OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 20, 2014, 05:18:03 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Polish National Catholic Church  (Read 16573 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #45 on: June 11, 2004, 06:49:52 PM »

Quote
I'm not trying to be too silly with this, just wondering what would be possible in the RCC structure.

I understand, but you must understand that the possibilty of this ever happening is at best rare, if not impossible.
Quote
Would he find overwhelming opposition?

I know he would. It is one thing to reinterpret RC dogma to the point where "traditionalist" groups form in opposition, but to reject and abolish RC dogma, and to deny that the CC is the true Church is totally different, something Vatican II or even Paul VI didn't even think of doing.

Quote
I thought the whole thrust of your earlier posts was that the RCC was abandoning a strict adherence to your interpretation of dogma.


The current pope along with the vast majority of bishops and priests are reinterpreting Catholic dogmas to the point that they are not longer what they were orginaly, it is laughable at best. It is very concerning, but the same Catholic dogmas in 1950 are the dogmas of the Catholic Church today. They may have strange opinions about the Church's teachings and so on, but no dogma was abolished with the Vatican II reforms. You are talking about a Pope totally rejecting the Roman Catholic faith and expecting his subjects to do the same, that is much different than reinterpreting dogmas to a point where traditionalist groups are formed to protect the faith. But I must be honest, there does come a point when you have reinterpreted something so much that you find yourself rejecting the faith, this is why I am concerned, but we are not there yet. But I shouldn't get too worried because the Pope isn't declaring anything "ex-cathedra" he merely holds opinions, along with most of the Bishops, that I don't agree with.

Quote
If that was the case then would it not be increasingly possible that a future pontiff might use the means available to him to bring about union with Orthodoxy and that this would produce less resistance than you are now suggesting?

But see you are talking about the Pope abolishing the Roman Catholic faith, repenting of Roman erros and joining the Orthodox Church, this would be a huge step that if happened anytime soon would meet great resistance. The Cardinals would probably dig up some Papal Bull saying that if a Pope was a formal heretic prior to his Papacy the votes of the Cardinals are null and void, and then proove the current Pope was a formal heretic before his Papacy, and then finally they'd just go elect a true Pope, who would in effect condemn the "anti-Pope."

Quote
I don't believe you are actually in the RC communion?


huh? Why do you doubt me being a Roman Catholic?

Quote
Are you?


Yes I most certainly am, would you like to see my Confirmation Cirtificate?! Lol, I mean what proof do you need?


« Last Edit: June 11, 2004, 06:52:11 PM by Ben » Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,656



WWW
« Reply #46 on: June 11, 2004, 06:52:17 PM »

No proof required, nor needed, but I thought you belonged to a trad. RCC group? or is that 'within' the RCC?
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #47 on: June 11, 2004, 06:55:03 PM »

No proof required, nor needed, but I thought you belonged to a trad. RCC group? or is that 'within' the RCC?

The only "trad" RC groups surely not in the RCC are the Sedevacantists.

SSPX...some doubt.

As for where I go to Mass...complex situation, that would take us off topic, please PM for more info if you wish.  Smiley
« Last Edit: June 11, 2004, 06:56:15 PM by Ben » Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Jack
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


OC.net


« Reply #48 on: June 11, 2004, 07:03:33 PM »

It has been defined three times that only those who die as Catholics can be saved:

Pope Innocent III, A.D. 1198-1216: Ex cathedra: "One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved." (IV Lateran Council, A.D. 1215)

Pope Boniface VIII, A.D. 1294-1303: Ex cathedra: "We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is wholly necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.  The Lateran, November 14th, in our eighth year. As a perpetual memorial of this matter." (Unam Sanctam, A.D. 1302)

Pope Eugene IV, A.D. 1431-1447: Ex cathedra: "It [the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that none of those outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but neither Jews, or heretics and schismatics, can become participants in eternal life, but will depart "into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life they have been added to the Church; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those abiding in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practised, even if he has shed his blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has abided in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." (Council of Florence, A.D. 1442)

Two of these definitions, are from Holy and Venerable Ecumenical Councils.  The Church has always held that all of the ecumenical councils are ex cathedra, infallible; (Vatican II is an exception as the Pope chose that it be only a pastoral Council; Paul VI stated that he did not promulgated it as ex cathedra; that is however the only exception to the rule.)

We can see this from the ex cathedra teaching of Vatican I.  When papal infallibility was defined, the Council said the following:

"Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our saviour, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the sacred council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, THAT IS, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, HE DEFINES a doctrine concerning faith or morals TO BE HELD by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable. So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema." (Denz. 1839)

So, when a pope "defines" something "to be held" it is "ex cathedra".  But, in the run up to this, the Vatican I also defined:

"Moreover, the Roman Pontiffs, according to the dictates of time and circumstances, sometimes by calling ECUMENICAL COUNCILS or asking the opinion of the Church dispersed throughout the world, sometimes through particular synods, sometimes by using other means which divine providence supplied, DEFINED those things which MUST BE HELD and which they knew, by the help of God, to be consonant with the Sacred Scriptures and apostolic traditions." (Denz. 1836).

So, prior to Vatican I, popes "defined", things which "must be held" - and called ecumenical councils to prepare for this.  But, as we just saw, when he does that, it is ex cathedra.  Therefore, we may see from the teaching of Vatican I that there have been many ex cathedra definitions prior to Vatican I - particularly those which came upon the invocation of ecumenical councils.

From Unam Sanctam:

"Indeed we declare, say, pronounce, and define that it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff"

It is clear Pope Boniface was meeting the requirements of speaking "ex cathedra".

I am surprised you haven't heard this before, I haven't even met a NO priest who denies Unam Sanctam to be infallible.

I haven't heard it before.  There's nothing in what you say that says that Unam Sanctum is, in fact, held by the Church to be infallible, though I'll concede you make a compelling case for it.  As I'm sure you're aware, however, the teaching of the Church is that being a Catholic as a requirement of salvation applies only to those who know that the Catholic Church is the true Church, not to those who are unaware of it through no fault of their own.  Moreover, there are other Churches with valid sacraments.  Since sacraments impart grace, it follows that there can be salvation outside of the Catholic Church.  Of course, you are free to reject what I've said as being some modern day watering down of the Catholic faith, but it does represent what the Church says through its Magisterium.
Logged

NULL
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #49 on: June 11, 2004, 07:16:24 PM »


Quote
I haven't heard it before.


 Shocked I am honeslty surprised. It just goes to show you how uneducated Catholic faithful are in matters of doctrine these days. *sigh*

Quote
There's nothing in what you say that says that Unam Sanctum is, in fact, held by the Church to be infallible, though I'll concede you make a compelling case for it.
 

Pope Boniface declared the contents of Unam Sanctam EX CATHEDRA, look at the requirements for ex cathedra, and you will see he met them all. And Vatican I states the Pope is protected from all error when speaking ex-cathedra, and is in effect Infallible. Papal Infallibilty wasn't invented at Vatican I, to hold such an absurd opinion would show great ignorance.

Quote
As I'm sure you're aware, however, the teaching of the Church is that being a Catholic as a requirement of salvation applies only to those who know that the Catholic Church is the true Church, not to those who are unaware of it through no fault of their own.


Before the tragic reforms of the post-Vatican II era, that meant those who never heard about Christ or the Catholic Church. Today it has been twisted to mean anybody who doesn't think the Catholic Church is the true Church, which would include everyone but faithful Catholics, even those who left the Catholic Church for Orthodoxy or Protestantism, or any other religion.

 
Quote
Moreover, there are other Churches with valid sacraments.


Of course, I never denied this.

Quote
Since sacraments impart grace, it follows that there can be salvation outside of the Catholic Church.
 

WHOA!!!! You just said something that Vatican II didn't even say! Holy Cow! You are a Catholic and yet you believe you can be saved outside of the Catholic Church?! This is totally contrary to Catholic dogma and doctrine. If this is true, then there is no reason for me to be Catholic! There is no reason why I shouldn't join the Orthodox Church. Heck who cares about luther, or SSPX, or the PNCC, schism...who cares! Heresies...who cares! It don't matter cause salavation exists outside of the Catholic Church!

