the same as what was taught prior to Vatican II.

Even if I granted you the point that this act justifies you doubting the person of the pope in regard to his orthodoxy, the sedevacantists have yet to provide one authoritiative text that supports their passing judgment on this matter. This is a point that has been brought forward by several of us who disagree with the sedevacantists and has gone completely unanswered. Why should we accept your assertions when you have not provided us with even one example of authoritative Church teaching that supports you?
 

Here is some evidence for you…

**A Travelogue of Apostasy,part one

**

Some fundamental Catholic principles must be recalled before we come to the gist of this present section. It is essential that these few selected vital teachings of Catholicism, set side by side (mosaicked), become crystallized in the reader’s mind, so that the realization of what has happened and is still happening today may become emblazoned upon his intellect. What for some has thus far been mere suspicion must now be confirmed as being reality. The reality is not gladsome. But instead of becoming timorous we should perhaps reflect upon these words of the immortal patriot Patrick Henry: “For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.” (From the speech, “Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death,” *delivered at Richmond, Virginia, March 23, 1775).
*

(1) The Catholic Church is not “first among equals.” It is the UNIQUE, True, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church, founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ. This Catholic Church, known also as the Mystical Body of Christ, is the one and only ARK OF SALVATION, outside which there is naught but spiritual shipwreck.

(2) Apostasy, which is defined as the “abandonment of the Catholic faith,” automatically severs a person totally from the Church, Christ’s Mystical Body, the Ark of Salvation. St. Thomas Aquinas (Summa Th., II-II, Q. 12, a. 3) gives this example of apostasy: “Moreover if anyone were … to worship at the tomb of Mahomet, he would be deemed an apostate.” Concerning an apostate the Angelic Doctor remarks, “The result is that he sows discord, endeavoring to sever others from the faith even as he severed himself.”

(3) Pope Pius XI deemed ecumenism to be “tantamount to abandoning the religion revealed by God.” In his encyclical Mortalium Animos (1928), he taught authoritatively: “With this object congresses, meetings and addresses are arranged … where all without distinction … are invited to join in the discussion. Now, such efforts can meet with no kind of approval among Catholics. They presume the erroneous view that all religions are more or less good and praiseworthy. Those who hold such a view are not only in error; they distort the true idea of religion, and thus they reject it, falling gradually into naturalism and atheism. To favor this opinion, therefore, and to encourage such undertakings is tantamount to abandoning the religion revealed by God.” The last six words that were quoted constitute the precise definition of apostasy. (Italics added in the above).

In the magisterial words just cited the Sovereign Pontiff Pius XI spoke only of mere meetings with those outside the Faith for the purpose of theological discussions, since that in itself presupposes the erroneous view that false sects are “more or less good and praiseworthy”; and such ecumenism furthermore dares to presume also that the words of Christ, “An evil tree cannot bring forth good fruit,” are false. Man’s only real and ultimate good is the possession of the Beatific Vision; no false church, or sect, or religious movement, or pagan cult can possibly lead thereto. On the contrary, such as these are but harmful impedimenta.

(4) Even more serious a crime than the ecumenism described above which involves mere meetings, but is nevertheless tantamount to apostasy is the worshipping together with those outside the Catholic Faith. This crime is known as “communicatio in sacris,” and it is expressly condemned by CANON LAW (Canon 1258, CJC). As every Catholic surely knows, communicatio in sacris is mortally sinful; it is a flagrant act of apostasy.

The interpretation of CANON 1258 is expounded by the noted Jesuit authors, Bouscaren and Ellis, in Canon Law, A Text and Commentary, (Bruce, Milwaukee, 1951). In the following comment (from p. 704) the authors are referring to merely passive presence, that is, the mere physical presence at a non-Catholic service; let alone active participation, which is what constitutes communicatio in sacris. “It is conceivable that even merely passive presence might be accompanied by an internal intention to approve, assent to, or encourage the non-Catholic worship; if that were true it would be formal co-operation in an evil act, and forbidden by the natural law.” (Emphasis added).
 
