Christian Forums

Quote from: AnnaM on Sun Sep 15, 2013 - 16:55:36

Quote from: HRoberson on Sun Sep 15, 2013 - 16:43:16
I understand dogma just fine, thank you. But your church accepted as brothers, those churches both who accept and those who reject Papal authority.

The Vatican II sect accepts as brothers those who reject the Papacy and Catholic dogma, among other abominations. The Vatican II sect is not the Catholic Church. It's impossible for the Catholic Church to deny what has been revealed by Jesus Christ and infallibly declared by His Church i.e. necessity of the Catholic faith for salvation.


Red Baker,

The Bible proves the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Anna,

You said: Red Baker,  The Bible proves the teachings of the Catholic Church."


Then Anna, dear soul, use the holy bible to prove your understanding, do NOT trust the words of men.  You seem to have great zeal, and may even live a very strict life in sincerity, yet it is all in ignorance, not base upon thus saith the Lord God. 

Read Romans 10:1-3

RB

Quote from: AnnaM on Sun Sep 15, 2013 - 16:55:36

Quote from: HRoberson on Sun Sep 15, 2013 - 16:43:16
I understand dogma just fine, thank you. But your church accepted as brothers, those churches both who accept and those who reject Papal authority.

The Vatican II sect accepts as brothers those who reject the Papacy and Catholic dogma, among other abominations. The Vatican II sect is not the Catholic Church. It's impossible for the Catholic Church to deny what has been revealed by Jesus Christ and infallibly declared by His Church i.e. necessity of the Catholic faith for salvation.


Red Baker,

The Bible proves the teachings of the Catholic Church.

For some reason these beliefs do not suit you. I think you need to be set free from other peoples bad teachings.

Quote from: AnnaM on Sun Sep 15, 2013 - 16:55:36

Quote from: HRoberson on Sun Sep 15, 2013 - 16:43:16
I understand dogma just fine, thank you. But your church accepted as brothers, those churches both who accept and those who reject Papal authority.

The Vatican II sect accepts as brothers those who reject the Papacy and Catholic dogma, among other abominations. The Vatican II sect is not the Catholic Church. It's impossible for the Catholic Church to deny what has been revealed by Jesus Christ and infallibly declared by His Church i.e. necessity of the Catholic faith for salvation.

This is what the Catholic Catechism says:

#841 "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."

Rather peculiar for a church to condemn about everybody, but keep the door open for Muslims who reject Jesus.

That's what the false prophet would be expected to say, isn't it?

Quote from: AVZ on Sun Sep 15, 2013 - 19:58:44

Quote from: AnnaM on Sun Sep 15, 2013 - 16:55:36

Quote from: HRoberson on Sun Sep 15, 2013 - 16:43:16
I understand dogma just fine, thank you. But your church accepted as brothers, those churches both who accept and those who reject Papal authority.

The Vatican II sect accepts as brothers those who reject the Papacy and Catholic dogma, among other abominations. The Vatican II sect is not the Catholic Church. It's impossible for the Catholic Church to deny what has been revealed by Jesus Christ and infallibly declared by His Church i.e. necessity of the Catholic faith for salvation.

This is what the Catholic Catechism says:

#841 "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."

Rather peculiar for a church to condemn about everybody, but keep the door open for Muslims who reject Jesus.

No,  that is what the Vatican II sect's Catechism says. Now compare that to what the Catholic Church infallibly declares:

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, ex cathedra: "The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life..."

Quote from: AnnaM on Mon Sep 16, 2013 - 10:32:33

Quote from: AVZ on Sun Sep 15, 2013 - 19:58:44

Quote from: AnnaM on Sun Sep 15, 2013 - 16:55:36

Quote from: HRoberson on Sun Sep 15, 2013 - 16:43:16
I understand dogma just fine, thank you. But your church accepted as brothers, those churches both who accept and those who reject Papal authority.

The Vatican II sect accepts as brothers those who reject the Papacy and Catholic dogma, among other abominations. The Vatican II sect is not the Catholic Church. It's impossible for the Catholic Church to deny what has been revealed by Jesus Christ and infallibly declared by His Church i.e. necessity of the Catholic faith for salvation.

This is what the Catholic Catechism says:

#841 "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."

Rather peculiar for a church to condemn about everybody, but keep the door open for Muslims who reject Jesus.

No,  that is what the Vatican II sect's Catechism says. Now compare that to what the Catholic Church infallibly declares:

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, ex cathedra: "The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life..."

Anna

I got CCC #841 straight out of the catechism as published on the Vatican's website.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P29.HTM

Yes, the Vatican II sect. The point is, it doesn't matter where you got the quote from. What matters is whether or not the quote is in conformity with the infallible teachings of the Catholic Church. I've shown you that it's not.

