I'm just curious. What is the difference between Vatican 1 and 2. When and why did it happen? Does it really matter? Is one better or more Biblical than the other? Please anwser someone?

-- Jason Baccaro (Enchanted fire5@aol.com), September 26, 2003

Answers

Jmj
Hello, Jason.

In her nearly 2,000 years, the Catholic Church has had 21 General (or "Ecumenical")Councils. [The word "ecumencial" means "of worldwide scope" or "concerning the inhabited world."] Of these 21, the most recent two have been Vatican Council I and Vatican Council II. These councils -- gatherings of bishops from around the world -- were convoked (called together) by popes, so that the successors to Christ's Apostles could meet to discuss the pressing spiritual issues of the day, and to provide, in written form, some doctrinal and disciplinary guidance to the Christian faithful.

Vatican I was called by Blessed Pope Pius IX, and it convened in 1869 and 1870. (It would have gone on longer, but war in Italy cut it short.)
Vatican II was called by Blessed Pope John XXIII, and it convened in 1962 through 1965.

No one thinks or speaks of one Council as "better or more biblical than" any other council. Each one can be thought of as a gift of the Holy Spirit, something beneficial to the Church of the time and of all times.

For a quick recap of each of the 21 councils except the last one, please click here.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), September 26, 2003.

Jason, I hope that you will have a chance to read the documents of Vatican II, which can be found here or
here.
JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), September 26, 2003.

A difference I can think of is that Vatican I was a Dogmatic council and Vatican II was a Pastoral council. So Vatican I defined and declared things concerning doctrine and dogma, and Vatican II's focus was more on a type of shepherding the direction of the Church on a world-wide basis, but did not speak on doctrine or dogma.

-- Psyche +AMDG+ (psychicquill@yahoo.com), September 26, 2003.

Jmj
Hello, Psyche.

You wrote: "Vatican II ... did not speak on doctrine or dogma."

That could not be more incorrect. The sixteen documents of Vatican II, while expressing much pastoral guidance, also convey a huge amount of doctrine, re-expressing some of the Church's dogmas and many of her teachings of a less formal kind, and expressing for the first time (by a council) certain doctrinal developments that had occurred over a many, many years.

I'm sure that you won't again say that Vatican II "did not speak on doctrine or dogma" after being reminded of the e fact that two of the sixteen Vatican II documents are subtitled:
"The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church" (Lumen gentium)
"The Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation" (Dei Verbum)
Vatican II was both a pastoral and a doctrinal council.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), September 26, 2003.

Vatican II was not qualified to speak on Dogma since it was called as a Pastoral Council, therefore, no matter what some of the documents were named, and no matter what some of the documents may have rehashed or restated, Vatican II did not define any new doctrine or dogma of the Catholic Faith.

-- Psyche +AMDG+ (psychicquill@yahoo.com), September 26, 2003.

No Council can define "new" doctrines or dogmas. A Council can only provide more formal definition of pre-existing doctrine.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 26, 2003.

Jmj
Psyche, you wrote: "Vatican II was not qualified to speak on Dogma since it was called as a Pastoral Council ..."

I have seen the quotation (from John XXIII or Paul VI, I believe) that mentions a "pastoral council." However, that is irrelevant. Councils don't have to "qualif[y] to speak on dogma." The Holy Spirit can move or allow the Fathers and the popes to change their plans. I suggest that you read the old Catholic Encyclopedia's article about Vatican I to learn how the Fathers of that Council significantly changed their plans.

The Fathers of Vatican II too did not do as some had originally expected. It is true that the Fathers chose not to formally define, as dogmas, any pre-existent doctrines. ... But they could have done so.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), September 26, 2003.

John G., Great responses.

Each of the Councils was relevant for their time.

The world has taken some strange twists and turns. Jesus gave Peter (and his successors) authority knowing this.

Each Council has served it's unique purpose well.

God bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), September 26, 2003.

I have come across this item, which seems to point out the difference between Vatican I, and Vatican II.

Modernism had made so big an inroad by vatican II, that great damage was perpetratd.

Thus by the end of the 20th Century Modernism will have succeeded in claiming a great victory with the (at least implicit) approval of its doctrine at the Second Vatican Council at already by this time (1960's) a great number of the Catholic hierarchy had been well imbued with the Modernist spirit and mindset which would help set into effect the almost unstoppable chain reaction of deception that we now see among the Catholic hierarchy who no longer espouse the principles of Catholic doctrine but rather the principles of the French revolution "Liberty, equality, and fraternity" which is especially made evident in the Declarations Dignitatis Humanae, Lumen Gentium , Gaudium et Spes and Religious Liberty of the Second Vatican Council.

-- Ziggster (----@---00.com), September 27, 2003.

Hi Ziggy perhaps you would do better to start thinking for yourself rather than regurgitating the errors of others: poor ol ziggy had a bit much stardust and cut and pasted from the folowing site: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/3543/modnsm.htm.

John well done and thankyou, this whole issue is so simple and you have a wonderful grasp of it. If I can "get it" even Ziggy could learn to understand how doctrine develops (if he decides to unhook from the rotten mush hes feeding his mind and soul at the moment).

Jason if youd like to explore this issue in depth try a google search for "Vatican II" and "Dave Armstrong" it should turn up something useful.

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), September 27, 2003.

Ziggy whoops I see youve already acknowledged the words not as yours, I might also seem a bit nasty, sorry weve had our quota of crackpot trads lately I shouldnt slam you as one staright away ;)

-- kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), September 27, 2003.

My, My,tempers are short in this town. Gunplay comes quick. I think I'll wait for the marshal to ride in, before I have another beer at the Longbranch.

-- Ziggster (----@---00.com), September 27, 2003.

John wrote: "It is true that the Fathers chose not to formally define, as dogmas, any pre-existent doctrines. ... But they could have done so."

This is true. They could have done anything. Humans are capable of an infinite amount of error. What almost everyone here seems to forget is that, although the Holy Ghost guides the Church always, not all the members of the Church always follow that Guide. The only documents/teachings/whatever that are guaranteed 100% true and error-free, because of being guided by the Holy Ghost, are those infallible documents/teachings/whatever that concern a doctrine or dogma of faith or morals AND are given ex cathedra.

I ask you, everyone on this forum, how many of the documents of Vatican II were concerning doctrines or dogmas of faith or morals and were defined by the Pope as spoken ex cathedra?

Every document which was NOT concering a doctrine or dogma of faith or morals and was NOT defined by the Pope as spoken ex cathedra, was not and is not infallible.

Logically, if a document is not infallible, it is by definition prone to error, and with all the human probability of error.

Therefore, the infallible documents of Vatican II are prone to error.

Former Councils published infallible documents concerning doctrines and dogmas of faith or morals. What we do not have from Vatican II, we have been given infallibly, by the Holy Ghost, from previous councils, including Vatican I and Trent. Anyone who denies the truth of ANY ONE of the infallible teachings of ANY council or Pope the Church ever had, is by definition not Catholic, since being Catholic requires belief in ALL revealed Truths.

Conversely, it is NOT required of the definition of being Catholic that anyone must believe anything that is not of the Deposit of Faith -- i.e., for example, any of the non-infallible documents of Vatican II.

That being said, I declare that I submit in all respects to all the infallible teachings of Holy Mother the Church.

Challenge: does anyone else submit in all respects to all the infallible teachings of Holy Mother the Church?

Veritas Vos Liberabit!

+Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam+

-- Psyche +AMDG+ (psychicquill@yahoo.com), September 27, 2003.

OOPS!

"Therefore, the infallible documents of Vatican II are prone to error. "

Should have read,

Therefore the NON-infallible documents of Vatican II are prone to error.

My Butterfingers! Shows what happens when I type too fast . . .

-- Psyche +AMDG+ (psychicquill@yahoo.com), September 27, 2003.

Vatican two and its prelates preach freedom of conscience. How does that square with this;

From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an "insanity,"* [2] viz., that "liberty of conscience and worship is each man's personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way."

-- jackson (toofie@yahaa.com), September 27, 2003.

Jmj

Psyche, I want to ask you for a clarification, so that I don't hop on your back prematurely. [I fear that I'm going to have to "hop," but I want to give you the benefit of the doubt.]

You wrote: "Every [Vatican II] document which was NOT concerning a doctrine or dogma of faith or morals and was NOT defined by the Pope as spoken ex cathedra, was not and is not infallible."

I am going to re-phrase your words as I understand your meaning, but I want you to let me know if I have misunderstood, please: "(1) Whenever a statement was made, in a Vatican II document, that did not pertain to religious doctrine or dogma, it was subject to human error.
"(2) And even whenever a statement was made, in a Vatican II document, about a religious doctrine of faith or morals, but that statement was not defined as dogma by a papal ex-cathedra declaration, then it could not have been infallible, and it was prone to human error."

Is that what you meant, or have I changed your meaning?

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), September 27, 2003.

Jmj

Jackson, I can answer your question ("How does that square with this"). You have quoted from Bl. Pope Pius IX's 1864 document, "Quanta cura," but you have either misunderstood that document or the Vatican II "Declaration on Religious Freedom" ("Dignitatis humanae")

Rather than trust my own poor writing abilities, I will quote from a man who writes for Catholic Apologetics International. The following explains the whole thing very well:

Let's look at Quanta Cura and Vatican II side by side.

Quanta Cura condemned the following: "Namely, that liberty of conscience and worship is each man’s personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society."

Vatican II asserted the following: "This Vatican synod declares that the human person has the right to religious freedom. This right of the human person to religious freedom should have such recognition in the regulation of society by law as to become a civil right."

First, Quanta Cura speaks about liberty of "conscience" and "worship," whereas Vatican II speaks about "religious freedom." As we shall see, these are different things. If Vatican II had said: "This Vatican synod declares that liberty of conscience and worship is each man’s personal right..." then obviously, this would be in direct contradiction to Quanta Cura -- but it did not say that.

