Hi Emerald sorry to have missed you. But dont drop out now..I do want the truth. Im slowly but surely realsiing winning at ALL costs in an argument is not what its all about. I can be a bit of a goon with the one upmanship stuff. Sometimes I over reach my rather limited knowledge of doctrine and dogma etc. I know you are something of an expert in this area of apologetics, while Im an absolute beginner. Im not going to rehash stuff, just cut and paste the arguments from Shawn . I haven’t got the time, inclination and some might say the ability to do so myself. Shawn McElhinney will be referenced as ((SM)) and his articles can be found here http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/shawn.html

Your latest post then:

>That's not the same section.”

Mateo (great to see you back) and I have both provided you with the true translation and the source.

PLEASE: PROVIDE THE WEBSITE WHERE YOU GOT THE QUOTE AND PROVE THAT IT IS FROM AN AUTHENTIC CATHOLIC SOURCE.

>We'll get better, or other translations, if you want. Let me see if I can do that for you.

PLEASE DO SO referenced to their source. BTW just who is this “we” you speak of?

>This isn't a matter of one isolated quote taken out of context. It can be approached in an inductive way by pulling in all sorts of passages from all different time periods producing the exact same message: the inter-religious prayer deal was not allowed. Want to go that way?

No thanks couldn’t think of anything more tiresome, you just please concentrate on trying to verify your first dodgy quote.

>Victory is not what it's about anyways; just want to know the truth, that's all.

Cool me too

Ok Ill start as follows (SM) asks us to consider:

St. Thomas Aquinas in speaking of a symbol of faith being prescribed by the General Council of Nicaea made the following notation on the matter which should provide some food for thought:

The universal Church cannot err, since she is governed by the Holy Ghost, Who is the Spirit of truth: for such was Our Lord's promise to His disciples (Jn. 16:13): "When He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will teach you all truth." Now the Symbol is published by the authority of the universal Church. Therefore it contains nothing defective. [2]

The Angelic Doctor recognized the same principle that the Church has always recognized when it comes to the universal promulgations as they relate to matters of faith and morals: they cannot contain anything doctrinally defective.

>“On the contrary, dogmatic, infallible statements of immutable truth have been rendered many, many times prior to and in opposition to the modernist's re-renderings of the ways and means of salvation. This current pontiff clearly believes in universal salvation.”

Yet another lie, and a biggie at that! Telling lies about what our Holy Father has said. I don’t need to defend or explain the Popes thoughts, theyre clear and obvious. PROVE ME WRONG please. If you cannot I think Pope John Paul II deserves an apology from you!. Ignorance wont save your soul either Im afriad!

The Holy Office:

“Let them who in grave peril are ranged against the Church seriously bear in mind that after "Rome has spoken" they cannot be excused even by reasons of good faith…Let them realize that they are children of the Church, lovingly nourished by her with the milk of doctrine and the sacraments, and hence, having heard the clear voice of their Mother, they cannot be excused from culpable ignorance, and therefore to them applies without any restriction that principle: submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is required as necessary for salvation. “

I wont even begin to explain why Lumen Gentium clearly admits of a way of salvation outside the Church.

>Im glad you didnt being. Because it doesn’t.

Down, down, down, in a burning ring of fire…and those flames they just got higher LOL, I dont really think youre goig to fry, not at least before I get there first ! Again youre welcome to present your own private interpretation of LG as Pope Emerald but is worthless, the Church and numerous real Popes have been quite clear. I havent got the time to explain this to you…. Try to prove me wrong, show me where LG says a away of salvation outside the Church!

>Neither Lumen Gentium nor any of this Pope's statements regarding a way of salvation outside of the Church has bound the Faithful in any way, shape or form: none were dogmatically defined. None. Furthermore, elements contradict known doctrine. We shrug our shoulders and keep the Faith.

Do you really beieve that just because something is not “dogmatically defined” it doesn’t bind the faithful ? This has NEVER been the case in Church history. “Furthermore” nothing has been contradicted. The only thing that’s getting “shrugged” is your soul… I wont comment on what direction....

Pope John XXIII

The greatest concern of the Ecumenical Council is this: that he sacred deposit of Christian doctrine should be guarded and taught more efficaciously. That doctrine embraces the whole of man, composed as he is of body and soul. And, since he is a pilgrim on this earth, it commands him to tend always toward heaven...