Anna, What any form of the Roman Catholic Church says appears to be severely at odds with what the Bible says.  When the jailer asked Paul and Silas, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" the response was, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved..."  you can read the rest in Acts 16.  Peter was not there, whom you believe was the first Pope (although he never was in Rome). 

So you, and all Catholics, have a choice -- when the Vatican (any one of them) disagrees with the Bible, which one are you going to choose?

I choose Bible.

Not a post from a Catholic in several days on this thread.  Take a break and all hell breaks loose!

AnnaM, please clarify: what does it mean to be "in the Catholic Church"?

Quote from: Helen on Mon Sep 16, 2013 - 11:35:57
Anna, What any form of the Roman Catholic Church says appears to be severely at odds with what the Bible says.  When the jailer asked Paul and Silas, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" the response was, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved..."  you can read the rest in Acts 16.  Peter was not there, whom you believe was the first Pope (although he never was in Rome). 

So you, and all Catholics, have a choice -- when the Vatican (any one of them) disagrees with the Bible, which one are you going to choose?

I choose Bible.

The teachings of the Catholic Church never disagree with the Bible.  Some teachings simply disagree with your interpretation of the Bible, at least, that much is apparent. 

All people in the world have a choice: lean on their own understanding of that of the Church that Christ founded.  Catholics trust the Church that Christ founded, the one called the "pillar and foundation of truth" in scripture.

Well as it appears, that "pillar of truth" has been hijacked by a so-called Vatican II sect.

what we have so far, according to Anna, is a Pope who is a heretic and a catechism that is incorrect.
Similtaneously however you proclaim the Church, her teaching and the Pope to be infallible.

I am going to sit back and watch the two of you sort this out.

Quote from: Catholica on Mon Sep 16, 2013 - 11:46:16
Not a post from a Catholic in several days on this thread.  Take a break and all hell breaks loose!

Give 'em hell' Catholica, take out your whip and whip these sons of heretics into order.

Quote from: FireSword on Mon Sep 16, 2013 - 13:24:02

Quote from: Catholica on Mon Sep 16, 2013 - 11:46:16
Not a post from a Catholic in several days on this thread.  Take a break and all hell breaks loose!

Give 'em hell' Catholica, take out your whip and whip these sons of heretics into order.

hehe

Quote from: Catholica on Mon Sep 16, 2013 - 11:46:16
Not a post from a Catholic in several days on this thread.  Take a break and all hell breaks loose!

Anna is Catholic.

Quote from: AVZ on Mon Sep 16, 2013 - 12:12:38
Well as it appears, that "pillar of truth" has been hijacked by a so-called Vatican II sect.

what we have so far, according to Anna, is a Pope who is a heretic and a catechism that is incorrect.
Similtaneously however you proclaim the Church, her teaching and the Pope to be infallible.

I am going to sit back and watch the two of you sort this out.

The Traditional Catholics argue very appropriately that once you've issued a Dogmatic statement, you have to live with it forever. This simply because The Church always has and always will teach the exact same things as the Apostles, and rightly having the Spirit of God in the Vicar, is recipient and deposit of the Real Teaching.

So, for Anna and her group, some of whom follow Pope Michael, previous Dogmatic statements are inviolable no matter who or how they might be circumvented. Those who seek to circumvent them, even through slight of hand, nuanced arguments that sound as though the changes are continuous teaching, are heretics by simple definition.

And if heretics, outside the church by definition, and not saved.

Every bishop, priest, or layman who has believed the heresies of V2 are heretics. If those were Bishops, any they have consecrated after becoming a heretic are illicit, including Cardinals and Popes. Which is why some acknowledge Pope Michael.

It simply doesn't matter what the heretical V2 supporters teach in their catechism because they are heretics/illicit/damned/cut off from the church.

Simple, actually, once you learn the rules.

Quote from: HRoberson on Mon Sep 16, 2013 - 14:13:08

Quote from: Catholica on Mon Sep 16, 2013 - 11:46:16
Not a post from a Catholic in several days on this thread.  Take a break and all hell breaks loose!

Anna is Catholic.

She says so.

Quote from: Catholica on Mon Sep 16, 2013 - 14:32:45

Quote from: HRoberson on Mon Sep 16, 2013 - 14:13:08

Quote from: Catholica on Mon Sep 16, 2013 - 11:46:16
Not a post from a Catholic in several days on this thread.  Take a break and all hell breaks loose!

Anna is Catholic.

She says so.

Well, I suppose turn about is fair play.