The truth is that Quanta Cura is condemning the notion that an individual has the right, morally speaking, to form his own conscience any way he desires, without recourse to natural law or Church teaching, or has the right, morally speaking, to worship any god he chooses; and that because of the so-called moral right, it should also be a civil right. Vatican II, on the other hand, is not concerned with the moral issues of "conscience" and "worship" but with the civil issue of "religious freedom," a term specifically chosen to differentiate civil rights from moral rights. This can be gleaned very quickly from the negative judgment Vatican II’s documents cast upon any coercion by civil government to foster a religion of its own choosing on its people. Vatican II says that such governmental intrusion is unlawful and against divine mandate.

For example, Dignitatas Humanae states: "We believe that this one true religion continues to exist in the Catholic and Apostolic Church..." (Flannery translation, p. 799, #1), thus affirming with all other councils that the Catholic Church is the only true Church. Any interpretation of this statement which claims that Vatican II taught that the Catholic Church is not the one true church, is in error.

Following this statement, Dignitatas Humanae states: "So while the religious freedom which men demand in fulfilling their obligation to worship God has to do with freedom from coercion in civil society, it leaves intact the traditional Catholic teaching on the moral duty of individuals and societies towards the true religion and the one Church of Christ" (Flannery, p. 800, #1).

Notice first that Dignitatas Humanae specifies that "religious freedom" only regards "freedom from coercion in civil society," and thus it is speaking only of a civil matter, not of a moral matter, as I stated earlier. This is important, since if an earthly government tried to force the Catholic Church to worship another god other than the true God, such action is outside their civil jurisdiction as mandated by God's laws for civil governments, and the Catholic Church would have every right to refuse them.

Notice also that the above section of Dignitatis Humanae is careful to distinguish its decree on the civil right of religious freedom from the moral issue concerning the responsibility of individual men to worship the one, true God found in the Catholic Church. In other words, Vatian II rightly holds that its decree on religious freedom, properly interpreted, in no way conflicts with Pius IX's teaching in Quanta Cura regarding the moral obligation of correct conscience and worship.

Vatican II reinforces its meaning as referring only to the civil matter of non-coercion in the second section. It states: "The Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. Freedom of this kind means that all men should be immune from coercion on the part of individuals, social groups and every human power so that, within due limits, nobody is forced to act against his convictions in religious matters in private or in public, alone or in associations with others" (Flannery, p. 800, #2).

Again, it is clear that Vatican II is denouncing civil (i.e., governmental) coercion, not the moral obligation, taught perpetually by the Catholic Church since its inception, to worship the true God. This only makes sense, since the Catholic Church would surely not want any person to be coerced by the civil government into worshiping a false god, for that would be mortally sinful, but, by the same token, the Catholic Church would desire all men to choose, with religious freedom, the true God as He appears within the confines of the Catholic Church.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), September 27, 2003.

Um,.....ok! Hehe, thanks for all your help and arguments guys.*laughs*

-- Jason Baccaro (Enchanted fire5@aol.com), September 28, 2003.

John wrote: "Jmj Psyche, I want to ask you for a clarification, so that I don't hop on your back prematurely. [I fear that I'm going to have to "hop," but I want to give you the benefit of the doubt.]

You wrote: "Every [Vatican II] document which was NOT concerning a doctrine or dogma of faith or morals and was NOT defined by the Pope as spoken ex cathedra, was not and is not infallible."

I am going to re-phrase your words as I understand your meaning, but I want you to let me know if I have misunderstood, please: "(1) Whenever a statement was made, in a Vatican II document, that did not pertain to religious doctrine or dogma, it was subject to human error. "(2) And even whenever a statement was made, in a Vatican II document, about a religious doctrine of faith or morals, but that statement was not defined as dogma by a papal ex-cathedra declaration, then it could not have been infallible, and it was prone to human error."

Is that what you meant, or have I changed your meaning?

God bless you. John "

The crux of what you said is here: "but that statement was not defined as dogma by a papal ex-cathedra declaration, then it COULD NOT have been infallible, and it WAS prone to human error."

Change that to: "but that statement was not defined as dogma by a papal ex-cathedra declaration, then it MIGHT NOT have been infallible, and it MIGHT BE prone to human error."

It is all about what is 100% absolutely, positively, beyond a doubt, as defined by infallibility, TRUE, vs. what might be true or might not be true but nobody knows for sure.

Since it is nearly midnight and I've been discussing the Faith in other forums/lists for many hours by now, so that my eyes are blurring, I am going to check this again in the morning and make sure my grogginess is not tampering with my reasoning!

-- Psyche +AMDG+ (psychicquill@yahoo.com), September 28, 2003.

Hello, Psyche,

Last time, I asked you to evaluate my "paraphrasing" of what you had said. I asked you to tell me if I "have changed your meaning" by putting your statement into my own words. For some reason, you decided not to answer me. Instead you revised your previous statement somewhat substantially.

In light of your revision, I will present a revised paraphrase, and ask you if I have understood you correctly ...

Are you claiming the following concerning Vatican II documents and/or the new Catechism:
(1) Whenever a statement is made that does not at all pertain to religious doctrine (faith/morality), but to some other area of life (e.g., politics, science, etc.), it is subject to human error.
(2) Whenever a teaching (doctrine) is given about a religious matter (faith or morals), but the statement made is not defined as dogma by a separate papal (ex-cathedra) declaration, then it may not be infallible, and it may be prone to human error.
[To repeat, I am asking if you are making the above claims about the texts of Vatican II documents and/or the new Catechism.]

Thanks. JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), September 29, 2003.

"Last time, I asked you to evaluate my "paraphrasing" of what you had said. I asked you to tell me if I "have changed your meaning" by putting your statement into my own words. For some reason, you decided not to answer me. Instead you revised your previous statement somewhat substantially.

In light of your revision, I will present a revised paraphrase, and ask you if I have understood you correctly ..."

What I said, jives. What you said, doesn't. Clear enough?

I was writing that last post a midnight and I was tired to the point that my eyes were blurring. Did I not write that? Did you not read that? The fact that I did not give you what you wanted is neither here nor there. I spoke the Truth is enough.

Your attempt to twist my words is not being well received. Why do you feel this great need to re-phrase, para-phrase, and change what I said?

Whatever your answer is, I still stand by mine. Infallible is infallible; fallible is prone to error; we must choose one over the other sometimes when they are contradictory; I choose the infallible.

Which do you choose?

-- Psyche +AMDG+ (psychicquill@yahoo.com), September 29, 2003.

Psych,

No Chuch document ever used the word "fallible." Only liberal Cafeteria Catholics and, well, you, use it. This is probably because you, like other people who find Vatican II teachings distasteful, fail to distinguish between "not infallible" (not gauranteed free from error and possibly changeable) and "fallible" (prone to error).

Not-infallible is the only licit way to describe non-infallible teachings; especially since Lumen Gentium, Canon Law, and the constant teaching of the Church never gave anyone permission to dissent from a teaching because it wasn't infallible.

There is nothing with the Pope's signature which is "prone to error."

-- Skoobouy (skoobouy@hotmail.com), September 29, 2003.

Furthermore, Vatican II documents meet the criteria for infallibility set forth in Lumen Gentium #25

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documen ts/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

-- Skoobouy (skoobouy@hotmail.com), September 29, 2003.

Psyche,
The way you replied to me is unseemly. You are behaving like a cornered animal. You act as though I am a hunter of whom you are afraid. Why would you rather clam up than help me to understand what you really believe?

All right, I won't pursue the same tack that I used before. Instead, I'll just ask you a very simple question that has a "yes" or "no" answer:

Do you believe that the only cases in which religious doctrine has been taught infallibly in the Catholic Church are those cases in which a pope has made a formal "ex cathedra" declaration/definition?
(May I follow up? If your answer to that question is "yes," then how many times in 2,000 years has a pope exercised infallibility?)

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), September 29, 2003.

Conciliar Doctrine Catholic Doctrine Vatican II Dignitatis Humanæ Pope Gregory XVI Mirari Vos 4. Religious bodies also have the right not to be hindered in their public teaching and witness to their faith, whether by the spoken or by the written word.

13. In turn, where the principle of religious freedom is...given sincere and practical application, there the Church succeeds in achieving a stable situation of right as well as of fact and the independence which is necessary for the fulfillment of her divine mission....

3. ...men explain to one another the truth they have discovered, or think they have discovered, in order thus to assist one another in the quest for truth...

1. A sense of the dignity of the human person has been impressing itself more and more deeply on the consciousness of contemporary man. And the demand is increasingly made that men should act on their own judgment, enjoying and making use of a responsible freedom, not driven by coercion but motivated by a sense of duty.

3. Truth...is to be sought after in a manner proper to the dignity of the human person and his social nature.

5. Government, in consequence, must acknowledge the right of parents to make...[for] their children...a genuinely free choice of schools and of other means of education...in accordance with their own religious beliefs.

4. In addition, it comes within the meaning of religious freedom that religious bodies should not be prohibited from freely undertaking to show the special value of their doctrine in what concerns the organization of society and the inspiration of the whole of human activity.

Vatican II Gaudium et Spes

The Council intends above all to judge by this light [of the faith] the most prized values of our contemporaries [rights of man, liberty, tolerance] and to join them to their divine source. Here We must include that harmful and never sufficiently denounced freedom to publish any writings whatever and disseminate them to the people, which some dare to demand and promote with so great a clamor. We are horrified to see what monstrous doctrines and prodigious errors are disseminated far and wide in countless books, pamphlets, and other writings which, though small in weight, are very great in malice. We are in tears at the abuse which proceeds from them over the face of the earth. Some are so carried away that they contentiously assert that the flock of errors arising from them is sufficiently compensated by the publication of some book which defends religion and truth. Every law condemns deliberately doing evil simply because there is some hope that good may result. Is there any sane man who would say poison ought to be distributed, sold publicly, stored, and even drunk because some antidote is available and those who use it may be snatched from death again and again? The Church has always taken action to destroy the plague of bad books....Thus it is evident that this Holy See has always striven, throughout the ages, to condemn and to remove suspect and harmful books....When all restraints are removed by which men are kept on the narrow path of truth, their nature, which is already inclined to evil, propels them to ruin. Then truly "the bottomless pit" is open from which John saw smoke ascending which obscured the sun, and out of which locusts flew forth to devastate the earth.

