do you believe in religious freedom?

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

[quote name='jnorm888' post='1001135' date='Jun 9 2006, 09:53 AM']
Well I'm glad you cleared that up for me.

So is it safe for me to assume that you are a Roman Catholic in full communion who is in dissent on the issue of Vatican II?
INLOVE Jnorm
[/quote]


no. I don't dissent on Vatican II. I believe it was a legitimate council called by a legitimate Pope. But it defined no Dogma, therefore i am not bound to accept any of it as being infallibile. I also see it as council that is often interpreted in a liberal, and un-catholic way. Jesus told us that we can judge a tree by the fruits (Mt 7:15-20.) Vatican II has not brought forth good fruit. Therefore, i follow Catholicism as it has always been taught, and I worship as Catholics always have worshipped.

[Jnorm888]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' post='1001139' date='Jun 9 2006, 08:02 AM']
no. I don't dissent on Vatican II. I believe it was a legitimate council called by a legitimate Pope. But it defined no Dogma, therefore i am not bound to accept any of it as being infallibile. I also see it as council that is often interpreted in a liberal, and un-catholic way. Jesus told us that we can judge a tree by the fruits (Mt 7:15-20.) Vatican II has not brought forth good fruit. Therefore, i follow Catholicism as it has always been taught, and I worship as Catholics always have worshipped.
[/quote]


Interesting, I forgot that Rome sees a difference between "DOCTRINE" and "DOGMA"



Well Do you read your Bible? Do you own a Bible?


Do you go to Masses spoken in English?







INLOVE Jnorm

P.S. "Some Protestants and Old Catholics like Vatican II for some of the changes were practical and necessary"



Do you really think what you believe was held by the Latin church for 1,965 years? The Latin church changed many times within that 1,965 years Sam. You just need to dig deeper into your history. Maybe then you will be able to accept Vatican II.

Edited June 9, 2006 by jnorm888

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

[quote name='jnorm888' post='1001143' date='Jun 9 2006, 10:12 AM']
Interesting, I forgot that Rome sees a difference between "DOCTRINE" and "DOGMA"
Well Do you read your Bible? Do you own a Bible?
Do you go to Masses spoken in English?
INLOVE Jnorm

P.S. "Some Protestants and Old Catholics like Vatican II for some of the changes were practical and necessary"
[/quote]


I have many bibles, and i do read them from time to time. I prefer to read old catechisms, because they explain our doctrine and use the bible to support it . i go to mass spoken in English, only when i must.

that is becuase Vatican II gave into protestantism. It turned the Catholic Church into a reformed church.
[quote]
the French journal, LA DOCUMENTATION CATHOLIQUE of July 3, 1983, a mixed group of Catholics and Lutherans declared that

[b]"among the ideas of Vatican Council II, one can find a welcoming of the requests made by Luther."[/b] (de Lassus, p. 17)[/quote]

[Fidei Defensor]

I strongly suggest you don't take anything that Extra ecclesiam nulla salus says seriously.

He is still pretty young and nieve. He has alot to learn about how the world works.

We love you Sam

[goldenchild17]

No, but maybe you could address the things he brings up. Sources are sources no matter how old a person is. How is a young person to change their mind and be brought back to the Church if they are not kindly shown how they are misunderstanding something?

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1005721' date='Jun 14 2006, 03:53 PM']
No, but maybe you could address the things he brings up. Sources are sources no matter how old a person is. How is a young person to change their mind and be brought back to the Church if they are not kindly shown how they are misunderstanding something?
[/quote]
And some sources are still flawed, no matter who uses them. Honestly, who is going to take a French Journal as a serious source because it says that some Catholics and Lutherans said something. They don't represent the Church, nor what the Church thinks. Who even knows if it even happened?

If he is going to debate this, he needs better sources than a French Journal.

At this point, I am not fully convinced that he wants to be helped with understanding. He just wants to cause reactions and then argue about it. Of course, that's only the way I see it. Even if it's not true, it's how he comes off.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

you know, i did not reply to your little comment for a long time, because the smiley face enraged me. But it seems like i now must to defend Traditionalism. The source is not what matters. Nor do the non-binding teachings of the New church. What was said in the french journal is true, even though it was not said by the church.