Quote
but it does represent what the Church says through its Magisterium.  


Umm I highly doubt that the Modern Magisterium teaches there is Salvation outside of the Catholic Church. These days you usually get..."We only know the Catholic Church is the true Church and if Non-Catholics are saved, it is by the Catholic Church or through the Catholic Church"...which isn't all that bad.
Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #50 on: June 11, 2004, 07:19:55 PM »

And don't forget, jack:

Pope Eugene IV, A.D. 1431-1447: Ex cathedra: "It [the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that none of those outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but neither Jews, or heretics and schismatics, can become participants in eternal life, but will depart "into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life they have been added to the Church; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those abiding in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practised, even if he has shed his blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has abided in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." (Council of Florence, A.D. 1442)

The Council of Florence is for sure taught to be INFALLIBLE by the RCC.
Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
PieX
Banned
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10


OC.net


WWW
« Reply #51 on: June 11, 2004, 07:39:57 PM »

What is Heresy?
 "Heresy consists in a stubborn denial of truths which have been defined an proposed by the Church as divinely revealed doctrines." (Canon 1324-1325 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law).

 What must we believe?
 "By the divine and Catholic Faith, all those things must be believed which are contained in the written Word of God and in tradition, and those which are proposed by the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or in her ordinary and universal magisterium, to be believed as divinely revealed." (Vatican Council I, Denzinger 1792)

 Who does not believe all those things taught by the Magisterium of the Church?
 "Any baptized person who GǪ obstinately denies or doubts any of the truths proposed for belief by divine and Catholic faith, is a heretic." (C. 1325)

Codes for the Sources can be found at the end of this posting.
 
Current Teachings vs.
Truth of Divine and Catholic Faith

1.
The Catholic Church Lacks Unity.
UUS:7-10
Christian unity is the Catholic Church.
 Pius XI, MA:3,15.

2.
Infants can be saved without baptism.
EV:99, 3/25/1995
Infants need Baptism for salvation.
St. Zosimus I, D.102.

3.
Muslims worship the One True God.
CH:141, 1994
Only Catholics can worship God.
Gregory XVI, SJS

4.
Heretical sects have an apostolic mission.
LOR, 06/10/1980
The Catholic Church is the only apostolic mission.
Leo XIII, SCG:35

5.
The Holy Spirit uses sects as means of salvation.
CT:32, 10/16/1979
The Holy Spirit does not give life to heretics.
Leo XIII, SCG:18

6.
We must pray with heretics for unity.
UUS:21, 05/25/1995
If anyone prays with heretics, he is a heretic.
St. Agatho I, SCN:XXI:635

7.
Liberty of conscience is a right of man.
LOR, 09/01/1980
Liberty of conscience is insanity.
Gregory XVI, D. 1613

8.
Heretics are Christians.
LOR, 12/23/1982
Only Catholics can be Christians.
Pius VI, D. 1500

9.
Each man is united with Christ.
RH:13.3, 1979
Christ is not in all men.
St. Pius X, D.2103

10.
Heretics have the Apostolic Faith.
US:62, 05/25/1995
True Faith cannot be found outside the Church.
Pius IX, Sqi

11.
The New World Order is holy unity.
PA:39, 1987
The New World Order is evil.
Pius XI, MA:1-2

12.
God loves heretics, pagans, etc.
PA:48, 1978
Without the Catholic faith, it is impossible to please God.
Paul III, D.787

13.
Jews are our elder brothers in the faith.
 CH:99, 1994
The Jews reject the One Faith of Jesus Christ.
Gregory I, ETC

14.
Masons are sons of God the Father.
LOR, 05/22/1984
The Masons are sons of the Devil.
Pius IX, Sqa

15.
Heretics are our brothers in Christ.
LOR, 09/16/1980
Heretics are sons of the Devil.
Clement I, EIC:42,46

16.
Ecumenical Councils do not need to defend the truth.
CH:162, 1994
Ecumenical Councils must defend the truth.
Pius II, D.717

17.
Dogmas and doctrines grow and evolve.
EDA, 1987
Evolution of dogma and doctrine is condemned.
St. Pius X, P:12-27

18.
All inter-religious marriages are good.
FC, 11/22/1981
All inter-religious marriages are discouraged.
Gregory XVI, SJS:1-9

19.
Buddhism is a great religion.
PM:147, 06/17/1984
Buddhism is a false pagan religion.
St. Pius X, P:14

20.
All men have a human dignity of equal rights.
PP:478, 09/01/1980
Equal rights for all men is senseless.
Pius VI, QA

21.
The New World Order is needed for the world.
PP:809, 09/02/1981
The New World Order is a reign of terror.
Benedict XV, TBR:35

22.
Luther had a profound religious spirit.
PM:105
If anyone does not condemn heretics, let him be anathema.
Vigilius, D.223

23.
John Paul II prayed with Jews: "our dearest brothers."
LOR, 04/13/1986
The Jews are not "our dearest brothers."
Innocent III, ETN

24.
Christ's Body is not only the Catholic Church.
LOR, 07/08/1980
Christ's Body is only the Catholic Church.
Pius XII, MC:17-18

25.
All men are saved.
LOR, 05/06/1980
All outside the Catholic Church cannot be saved.
Eugene IV, D:714

26.
Christ's miracles do not prove His messianic dignity.
LOR, 11/11/1983
Christ's miracles did prove His messianic dignity.
St. Pius X, D.2028

27.
All men have the right of religious liberty.
CCC:2106, 10/11/1992
All have the right of religious liberty is heresy.
Pius IX, D.1690,99

28.
Infidels can be saved for : "May Ghandi live forever!"
SME:9
All infidels are damned!
St. Pius X, GOH:13

29.
The Catholic Church rejoices when heretics preach.
CH:141, 1994
The Catholic Church condemns a heretic's talk.
Paul IV, ACA

30.
Heretics can be Christian martyrs outside the Church.
UUS:84, 05/25/1995
Outside the Church there are no Christian martyrs.
Pelagius II, D.247

31.
Heretics legally can receive the sacraments from us.
UUS:46, 05/25/1995
Heretics cannot legally receive the sacraments.
Leo XIII, ENL

32.
Heretics are not our enemies, but our brothers.
UUS:42, 05/25/1995
Heretics are our enemies.
St. Clement I, EIC:42,46

33.
The Catholic Church has sinned against unity.
UUS:34, 05/25/1995
The Modernists say: the Church has erred.
Pius XI, MA:8

34.
Love is when we join in prayer with heretics.
UUS:21, 05/25/1995
Heresy: is when we join in prayer with heretics.
Piux XI, D.2199

35.
Anti-Christs have the human right of religious liberty.
FCR:2, 09/01/1980
Only Catholics have the right to religious liberty.
Pius IX, D.1690, 1699

36.
The State cannot forbid non-Catholic religions.
FCR:2-4, 09/01/1980
The State must forbid non-Catholic religions.
Pius IX, D.1777, 1778

37.
Heretical sects can have the life of the Church.
CT:32, 10/16/1979
Heretical sects cannot have the life of the Church.
St. Gregory I, EP5

38.
Christian unity subsists in the Catholic Church.
CCC:820, 10/11/1992
Christian unity is the Catholic Church.
 Pius XI, MA:7

39.
"Dialogue" is required to bring unity to the Church.
CCC:821, 10/11/1992
The Catholic Church forbids meetings for "unity."
Pius XI, MA:15

40.
Sanctification and truth can be found in heretical sects.
CCC:819, 10/11/1992
It is heresy to say: all religions are true.
St. Pius X, P:14

41.
Today's heretics are not to be blamed for their heresy.
CCC:817, 10/11/1992
Today's heretics have despised the True Faith.
Pius XI, MA:16

42.
The Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church.
CCC:816, 10/11/1992
The Church of Christ is the Catholic Church.
Pius XII, MC:17-18

43.
There is hope for infants who die without baptism.
CCC:1261, 10/11/1992
Outside the Church there is no hope for salvation.
Pius IX, D.1717

44.
The understanding of dogmas grow by man's experience.
CCC:94, 10/11/1992
Evolution of dogma is an error of the Modernists.
St. Pius X, P:12-13,25-27