You do not see the difference?

-- Ziggster (----@---00.com), September 29, 2003.

WHile we are asking questions of this doctrinal genius Id also like to know is what happened for the 1800 years history of the Catholic Church before formal "ex cathedra" declarations were ever used. Please explain Psyche Id love to hear your take... knock yourself out love.

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), September 29, 2003.

Jason sorry to derail your thread but the Moderaotor has allowed these clowns far too much leeway, theyre very dangerous anti catholics. Themod is a holy generous man but they need to be given the heave ho pronto. I wrongly gave Ziggy the benefit of the doubt on this thread, Iwas right first time.Having a look around on other threads hes cut and pasted words he cant even begin to comprehend all over the show trying to mislead and decieve.

Hes a brainwashed imbecile with whom dialouge is utterly wasted. Moderator time to wave goodbye to our new found starry companion and blast him off elsewhere to let him bring misey to more welcoming planets, I hear Neptune is nice this time of year. Happy space travel Ziggy. Bye Bye

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), September 30, 2003.

Kiwi wrote: “WHile we are asking questions of this doctrinal genius Id also like to know is what happened for the 1800 years history of the Catholic Church before formal "ex cathedra" declarations were ever used. Please explain Psyche Id love to hear your take... knock yourself out love.”

Actually, my fruity friend Kiwi, the ex cathedra declaration I’ve been quoting, Quo Primum, was a Papal Bull of Pope Saint Pius V, whose life was 1504-1572.

Further, here is the history of the term ex cathedra, from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05677a.htm : “Literally "from the chair", a theological term which signifies authoritative teaching and is more particularly applied to the definitions given by the Roman pontiff. Originally the name of the seat occupied by a professor or a bishop, cathedra was used later on to denote the magisterium, or teaching authority. The phrase ex cathedra occurs in the writings of the medieval theologians, and more frequently in the discussions which arose after the Reformation in regard to the papal prerogatives. But its present meaning was formally determined by the Vatican Council, Sess. IV, Const. de Ecclesiâ Christi, c. iv: "We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable." -- The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume V Copyright © 1909 by Robert Appleton Company, Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by Kevin Knight, Nihil Obstat, May 1, 1909. Remy Lafort, Censor, Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York.

The Vatican Council determined and defined the term's formal MEANING; not that it became formal or was formally declared to exist, which is plainly shown by it's history.

-- Psyche +AMDG+ (psychicquill@yahoo.com), September 30, 2003.

John wrote: “The way you replied to me is unseemly. You are behaving like a cornered animal. You act as though I am a hunter of whom you are afraid. Why would you rather clam up than help me to understand what you really believe?”

John, your attempt to label my reply as “unseemly,” your calling my behavior that of a cornered animal, and your saying that I act afraid of you, simply shows that you are trying to avoid my question, which was, “ Why do you feel this great need to re-phrase, para-phrase, and change what I said?”

John wrote: “Do you believe that the only cases in which religious doctrine has been taught infallibly in the Catholic Church are those cases in which a pope has made a formal "ex cathedra" declaration/definition?”

John, no. I do not believe that the only cases in which religious doctrine has been taught infallibly in the Catholic Church are those cases in which a pope has made a formal “ex cathedra” declaration/definition. I do, however, believe that the only cases in which religious doctrine can be assuredly accepted as infallible are those cases/documents in which a pope has made a formal ex cathedra declaration/definition. Simply put, if you don’t have the guarantee, it is not guaranteed, although it may be true.

John wrote: “(May I follow up? If your answer to that question is "yes," then how many times in 2,000 years has a pope exercised infallibility?)”

John, since my answer was “no”, this question does not apply, but I will tell you that I have no idea how many times in 2000 years a pope has exercised infallibility. Even if I did have some idea, I wouldn’t be infallible; so why do you ask me?

-- Psyche +AMDG+ (psychicquill@yahoo.com), September 30, 2003.

Skoobouy wrote: “No Chuch document ever used the word "fallible." Only liberal Cafeteria Catholics and, well, you, use it. This is probably because you, like other people who find Vatican II teachings distasteful, fail to distinguish between "not infallible" (not gauranteed free from error and possibly changeable) and "fallible" (prone to error).”

Skoobouy, 1) I don’t believe I ever said that any Church document ever used the word “fallible”. 2) You are not in a position to know “only who” uses the term fallible since you do not know every single person in the world, or even every single person in the Catholic Church. 3) Theologically speaking, there is no difference between “not guaranteed free from error” and “prone to error.” Prone: Middle English, inclined, disposed, from Latin pronus, leaning forward. In Catholic theology there is no neutral ground; as Christ said, you are either with Him or against Him. In Catholic theology, neutrality in itself is an error. So, a document either has no errors in it or has errors in it. If it is fallible, it is prone to error; which means that every non-infallible document is fallible.

-- Psyche +AMDG+ (psychicquill@yahoo.com), September 30, 2003.

My dear lady I do not have the time to reply in detail but I will in due course. Your posts above on Vatican II and ex cathedra etc show a far too narrow understanding of the true doctrine of infallibility IMHO. The views you espouse are also long past free theological speculation, something well worth considering ;-). You miss my point in your eagerness to highlight the obvious in your reply; the essenceof the papacy has been there all along. As you rightly point out already thousands and thousands of dogmatic judgments had gone forth from the Apostolic See before 1870, yet where is the law which prescribed the form to be observed in such judgments? Orthodoxy is a matter of faith, you seem to be trying to reason your way to the truth by proving dogma "100%". The very meaning of the word Catholic seems to have past you completely unaware. Councils are intrinsically infallible and the “certainty of truth argument” you seem to espouse is untenable IMHO.

Let me get this straight before I continue; esssentialy you seem to believe the only way the faithful can be certain of the mind of the Apostolic See, of the mind of the Roman Pontiff; is through an ex cathedra statement, is that a fair summary?. My next question would also be how does your definition of infallibility influence the assent you believe required of Vatican II?

Once I’ve got exactly where you’re coming from I can out we can get down to business Madam. Forgive me Im a bit slow on the uptake sometimes.

In necessaris, unitas In dubis, libertas In omibus, caritas

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), October 01, 2003.

Another question would be BEFORE Vatican I, do you believe you have to assent to ANYTHING the Pope said because the faithful didn't have "100%" assurance it was infallible?

Don't try and lawyer your way around assent to the Magesterium.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 01, 2003.

Kiwi wrote: "esssentialy you seem to believe the only way the faithful can be certain of the mind of the Apostolic See, of the mind of the Roman Pontiff; is through an ex cathedra statement, is that a fair summary?"

Kiwi, dear little fuzzy fruit, I am afraid you have entirely missed the point, as shown by the above quote. The point is, we do not need to be "certain of the mind of the Apostolic See or of the Pope" at all. Catholic means "universal": we must believe only that which is universally true. Since the popes change and there is not one pope for all time (i.e., no universal pope)and therefore the "mind" or the inconsequential oppinions of the pope changes, in addition to the pope being a human and therefore also fallible and inconstant, Catholics are not required to believe everything the pope thinks or says or publishes.

What we are required to believe, and here is where the matter of Faith comes in since none of us (I believe) has time in our busy lives to research and study every single infallible statement made since the original Whit Sunday, is the "Deposit of Faith;" in essence, all that MUST be believed because it is infallible.

Anything and everything that has not been determined to be infallible, is up for discussion and disagreement.

It is so simple: "true", and "maybe true but we aren't sure". And yet it is also so complicated: so many popes, so many years since Christ walked the earth, so many papal encyclicals, apostolic letters, decrees, Bulls, press releases . . . the list goes on . . .

I think Christ meant the matter of what you must have Faith in to be this simple, because He knew how complicated everything would get after a few years of many different popes, etc. If it were not this simple, then the Catholic Church would have died out long ago because no one would have the energy to sort it all out and stay current . . .

-- Psyche +AMDG+ (psychicquill@yahoo.com), October 01, 2003.

Frank apparently does not know what the Magesterium is.

-- Psyche +AMDG+ (psychicquill@yahoo.com), October 01, 2003.

Frank and everyone,

About the magisterium of the Church, and what it is and why it's there, and what it can and can't do . . . I found an excellent article for you to read. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm

But if you don't want to read the whole thing (it is a bit long), I picked out some pertinant bits for you:

"This magisterium was not instituted to receive new truths, but to guard, transmit, propagate, and preserve revealed truth from every admixture of error, and to cause it to prevail."

"Sometimes it is even by sounding as it were the common sentiment of the Church, still more by scrutinizing the monuments of the past, that masters and theologians discover that such and such a doctrine, perhaps in dispute, belongs nevertheless to the traditional deposit. More than one among the faithful may be unconscious of personal belief in it, but if he is in union of thought with the Church he believes implicitly that which perhaps he declines to recognize explicitly as an object of his faith. It was thus with regard to the dogma of the Immaculate Conception before it was inserted in the explicit faith of the Church."

"A distinction must be made between dogmatic traditions or revealed truths, pious traditions, liturgical customs, and the accounts of supernatural manifestations or revelations which circulate in the world of Christian piety. When the Church intervenes in order to pronounce in these matters it is never to canonize them, if we may so speak, nor to give them an authority of faith; in such cases it claims only to preserve them against temerarious attacks, to pronounce that they contain nothing contrary to faith or morals, and to recognize in them a human value sufficient for piety to nourish itself therewith freely and without danger."

"To this identity of revealed truth corresponds the identity of faith. What the first Christians believed we still believe; what we believe to-day they believed more or less explicitly, in a more or less conscious way. Since the deposit of Revelation has remained the same, the same also, in substance, has remained the taking possession of the deposit by the living faith."