A Travelogue of Apostasy. part 2
  1. A well know axiom, “Lex Credendi : Lex Orandi” should also be called to mind:
“What people already believe is automatically and necessarily mirrored in the very words of the prayers they recite. This truism is one part of the principle: Lex Credendi : Lex Orandi the law of belief is the law of prayer. This principle works reversely also: that is to say, people can be led towards certain beliefs by means of the very prayers they are accustomed to saying (and hearing). And that is why parents teach their small children The Hail Mary, for example, and The Apostles’ Creed, even though these little ones do not yet fully understand everything they are praying. Now, whether or not these parents are familiar with the phrase, lex credendi : lex orandi, they are nevertheless putting this principle into practice, for they are teaching their children to pray those things that they will ultimately come to believe.” *(From pp. 97-98 QTV).
Having defined apostasy and having given some theoretical examples, such as ecumenism and communicatio in sacris, I shall now provide a few specific examples. From several dozen that readily come to mind I have selected the following as being good hypothetical illustrations.

«------ »

EXAMPLE 1. If any Catholic (for example, one known as `Pope’) were to enter a Lutheran place of worship in Rome (let us say, just for example, on Dec. 11, 1983) in order to participate in the Lutherans’ celebration of the 500th anniversary of Martin Luther’s birth;

and if this hypothetical Catholic were to join in the Lutherans’ worship, and, moreover, were even to preach a sermon eulogizing Martin Luther; then this hypothetical Catholic (or, rather, ex-Catholic) would thereby in effect be publicly proclaiming that Martin Luther was not the very incarnate personification of consummate hatred and enmity towards Catholicism which, of course, he was. In a hypothetical situation such as the one we are describing, this ex-Catholic (for example, a pope) would have clearly and publicly demonstrated his betrayal of Jesus Christ and His Church, thus becoming an apostate, for such behaviour would be “tantamount to abandoning the religion revealed by God,” as the Catholic Church so forcibly teaches through the words of the Sovereign Pontiff Pius XI, cited above.

«------ »

EXAMPLE 2. If any Catholic (for example, one known as `Pope’) were to go into a “sacred forest” of tribal animists at Lake Togo in Africa (I realize this must sound like a wholly preposterous hypothetical example, but please bear with me) on, say, August 11, 1985 (which will serve as a reasonable hypothetical date);

and if this hypothetical Catholic were to pray at a place in this sacred forest consecrated to the worship of false gods and then actually perform pagan rites, such as the sprinkling on the ground of a mixture of flour and water, which is a ritual of ancestor worship;

and if the entirely hypothetical French periodical La Croix on, say, Aug. 13, 1985, were to quote our hypothetical Catholic (for example, a pope) as saying, “The prayer meeting in the sanctuary at Lake Togo was particularly striking. There I prayed for the first time with animists.”;

and if the Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore Romano in its Italian edition of, say, August 11th, (page 5, for example), were to report: “On John-Paul II’s arrival at the place, a sorcerer began to invoke the spirits: `Power of water, I invoke you; Ancestors, I invoke you.’”; then in such a hypothetical case as the one we’re studying the hypothetical ex-Catholic, namely the entirely fictitious “John-Paul II”, would be the most hideous apostate. For such odious, atavistic behaviour would be the ultimate violation of CANON 1258; unnatural worshipping with heathens is certainly “formal cooperation in an evil act, and forbidden by the natural law,” as stated by the canon lawyers Bouscaren and Ellis.

«------ »
 
A Travelogue of Apostasy. Part 3

EXAMPLE 3. If any Catholic (for example, one known as `Pope’) were to travel across the Tiber River from the Vatican (on, say, April 13, 1986, hypothetically) in order to visit the Jewish synagogue in Rome,

* and if* (as would perhaps be reported via Reuters news service the same day this is all hypothetical) “he offered prayers in the synagogue with Rabbi Elio Toaff during a religious service in the afternoon,” then such a traitorous ex-Catholic (for example, a pope) would thereby perform an act of supreme apostasy, namely, communicatio in sacris with an anti-Christian Jewish rabbi. Such a betrayal of Jesus Christ and His Mystical Body, the Church, would be not merely “tantamount to,” but brazenly abandoning the religion revealed by God.

«------ »

EXAMPLE 4. If any Catholic (for example, one known as `Pope’) were personally to organize an assembly in a certain city (the Italian city famous as that of St. Francis will serve as a hypothetical location) of sundry and motley non-Catholic, anti-Catholic and pagan personages, including (hypothetically) Anglican Runcie, Greek Orthodox Methodios, Buddhist Dalai Lama, Methodist Emilio Castro, Hindus, Sikhs, Shintoists, Jainists, tribal animists from Africa, Moslems, Zoroastrians, Jewish rabbis, and the Crow Indian medicine man from Montana, Mr. John Pretty-on-Top;