45.
All men belong to the Catholic Church.
CCC:836, 10/11/1992
Only Catholics are members of the Church.
Pius XII, D.2286

46.
The Catholic Church is joined to heretics.
CCC:838, 10/11/1992
Heretics are separated from the Catholic Church.
Pius XII, D.2286

47.
The Old Law is alive and working to God's call.
CCC:839, 10/11/1992
Old Law ceased, and fulfilled by the New Law.
Eugene IV, D.712

48.
The plan of salvation includes the Muslims.
CCC:841, 10/11/1992
It is heresy to say: salvation is open to Muslims.
Gregory XVI, VM:13

49.
The Catholic Church has a bond with false religions.
CCC:842, 10/11/1992
False religions are separated from the Church.
Eugene IV, D.705

50.
False religions seek the One True God Who saves.
CCC:843, 10/11/1992
False religions worship the Devil.
Gregory XVI, SJS

51.
At Assisi, 150 false religions "prayed with one voice to the Lord."
US:76, 05/25/1995
At Assisi, 150 false religions worshiped the Devil.
Gregory XVI, SJS

52.
John Paul II prayed with Anglican-heretics in 1982.
UUS:24, 05/25/1995
If anyone prays with heretics: he is a heretic.
Benedict XV, C.2338.2

53.
One can be saved outside the Church by a moral life.
VS:3, 08/06/1993
True morality and salvation are only in the Church.
Gregory XVI, D.1613

54.
Salvation is not only for those who are explicitly in the Church.
Rmi:10, 12/07/1990
Salvation is found only in the Catholic Church.
Boniface VIII, D.468-469

55.
Apostate Jews and Christians have "a common heritage."
PM:135, 04/13/1986
Apostate Jews do not have the Faith of salvation.
St. Gregory I, ETC

56.
In 1991, John Pual II prayed with Lutherans for "unity."
UUS:25 05/25/1995
Praying with heretics for "unity" is heresy.
Pius IX, D.1685-1687

57.
Dialogue meetings can bring Christian unity.
UUS:31,32, 05/25/1995
These "assemblies" for "unity" are condemned.
Pius XI, MA:15

58.
Christian unity is possible if we say the Catholic Church failed.
UUS:34, 05/25/1995
The modernists hold that the Church has erred.
Pius XI, MA:13

59.
Catholics can legally receive the Sacraments from heretics.
UUS:46, 05/25/1995
No one can pray with heretics and be a Catholic.
St. Agatho, SCN:XI:635

60.
Catholics must rejoice when heretics shed their blood.
UUS:47, 05/25/1995
Catholics must anathematize all heretics.
St. Martin I, D.271-272

61.
John Paul II gave a blessing to Lutherans in 1991.
UUS:73, 05/25/1995
If anyone patronizes heretics: he is a heretic.
Innocent III, RCH:I:441

62.
The "faith" of heretics praises and thanks God.
UUS:74, 05/25/1995
It is heresy to say: heretics can praise God.
Pius IX, D.1718

63.
A communion of faith exists between heretics and Catholics.
UUS:75, 05/25/1995
Catholics and heretics share no unity of faith.
Leo XIII, SCG:18,27-18

64.
Heretics honor Holy Scripture with a true religious zeal.
UUS:12, 05/25/1995
Heretics dishonor the Holy Scriptures.
Pius IX, D.1788

65.
The Holy Spirit gives "sanctifying power" to heretics.
UUS:12, 05/25/1995
Heretics cannot live in the life of the Holy Spirit.
Pius XII, D.2286

66.
God wills and inspires heretics to shed their blood for Him.
UUS:12, 05/25/1995
All heretics who shed their blood go to Hell!
Eugene IV, D.714

67.
God's Church is build up when heretics receive the Eucharist.
UUS:12, 05/25/1995
Heretics sin when they receive the Eucharist.
Leo XIII, ENL

68.
Catholic Church and Eastern Schismatic Church are one in faith.
UUS:59,62
Heretics are not members of the Catholic Church.
St. Pius V, CCT:101

69.
Apostate Jews worship the One True God.
PM:135, 04/13/1986
Apostate Jews do not worship the One True God.
Gregory XVI, SJS

70.
Every human being is the way of the Church.
DM:3, 11/13/1993
Heresy: the Church is a collective conscience.
St. Pius X, P:23

71.
All nations form but one community.
CCC:842, 10/11/1992
Heresy: all nations form but one community.
Pius XII, MC:18

72.
The UN is the supreme forum of peace and justice.
PP:112, 10/02/1979
The Church is the supreme forum of peace.
Pius XI, MA:1-17

73.
The Catholic Church respects the Islamic spirutial tradition.
PP:2443, 08/19/1985
It is heresy to say: all religions are true.
 St. Pius X, P:14

74.
All men are brothers with a human dignity.
PP:826, 09/05/1983
Only Catholics have a human dignity in Christ.
St. Pius X, LFH

75.
Goodness and truth are found in false religions.
CCC:842, 10/11/1992
It is heresy to say: all religions are good.
Pius XI, MA:2

76.
The religious experience of Islam deserves respect.
CH:93, 1994
It is heresy to say: Muslims can experience God.
St. Pius X, P:14

77.
Modernism renews and unites the Church of Christ.
CH:76, 1994
Modernism attempts to destroy the Church.
St. Pius X, P:23

78.
In Hinduism men take refuge in God with love and trust.
CH:80, 1994
It is heresy to say: Hindus can experience God.
St. Pius X, P:14

79.
Buddhists by higher help reach liberty and supreme illumination.
CH:80, 1994
It is heresy to say: Buddhists can experience God.
St. Pius X, P:14

80.
The Church rejects nothing holy and true in false religions.
CH:80, 1994
Outside the Church the Truth cannot be found.
Gregory XVI, D.1617

81.
The Holy Spirit works effectively a common root in all religions.
CH:81, 1994
It is heresy to say: all religions are true.
 St. Pius X, P:14

82.
Praying with false religions can bring peace.
CH:81, 1994
Praying with false religions for peace is heresy!
Pius XI, MA:1-17

83.
Animist religions prepare many to be Christians.
CH:82, 1994
It is heresy to say: Animists can experience God.
St. Pius X, P:14

84.
John Paul II prayed with animists and was amazed at it.
LC, 08/23/1985
It is heresy to think: all religions are good.
Pius XI, MA:2

85.
The sphere of salvation includes those not in the Church.
CH:140, 1994
No one can be saved who is not in the Church.
Pius IX, D.1716

86.
With God, man creates his personal salvation.
CH:195, 1994
No one can be saved outside the true faith.
Pius IV, D.1000

88.
The Catholic Church is present in all its elements in heretical sects.
CN, 05/28/1992
Outside the Catholic Church there is no holy unity.
St. Leo IO, DJP:129,II:3

89.
Vernacular languages should be used for Mass.
SC:36, 12/04/1963
Heresy: popular language should be used for liturgy.
Pius VI, D.1566

90.
Unbaptized catechumens are members of the Church.
LG:14, 11/21/1964
The unbaptized are not members of the Church.
Paul III, D.895

91.
Outside the Church there is remission of sins.
LOR, 11/20/1989
Outside the Church there is no remission of sins.
Boniface VIII, D.468

92.
Man's dignity is: Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity.
ALL, 04/1980
Freemasonry is: Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity.
St. Pius X, LFH

93.
Evolution is more than just an hypothesis.
LOR, 10/23/1996
Evolution is the doctrine of the Modernists.
St. Pius X, P:26

94.
Worship in common with heretics is good.
UR:8, 1965
Worship in common with heretics is condemned!
Benedict XV, C.1258

95.
The rite of Mass should be simplified.
SC:34,50, 1965
The rite of Mass should be simplified: is heresy!
Pius VI, D.1533

96.
John Paul II prayed with sorcerers, calling out the "spirits."
LOR, 08/11/1985
John Paul II worshiped the Devil.
Gregory XVI, SJS

97.
Outside the Church there is no salvation is not Catholic exclusively.
CH:141, 1994
The Catholic Church is the only way of salvation.
Eugene IV, D.714

98.
John Paul II did not profess the filioque with eastern schismatics.
UUS:24, 12/06/1987
JPII was anathematized for patronizing heretics.
Innocent III, RCH:1:441

99.
All deceased men "are standing before" God as saints.
LOR, 11/01/1993
No one can be saved who is not in the Church.
Pius IX, D.1716

100.
It is unevangelical to condemn heretics.
UUS:15, 05/25/1995
It is evangelical to condemn heretics.
St. Martin I, D.271-272

101.
Buddhism is a religion of salvation.
CH:84-85, 1994
Buddhism is a religion of damnation
Eugene IV, D.714
 
Table of Sources - Abbreviations

Abb.
Source: Name, Author, Publisher, Date, etc.