Pope Paul VI (to show his mindset on the matter) made the following pronouncement about what the Third Session would be completing with regards to doctrine:

“In this way the doctrine which the Ecumenical Council Vatican I had intended will be completed.... It is proper for this solemn Synod to settle certain laborious theological controversies about the shepherds of the Church, with the prerogatives which lawfully flow from the episcopate, and to pronounce a statement on them that is certain. We must declare what is the true notion of the hierarchical orders and to decide with authority and with a certainty which it will not be legitimate to call into doubt.” [16]

(SM) And distinctions such as the previous councils defining dogma and Vatican II not doing so are irrelevant because (i) most of the directives of earlier councils were disciplinary but were still considered requiring of assent and (ii) obedience to a teaching is not contingent upon it being handed on infallibly. As an Ecumenical Council, the teachings of Vatican II are to be heeded with a religious submission of mind and will even in areas where doctrinal decisions are not being rendered definitively. Failure to do this is to be in violation of Church teaching and Church law. To quote the Catholic Encyclopedia on the subject of the ordinary magisterium and infallibility:

During the interval from the council of the Apostles at Jerusalem to that of their successors at Nicaea this ordinary everyday exercise of episcopal authority was found to be sufficiently effective for the needs of the time, but when a crisis like the Arian heresy arose, its effectiveness was discovered to be inadequate, as was indeed inevitable by reason of the practical difficulty of verifying that fact of moral unanimity, once any considerable volume of dissent had to be faced. And while for subsequent ages down to our own day it continues to be theoretically true that the Church may, by the exercise of this ordinary teaching authority arrive at a final and infallible decision regarding doctrinal questions, it is true at the same time that in practice it may be impossible to prove conclusively that such unanimity as may exist has a strictly definitive value in any particular case, unless it has been embodied in a decree of an ecumenical council, or in the ex cathedra teaching of the pope, or, at least, in some definite formula such as the Athanasian Creed...[11]

(SM)

“Consistent with the understanding of "pastoral" in theology, the Second Vatican Council certainly fulfills the criteria in its usage of sources spanning the dogmatic, moral, and other fields of study. As far as the dependence of pastoral theology on dogmatic theology, the Catholic Encyclopedia article Dogmatic Theology had this to say about the correlation:

Pastoral theology, which embraces liturgy, homiletics, and catechetics, proceeded from, and bears close relationship to, moral theology; its dependence on dogmatic theology needs, therefore, no further proof. [15]

And just as "no further proof" is needed to demonstrate the dependence of pastoral theology on dogmatic theology, there is no further proof needed refute the facile dichotomy of "pastoral" and "dogmatic" when it comes to Vatican II when compared with most of the previous ecumenical councils. It suffices to say that most previous councils were directly dogmatic and indirectly pastoral whereas with Vatican II the converse was the case. But it does not suffice to say that the predominantly pastoral character of the Second Vatican Council precluded any active dogmatic elements at all - and consequently any formal infallibility. For as we will now see, to some extent this element is active in all General Councils where the resolutions have received the approval - either manifestly or tacitly - of the Roman Pontiff.”

>While it is true that we owe allegiance to the Pontiff in certainly more than just matters of infallibility, this submission clearly does not extend to the obligation to deny existing doctrine. NOT EVEN in the name of a greater, newer, or better "interpretation" of doctrine, so called. The end run around these articles of Faith by modernists consists of the attempt to widen the nature and extent of Papal infallibility beyond it's true scope in order to make it appear as though new understandings and new ideas bind the Faithful in obedience. This is not the case

Read this very carefully Emerald:

First Vatican Council. “Some will persist and say: there remains, therefore, the duty of the Pontiff - indeed most grave in its kind - of adhering to the means apt for discerning the truth, and, although this matter is not strictly dogmatic, it is, nevertheless, intimately connected with dogma. For we define: the dogmatic judgements of the Roman Pontiff are infallible. Therefore let us also define the form to be used by the Pontiff in such a judgement. It seems to me that this was the mind of some of the most reverend fathers as they spoke from this podium. But, most eminent and reverend fathers, this proposal simply cannot be accepted because we are not dealing with something new here. Already thousands and thousands of dogmatic judgments have gone forth from the Apostolic See; where is the law which prescribed the form to be observed in such judgments? ”

This teaching was declared in the Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith which was promulgated in April of 1870: a text that made it clear that "[the] meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding"

In short, when the Roman Pontiff makes the decision to (quoting Gasser) "directly and conclusively pronounce his sentence about a doctrine which concerns matters of faith or morals", he is involved in areas where he possesses a unique chari(SM) in settling controversies. He does not have to solemnly define a teaching to be speaking infallibly nor does he have to explicitly claim that he is speaking infallibly — as the teaching is not to be understood in a juridical sense.

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.

Likewise the absence of definitive form does not preclude that a given teaching is necessarily not settled infallibly. As if was noted earlier, often a teaching is infallibly taught before it is set forth in a recognizably definitive manner.