"There have been no new data, but there has been under the impulse of grace and sentiment and the effort of theology a more distinct and clear insight into what the ancient data contained. When the Church defined the Immaculate Conception it defined what was actually in the explicit faith of the faithful what had always been implicitly in that faith. The same is true of all similar cases, save for accidental differences of circumstances. In recognizing a new truth the Church thereby recognizes that it already possessed that truth."

"There is, therefore in the Church progress of dogma, progress of theology, progress to a certain extent of faith itself, but this progress does not consist in the addition of fresh information nor the change of ideas. What is believed has always been believed, but in time it is more commonly and thoroughly understood and explicitly expressed. Thus, thanks to the living magisterium and ecclesiastical preaching, thanks to the living sense of truth in the Church, to the action of the Holy Ghost simultaneously directing master and faithful, traditional truth lives and develops in the Church, always the same, at once ancient and new--ancient, for the first Christians already beheld it to a certain extent, new, because we see it with our own eyes and in harmony with our present ideas. Such is the notion of tradition in the double meaning of the word; it is Divine truth coming down to us in the mind of the Church and it is the guardianship and transmission of this Divine truth by the organ of the living magisterium, by ecclesiastical preaching, by the profession of it made by all in the Christian life."

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XV Copyright © 1912 by Robert Appleton Company, Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by Kevin Knight, Nihil Obstat, October 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor, Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York

So you see, Frank, the magisterium of the Church is not "whatever the pope and bishops are now thinking" or any such idea. Also, the magisterium by definition must acknowledge and indeed promulgate every bit of the Deposit of Faith which has gone before the present- day Church . . . therefore, the idea that the magisterium is re- defining, overcoming, or negating any Truth which was recognized in the past, is totally erronious.

Perhaps this will help y'all better understand why us Traditional Catholics take such pains to preserve the Traditional thought of the magisterium of the Catholic Church.

-- Psyche +AMDG+ (psychicquill@yahoo.com), October 01, 2003.

-- (.@...), October 01, 2003.

Now, it is perfectly apparent that the post-conciliar innovations have produced nothing but bitter fruit by any empirically verifiable standard, be it the number of baptisms or conversions, the number of vocations, or the number of nominal Catholics who still believe (or even know) the dogmas of the faith, let alone adhere to the "difficult" teaching on marriage and procreation. But the neo- Catholic simply refuses to acknowledge that the conciliar popes could have blundered and caused serious harm to the Church by approving these unheard-of novelties. A prime example of this kind of studied denial of the obvious is a statement by neo-Catholic historian Warren Carroll in his capacity as one of EWTN's online "experts" on matters of the Faith. Carroll was presented with the following query concerning Pope John Paul II's interreligious prayer meetings:

This is what Vatican II has done, but Neo's refuse to see it.

-- Terry (abc@304.com), October 01, 2003.

Jmj
Hello again, Psyche.

Before I start ... I noticed that Kiwi has been referring to you as a "lady." Although I recall the female character of Greek mythology named "Psyche," you are actually a man, aren't you?

You wrote: "John, your attempt to label my reply as 'unseemly,' your calling my behavior that of a cornered animal, and your saying that I act afraid of you, simply shows that you are trying to avoid my question, which was, 'Why do you feel this great need to re-phrase, para-phrase, and change what I said?'"

First, I didn't "attempt" to do something. I really did it.
However, I didn't "label [your] reply as 'unseemly.'" Rather I called your action unseemly: "The way you replied to me is unseemly." In other words, your behavior was inappropriate.

Second, I didn't "try to avoid [your] question" -- even though I would have been within my rights to ignore your question, since it was inappropriate to begin with. No, I didn't avoid it, but you were too busy being "cute" to even notice my reply. I wrote: "Why would you rather clam up than help me to understand what you really believe?" In other words, the perfect innocent reason for my paraphrasing what you said earlier was to "help me to understand what you really believe" -- since I was not able clearly to understand from your own words. They were ambiguous -- and even not what you really intended, as you tacitly admitted when you wrote, "Change that to ...".

You also wrote: "I do not believe that the only cases in which religious doctrine has been taught infallibly in the Catholic Church are those cases in which a pope has made a formal “ex cathedra” declaration/definition."

That's good, for starters. Now let's see where you are going ...

"I do, however, believe that the only cases in which religious doctrine can be assuredly accepted as infallible are those cases/documents in which a pope has made a formal ex cathedra declaration/definition.

Oh, that's too bad, because you are wrong. The Church has clearly taught differently. There are other "cases in which religious doctrine can be assurely accepted as infallible". In fact, the number of such "other cases" is vast.

We don't know much about you yet, Psyche. But I'm hoping that you're only a mild dissenter due to being ill-educated. (I'm hoping that you are not another in a long, boringly repetitious line of schismatics and heretics that have plagued the forum.)

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), October 01, 2003.

Oh, I forgot to tell you, Terry ...

Dr. Warren Carroll is a great historian and Catholic, the founder of (orthodox Catholic) Christendom College in Front Royal, Viginia. When a dimwit like you criticizes a great man like Carroll, it makes me picture a kindergartner trying to teach Albert Einstein.

Buzz off, Terry. You have nothing to offer us at this forum. We are Catholics here.

John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@Hotmail.com), October 01, 2003.

John wrote: "you are actually a man, aren't you?"

John, why does this matter?

John wrote: "In other words, the perfect innocent reason for my paraphrasing what you said earlier was to "help me to understand what you really believe" -- since I was not able clearly to understand from your own words. They were ambiguous -- and even not what you really intended, as you tacitly admitted when you wrote, "Change that to ..."."

John, you are mistaken. When I said "Change that to . . ." I was speaking of YOUR words, not mine. My words stand as true. Also, your rambling "reasons" as to why you ignored my question of "Why do you feel this great need to re-phrase, para-phrase, and change what I said?" shows further that you are employing your diatribe as a Red Herring. Blow some smoke and produce some mirrors, and hopefully the question will go away, eh? This will not work. So, "Why do you feel this great need to re-phrase, para-phrase, and change what I said?"

John wrote: "Oh, that's too bad, because you are wrong. The Church has clearly taught differently. There are other "cases in which religious doctrine can be assurely accepted as infallible". In fact, the number of such "other cases" is vast."

John, you are incorrect. Go to http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm and read that article (it concerns the Magisterium and Tradition, and is from the 1912 edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia), and then perhaps you will have a little better idea of what "infallible" means, and of the journey (so to speak) a doctrine or dogma must take which ultimately leads to it's declared infallibility. If, after understanding this article, you still stand by your words of "the number of other such cases is vast," then please produce three examples with documentable online resources.

John wrote: "We don't know much about you yet, Psyche. But I'm hoping that you're only a mild dissenter due to being ill-educated. (I'm hoping that you are not another in a long, boringly repetitious line of schismatics and heretics that have plagued the forum.)"

John, and everyone else, I am not a "dissenter," mild or otherwise. I am an "assenter," and a very strong one, at that. I also must say that you should be perhaps more careful when calling people schismatics and heretics; how do you know that you are not one, yourself? Has the pope himself told you that you aren't? And, even if he has, do you think the pope is incapable of making mistakes? Or is it your conscious submission to the Truths held and taught by Holy Mother Church which causes you to believe that you are not a heretic? Because, I guarantee you that most if not all of those whom you label heretics and schismatics consciously submit in that way, also.

If nothing else, perhaps you should be saying, "There, but for the grace of God, go I." Do you really think it helps your cause to insult people to whom the idea of being a heretic or schismatic is so WRONG that they would probably rather give up their earthly lives than have that be true of them?

Last, but not least, why must you insinuate that I am "ill- educated"? Is this really part of your argument as to why you believe you are correct and I am incorrect?

-- Psyche +AMDG+ (psychicquill@yahoo.com), October 01, 2003.

Shalom Terry,

You wrote, >>>This is what Vatican II has done, but Neo's refuse to see it. >>>

Please explain. Perhaps are you suggesting that anyone who accepts Vatican II as viable Church teaching is a neo- Catholic?

Shalom, C & C

-- C.Foegen (cfoegen@angelfire.com), October 02, 2003.

Jmj
Hello, "Psyche."

Somewhere here on the forum, I noticed today that someone (perhaps by accident) referred to you as "Psycho." As I read your response to me, I couldn't help but think that the person may have inadvertently hit upon a truth about you. I think that I'll know with greater certainty whether or not you are "psycho" by reading your next response (if you choose to make one).

Last time, I asked you, "... you are actually a man, aren't you?" To this, instead of replying like a sane human being, you wrote, "John, why does this matter?"

"Psyche," the only appropriate response from you was "Yes" or "No." To ask a question was improper. Still more improper was that question, since I did not say that it "matter[s]" whether you are a man or not. I wanted to know, whether it "matter[ed]" or not. This is a discussion forum wherein we are conversing about a serious matter. You know not only my sex, but my first and last names. A sane, mature person in your position would have no trouble, at the very least, in letting a conversation partner know his/her sex. A mental picture of one person, even if somewhat inaccurate, helps the other better to relate to the first as a human being. If you are unable to answer my question directly -- due to fear or shame or some other problem -- then that would be point #1 in favor of calling you "Psycho."

Last time, "Psyche," I explained that you were wrong about the paraphrasing business. I explained that I was merely acting to "help me to understand what you really believe" -- since I was not able clearly to understand from your own words [which] were ambiguous". Instead of accepting this totally normal explanation for my paraphrasing, you did two extremely stupid and paranoid things: (1) you referrd to my words as a "diatribe"/"red herring"/"smoke and ... mirrors" --- and (2) you persisted in an irrational insistence that I answer the question I had already answered. Unless you admit that you were wrong to ignore my good explanation and to harass me in this way, that will be point #2 in favor of calling you "Psycho."

I had to smile when you sent me to the old Catholic Encyclopedia, because I have probably been looking at that Encyclopedia since you were in diapers (or more likely since before your parents met each other). I don't need to RE-read articles to which you want to send me, because I am quite familiar with this topic -- which is why I am trying to instruct you in it. Moreover, although I like the CE a lot, it is not published by the Church but by a private publisher. For the very best available information about the Church's magisterium and the exercise of infallibility, we should look to the Church's own writings.