AAS
Acta Apostolicae Sedis. Commentarium officiale, Rome, 1909 (Tomus I) ff.

ACA
Ad Catholicos Angliae, Pope Paul IV

ALL
Allocution (a private audience with the Roman Curia)

C.
Canon number cited from 1917 Code of Lanon Law of Pope Benedict XV

CCC
Catechism of the Catholic Church, of John Paul II, 1992, Liguori Publications

CCT
Catechism of the Council of Trent, Pope St. Pius V, TAN Books, Rockford, IL

CH
Crossing the Threshold of Hope, by John Paul II, Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. 1994

CN
Communionis Noito, Letter to Bishops on "Communion," May 28, 1992

CT
Catechesi Tradendae, Exhortation of John Paul II, Oct. 16, 1979, Pauline Books

D.
Enchiridion Symbolorum, "The Sources of Catholic Dogma," edited by Fr. Henry Densinger, B. Herder Book Co., Imprimatur, 1955

DJP
De Jejun. Pent., sermon 129, II:3, of Pope St. Leo the Great

DM
Dives in misericordia, Encyclical of John Paul II, Nov. 30, 1980, Pauline Books

EIC
Epistle to the Corinthians of Pope St. Clement I

EDA
Ecclesia Dei Afflicta, motu proprio of John Paul II, Jyly 2, 1988, Pauline Books

ENL
Exima Nos Laetitia, Decree of Pope Leo XIII

EP5
Exposition on Psalm V Poenit., tom. 3 of Pope St. Gregory the Great

ETC
Epistle to the Cledonius, of Pope St. Gregory the Great

ETN
Epistle to the Count of Nevers, 1208 AD, of Pope Innocent III

EV
Evangelium Vitae, Encyclical of John Paul II, March 25, 1995, Pauline Books

GOH
Gate of Heaven, Sister Catherine Clarke, MICM, Boston: Ravengate Press, 1952

FC
Familiaris Consortio, Encyclical of John Paul II, Nov. 22, 1981, Pauline Books

FCR
The Freedom of Conscience and Religion, letter of John Paul II to the heads of state of the nations who signed the Helsinki Final Act., Sept. 1, 1980, Pauline Books

LC
La Croix, a French Periodical

LFH
Letter to the French Hierarchy of Pope St. Pius X in 1910, C.M.R.I. Center

LG
Lumen Gentium: A Vatican II Council Decree, Nov. 21, 1964

LOR
L'Osservatore Romano, Vatican City, Italy, English edition

MA
Mortalium Animos, Encyclical Letter of Pope Pius XI on Fostering True Religious Unity, Jan. 6, 1928, AAS 20 (1928), 5ff. Angelus Press

MC
Mystici Corporis, Encyclical of Pius XII, June 29, 1943, AAS 35 (1943), 202ff.

P
Pascendi, the Encyclical of Pope St. Pius X, Sept. 8, 1907, AAS 40 (1907), 593ff.

PA
The Pope Comes to America, Publications International, Ltd. Stokie, IL, 1987

PM
Peter Lovest Thou Me? Abbe Daniel Le Roux, Angelus Press

PP
Path to Peace: A Contribution. Liturgical Publications Inc., Brookfield, WI, 1987

QA
Quod Aliquantulum, of Pope Pius VI

RCH
Readings in Church History, Fr. Barry, Westminster, MD, Newman Press, 1965

RH
Redemptor Hominis, Encyclical of John Paul II, March 4, 1979, Pauline Books

Rmi
Redemptoris Missio, Encyclical of John Paul II, Dec. 7, 1990, Pauline Books

SC
Sacrosanctum Concilium, Vatican II Council Decree, Dec. 4, 1963

SCG
Satis Cognitum, Encyclical of Leo XIII, June 29, 1896, AAS 28 (1896/96), 711 ff.

SCN
Sacrorum Conciliorium, Archbishop John Mansi, Thomas Florentiae: 1759

SJS
Summo Jugiter Studio, Encyclical of Pope Gregory XVI, May 27, 1832

Sqi-Sqa
Singulari Quidem and Singulari Quandem, Encyclical of Pope Pius IX

SME
Syllabus of Modern Errors: Papal Series, 1996, Michael Malone. Sacred Heart Press, 1419 Springcrest, Mesquite, TX 75149

TBR
The Brotherhood Religion: Is it Anti-Christian? Rev. Edward F. Brophy, 1954, The Christian Book Club of America, P.O. Box 638, Hawthorne, CA 90250

UUS
Ut Unum Sint, Encyclical of John Paul II, May 25, 1995, Pauline Books

VS
Veritatis Splendor, Encyclical of John Paul II, Aug. 1993, Pauline Books
Logged

"Any baptized person who … obstinately denies or doubts any of the truths proposed for belief by divine and Catholic faith, is a heretic." (C. 1325)Â
Jakub
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,748



« Reply #52 on: June 11, 2004, 07:45:26 PM »

Egads PieX, that's one long list. Somebody might ask you to explain it all, good luck.

james
Logged

An old timer is a man who's had a lot of interesting experiences -- some of them true.

Grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the good fortune to run into the ones I do, and the eyesight to tell the difference.
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #53 on: June 11, 2004, 07:55:24 PM »

Pie X.....

Doesn't you screen name mean Pius in french?

Anyway, the Pope and his bishops may hold peronsal heresies but this doesn't  effect their Sacraments, or in the case of the Pope, their office. For you as a laymen you have no right to judge the Pope as either a heretic or an anti-Pope.

According to Catholic teaching only your superior can declare you a heretic and excomunicate you, but the Pope has no superior on earth, so we can only hope that if the current Pope is a heretic, the next Pope will condemn him to be so, but until the next Pope or an ecumenical Council, under the authority of the Pope, does so, we can not judge Pope John Paul II, nor can we judge his bishops, for we are not their superiors!

There is no Catholic Saint who condemned a Pope on his or her own authority and dismissed him as a heretic and refused to acknowledge him as the Pope, but there are many Saints who have resisted the teachings of the Holy Father that contained error and simply held strong to the true faith without turning into a sedevacantist!

May I ask where you copied and pasted that list from? I am interested to know your resources.
Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Augustine
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 565

pray for me, please


WWW
« Reply #54 on: June 11, 2004, 08:14:42 PM »

Honestly, I think the RC heirarchy wants to say "oops, we goofed" and turn a new page in it's relationship with other Christian bodies (whether Orthodox or Protestant) - or at least have the flexibility to engage these groups as something other than "heretics" or "schismatics", but also doesn't want to lose it's credibility entirely.  Hence, the mental gymnastics involved in reconciling the "old" (and relatively recent) RCC with the "new, ecumenical, inviting" RCC.

Logged
Jakub
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,748



« Reply #55 on: June 11, 2004, 08:18:49 PM »

Ben,

These accusations and contradiction lists are on many SSPX sites, PieX should have been the hint.

james
Logged

An old timer is a man who's had a lot of interesting experiences -- some of them true.

Grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the good fortune to run into the ones I do, and the eyesight to tell the difference.
PieX
Banned
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10


OC.net


WWW
« Reply #56 on: June 11, 2004, 08:28:05 PM »

But I provided proof of every statement! Why the contradictions?
Logged

"Any baptized person who … obstinately denies or doubts any of the truths proposed for belief by divine and Catholic faith, is a heretic." (C. 1325)Â
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #57 on: June 11, 2004, 08:30:01 PM »

Yea Jakub...in my last post I said Pie meant Pius in French.
Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Jakub
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,748



« Reply #58 on: June 11, 2004, 08:47:02 PM »

Correction, examples of contradictions within the RCC.

james

Logged

An old timer is a man who's had a lot of interesting experiences -- some of them true.

Grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the good fortune to run into the ones I do, and the eyesight to tell the difference.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,432



« Reply #59 on: June 11, 2004, 10:28:14 PM »

You know I can't get over how easily some EO and now it seems RCs think they know best about everything.
Peter

I don't come down to this forum much...

Well, Subdn. Peter, to quote James Thurber, your realization is "My world and welcome to it."  There are times when I come across a website that "knows best about everything" and I have to check to see if it's RC or EO. (and that's one reason I'm still Anglican.)  

For some years the PNCC used a chapel in the Cathedral Church of St. Peter and St. Paul aka "The National Cathedral" where the late President Reagan's state funeral was today. They don't any more as I recall.  But for a long time at the yearly festival in the autumn they sold wonderful homemade pierogies.

(I'll just go quietly now)

Respectfully,

Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,797


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #60 on: June 12, 2004, 01:19:03 AM »

Ebor, I hear you - there is a difference between believing in an infallible church, which of course both RCs and EOx do, and the arrogance one often finds in the online RC and EO world.

I've written about the PNCC on the blog - you should be able to search on it to find the entry. Long story short, the Nats are an 1890s immigrant schism actually parallelling the beginnings of Russian Orthodoxy in America - Slavs treated badly by Irish-born and Irish-American RC bishops. They started off very liberal, though - the founding bishop denied an eternal hell, made confession optional, allowed priests and bishops to marry after ordination and entered intercommunion with the Episcopal Church (who crowed about it at the time as the Reformation coming to these people). But the rooted cultural conservatism of the Polish-Americans offset all that and today they are quite conservative, even though liturgically they really just copy the Novus Ordo. Now that they're not really Polish anymore but American, the cultural issue that really caused the split no longer exists. But they're a small but real church - real congregations, generational members - based in the same Rust Belt heartland as the OCA and ACROD.

The RCs and Eastern Catholics say that born, ex-Protestant and ex-nonchristian Orthodox have an open invitation to Communion if they're in the state of grace, just like their own and just like the Nats. (State of grace = confession not required.)

Of course the Orthodox usually don't allow that, certainly in the US.

In the Middle East it's a different story. Christian Arabs are a minority that stick together, so many Antiochian Orthodox and Melkites intermarry, have their children baptized at each other's churches (Catholics go to the Orthodox shrine at Said Naya, for example, and have their children baptized) and intercommune all the time. The only separation is the clergy don't concelebrate. (This is also fuelled by the cultural custom that the wife joins her husband's church. Source: Archimandrite Serge (Keleher).)

I've read that immediately pre-Communist Romania was like that too, with a very large (about 20% of the population) Byzantine Catholic church - in villages with both Romanian Catholic and Romanian Orthodox churches, since the parish priest couldn't hear his wife's confession, the Orthodox priest would be the BC priest's wife's confessor and vice versa. (Source: Stuart Koehl, an Internet authorityGäó.)

The Communists, when they banned the BCs and tried to force everybody into the Romanian Orthodox Church, which by then they controlled, basically ended that by turning the groups against each other.
« Last Edit: June 12, 2004, 01:21:21 AM by Serge » Logged

Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,432



« Reply #61 on: June 12, 2004, 10:38:48 AM »

Ebor, I hear you - there is a difference between believing in an infallible church, which of course both RCs and EOx do, and the arrogance one often finds in the online RC and EO world.

Indeed.  and often the response to suggestions that such an attitude is arrogance is "No it's not.  We're just telling the Truth." or in one case I remember years ago "That's their pride getting in the way. They should be humble and listen to what We're saying." Apparently taking a softer tack would be somehow "watering things down" or "false love" because it wouldn't be letting the Other know that they're All Wrong.

Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,797


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #62 on: June 12, 2004, 12:01:56 PM »

Yes, lots of little boys with big attitudes. The religious stuff is their p-e-n-i-s as it were.
Logged

Fr. David
The Poster Formerly Known as "Pedro"
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA, Diocese of the South
Posts: 2,828



WWW
« Reply #63 on: June 12, 2004, 03:09:41 PM »

I remember when I first "turned the corner" regarding an infallible Church when leaving Protestantism -- the temptation is definitely there to build up these indestructable walls of infallibility, knowing that "no other opinion will ever withstand the omnipotent power of my Church!  We are the epitome and definition of truth; all else is lies and heresy!"

Thankfully, under the guidance of some very mature priests (first RC and then EO), I was led to read the word "infallible" as "ultimately trustworthy."  Not always airtight according to human standards, but ultimately able to save our souls.

Or, as a former protestant minister of mine said (though his definition of the church hardly applies): "The Church is like Noah's Ark: sometimes it stinks, but at the end of the day, it's the only thing afloat."
Logged

Priest in the Orthodox Church in America - ordained on March 18, 2012

Oh Taste and See (my defunct blog)

From Protestant to Orthodox (my conversion story)
Augustine
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 565

pray for me, please


WWW
« Reply #64 on: June 12, 2004, 10:13:36 PM »

Pedro,

Quote
Thankfully, under the guidance of some very mature priests (first RC and then EO), I was led to read the word "infallible" as "ultimately trustworthy."  Not always airtight according to human standards, but ultimately able to save our souls.

I think that is basically an apt way of defining infallibility.  Rigoristic, human notions of infallibility always fall short as they ultimatly place infallibility in the hands of mere men.  This is the fundamental error of Papism, but it's not one which Orthodox themselves are immune to (indeed, it's instructive to note that the Popes once were Orthodox!).

At the same time, this humility should not obscure the fact that it is the Orthodox confession which is sound, and which has been deviated from.  Rather, our humility should reside in the knowledge that so many among us (high and low) fall way short of our sacred heritage, and otherwise give it a bad name by our terrible example.

Logged
Jack
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


OC.net


« Reply #65 on: June 14, 2004, 12:28:41 PM »



 Shocked I am honeslty surprised. It just goes to show you how uneducated Catholic faithful are in matters of doctrine these days. *sigh*

Well, I'm not a trained theologian or a seminary student, so I have no choice but to admit that there are many who are more educated than me.  On questions of doctrine I usually start with the Catechism, although I do consult the Fathers when I am able to find something.  And, of course, there is the scripture.  Last, but certainly not least, there are the priests of my parish.  I'll have to ask one of them about the infallibility status of Unam Sanctum.  As for now I am compelled to point out that you have provided no quote showing that Unam Sanctum is considered by the Church to be an infallible statement in the same way as, say, the declaration on the Assumption.  Moreover, the Church clearly teaches that those who are not Catholics may be saved.  It is difficult to see how Unam Sanctum, if it is to be applied to non-Catholics, can be true if the teaching of the Church regarding the salvation of non-Catholics is also true, since non-Catholics are clearly not subject to the Roman Pontiff.
 
Pope Boniface declared the contents of Unam Sanctam EX CATHEDRA, look at the requirements for ex cathedra, and you will see he met them all. And Vatican I states the Pope is protected from all error when speaking ex-cathedra, and is in effect Infallible. Papal Infallibilty wasn't invented at Vatican I, to hold such an absurd opinion would show great ignorance.

Well, I don't hold to that opinion, so at least I can hope that my ignorance isn't great.
 
Before the tragic reforms of the post-Vatican II era, that meant those who never heard about Christ or the Catholic Church. Today it has been twisted to mean anybody who doesn't think the Catholic Church is the true Church, which would include everyone but faithful Catholics, even those who left the Catholic Church for Orthodoxy or Protestantism, or any other religion.

Of course, I never denied this.  

WHOA!!!! You just said something that Vatican II didn't even say! Holy Cow! You are a Catholic and yet you believe you can be saved outside of the Catholic Church?! This is totally contrary to Catholic dogma and doctrine. If this is true, then there is no reason for me to be Catholic! There is no reason why I shouldn't join the Orthodox Church. Heck who cares about luther, or SSPX, or the PNCC, schism...who cares! Heresies...who cares! It don't matter cause salavation exists outside of the Catholic Church!  