Pope Pius XII in his Encyclical Letter Humani Generis

It] must [not] be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me" (Luke x,16); and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their [official documents] purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.

Vatican II

“This loyal submission of the will and intellect must be given, in a special way, to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he does not speak ex cathedra in such wise, indeed, that his supreme teaching authority be acknowledged with respect, and sincere assent be given to decisions made by him, conformably with his manifest mind and intention, which is made known principally either by the character of the documents in question, or by the frequency with which a certain doctrine is proposed, or by the manner in which the doctrine is formulated.”

SM“Though widely held as theologically certain before Vatican II, the position had never been enunciated in a magisterial document previously. (Therefore it was still open to dispute.) The inclusion of that teaching in LG §25 settled that teaching definitively”

Also:

Catholic encyclopedias dictionary

This infallibility resides (a) in the pope personally and alone (see below); (b) In an oecumenical council (q.v.) subject to papal confirmation

And infallibity extends to secondary doctrines and facts whose connection with revealed truths is so intricate as to bring them within its scope.

>Furthermore, the modernists likewise attempt to widen the scope of the ordinary magisterium of the Catholic Church in a similiar manner. The attempt is to make it appear as if doctrine comes from the magisterium itself as it's originating source.

Catholic encylopedias dictionary Magisterium (Lat. magister, a master). The Church's divinely appointed authority to teach the truths of religion, "Going therefore, teach ye all nations... teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you" (Matt. xxviii, 19-20). This teaching is infallible: "And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world" (ibid.) The solemn magisterium is that which is exercised only rarely by formal and authentic definitions of councils or popes. Its matter comprises dogmatic definitions of ecumenical councils or of the popes teaching ex cathedra, or of particular councils, if their decrees are universally accepted or approved in solemn form by the pope; also creeds and professions of faith put forward or solemnly approved by pope or ecumenical council. The ordinary magisterium is continually exercised by the Church especially in her universal practices connected with faith and morals, in the unanimous consent of the Fathers (q.v.) and theologians, in the decisions of Roman Congregations concerning faith and morals, in the common sense (q.v.) of the faithful, and various historical documents in which the faith is declared. All these are founts of a teaching, which as a whole is infallible. They have to be studied separately to determine how far and in what conditions each of them is an infallible source of truth.

(SM) 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 presents a problem for the self-styled 'traditionalists' when analyzing and appropriating the proper teaching authority to the different levels of the Magisterium. (They demonstrate in technicolour both their lacuna of knowledge on the subject as well as the inconsistent nature of their positions.) There is no consistent criteria in the theological paradigm of the 'traditionalist' for what makes one teaching infallible and another not so. This inadequacy is demonstrated when they take the flawed view of infallibility as a property uniquely manifested in the Extraordinary Magisterium. In light of the above quotes from the Catholic Encyclopaedic Dictionary, this is a profoundly erroneous and untenable position…

When speaking of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium and its infallible teaching, Cardinal Ratzinger and Archbishop Bertone made the following very important distinction:

It should be noted that the infallible teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium is not only set forth with an explicit declaration of a doctrine to be believed or held definitively, but is also expressed by a doctrine implicitly contained in a practice of the Church's faith, derived from revelation or, in any case, necessary for eternal salvation, and attested to by the uninterrupted Tradition: such an infallible teaching is thus objectively set forth by the whole episcopal body, understood in a diachronic and not necessarily merely synchronic sense. Furthermore, the intention of the ordinary and universal magisterium to set forth a doctrine as definitive is not generally linked to technical formulations of particular solemnity; it is enough that this be clear from the tenor of the words used and from their context. [17]

The context in other words is what is important. The documents examined in this section from VC II were Dogmatic Constitutions. How is that for "context"??? They were teachings that were never taught previously in any Magisterial document which are now incorporated into not only Canon Law but also the Catechi(SM) of the Catholic Church. How is that for "context"???

.

Thinking about the "dogmatic" in the title of Lumen Gentium?

>See above

I look forward to your thoughts on these defences against your claims.

Cheers and Blessings

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

Answers

top

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

Jmj

Hello, Kiwi.
I wish you the best in this effort, and I will pray for you and your interlocutor. It is hard to be confident, though, in the light of so many hundreds of previous attempts to crack his carapace -- including very lengthy debates between him and Mr. C. Butler. Were you aware of those failed attempts? I thought I should inform you of them, so that you would know what you are getting yourself into.

You told your opponent, "But dont drop out now." If he has just now stated that he is again about to "drop out," please don't encourage him to change his mind. He has had his "say" (and much more of an opportunity than should have been afforded him), so he really needs to "drop out." I recommend that you carry on this debate with him by private e-mail, because his (collective) mountain of schismatic or heretical posts are already such a threat to the faith of Catholic lurkers, and I believe that additional posts from him here are not justifiable.