[quote]48. Because the New mass embodies numerous errors condemned by Pope St. Pius V at the Council of Trent (Mass totally in vernacular, words of Consecration spoken aloud, etc. See Condemnation of Jansenist Synod of Pistia), and errors condemned by Pope Pius XII (e.g., altar in form of table. See Mediator Dei).[/quote]

there is proof. the New mass is exactly what was condemned by Trent. Frankly, what you think the church teaches is basically flawed, because it contradicts tradition.

[Aloysius]

the pope at the time of luther condemned only about half of luther's 95 theses. you'd have to show Vatican II accepting the ones that were condemned as heresy to make Vatican II out to be accepting of protestantism.

Vatican II upholds the traditional teaching of the Church that protestantism is a heresy. The Church has begun trying to talk Christian-to-Christian to these people more. Vatican II's doctrine regarding non-Catholic Christianity is basically trying to shift us into an era similar to the immediate aftermath of the reformation, when Catholicisim and protestantism were much closer than they are now. It's trying to run a complete reversal of the reformation deformation that split Christendom.

I will say this historically: the latin rites of the Church had not undergone any serious revision between the time it was put into Latin from Greek very early on until the time of the promulgation of the Novus Ordo Missae. This is not a Vatican II issue, of course, but a post-conciliar church issue. Regardless, the latin form of the sacrament was not changed so it is still a perfectly legitimate sacrament. the Church rubrics still call for immovable altars rather than moveable table-altars that the antiquarians at the time of the reformation called for. the skeletonized ritual of the mass may not be preferable, but you'd be way off based to call it exactly what Trent condemned. Trent, in fact, more than any event in Church history, consolidated liturgical power in Rome absolutely. The new order of the mass was done exactly according to what Trent set up-- a liturgically powerful vatican.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' post='1006565' date='Jun 15 2006, 08:12 PM']
you know, i did not reply to your little comment for a long time, because the smiley face enraged me. But it seems like i now must to defend Traditionalism. The source is not what matters. Nor do the non-binding teachings of the New church. What was said in the french journal is true, even though it was not said by the church.
there is proof. the New mass is exactly what was condemned by Trent. Frankly, what you think the church teaches is basically flawed, because it contradicts tradition.
[/quote]
You make me smile, a lot. I love you!

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1006160' date='Jun 15 2006, 08:15 AM']
And some sources are still flawed, no matter who uses them. Honestly, who is going to take a French Journal as a serious source because it says that some Catholics and Lutherans said something. They don't represent the Church, nor what the Church thinks. Who even knows if it even happened?

If he is going to debate this, he needs better sources than a French Journal.

At this point, I am not fully convinced that he wants to be helped with understanding. He just wants to cause reactions and then argue about it. Of course, that's only the way I see it. Even if it's not true, it's how he comes off.
[/quote]

And that makes sense. I just wanted it to be clear that just because a person is young, or possibly easily swayed, or whatever, does not mean that their concerns should be taken seriously.

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='jnorm888' post='1001135' date='Jun 9 2006, 10:01 AM']Therefore I told him to keep reading the Bible as A Roman Catholic for Vatican II allows him to.[/quote]
I know that EENS commented on this, but do we really need this kind of condescending comment? If the Vatican II documents mention anything about "allowing" Catholics to read Scriptures, it is only reiterating the constant teaching of the Church. My grandfather--who died before Vatican II--read the Holy Bible constantly. And no one expected him to ask permission from the Church.

The idea of the Catholic Church surpressing the Holy Bible is classic anti-Catholic propoganda. It is a lie told often enough that many people will believe it. Please don't be the one to bear false witness against your neighbor.

PS: Here's a link from the Phatmass Catholic Directory regarding the Holy Bible and Catholics:

[url="http://mafg.home.isp-direct.com/cques17.htm"]http://mafg.home.isp-direct.com/cques17.htm[/url]

Edited June 22, 2006 by Mateo el Feo

[Imprimatur]

I hold fast to the Declaration on Religious Freedom from the Second Vatican Council.

[quote]7. The right to religious freedom is exercised in human society: hence its exercise is subject to certain regulatory norms. In the use of all freedoms the moral principle of personal and social responsibility is to be observed. In the exercise of their rights, individual men and social groups are bound by the moral law to have respect both for the rights of others and for their own duties toward others and for the common welfare of all. Men are to deal with their fellows in justice and civility. (Declartaion on Religious Freedom, [url="http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html"]http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_council...humanae_en.html[/url])[/quote]

Edited June 25, 2006 by Imprimatur