"Psyche," you wrote: "If ... you still stand by your words of 'the number of other such cases is vast,' then please produce three examples with documentable online resources."

I don't need to provide "documentable online resources," because many of the cases are so obvious.
In the course of the Church's 21 General Councils, there have been numerous cases in which the Council Fathers, acting according to the will of the Holy Spirit, have formally declared a dogma, formally defining a doctrine of the faith and imposing the penalty of excommunication on anyone who would deny this infallible declaration.

Last time, I said that "I'm hoping that you're only a mild dissenter due to being ill-educated."
To this, "Psyche," you replied that you are "not a 'dissenter'". But it is clear to me that you are (at best) a dissenter, because the following statement of yours is (at best) an example of dissent (as I showed by the Conciliar examples just mentioned):
"I ... believe that the only cases in which religious doctrine can be assuredly accepted as infallible are those cases/documents in which a pope has made a formal ex cathedra declaration/definition."
Now, if you choose to persist in making the quoted claim in the face of obvious evidence that it is wrong, you would be giving me point #3 in favor of calling you "Psycho."

"Psyche," you wrote: "I ... must say that you should be perhaps more careful when calling people schismatics and heretics; how do you know that you are not one, yourself?

I know the meaning of the words, so I know that they do not apply to me, just as I know that the do apply (at least "de facto") to many with whom I've had the displeasure to do battle. That's why I don't want you to number yourself among them.

"Psyche," you wrote: "... is it your conscious submission to the Truths held and taught by Holy Mother Church which causes you to believe that you are not a heretic? Because, I guarantee you that most if not all of those whom you label heretics and schismatics consciously submit in that way, also."

I assure you that anyone I call a "heretic" fails to submit to at least one of those truths, and I assure you that anyone I call a "schismatic" fails to render the required obedience to the Roman pontiff. Let us hope that you don't merit either label. Depending on how much you reveal -- and how much you hide -- about what you believe/disbelieve, I may be able to let you know whether or not you are a heretic or schismatic.

"Psyche," you wrote: "If nothing else, perhaps you should be saying, 'There, but for the grace of God, go I.'"

Why do you assume that I am not saying that? Your assumption is wrong.

You wrote: "Do you really think it helps your cause to insult people to whom the idea of being a heretic or schismatic is so WRONG that they would probably rather give up their earthly lives than have that be true of them?"

I don't have a "cause" that I need to "help." What I do is not "to insult people." Rather it is a carrying out of one of the Spiritual Works of Mercy: "Instruct the Ignorant." Moreover, I am reminded, both in the Old and New Testaments, of my duty to tell my brother that he is offending God and endangering his soul by sinning. There are lots of people -- schismatics and heretics among them -- who need a very loud wake-up call. I provide it, so that they can be snapped out of the sleep/unconsciousness of their grave error. Some people don't like noisy alarm clocks, but they are necessary, and they get the job done. You can call me a human alarm clock for sleeping heretics and schismatics. Someone may dislike me, but I am necessary, and I get the job done.

"Psyche," you closed by asking: "... why must you insinuate that I am 'ill-educated?'"

I wouldn't say that I "must" do it. Rather I chose to do it, because I wanted to convey that it was apparent that you lacked sufficient education in the area we are discussing. Only one who is "ill-educated" on this topic could write the following, as you did:
""I ... believe that the only cases in which religious doctrine can be assuredly accepted as infallible are those cases/documents in which a pope has made a formal ex cathedra declaration/definition."
By calling you "ill-educated," I didn't mean that you seem to be a high-school drop-out. I see that AMDG of which you are so proud -- possibly indicating that you are (as I am) a graduate of a Jesuit university. While most students obtain some excellent education in such an institution, they can (nowadays) easily come away terribly "ill-educated" in the religious area.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), October 02, 2003.

John, it is quite tempting to fall into the same rudeness and ad hominem attacks that you make use of, seeing as how you give me so many opportunities to do so, and since that seems to be what you are goading me to do. Your arguments lately have been decidedly mean- spirited!

The whole tone of this particular discussion has deteriorated. Instead of arguing solely about matters concerning religion, immaterial things have been brought into play: the sex and age of a person; matters of semantics; whether or not to call a person “Psycho”.

John, it would help this discussion move along rightly, and it would be good for you too, I’m convinced, if you stepped out of this situation and viewed it from an objective standpoint: outside looking in, rather than inside looking around. This might let your head become more clear of emotion so you would be able to fully use your faculties of reason and logic. If you HAVE been utilizing your reason and logic to their full extent all along, I apologize for even mentioning this. It was just a thought which I hoped would be helpful.

Last night I was originally going to list all the instances in your latest post which were rude, mean-spirited, or ad hominem attacks, but when I woke up this morning I saw this situation differently. I realized that I pity you. I am saying this in all innocence. I don’t wish to hurt you, but this is what seems to be the truth: the world you are living in is upside-down, and you are upside-down along with it; your hate and unbridled, vindictive anger are showing through your posts recently, crystal clear; you have been accusing me of sinful tendencies willy-nilly when all I have ever done on this forum since the first time I posted less than two weeks ago is give a few simple, logical reasons anti-Modernism. Such a sad situation!

Now, about the “meat” of your last post:

1) You said that the reason you want to know my gender is that it would help you to relate to me as a human being. My answer is that our purpose in the discussion of our Faith has nothing to do with relating to each other as human beings. If you can convince me, John, with some reasonable, logical, pertinent reason, that my gender has any bearing on this discussion, then I will tell you not only that, but also my age, marital status, educational credentials, what I do "for a living", and anything else you are curious about.

2) If you really want to understand what I believe, and if you do not understand something I write, then ask me to rephrase. Do not rephrase my words yourself.

3)You almost fell into a hole of your own digging in your paragraph about the Catholic Encyclopedia. You said you have been looking at the CE for a very long time, and that you had previously read that article which I sent you the address for; but then you said that since the CE is published by a private publisher it does not have the best information about things. John, if the CE is really not that good of an information source then why have you been looking at it all these years?

4) You have not provided even one example of an instance of infallibility where the dogma has not been formally declared, making it infallible. However, and this is important to our argument here, what you said, “ . . . there have been numerous cases in which the Council Fathers . . . have formally declared a dogma, formally defining a doctrine of the faith and imposing the penalty of excommunication on anyone who would deny this infallible declaration,” I totally agree with. You don’t think this is what we’ve been arguing over, do you? If so, then you are operating with incorrect definitions of “infallible” and “ex cathedra.” I think it best if we clear this up immediately.

5)You have provided absolutely no evidence for your case. Therefore, my words still stand as true: “The only cases in which religious doctrine can be assuredly accepted as infallible are those cases/documents in which a pope has made a formal ex cathedra declaration/definition.”

6) John, concerning what you said about you calling people heretics and schismatics, and all that about you being an alarm clock: in this confusing world, no one but God can know without a doubt who is the heretic and who is not, unless someone has been formally declared as a heretic by the Church, or someone professes that he is knowingly a heretic. No one but God can look into the hearts of men. The best way to avoid heresy is to be fearful of falling into it, and to order your beliefs and actions thusly. John, I can not see into your heart; but judging by what you say, you have lost the fear of falling into heresy. John, please, be as careful as you can possibly be, as I and many others are doing. This is the reason why infallibility is such a huge deal to the Church . . .and to me.

7) “There, but for the Grace of God, go I.” John, if you do say it, then say it. If you do not say it, then please consider it.

8) If you truly believe that calling me out for sins of heresy and schism (which I have not committed) is your duty, meaning you believe you would be sinning if you did not do it, then by all means do it. It will just continue to give me the opportunity to convince you of the Truth. Please do think about what I say, though. I am no prophet, and I am no St. Teresa of Avila, but I ask the Holy Ghost to guide what I write so that perhaps some word or phrase might open a door in your mind (and others minds, too) through which you may come into the Truth. If anything I write or say does cause this to happen, it is not because of me; it is entirely because of God. All I have of myself is my will to help you in any way I can.

By the way, I was not aware until a few weeks ago that “Ad Magorem Dei Gloriam” is the Jesuit motto. I was interested to find it out; but I have been using that as my personal motto since I was (as close as I can remember) fifteen or sixteen or seventeen years of age. Everyone around me was using “JMJ” to invoke Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, like you do, and though I used that sometimes back then too, I looked out for something which would more specifically dedicate to God what I wrote. “For the greater glory of God” comes pretty durn close, so I was happy to find it. I actually found it at the head of a letter a friend of mine wrote me while she was in South Africa, back when we were both teenagers.

It is quite telling, however, that you yourself admit that most students easily come away from the prestigious Jesuit universities “terribly ill-educated in the religious area.” I wonder what has changed in the years since you went to University, to cause the downfall of religious education even in Church-run, Jesuit-run institutions . . .? Something for you to think about.

-- Psyche +AMDG+ (psychicquill@yahoo.com), October 03, 2003.

Jmj

With the exception of one correction of a comment by which you tried to mock me, I will not be responding to the "substance" (?) of your message, sir, because your latest reply has indeed convinced me that you deserve the nickname that paul h accidentally (?) bestowed upon you: Psycho.

You wrote:
"You [John] said you have been looking at the CE for a very long time, and that you had previously read that article which I sent you the address for; but then you said that since the CE is published by a private publisher it does not have the best information about things. John, if the CE is really not that good of an information source then why have you been looking at it all these years?"

What I actually said was, "For the very best available information about the Church's magisterium and the exercise of infallibility, we should look to the Church's own writings."

When you decide to mock someone, Psycho, don't do it with a gun that will backfire in your face. Never did I say (as you attributed to me) that "the CE is really not that good of an information source." I said that the "very best" source is Church documents. My point was that ...
(1) as excellent as the CE is, it does have some mistakes and some omissions, and ...
(2) we must avoid giving the impression that the CE is published by the Church and itself contains magisterial works.