God bless you.
John
PS: Please don't enter into a debate fearing this opponent. You greatly overestimate him (and underestimate yourself) when you write: "I know you are something of an expert in this area of apologetics, while I'm an absolute beginner."

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

The Spirit of the Age repeats itself over and over and over again, and grinds concepts into one’s head that ought not be there; thoughts that bind you to the earth and block you, by constant repetition, from yearning for and holding as precious, and holding close, the things beyond the flesh. It is the Cult of this World, and from where you sit right now, it’s most likely true that you love this town even if that doesn't ring true; you've been all over and it's been all over you. But be not afraid; but, the heart is a bloom.

I can’t do it all tonight obviously. I don’t know where to start, but let me start here just for kicks:

”Telling lies about what our Holy Father has said. I don’t need to defend or explain the Popes thoughts, theyre clear and obvious. PROVE ME WRONG please.”

If you don’t like this starting point, btw, let me know. Take the conversation in the direction you wish to take it; tell me which areas you want to emphasize. My overall thrust is basically going to be to put into the spotlight the current ecumenical thrust in the Church, and point out that it seems of the nature of something that has always been shunned by Holy Mother Church; that we are looking at a phenomena that is, in fact, a deviation from the mind of the Church throughout the ages, and that perhaps we should be on guard.

Here’s what I’ve got on my desk here: The encyclical Mortalium Animos, the encyclical of Pope Pius XI, last pontiff before the council, on religious unity. I also have on my desk, in a stack of stuff, a complete book of the encyclicals of Pope John Paul II, my pontiff as well as yours despite whatever anyone tries to claim about me in their frenzied attempts make me out a heretic, schismatic, or better yet the black whole of a term "dissenter", into which all ambiguous cases that don't align quite properly are tossed. It's the circular file of all misfit traditionalists. They can’t call me these things because it isn’t the truth, and I won’t let them do it because I can.

And if it was ever the truth that I truly discovered myself in damnable error, I would immediately recant my position in order to stay within the Ark of Salvation, and in unity with the hull of Holy Mother Church.

To pull this off is a piece of cake, I don’t have to say or do anything except post some snippets from Mortalium Animos… perhaps enough to incline you to reading the entire document yourself. Here’s a few, straight off the Vatican website itself:

2. A similar object is aimed at by some, in those matters which concern the New Law promulgated by Christ our Lord. For since they hold it for certain that men destitute of all religious sense are very rarely to be found, they seem to have founded on that belief a hope that the nations, although they differ among themselves in certain religious matters, will without much difficulty come to agree as brethren in professing certain doctrines, which form as it were a common basis of the spiritual life. For which reason conventions, meetings and addresses are frequently arranged by these persons, at which a large number of listeners are present, and at which all without distinction are invited to join in the discussion, both infidels of every kind, and Christians, even those who have unhappily fallen away from Christ or who with obstinacy and pertinacity deny His divine nature and mission. Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule. Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little. turn aside to naturalism and atheism, as it is called; from which it clearly follows that one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion.

3. But some are more easily deceived by the outward appearance of good when there is question of fostering unity among all Christians.”

Here’s another section:

7. And here it seems opportune to expound and to refute a certain false opinion, on which this whole question, as well as that complex movement by which non-Catholics seek to bring about the union of the Christian churches depends. For authors who favor this view are accustomed, times almost without number, to bring forward these words of Christ: "That they all may be one.... And there shall be one fold and one shepherd,"…

Can you say Ut Unum Sint… “That they may be one”?

Go read the whole document. It’s short. Let me know what you think, and we’ll go from there. Take the discussion wherever you want to go. I'll learn something, you'll learn something.

I would say it’s a pretty important topic to look into; not so much one to be a reactionary over such that the mere asking causes others to run about blindly screaming “disssseennttteeerrrr!” without just cause and due consideration, precisely because of this, from the same document:

This undertaking is so actively promoted as in many places to win for itself the adhesion of a number of citizens, and it even takes possession of the minds of very many Catholics and allures them with the hope of bringing about such a union as would be agreeable to the desires of Holy Mother Church, who has indeed nothing more at heart than to recall her erring sons and to lead them back to her bosom. But in reality beneath these enticing words and blandishments lies hid a most grave error, by which the foundations of the Catholic faith are completely destroyed.

God bless, kiwi

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 02, 2003.

When you're done with that, go to Scripture and read Canticle of Canticles, or Song of Songs.

This will tell you the secrets of the Ark of salvation, and of Mary your Mother, the Ark of the covenant, archetype of the Church. This is the Romance of your Catholic Faith.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 02, 2003.