Umm I highly doubt that the Modern Magisterium teaches there is Salvation outside of the Catholic Church. These days you usually get..."We only know the Catholic Church is the true Church and if Non-Catholics are saved, it is by the Catholic Church or through the Catholic Church"...which isn't all that bad.

Ben, the secret to everything is that Jesus died for everybody's sins.  The sins of everyone are forgiven.  Hell is an individual's rejection of the Love freely given without price, and without preconditions.   The reason to be Catholic (in my view) is not because we're going to be eternally tortured if we don't, but because it is what God wants, and, if we love God, we will do what he wants.  

As for the modern Magisterium's teaching about salvation outside the Church, Vatican II specifically stated that non-Catholic churches can be means of salvation.
Logged

NULL
Amadeus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 268


I'm a llama!


« Reply #66 on: June 14, 2004, 01:01:46 PM »

Ben:

It's now clearer to me.

You do not give, or have not given, any merit to the conciliar documents of Vatican II.

Considered by the RCC and, therefore, by any "normal" Catholic, to be an Ecumenical Council, Vatican II governs.

Amado
Logged
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #67 on: June 14, 2004, 04:25:27 PM »

Quote
Well, I'm not a trained theologian or a seminary student, so I have no choice but to admit that there are many who are more educated than me.


I understand, and please forgive me if I seemed rude in dismissing your opinion on this as ignorant, and if I came off as making fun of you in anyway.

Quote
On questions of doctrine I usually start with the Catechism, although I do consult the Fathers when I am able to find something.  And, of course, there is the scripture.  Last, but certainly not least, there are the priests of my parish.


Not so bad. Smiley

But my I ask why you don't go to the declarations of the Ecumenical Councils, which are considered to be totally infallible? Why not go streight to the dogma itself?

Quote
I'll have to ask one of them about the infallibility status of Unam Sanctum.  As for now I am compelled to point out that you have provided no quote showing that Unam Sanctum is considered by the Church to be an infallible statement in the same way as, say, the declaration on the Assumption
.

I agree, I have provided no quote. Because it is not neccesary. Look, if you are going to assert that previous to Vatican I there was no such thing as a Pope speaking ex-cathedra, then you might as well admit that the idea of a Pope speaking ex-cathedra was an invention at Vatican I, and that the Roman Catholic faith developes and changes, not in just understanding, but in the acctual essence of faith, which the RC has taught is the same today as it was 2000 years ago.

Unam Sanctam meets all the requirements for "ex-cathedra" as set down by Vatican I, but if you refuse to admit this, then I wonder your thoughts on the two quotes I provided from two Ecumenical Councils, which are surely considered to be infallible by the RCC.

Quote
Moreover, the Church clearly teaches that those who are not Catholics may be saved
.  

Yes, I agree, and perhaps I haven't been clear, the Church teaches that those who through no fault of their own do not know that the Catholic Church is the true Church, can be saved through the Catholic Church if they use the graces given to them by God, this is even clearly stated in the Baltimore Catechism.

Quote
It is difficult to see how Unam Sanctum, if it is to be applied to non-Catholics, can be true if the teaching of the Church regarding the salvation of non-Catholics is also true, since non-Catholics are clearly not subject to the Roman Pontiff.

Well it is Catholic teaching that every Baptism done correctly is a Catholic Baptism, and therefore all baptized Christians are subject to the Roman Pontiff. But due to ignorance of the truth of God, the Church teaches one can be saved with out formally being a member of the Catholic Church, but if they use the graces given to them by God, are somehow mysticaly a member of the Catholic Church and can be saved.

Quote
Ben, the secret to everything is that Jesus died for everybody's sins.  The sins of everyone are forgiven.

I totally agree, but the Church teaches you must accept this forgiveness through the Catholic Church, the only true Church in existence, accept for those individuals, who through no fault of their own do not know that the Catholic faith is the truth, and reject it.
Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #68 on: June 14, 2004, 04:41:36 PM »



Considered by the RCC and, therefore, by any "normal" Catholic, to be an Ecumenical Council, Vatican II governs.

Vatican II was an Ecumenical Council, but a pastoral one. Both Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI made clear that the Council was pastoral, and that nothing would be declared ex-cathedra, and nothing was!
« Last Edit: June 14, 2004, 04:56:21 PM by Ben » Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 18,273


"Do not be afraid, Zechariah..."


WWW
« Reply #69 on: June 14, 2004, 06:11:25 PM »

Vatican II was an Ecumenical Council, but a pastoral one. Both Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI made clear that the Council was pastoral, and that nothing would be declared ex-cathedra, and nothing was!

What about the two "dogmatic" constitutions at Vatican II?  

Honestly, I never understood the distinction between a "pastoral" ecumenical council and a "dogmatic" ecumenical council.  As far as I can tell, every ecumenical council dealt with both types of issues.
Logged

The New World Order (1943 to present):

Jesuit Provincial > Jesuit Order > Jesuit Superior > Mor < Roman Pontiff < Illuminati Families < Holy See < UN
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #70 on: June 14, 2004, 06:16:13 PM »

Vatican II declared no dogmas and abolished none, and nothing was declared ex-cathedra at Vatican II by either Pope John XXIII, or Pope Paul VI. And in fact both expressed that Vatican II was only a pastoral councils on several occasions.
Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 18,273


"Do not be afraid, Zechariah..."


WWW
« Reply #71 on: June 14, 2004, 06:26:37 PM »

Again, what do you make of the two dogmatic constitutions Vatican II put out?  

And how is there a distinction, in the class of "ecumenical councils" itself, between "pastoral" and "dogmatic" councils?  It is clear that the RCC regards Vatican II as an ecumenical council.  The council documents refer to it as an ecumenical council, and all "Novus Ordo" liturgical books have a blurb on the title page that says something like "Revised in accordance with the decrees of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council"; other examples could be cited.  If an ecumenical council is infallible (as you no doubt believe), then what is the purpose of a "pastoral" ecumenical council?  Why does one need an infallible council to rule solely on pastoral issues?  And if Vatican II was an ecumenical, "pastoral" council, then why the outcry against the liturgical reforms of Vatican II?  Those are pastoral issues, and apparently protected by the Holy Spirit if they are infallible.  Help me understand this distinction in councils, because honestly, it makes no sense.
Logged

The New World Order (1943 to present):

Jesuit Provincial > Jesuit Order > Jesuit Superior > Mor < Roman Pontiff < Illuminati Families < Holy See < UN
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #72 on: June 14, 2004, 07:45:14 PM »

Okay....

Every Ecumenical Council except for Vatican II defined or declared a dogma, and was called for that purpose or for the purpose of dealing with a dogmatic or doctrinal controversey.

Vatican II was called a Pastoral Council by both Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI. A Pastoral Council is one that deals with the Pastoral needs of the Church only, while declaring and defining no dogma or doctrine.

Now, yes there were Dogmatic Constitutions at Vatican II.

Dei Verbum (November 18,1965 Passed: 2344 to 6) and Lumen Gentium (November 21, 1964 Passed: 2151 to 5), but neither were proclaimed ex-cathedra by the Roman Pontiff, for niether declared or defined a dogma.

Now there was only one Constitution, which was not a dogmatic one, that dealt with the Liturgy - Sacrosanctum Concilium. However, this Constitution did not call for a new liturgy or the abandonment of the Tridentine Mass.
Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Jack
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


OC.net


« Reply #73 on: June 15, 2004, 12:15:31 PM »



I understand, and please forgive me if I seemed rude in dismissing your opinion on this as ignorant, and if I came off as making fun of you in anyway.

No problem.  I'm proud of the way I can keep up with the rest of you guys.


Not so bad. Smiley

But my I ask why you don't go to the declarations of the Ecumenical Councils, which are considered to be totally infallible? Why not go streight to the dogma itself?.

Sometimes I do that too.
 
I agree, I have provided no quote. Because it is not neccesary. Look, if you are going to assert that previous to Vatican I there was no such thing as a Pope speaking ex-cathedra, then you might as well admit that the idea of a Pope speaking ex-cathedra was an invention at Vatican I, and that the Roman Catholic faith developes and changes, not in just understanding, but in the acctual essence of faith, which the RC has taught is the same today as it was 2000 years ago.