Look, sir, it's obvious that we cannot communicate, because you have either shown that you are catastrophically ignorant ... or that you are paranoically trying to hide the fact that you are seriously dissident, schismatic, or heretical. [The reason I leave the opening for forgivably "ignorant" is that only a mind-bogglingly uninformed person could have written your items 4 and 5, which are completely refuted by the Church and my last post.]

Psycho, if you are not simply ignorant, then it would help to explain why your comments have been so evasive -- for it would indicate that you have been pussy-footing all over the place to avoid taking the heat that more openly non-Catholic (i.e., schismo/heretical) people have been taking at this forum for more than a year. I suggest that you leave the forum, because you are definitely not going to enjoy staying here. You already don't like what I say to you and how I say it. If you stay, there will be just more of the same -- from me and others -- unless you undergo a thorough reform.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), October 04, 2003.

"Psyche,"
I have returned to this thread (later in the day) to apologize to you for one thing -- calling you "Psycho." Although I disagree with you about some things, I shouldn't have descended to an insulting joke, even though I didn't mean it seriously.
God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), October 04, 2003.

Poor John. I am so sorry that you are refusing to continue this discussion with me. I am sure God will bless you as long as you are doing His Will, but can His Will really be to retreat? Should this not be a "fight to the death", the "death" of either your or my arguments? It is a pity that you decided to withdraw. If you want to negate that decision, I would be most pleased to continue this with you.

I don't know why I decided to do this (it might be the fact that you called me "sir" in your last major post, which humored me) but, perhaps out of trying to get you to continue this with me, and notwithstanding the fact that I am absolutely convinced that gender has no bearing on this or any theological or philosophical discussion, I will now tell you my gender. I am female. Now that I gave you a cookie, so to speak, will you continue to discuss this with me?

-- Psyche +AMDG+ (psychicquill@yahoo.com), October 04, 2003.

Psyche, I applaud your gentle nature, and compassionate approach that you reverted to in your final 2 posts. It is good that you did not let your pride overcome you and become more preoccupied with your own augment than with respecting another child of God that is just trying to find his way. It is good for us all to think about, test, and try to understand our faith. It seems that people are doing there best to accomplish that on this forum. I hope that we can all learn from each other, but we must remember, the most effective way we can bring anyone close to Christ and His Church, is by praying for them.

God Bless all of you, Yours in Christ, Augustine

-- Augustine (AugustineALieb@hotmail.com), October 08, 2003.

Augustine, thank you for your encouraging comments. We can only do the best that we are given to do, as is the will of God.

-- Psyche +AMDG+ (psychicquill@yahoo.com), October 09, 2003.

Dear Ms P Im back and a little more chilled than before no offence meant by my comments I see you’ve really got stuck into this thread, I like a challenge. The Rugby World Cup lured me away from New Zealand for the beautiful beaches of SYdney and my attention has been very much elsewhere(Go the ALL Blacks!) I have other priorities over the next few weeks so I might take a while replying but Ill get there eventually. A few thoughts for your reply please madam:

Lady P>>>> “So you see, Frank, the magisterium of the Church is not "whatever the pope and bishops are now thinking" or any such idea. Also, the magisterium by definition must acknowledge and indeed promulgate every bit of the Deposit of Faith which has gone before the present- day Church . . . therefore, the idea that the magisterium is re- defining, overcoming, or negating any Truth which was recognized in the past, is totally erronious. Perhaps this will help y'all better understand why us Traditional Catholics take such pains to preserve the Traditional thought of the magisterium of the Catholic Church.”

I would argue that “traditional cathlolics” like yourself “understand” very little yet alone “preserve the Traditional thought of the Magisterium” We believe the universal Church through the bishops and the Pope of Rome does this not you guys!

Catholics believe:

“Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church's Magisterium.”

Most trads are unable to make even this distinction.

“traditional catholics” deny the necessity of a Living Magisterium to interpret tradition, Catholics disagree:

85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."

This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.One must exercise faith. The modernists have not succeeded in perverting a single doctrine of the Catholic faith. Nor will they ever do so. If history teaches us anything, it is that.

I cannot but help but be surprised by your apparent lack of knowledge in regard to the weakness and limitations of the Catholic Encylodepia and also in regard to your dismay at the terms “schismatic” and “heretic” by Mr. Gecick. I wont detail the former its painstakingly obvious but in regard to the later issue Catholics believe that:

"[a] schismatic is one who believes everything the Church teaches, but will not submit to the authority of its head--the Holy Father. Such persons do not long remain only schismatics; for once they rise up against the authority of the Church, they soon reject some of its doctrines and thus become heretics; and indeed, since Vatican Council I, all schismatics are heretics" (Balt. Catechism A 323).

From a functional viewpoint there is no legitimate protest against the primacy and supreme authority of the Pope in all matters pertaining to the universal church. Your current position of bowing only to what you percieve (incorrectly IMO) as infallible , is doubly rottten as not only do you reject the authority of the Church and put your faith in your own personal Protestant fairy tale “paper magisterium” but also (unlike other protestants) you try and cover your dissent and pretend to be Catholic. In short then if you reject Vatican II in the way I believe youre attempting to do so then not only are youre schismatic heretic but dishonest and devious. If you accept Vatican II as binding then of course Ive made a mistake. Harsh words but that’s the truth IMO. Not that I can be upheld as anything great (as Isabel or someone else will gleefully tell you) ,yet apologetics isnt about personalities its about the truth.

Ok onto your words to me

Lady P>>>>”Kiwi, dear little fuzzy fruit,(cheeky cow!) I am afraid you have entirely missed the point, as shown by the above quote. The point is, we do not need to be "certain of the mind of the Apostolic See or of the Pope" at all. Catholic means "universal": we must believe only that which is universally true.”

OK yeah I realise this, but LP what is “universally true”?

Again the Cathechism helps Catholics:

891. "'The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.... The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,' above all in an Ecumenical Council. [LG 25; cf. Vatican Council I: DS 3074.] When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine 'for belief as being divinely revealed,' [DV 10 # 2.] and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions 'must be adhered to with the obedience of faith.' [LG 25 # 2.] This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself. [Cf. LG 25.]"

SO does Vatican II

"Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly. This is so, even when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter’s successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively. This authority is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church. Their definitions must then be adhered to with the submission of faith"

(Lumen Gentium 25).

Lady P>>>>>>”Since the popes change and there is not one pope for all time (i.e., no universal pope)and therefore the "mind" or the inconsequential opinions of the pope changes, in addition to the pope being a human and therefore also fallible and inconstant, Catholics are not required to believe everything the pope thinks or says or publishes.”

Well I don’t often think Popes make inconsequential opinions that we get to hear about, but that’s just me I guess. Again but lets make sure we all get the full story here. It is a profound error to have attempted to confine the exercise of the Church's infallibility to the most solemnly worded Papal 'ex cathedra' definitions. Most doctrines have never been doubted by the large majority of Catholics. Pick up a catechism and look at the great number of doctrines, most of which have never been formally defined by an official papal statement. There are, in fact, few topics on which it would be possible for a pope to make an infallible decision without duplicating one or more infallible pronouncements from ecumenical councils or the ordinary magisterium (teaching authority) of the Church.

A couple of nice quotes might help shed some light on where Im going here

Joseph Costanzo, S.J.

“An authentic noninfallible teaching of the magisterium is invested with certitude, that is, with moral, practical certitude. Such a certitude precludes and, in fact, is unrelated to any consideration of a contrary probable opinion. It is not the absolute possibility of error that an authentic noninfallible teaching of the Church speculatively does not foreclose that establishes the justifying grounds for recourse to the principle of probabilism. Nor is such recourse dependent upon the acknowledgement of a "doubtful law does not bind," a popular axiom which presumes what it denies. Probabilism does not rely on the absolute possibility of error but rather, given the absence of certitude (which an authentic noninfallible teaching of the Church does provide), it is an exercise of the virtue of prudence to choose between two solidly probable opinions.”

Denzinger

“The faithful are bound to the doctrinal proposition affirmed, not to the persuasive cogency of the dialectical argumentation and collation of scientific evidences which may be brought to bear upon it. The technical formality of an ex cathedra definition would not add to the intrinsic validity, that is, its certitude, and the obligatory force of Humanae Vitae. The magisterium of the Church is no less "put on the line" by its constant and universal ordinary teaching than by the solemnity of a formal definition. Surely, no one would suggest that the papal teaching authority was in abeyance in matters of faith and morals for almost four centuries prior to the solemn definitions of the Council of Nicaea. Numerically, the aggregate of defined dogmatic and moral theology is very small indeed in comparison with the great majority of things to be held by the faithful.”

Pope Pius X's decree Lamentabili made it clear that truths are defined by a collaboration between the learning and teaching church such that the teaching church has no function other than ratifying the common opinings of the learning church.

Lady P >>>>“It is so simple: "true", and "maybe true but we aren't sure". And yet it is also so complicated: so many popes, so many years since Christ walked the earth, so many papal encyclicals, apostolic letters, decrees, Bulls, press releases . . . the list goes on . . .”

The Church's ordinary magisterium is the common level of teaching exercised by the Magisterium. However, at times the Magisterium can teach infallibly at this level, this is beyond any sort of theological debate You have a very flawed view of infallibility as a property uniquely manifested in the Extraordinary Magisterium. In fact sadly you seem blissfully unaware that infallibility is not the criterion of the truth or irreformability of a magisterial teaching.

Attempts like yours to affix a certain formulary to definitive papal pronouncements were accurately prophesied by Bishop Gasser in his Relatio from Vatican I. Its status as the only authoritative commentary on the proper sense of the dogma of papal infallibility a in no way supports your view. Want to debate this document with me, Im all ears and would enjoy your take on it.

Lady P>>>>>”I think Christ meant the matter of what you must have Faith in to be this simple, because He knew how complicated everything would get after a few years of many different popes, etc. If it were not this simple, then the Catholic Church would have died out long ago because no one would have the energy to sort it all out and stay current . . .What we are required to believe, and here is where the matter of Faith comes in since none of us (I believe) has time in our busy lives to research and study every single infallible statement made since the original Whit Sunday, is the "Deposit of Faith;" in essence, all that MUST be believed because it is infallible.”