and if this hypothetical menagerie were to be assembled on, say, Oct. 27, 1986, so that it could be hypothetically reported in the Nov. 10th edition of Time magazine that our hypothetical ex-Catholic, a most humble and unpretentious traitor, travelled to the venue in “a bus with thirty other representatives, and quietly took a place at the rear of the procession through the town’s cobblestone streets”; then the hypothetical ex-Catholic (for example, a hypothetical apostate pope) would thereby be proving audaciously proving that he is apostate par excellence! World-wide statistics on renegade priests, fallen away Catholics, apostate nuns, decreasing numbers of priestly and religious vocations, decreasing numbers of converts to the Faith, increasing unbelief in even the most essential Catholic dogmas such as the divinity of Christ and the existence of hell, etc., all these statistics would verify that our hypothetical apostate pope has been and is being most successful, because he would effectively confirm these words of St. Thomas, “The result is that he sows discord, endeavoring to sever others from the faith even as he severed himself.”

«------ »

We must move along to consider other matters, so our little travelogue must now come to an end. In a way that is disappointing, for I have a plethora of wonderful hypothetical examples, all very interesting and instructive. These hypothetical examples could be set in many exotic geographical locations, such as Fiji, New Delhi, Cameroon, Taizé (France), Tokyo, Seoul, Mainz (Germany), World Council of Churches Headquarters (Geneva), Canterbury Cathedral, Kinshasa (formerly Leopoldville, Belgian Congo), Bangkok, Bombay, Westminster Cathedral, Masonic Lodge of B’nai B’rith, Port Moresby, Morocco, Istanbul, Manila, Madras, etc.
**I do hope the four hypothetical examples I selected for presentation have served adquately as illustrations of apostasy; and I also hope that certain things are crystallizing in the reader’s mind.
**
from:
QUESTIONING THE VALIDITY OF

McCARTHY’S CASE

By Patrick Henry Omlor
 
An invalid election is only one of the reasons that a person claiming to be a pope, can be in reality not a pope at all.

If prior to his election, or after, the person who is called pope falls into heresy or apostasy or schism, then he is not Catholic in reality and not really pope either…


**>"…a pope who is a manifest heretic by that fact ceases to be pope **
**>and head, just as he by that fact ceases to be a Christian and a **

**>member of the body of the Church; wherefore he can be judged and **

**>punished by the Church. This is the judgement of all the early **

**>fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all **

**>jurisdiction." **

**> - St. Robert Bellarmine, “On the Roman Pontiff” **

**> **

**>"If God permitted a pope to be notoriously heretical and **

**>contumacious, he would then cease to be pope, and the Apostolic **

**>Chair would be vacant." **

**> - St. Alphonsus de Liguori, “The Truths of the Faith” **

>
 
Joe, you read WAY too much into one or two isolated incidents. You expect the Pope to be perfect 24/7/365, no stumbles, no trips, no falls? The Pope is a man like you and me, flesh and blood. He is imperfect, as have been his predecessors. All the way back to Peter.

But their imperfection does not challenge their right to sit upon Peter’s throne.

You start with an agenda - illegitimate Pope! - and then struggle to support it by vague references to isolated incidents. Enough slander, already. For someone who was not present at the convocation and deliberations, you are far too quick to insist upon your own flawed interpretation of events.

Enough. Of. The. Slander. Of. A. Good. Man. Please.
 
Joe, you read WAY too much into one or two isolated incidents. You expect the Pope to be perfect …

…No but I expect him to act like a Catholic.

Friend, sadly you read WAY too little into JP2’s repeated acts of apostasy.

Joe
 
Joe Omlor:
40.png
theMutant:
I have already addressed the quote you give in the second paragraph I have referenced in this post. I would respectfully ask that you review my post on this topic and explain to us why we must consider this text as authoritatively binding or why we cannot consider people who use this text without any evidence
for suspecting the person or election of the Roman Pontiff to have fallen into schism.
Mutant,

I was not here for your last post.

But…

You claim there is no evidence. There is plenty of evidence for suspecting the person of JP2.

Kissing the Koran is just one example.

Muslims do that…not good Catholics.
Says you non-bishop and non-pope.
Why don’t you give us a text, that is authoritatively binding, that says that every person who claims to be a pope, really is one.
Sounds like what a Protestant might say.

Sola Traditio: The belief that one’s own person interpretation of Tradition is all one needs to properly understand The Catholic Faith; discounting any reference to the Magisterium whatsoever.

Protestants imply “Me and my Bible” is all they need, Sede Vacantists imply that “Me and my Roman Catechism” is all they need.
 