Unam Sanctam meets all the requirements for "ex-cathedra" as set down by Vatican I, but if you refuse to admit this, then I wonder your thoughts on the two quotes I provided from two Ecumenical Councils, which are surely considered to be infallible by the RCC..  

I don't think that Vatican I invented papal infallibility.  Papal infallibility has been around since Peter's confession.  My primary source for believing in papal infallibility is not Vatican I, but Matthew 16, which provides an even fuller explanation of what it is.  I think a lot of misunderstanding has arisen on both sides of the debate because they talk about it as if Vatican I said all there is to say on the issue.  That's why I would take issue with simply taking the wording of Vatican I and applying it in cookie-cutter fashion to papal statements throughout history.

Yes, I agree, and perhaps I haven't been clear, the Church teaches that those who through no fault of their own do not know that the Catholic Church is the true Church, can be saved through the Catholic Church if they use the graces given to them by God, this is even clearly stated in the Baltimore Catechism.Well it is Catholic teaching that every Baptism done correctly is a Catholic Baptism, and therefore all baptized Christians are subject to the Roman Pontiff. But due to ignorance of the truth of God, the Church teaches one can be saved with out formally being a member of the Catholic Church, but if they use the graces given to them by God, are somehow mysticaly a member of the Catholic Church and can be saved.I totally agree, but the Church teaches you must accept this forgiveness through the Catholic Church, the only true Church in existence, accept for those individuals, who through no fault of their own do not know that the Catholic faith is the truth, and reject it.

Well, we might actually agree on this.  On the other hand, we might disagree on the meaning of the "through no fault of their own" language.

Ben, I really enjoy talking with you, and hope that we can continue.  I ask one favor of you though.  You will notice that even though I have separated out your quote, I have left out nothing that was in your posting; nothing has been edited out.  If you could do that for me, I would appreciate it.  Thanks a lot.
Logged

NULL
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #74 on: June 15, 2004, 02:17:50 PM »

Quote
I don't think that Vatican I invented papal infallibility.  Papal infallibility has been around since Peter's confession.  My primary source for believing in papal infallibility is not Vatican I, but Matthew 16, which provides an even fuller explanation of what it is.


Okay, so if you agree that Vatican I didn't invent Papal Infallibility, then you must also agree that if this were so, then certainly Popes spoke ex-cathedra previous to Vatican I.

Vatican I defined ex-cathedra as when a Pope declares or defines something that must be held by the entire Church, and there are many examples, such as Unam Sanctam, of Popes previous to Vatican I declaring or defining something that must be held by the whole Church.

If Vatican I didn't invent Papal Infallibility then we can not ignore the ex-cathedra declarations of Popes, such as Boniface VIII, who were around long before Vatican I

Quote
Well, we might actually agree on this.  On the other hand, we might disagree on the meaning of the "through no fault of their own" language.

Well the "through no fault of their own" is in both the Catechism of Trent and the new Catechism.

Quote
I ask one favor of you though.  You will notice that even though I have separated out your quote, I have left out nothing that was in your posting; nothing has been edited out.  If you could do that for me, I would appreciate it.  Thanks a lot.

Sometimes I delete statements that there is no need to reply to, such as "No problem.  I'm proud of the way I can keep up with the rest of you guys." I only quote those parts of your post that I feel a need to respond to.
Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 18,273


"Do not be afraid, Zechariah..."


WWW
« Reply #75 on: June 15, 2004, 07:07:55 PM »

Vatican II was called a Pastoral Council by both Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI. A Pastoral Council is one that deals with the Pastoral needs of the Church only, while declaring and defining no dogma or doctrine.

Now, yes there were Dogmatic Constitutions at Vatican II.

Dei Verbum (November 18,1965 Passed: 2344 to 6) and Lumen Gentium (November 21, 1964 Passed: 2151 to 5), but neither were proclaimed ex-cathedra by the Roman Pontiff, for niether declared or defined a dogma.

First, John XXIII and Paul VI may have called it a "Pastoral Council", but they also called it an Ecumenical Council, and the council itself refers to it as such.  

In the sense that Vatican II did not "declare or define any (*new*) dogma", you are right, it merely reiterated the teaching of the RCC.  However, that reiteration itself is dogmatic because it is the teaching of dogma.  Also, if the RCC really believes that when an ecumenical council defines a dogma, it is really just declaring definitively what was always believed in the Church and not some novel teaching of recent origin, then no council has ever declared new dogma, so any declaration is reiteration of existing Church teaching.  I still can't see how there is any real distinction between Vatican II and, say, Trent.

Furthermore, to my knowledge, every ecumenical council (no matter how many you accept Wink ) dealt with dogmatic and pastoral issues.  When has there been  an ecumenical council which dealt only with one or the other?
« Last Edit: June 15, 2004, 07:08:17 PM by Mor Ephrem » Logged

The New World Order (1943 to present):

Jesuit Provincial > Jesuit Order > Jesuit Superior > Mor < Roman Pontiff < Illuminati Families < Holy See < UN
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #76 on: June 15, 2004, 07:14:25 PM »


Quote
First, John XXIII and Paul VI may have called it a "Pastoral Council", but they also called it an Ecumenical Council, and the council itself refers to it as such.  


I have not denied that it was called an Ecumenical Council, and that it is one. I am just stating, as Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI did, that it was a Pastoral one.

Quote
In the sense that Vatican II did not "declare or define any (*new*) dogma", you are right, it merely reiterated the teaching of the RCC.  However, that reiteration itself is dogmatic because it is the teaching of dogma.


There were only two Dogmatic Constitutions at Vatican II, and I do not think either one reiterated RC teaching to a point where the teaching of the dogma itself was affected. I understand what you are saying, but you must understand that these two Dogmatic Constitutions did not change or redefine any dogma.

Quote
Also, if the RCC really believes that when an ecumenical council defines a dogma, it is really just declaring definitively what was always believed in the Church and not some novel teaching of recent origin, then no council has ever declared new dogma, so any declaration is reiteration of existing Church teaching.  I still can't see how there is any real distinction between Vatican II and, say, Trent.


Vatican II did not define a Dogma, Trent did.

Quote
Furthermore, to my knowledge, every ecumenical council (no matter how many you accept Wink ) dealt with dogmatic and pastoral issues.  When has there been  an ecumenical council which dealt only with one or the other?  
 

Vatican II was only a pastoral Council in the sense that it defined or declared no dogma. It dealt with the Pastoral needs of the Church, and though addressing some dogmatic issues, no dogma was defined, redefined, declared, or abolished.
Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 18,273


"Do not be afraid, Zechariah..."


WWW
« Reply #77 on: June 15, 2004, 07:22:08 PM »

I have not denied that it was called an Ecumenical Council, and that it is one. I am just stating, as Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI did, that it was a Pastoral one.

I'd really appreciate more input from other Catholics, because I really am confused now.  So what if it was "Pastoral" as long as it was "Ecumenical"?  What is the point of making such a distinction?

Quote
There were only two Dogmatic Constitutions at Vatican II, and I do not think either one reiterated RC teaching to a point where the teaching of the dogma itself was affected.

What?  

Quote
I understand what you are saying, but you must understand that these two Dogmatic Constitutions did not change or redefine any dogma.

Why must a dogma be changed, altered, or re-worked in some way, shape, or form in order for the council at which this occurred to be regarded as a "dogmatic" council?  Why is the teaching of the faith not considered enough of a dogmatic task?  

And I am not sure if you are being imprecise in your language.  Does the RCC really believe that a dogma can be "changed"?  What is the scope of "redefinition"?  

Quote
Vatican II was only a pastoral Council in the sense that it defined or declared no dogma. It dealt with the Pastoral needs of the Church, and though addressing some dogmatic issues, no dogma was defined, redefined, declared, or abolished.

In addition to referring to my remarks above, I also have to ask how on earth a dogma can get "abolished" in the RCC?
Logged

The New World Order (1943 to present):

Jesuit Provincial > Jesuit Order > Jesuit Superior > Mor < Roman Pontiff < Illuminati Families < Holy See < UN
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #78 on: June 15, 2004, 07:31:51 PM »

Quote
I'd really appreciate more input from other Catholics, because I really am confused now.  So what if it was "Pastoral" as long as it was "Ecumenical"?  What is the point of making such a distinction?