Sigh. Nope not at all youre way wrong lady. Lets make it simple for you and explain what has kept the Catholic Church alive. Faith in the indefectibility of the Church. Youre right in that infallibility is best left to canon lawyers, theologians, bishops, and the pope, most certainly not laymen like ourselves. Whatever the fine distinctions are though Catholics are bound to accept and obey Vatican II in total. That is beyond discussion. Public disagreement is forbidden, and even internal assent must be granted to the teaching. Vatican II does not contradict earlier Councils or popes or Sacred Tradition . End of discussion for Catholics. To believe it does is an exercise in private judgment, and a belief in (at the very least) the quasi- defectibility of the Church. Those who reject council teachings, reject Christ and are no longer Catholic. This has always been the teaching of the Church, the basis of universal faith and obedience.

While this has always been the case and I could drag up thousands of quotes to support this from the early Church Fathers to Vatican I and II on the level of assent needed to authoritative teachings on faith and morals. The degree of assent owed to these teachings is the same with teachings solemnly defined or proposed definitively, the difference is the penalties involved. (The penalty of heresy only applies to the divinely revealed teachings.) However, it is important to note that culpable rejection of a definitively proclaimed teaching effectively severs the person from communion with the Catholic Church.

AS Dave Armstrong puts it

“The bottom line is, if you refuse to give assent to Councils, you are like Luther, on the road out of the Church. If you deny that the Church is indefectible, then you are no better than a modernist in my book. The Catholic must have faith that God can preserve His Church and the Sacred Deposit of Faith and Tradition in such instances. Otherwise, obedience becomes a meaningless concept and Catholic Apostolic authority reduces to Protestant pseudo-authority.”

"Rome has spoken. The case is closed."

.

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), October 13, 2003.

Kiwi, glad to see you back.

All of your words to me concerning the magisterium and Tradition/tradition assume that 1) the magisterium is composed of the teachings of members of the Catholic clergy who are alive today and 2) that I don’t understand the difference between Tradition (with a big T) and tradition(s) (with a little t).

My answers to that would be 1) the magisterium is composed of not only those teachings which are taught by the Catholic clergy alive today, but by all those Catholic clergy who are in the past, all the way back to Sts. Peter and Paul, and 2) when I speak of Tradition, I mean those doctrines and dogmas which go back to the first centuries of the church and have extended without perhaps being formally declared, to the present day, and if/when I speak of tradition(s) I mean localized customs regarding pious but non-binding beliefs of the Faith.

So, you see, I do understand these differences. The problem here is that so many Novus Ordos, like yourself, assume that I speak without the requisite knowledge, and by that means, misunderstand what I say.

Kiwi wrote: “LP what is “universally true”?”

The infallible doctrines and dogmas of Holy Mother Church. That’s what I was talking about. To be Catholic, one must believe ALL the infallible doctrines and dogmas of Holy Mother Church, otherwise known (I believe) as the Deposit of Faith. For example, if someone believes, for instance, that outside of the Catholic Church one can find salvation, then that person is not Catholic (or is a heretic, whichever way you want to put it).

Kiwi quoted: “'The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.... The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,' above all in an Ecumenical Council.”

Quite true. But, as I explained in-depth in other threads recently, a council can only exercise the supreme magisterium (be infallible) when that council is completely unanimous, which hasn’t happened since the 9th century. The only other way for a non-unanimous council’s teachings to be infallible is for the pope to take those teachings and formally declare them ex cathedra by himself. As we can see, neither of these things have occurred for Vatican II. Therefore, none of it’s documents were infallible. So, it’s documents are fallible, logically. Which means that Catholics are not bound to believe what that council taught, and that everyone is allowed to have an opinion on it’s teachings, except for those teachings which directly contradict previously taught doctrines or dogmas; in the case of “Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus” (“No salvation outside the Church”), Vatican II taught the opposite of previously taught doctrine. In this case, anyone who believes that, as Vatican II taught, people can find salvation outside the Catholic Church, is not Catholic, as I mentioned above. For resources and quotes to support “Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus” go to http://www.romancatholicism.org/nosalvat.html

Kiwi quoted Lumen Gentium 25.

Lumen Gentium is not infallible and actually contradicts articles of the Deposit of Faith. See above.

Kiwi wrote: “It is a profound error to have attempted to confine the exercise of the Church's infallibility to the most solemnly worded Papal 'ex cathedra' definitions. Most doctrines have never been doubted by the large majority of Catholics.”

That’s where Tradition comes in. That’s why we call ourselves Traditional Catholics. The word “infallible” was not even used anywhere in any church documents for many of the early centuries; but by examining the documents, the meaning is clear ( see http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm Catholic Encyclopedia)

These days, however, since in previous centuries methods have been defined for pronouncing a teaching to be infallible, the pope (and councils) must follow those methods. When the pope deviates from prior Church teachings, it is suspect.

Kiwi wrote: “Pope Pius X's decree Lamentabili made it clear that truths are defined by a collaboration between the learning and teaching church such that the teaching church has no function other than ratifying the common opinings of the learning church.”

True; but until the teaching is ratified, it is still arguable. Such was the case with the Immaulate Conception.

Kiwi wrote: “However, at times the Magisterium can teach infallibly at this level, this is beyond any sort of theological debate”

The magisterium can teach infallibly only under certain circumstances. I outlined these above. The point is, Christ in founding his Church did not give the bishops or even the pope “free rein”. Yes, he said “Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, it shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose on earth, it shall be loosed in heaven,” but the operative word here is “bind”. Binding beliefs are those which we must believe in order to be Catholic, and they are not optional; everything else is arguable since it’s non-binding.

Kiwi wrote: “Catholics are bound to accept and obey Vatican II in total. That is beyond discussion. Public disagreement is forbidden, and even internal assent must be granted to the teaching. Vatican II does not contradict earlier Councils or popes or Sacred Tradition . End of discussion for Catholics. To believe it does is an exercise in private judgment, and a belief in (at the very least) the quasi- defectibility of the Church. Those who reject council teachings, reject Christ and are no longer Catholic. This has always been the teaching of the Church, the basis of universal faith and obedience.”

Kiwi, you are 100% incorrect in every statement in the above quote. Catholics are not bound to accept and obey Vatican II in total, or in part, because it is not infallible, and in fact teaches contradictions to the Deposit of Faith (“Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus”); it is not beyond discussion because we are in fact discussing it, and furthermore everything which is not infallible and therefore non-binding is arguable; public disagreement is not forbidden for Vatican II because what it teaches is not infallible or binding, and public disagreement is actually an work of God’s grace because Vatican II teaches contrary to the Deposit of Faith; internal assent is optional to Vatican II, except in the cases of contradictory teachings such as teaching people can attain salvation from outside the Catholic Faith; Vatican II most indubitably contradicts earlier Councils, popes, and Sacred Tradition, for example, Trent, St. Pope Pius X, and Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. Catholics must discuss this; otherwise they are burying their heads in the sand like ostriches. To believe that Vatican II contradicts prior councils, popes, and Tradition, is an exercise in simple fact- finding and has nothing to do with private judgment; on the contrary, belief in the teachings of Vatican II is (at the very least) belief in the quasi-defectibility of the Church. Those who reject such a council’s teachings embrace Christ and are simply remaining faithful to the Deposit of Faith of His Church. This has always been the teaching of the Church, Kiwi; not the opposite. This is the basis of Universal Faith and obedience: that the infallibilities of the Church can never contradict themselves. Belief in Vatican II presupposes that the infallibilities of the Church can be, and have been, contradicted by “new teachings” or “new (pseudo-)infallibilities” of Vatican II.

Kiwi wrote: “culpable rejection of a definitively proclaimed teaching effectively severs the person from communion with the Catholic Church.”

Therefore, according to you, Kiwi, everyone who taught and teaches that there can be found salvation outside the Church, are effectively severed from communion with the Church. Therefore, whoever wrote, published, and believes those Vatican II documents which teach that salvation can be found from outside the Catholic Church (Lumen Gentium) “effectively sever(ed) (themselves) from communion with the Catholic Church,” as you yourself said.

Although Vatican II in Lumen Gentium 14 says, “Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation,” the same document includes in “the Church” all Protestant religions, the Jewish religion, the Mohamedans, and even those who worship “in shadows and images seek the unknown God,” i.e. any and all religions out there!

From Lumen Gentium: “This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him,(13*) although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity.”

“God gathered together as one all those who in faith look upon Jesus as the author of salvation and the source of unity and peace, and established them as the Church that for each and all it may be the visible sacrament of this saving unity. ”

“13. . . . All men are called to be part of this catholic unity of the people of God which in promoting universal peace presages it. And there belong to or are related to it in various ways, the Catholic faithful, all who believe in Christ, and indeed the whole of mankind, for all men are called by the grace of God to salvation.”

“15. The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. (14*) For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (15*) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical communities. Many of them rejoice in the episcopate, celebrate the Holy Eucharist and cultivate devotion toward the Virgin Mother of God.(16*) They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power.”

“16. . . . we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh.(125) On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues.(126); But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohamedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things,(127) and as Saviour wills that all men be saved.”

Return to the Catholic Church, Kiwi! Reject heretical teachings! Including the teaching that salvation can be found from outside the Catholic Church! Embrace the Truth and save your soul before it is too late!

-- Psyche +AMDG+ (psychicquill@yahoo.com), October 17, 2003.

Psyche,

But, as I explained in-depth in other threads recently, a council can only exercise the supreme magisterium (be infallible) when that council is completely unanimous, which hasn’t happened since the 9th century.

LOL! Care to back this up with a church document? (Note: the sspx is not the church) Sorry, Vatican II was a valid church council, and you MUST obey its decrees to be Catholic.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 17, 2003.

BTW, what I would like to see is some official statement by the church that an ecumenical council must have 100% agreement by every Bishop before it's considered infallible. There isn't one, you know, and as I tried to point out on the other thread where you posted the same error, to even ASK for 100% agreement is silly.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 17, 2003.