…No but I expect him to act like a Catholic.

Friend, sadly you read WAY too little into JP2’s repeated acts of apostasy.

Joe
Being that you are impeccable? And it’s alleged acts of Apostacy.
 
quote=Joe Omlor The Catholic Church is not “first among equals.” It is the UNIQUE, True, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church, founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ. This Catholic Church, known also as the Mystical Body of Christ, is the one and only ARK OF SALVATION, outside which there is naught but spiritual shipwreck.

[/quote]

As has been shown numersous time previously in this thread, theis is exactly what was taught at Vatican II and by John Paul II.

quote=Joe Omlor Apostasy, which is defined as the “abandonment of the Catholic faith,” automatically severs a person totally from the Church, Christ’s Mystical Body, the Ark of Salvation. St. Thomas Aquinas (Summa Th., II-II, Q. 12, a. 3) gives this example of apostasy: “Moreover if anyone were … to worship at the tomb of Mahomet, he would be deemed an apostate.” Concerning an apostate the Angelic Doctor remarks, “The result is that he sows discord, endeavoring to sever others from the faith even as he severed himself.”
[/quote]

This is a point on which we have already agreed. However, apostacy is not the same as heresy, which is the only claim that the sedevacantists have made regarding Vatican II and the last four popes. Did Aquinas happen to mention how we would go about passing judgment on a pope?

quote=Joe Omlor Pope Pius XI deemed ecumenism to be “tantamount to abandoning the religion revealed by God.” In his encyclical Mortalium Animos (1928), he taught authoritatively: “With this object congresses, meetings and addresses are arranged … where all without distinction … are invited to join in the discussion. Now, such efforts can meet with no kind of approval among Catholics. They presume the erroneous view that all religions are more or less good and praiseworthy. Those who hold such a view are not only in error; they distort the true idea of religion, and thus they reject it, falling gradually into naturalism and atheism. To favor this opinion, therefore, and to encourage such undertakings is tantamount to abandoning the religion revealed by God.” The last six words that were quoted constitute the precise definition of apostasy. (Italics added in the above).
[/quote]

Exactly what congresses, meetings, and addresses have been arranged “where all without distinction are invited to join the discussion?” I have already shown that Ut Unum Sint maintains the same DOCTRINAL TEACHING as Mortalium Animos but changed the legislation regarding how ecumenical discussions can be handled. It is only the doctrinal teaching that constitues the infallible unchangeable law of God. The Church’s legislation on how to best handle ecumenism is a law of man and subject to change.

quote=Joe Omlor Even more serious a crime than the ecumenism described above which involves mere meetings, but is nevertheless tantamount to apostasy is the worshipping together with those outside the Catholic Faith. This crime is known as “communicatio in sacris,” and it is expressly condemned by CANON LAW (Canon 1258, CJC).
As every Catholic surely knows, communicatio in sacris is mortally sinful; it is a flagrant act of apostasy.
[/quote]

This is only true if you participate in worshiping the false gods or adhere to the false beliefs proclaimed by non-Catholics. In all of the instances where the Pope has participated he has been there as a believer in Christ and one who accepts only what is good and true in any other religion; in other words, only what is consistent with Catholic teaching. In doing this, he is adhering to the change in law regarding ecumenism but not in any way altering or abandoning the faith.
Joe Omlor:
The interpretation of CANON 1258 is expounded by the noted Jesuit authors, Bouscaren and Ellis, in Canon Law, A Text and Commentary, (Bruce, Milwaukee, 1951). In the following comment (from p. 704) the authors are referring to merely passive presence, that is, the mere physical presence at a non-Catholic service; let alone active participation, which is what constitutes communicatio in sacris. “It is conceivable that even merely passive presence might be accompanied by an internal intention to approve, assent to, or encourage the non-Catholic worship; if that were true it would be formal co-operation in an evil act, and forbidden by the natural law.” (Emphasis added).
Once again, we have the opinions of theologians being presented as equivalent to the Church’s authoritative teaching.
 
RedeemersloveQuote:
…No but I expect him to act like a Catholic.

Friend, sadly you read WAY too little into JP2’s repeated acts of apostasy.

Joe
Being that you are impeccable? And it’s alleged acts of Apostacy.

I never implied that I am impeccable. It is most unhelpful when when you mistrepresent others postings.

It is not alleged acts of apostasy, to all those people who have seen them being committed or who have read official Vatican reports about them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top