The Second Vatican Council is an Ecumenical Council, I *never* denied this. However, it was not a dogmatic Council because it didn't declare or define any dogmas, and it wasn't called to deal with dogmatic problems. For example, Trent was called to deal with Protestantism and the reformation. Vatican II was called to deal with the Pastoral needs of the Church, that it is why it was and is called a Pastoral Council.

Quote
Why must a dogma be changed, altered, or re-worked in some way, shape, or form in order for the council at which this occurred to be regarded as a "dogmatic" council?  Why is the teaching of the faith not considered enough of a dogmatic task?


A Dogmatic Council is one that deals with dogma. Either by solving a heresy and/or declaring and defining dogmas of the Church. Vatican II was not called to deal with a heresy, nor was it called to define or declare any dogmas, and it clearly didn't, so we can not call Vatican II a Dogmatic Council.

Quote
And I am not sure if you are being imprecise in your language.  Does the RCC really believe that a dogma can be "changed"?  What is the scope of "redefinition"?  In addition to referring to my remarks above, I also have to ask how on earth a dogma can get "abolished" in the RCC?  


No, a dogma can not be changed or abolished in the RCC, but many traditionalists like to say that Catholic dogma, in paticular Purgatory, was somehow redefined or abolished at Vatican II, when in fact it wasn't.

Its a silly lie that many like to propagate to either show Vatican II was not a true Council, or that it somehow changed our faith.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2004, 04:00:18 PM by Ben » Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Jack
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


OC.net


« Reply #79 on: June 16, 2004, 04:01:29 PM »



Okay, so if you agree that Vatican I didn't invent Papal Infallibility, then you must also agree that if this were so, then certainly Popes spoke ex-cathedra previous to Vatican I.

Vatican I defined ex-cathedra as when a Pope declares or defines something that must be held by the entire Church, and there are many examples, such as Unam Sanctam, of Popes previous to Vatican I declaring or defining something that must be held by the whole Church.

If Vatican I didn't invent Papal Infallibility then we can not ignore the ex-cathedra declarations of Popes, such as Boniface VIII, who were around long before Vatican IWell the "through no fault of their own" is in both the Catechism of Trent and the new Catechism.Sometimes I delete statements that there is no need to reply to, such as "No problem.  I'm proud of the way I can keep up with the rest of you guys." I only quote those parts of your post that I feel a need to respond to.


You're right.  We can't ignore the infallible statements of popes prior to Vatican I.  Now which ones are infallible?  I think Vatican I correctly declared papal infallibility, but it didn't provide the exclusive guidance as to when it occurs.  From Matthew 16 I derive that he must speak in communion and consultation with his fellow bishops.  That doesn't mean he needs their consent, but that they be part of the process.
Logged

NULL
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #80 on: June 16, 2004, 04:14:15 PM »

You're right.  We can't ignore the infallible statements of popes prior to Vatican I.  Now which ones are infallible?  I think Vatican I correctly declared papal infallibility, but it didn't provide the exclusive guidance as to when it occurs.  From Matthew 16 I derive that he must speak in communion and consultation with his fellow bishops.  That doesn't mean he needs their consent, but that they be part of the process.

Vatican I defined ex-cathedra as when a Pope declares or defines something that is to be held by the entire Church.

If you read the Bull Unam Sanctam, and many bulls previous to Vatican I, you will see that they define and/or declare something to be held by he entire Church.

I agree that the bishops of he Church should have some involvement in any doctrinal issue, however the RC teaching is clear, the Roman Pontiff does not need the consent of an Ecumenical Council or of any bishop to declare or define something that mus be held by the entire Church.
Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Jakub
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,748



« Reply #81 on: June 16, 2004, 04:36:59 PM »

I believe that the council is needed for most crucial decisions, I also believe that a true council has more authority than a Pope/Patriarch, heck I'm sounding more & more Orthodox everyday.

james
Logged

An old timer is a man who's had a lot of interesting experiences -- some of them true.

Grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the good fortune to run into the ones I do, and the eyesight to tell the difference.
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #82 on: June 16, 2004, 04:50:21 PM »

James aren't you Catholic?

I am wondering because you obviously reject Vatican I and Papal Infallibility, which would mean you are a heretic, not by my standards, but by those of the RCC.

Please, I am not trying to offend you, its just that I was under he impression that you were Catholic.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2004, 04:55:04 PM by Ben » Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Jakub
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,748



« Reply #83 on: June 16, 2004, 05:19:58 PM »

I am presently a cradle RC, x-altarboy etc..........but with time my ideas have changed just like the RCC, I do converse with priests from the Orthodox and RC & EC.

I try not to get caught up in all theological differences and debates, my heart knows when it is comforted and at peace, that is the point is it not ?

james
Logged

An old timer is a man who's had a lot of interesting experiences -- some of them true.

Grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the good fortune to run into the ones I do, and the eyesight to tell the difference.
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #84 on: June 16, 2004, 05:51:17 PM »


Quote
I am presently a cradle RC, x-altarboy etc..........but with time my ideas have changed just like the RCC, I do converse with priests from the Orthodox and RC & EC.

Well, the RCC hasn't changed its teaching on Papal Infallibiliy, and honestly it can't.

Quote
I try not to get caught up in all theological differences and debates, my heart knows when it is comforted and at peace, that is the point is it not ?

I don't know, I know plenty of Muslims, Buddhists, and Mormons who are totally at peace with their faith. They are comforted by their faith and are perfectly happy.

Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Jakub
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,748



« Reply #85 on: June 16, 2004, 06:04:12 PM »

Ben,

Are you saying that being a good Roman Catholic hingies on Papal infallibilty ? I doubt that, or has it been added to the creed like the filioque ?

james
Logged

An old timer is a man who's had a lot of interesting experiences -- some of them true.

Grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the good fortune to run into the ones I do, and the eyesight to tell the difference.
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #86 on: June 16, 2004, 06:20:08 PM »

Ben,

Are you saying that being a good Roman Catholic hingies on Papal infallibilty ? I doubt that, or has it been added to the creed like the filioque ?

james

To be a good Catholic you must accept all the dogmas of the Catholic Church, if you do not, you are a Heretic, this is even clearly stated in the new Catechism, and the new Canon Law.

If you, as a Catholic, reject the dogmas of the Filioque and/or Papal Infallibility, you are a heretic and therefore not a good Catholic, this is not just my opinion, but official Catholic teaching.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2004, 06:21:35 PM by Ben » Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Jakub
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,748



« Reply #87 on: June 16, 2004, 06:47:13 PM »

Ben,

You and I agree to disagree on this topic and I can live with it.

james
Logged

An old timer is a man who's had a lot of interesting experiences -- some of them true.

Grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the good fortune to run into the ones I do, and the eyesight to tell the difference.
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #88 on: June 16, 2004, 06:51:03 PM »

I can also live with it. Smiley But I must express that I am only echoing official Catholic teaching, I have said nothing that isn't clearly expressed even in the new Catechism and the new Canon Law. You can disagree with me, a lot of people do, and thats fine, but please understand I haven't expressed merely my opinion, rather the official teaching of the Church that you belong to.
Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Jakub
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,748



« Reply #89 on: June 16, 2004, 07:36:40 PM »

Ben,

Not every household has a Catechism or a copy of Canon Law in it, most have a bible or prayer book if they are lucky.

It would make sense if the Catechism was the Catholic Manual of Faith, that the Church would at least issue one to a family with updates when needed instead of the laity buying one, the odds are maybe 2 out of 10 families might have one.

Quoting Canon Law & the CCC to the average member of the American laity will be like speaking German to them.

james
« Last Edit: June 16, 2004, 07:37:32 PM by Jakub » Logged

An old timer is a man who's had a lot of interesting experiences -- some of them true.

Grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the good fortune to run into the ones I do, and the eyesight to tell the difference.
Tags: Polish 
Pages: « 1 2 3 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.163 seconds with 72 queries.