"...and you MUST obey its decrees to be Catholic."

Decrees, Frank? Seriously, Frank, if you consider a pastoral Council to be infallible, when dogmatic Councils are not even infallible in total except for those parts intending to clarify doctrine or re- stating or re-defining existing doctrine, shouldn't you be the one with something to prove?

Namely, that Vatican II declared or defined any doctrine at the dogmatic level?

Back again to unsuppported claims with no precedent in Church history, where something's infallible when it does not even reside within the defined limits of infallibility.

You lay out the case, then, that Vatican II is an infallible council. Point by point. Either that or link to another thread in the forum where someone has failed to do so, gets frustrated, and starts calling everyone a schismatic and a heretic. That's always good for a chuckle. =)

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), October 17, 2003.

Emerald,

Read this thread link.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 17, 2003.

Frank wrote: "Vatican II was a valid church council, and you MUST obey its decrees to be Catholic."

Frank, are you operating under the principle that if you repleat a lie to yourself often enough, you will forget that it is a lie?

-- Psyche +AMDG+ (psychicquill@yahoo.com), October 20, 2003.

You have yet to prove it wrong Psyche. Why not do that before accusing me of lying? Of course if you're willing to admit you're a Protestant, then it's true, for you. You can believe whatever you want.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 20, 2003.

Let's put things into perspective, Frank.

You want to be able to excercise the ability to determine who is, and who is not, inside or outside The Fold.

Besides the fact that in doing so, you have violated your own principle of not leaning upon your own private interpretation, the very thought of which you loath, but... and get this... but also, you do not leave this task to whom it rightly belongs to make such determinations: the magisterium of the Church. It is up to the magisterium to render these conclusions.

That's contradiction number one.

To nail this contradiction down with a few dozen more nails, you have judged me in another thread to be, in fact, extra ecclesiam, or, Outside The Church, despite the fact that I:

1. Attend a bishop approved Indult Tridentine Mass, and that I...

2. ...am, in belief and assent, well within the confines of defined Catholic doctrine in adhereing to the Church's proclaimed deliniations of the Mystical Body of Christ.

That being the case, you yet insist that I am extra ecclesiam. Moving from a failed attempt at judgment by exterior phenomena, you move to the judgment of the heart, and yet more precarious way of demonstration. You do so by claiming that I do not assent to Vatican II, without:

1. Identifying the doctrine, or teaching, of Vatican II to which I am clearly seen to be in denial of. Also in virtue of the lack of exposition of this supposed doctrine or teaching, which is yet not known by me, you make further claims that elusive doctrine is...

2. ...in fact an infallible teaching.

To further drive a couple hundred drywall screws into the lid of this coffin of a non-argument, it is in fact promulgated non- dogmatically that there is a mysterious relationship to the Church whereby those who are outside the visible fold can be saved. The Pope himself has taken it a step further if I'm not mistaken, and I can probably dig up the quote if necessary, that even those who unwittingly persecute the True Church can be saved.

So the way I see it, contradictions abound, and I'm safe on all points.

Even if I weren't, and if it's the case that I am truly outside the fold and destined for destruction, I am in good hands, because the good people of this forum, representing the True Fold, in true charity would begin in earnest to petition the Almighty for the salvation of my soul with prayer and sacrifice.

So, I don't see how I can lose. By extension, I don't see how the other traditionalists in the forum here, or anywhere for that matter, can lose.

Nor do I see that you have a worthy case.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), October 20, 2003.

In the meantime Frank, the real clincher for me in determining where the narrow path to salvation lies, is this:

Virtually no one in the modern, post-conciliar Church knows nearly enough about how to go about the way of sanctity; they don't have that feel for way that the saints thought and acted in order to align their wills with God. They don't understand basic Sacramental concepts. They just... don't. God love them, there's GOT to be some willing souls out there in that post-conciliar format that would take on the path of holiness if only someone would show them the way and lead them to the narrow path. I know there's people out there that are ready to die with Christ. Who will show them the way? The harvest is out there. Where are the workers? And I don't mean people bludgeoning them into submission to nebulous assent to nebulous ideas, I'm talking about real Catholicism. Who is going to pray for these people if dialogue is the summit of all evangelistic efforts?

But most of all... most of all! Who is going to tell them that in order to be saved that they have to die with Christ and reject this world for the sake of the next? This is not a post-conciliar idea; it's not. It's Catholicism 101. This concept is all but lost right now, but it HAS to be there to be in line with Catholicism and Sacred Scripture and with the teachings of the saints, doctors of the Church and in fact the entire magisterial history of the Catholic Church.

One has to suffer and has to learn how to like it. The world will never understand this, and we, as Catholics, will never, ever be able to look cool in the eyes of the world. That's what the post- conciliar modern Catholic wants, really. To be made to make sense to the world.

People have to understand what they are taking on when they take on Catholicism, or, it's just nothing that they have lent their assent to. It's gotta hurt somehow.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), October 20, 2003.

If this relates to another thread, why not post it THERE? You don't have to fill up every thread with the same thing.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 20, 2003.

Hiya, I am a catholic and i am studying to become a primary school teacher, so i decided to do the catholic certificate. I have not long started and already i am confused by the vatican 1 and 2. I just happened to wonder on to this site and after reading what you have wrote i found it went over my head is thier any easier way of explaining. Would much appreciate anyones help. Thanx

-- Gemma Evans (gemmamai@hotmail.com), October 21, 2003.

If this relates to another thread, why not post it THERE? You don't have to fill up every thread with the same thing.

I asked you in the "banned topic" thread that if other faiths have a certain, though "imperfect communion" with the Catholic Church and can happily hope to obtain salvation as members of those other faiths, than why should me or Emerald (two people you say are "out of the church) "return" to the Church at all.

Your answer was a suggestion that I start a new thread.

Emerald is essentially asking the same thing. Again, you avoided an answer with a non-answer about putting subjects into other threads.

If you "obey" Vatican II, than you only need to "dialogue" about the things which we have in common and acknowledge that me and Emerald have just as much of a shot at Heaven as you have. If you *disobey* Vatican II and stick to what the Church has always taught you'll make an arguement about our "errors" and suggest we "return to the Church." - The latter is what you've been doing continually since we got here. Therefore, you're disobeying Vatican II which you claim requires our obedience.

We're just asking simply: If you "obey" Vatican II, why is it necessary for me or Emerald to "return" to the Church?

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), October 21, 2003.

Gemma, click on this link to go to a page where you can ask a new question. That would be the best thing for you to do -- much better than trying to get an answer on this page. Just explain what you need to know, and someone will surely help you. You can even get everyone's messages sent directly to your e-mail address, if you wish.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I asked you in the "banned topic" thread that if other faiths have a certain, though "imperfect communion" with the Catholic Church and can happily hope to obtain salvation as members of those other faiths, than why should me or Emerald (two people you say are "out of the church) "return" to the Church at all.

Lord, have mercy! Same stuff, over and over! Answers already given, over and over! Jesus, give us the patience that you have, to deal with these poor, lost sheep.

The reason for the formerly Catholic "people" who "are 'out of the Church'" to "return to the Church" is that they CANNOT "obtain salvation as members of those other faiths."

When someone was once a convinced Catholic, but he/she then failed to stay inside the Church (such as numerous peacock-proud, anti-Novus-Ordo dumpkopfs who are tormenting this board), that person CANNOT BE SAVED. This is what the Catholic Church teaches INFALLIBLY.

By contrast, if someone was NEVER Catholic, and he/she STAYS outside the Church due to invincible ignorance, it is possible (but not easy) for him/her to be saved. This is what the Catholic Church teaches INFALLIBLY.

There is no point in any of the fallen-away drips trying to contradict these FACTS. Any attempted contradiction will be ignored (by Catholics) as no more valid than a Muslim's claim that the Qur'an came from God.

-- (Oh@Brother!.com), October 21, 2003.

The reason for the formerly Catholic "people" who "are 'out of the Church'" to "return to the Church" is that they CANNOT "obtain salvation as members of those other faiths."

That isn't what Vatican II says.

When someone was once a convinced Catholic, but he/she then failed to stay inside the Church... that person CANNOT BE SAVED. This is what the Catholic Church teaches INFALLIBLY.

Tell that to the late Cardinal O'Connor who gave his blessing on national TV to a Catholic-turned-Jew.

By contrast, if someone was NEVER Catholic, and he/she STAYS outside the Church due to invincible ignorance,

Define or give an example of "invincible ignorance."

Any attempted contradiction will be ignored (by Catholics) as no more valid than a Muslim's claim that the Qur'an came from God.

According to Paul VI "we together with the Muslims worship the same God."

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), October 21, 2003.

The concept of invincible ignorance is clearly defined in the teaching of the Holy Catholic Church. Of course, that would only matter to someone who accepts the teaching of the Church ...

"Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the gospel of Christ or His Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do His will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation." Catechism of the Catholic Church, article 847

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 21, 2003.

That isn't what Vatican II says.

"Any attempted contradiction will be ignored (by Catholics)"

Tell that to the late Cardinal O'Connor who gave his blessing on national TV to a Catholic-turned-Jew.

"Any attempted contradiction" especially a debunked lie like this about a Jew who was never a Catholic, "will be ignored (by Catholics)"

According to Paul VI "we together with the Muslims worship the same God."

What the pope said is true, though it is totally irrelevant to my comment, which was, "Any attempted contradiction will be ignored (by Catholics) as no more valid than a Muslim's claim that the Qur'an came from God."

Honey, you aren't invincibly ignorant. Instead, you've made yourself profoundly ignorant by hanging out with a bad crowd.

-- (Oh@Brother!.com), October 22, 2003.

Hi, i have an assessment on the Vatican city and i am having trouble wondering if soemone could help. the question is;

'What are some of the defining characteristics of the 'traditional' Vatican society? (pre 1960's Vatican 2)'

so does anyone here know some of the characteristics of the traditional vatican society that would relly help me. Thanks.

-- Bobbie (bobbiebergmeier@hotmail.com), December 13, 2003.