Quote from: HRoberson on Mon Sep 16, 2013 - 14:25:26

Quote from: AVZ on Mon Sep 16, 2013 - 12:12:38
Well as it appears, that "pillar of truth" has been hijacked by a so-called Vatican II sect.

what we have so far, according to Anna, is a Pope who is a heretic and a catechism that is incorrect.
Similtaneously however you proclaim the Church, her teaching and the Pope to be infallible.

I am going to sit back and watch the two of you sort this out.

The Traditional Catholics argue very appropriately that once you've issued a Dogmatic statement, you have to live with it forever. This simply because The Church always has and always will teach the exact same things as the Apostles, and rightly having the Spirit of God in the Vicar, is recipient and deposit of the Real Teaching.

So, for Anna and her group, some of whom follow Pope Michael, previous Dogmatic statements are inviolable no matter who or how they might be circumvented. Those who seek to circumvent them, even through slight of hand, nuanced arguments that sound as though the changes are continuous teaching, are heretics by simple definition.

And if heretics, outside the church by definition, and not saved.

Every bishop, priest, or layman who has believed the heresies of V2 are heretics. If those were Bishops, any they have consecrated after becoming a heretic are illicit, including Cardinals and Popes. Which is why some acknowledge Pope Michael.

It simply doesn't matter what the heretical V2 supporters teach in their catechism because they are heretics/illicit/damned/cut off from the church.

The Catholic Church, in union with Pope Francis, the one which most people on Earth recognize as the Roman Catholic Church today, does cling to all dogmas as defined previously.  That being said, there are some who have tried to act as if those dogmas have not been clung to: 1) those people inside the Church who have tried to abscond with Tradition and blaze their own trail going in the face of Tradition, and 2) those outside the Church who cling to Tradition at the expense of absconding with authority.  Both paths are misguided.  The true path is in-between.

During the Arian heresy, it is commonly said that the whole Church went to sleep and woke up Arian.  Nearly all of the bishops of the Catholic Church believed the Arian heresy.  Yet even so, the heresy was quashed for what it was: a heresy.  The Church, though most bishops were Arian, was still the Catholic Church and still had the authority given to it by God.  One should assess that period of history as much worse than it is right now.  But it was greats such as St. Athanasius who bravely battled the heresy, and it was quashed.  He did so from within the Church and within the authority structure divinely granted and protected by God.

There are problems that have come that are pretty bad since Vatican II.  But the solution is not to go off and found your own monastery and ordain yourself and call yourself "brother" or "pope".  The solution is to wake up the Church today and bring about a renewal through connecting with the tradition of the church.

I'm just watching from the sidelines. Those who propose arguments on both sides of the V2 "issue" are sure they are right. If V2 is eventually to be in contravention of Dogma, then the same documents that will be used to substantiate that, will also be found to have declared those who believed it were heretics and as such, illicit.

But...if V2 is found to be heretical, then the naysayers will feel good, and for the sake of the larger Church, will find the magnanimity to restore the heretics posthumously and issue an indulgence for those still breathing.

So, V2 supporters are heretics now, but won't always be so.

And you will be able to say that the Church teaches what she has always taught.

And us low-church Protestants will watch and say, "of course."

Quote from: Catholica on Mon Sep 16, 2013 - 11:53:53

Quote from: Helen on Mon Sep 16, 2013 - 11:35:57
Anna, What any form of the Roman Catholic Church says appears to be severely at odds with what the Bible says.  When the jailer asked Paul and Silas, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" the response was, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved..."  you can read the rest in Acts 16.  Peter was not there, whom you believe was the first Pope (although he never was in Rome). 

So what do you think the pillar and foundation is? The Vatican has institutionalized the church and claims that it is the foundation of truth. The church is all who believe upon Christ and His  gospel whereby they are pillars of that truth. the truth is not the institution but Christ is the foundation of truth for all of us who believe.

So you, and all Catholics, have a choice -- when the Vatican (any one of them) disagrees with the Bible, which one are you going to choose?

I choose Bible.

The teachings of the Catholic Church never disagree with the Bible.  Some teachings simply disagree with your interpretation of the Bible, at least, that much is apparent. 

All people in the world have a choice: lean on their own understanding of that of the Church that Christ founded.  Catholics trust the Church that Christ founded, the one called the "pillar and foundation of truth" in scripture.

The church is more than the institution that calls itself the pillar and foundation of truth but all believers make up the church who stand on the true foundation of Christ and His gospel whereby we are all pillars of that truth.

Quote from: HRoberson on Mon Sep 16, 2013 - 14:25:26

Quote from: AVZ on Mon Sep 16, 2013 - 12:12:38
Well as it appears, that "pillar of truth" has been hijacked by a so-called Vatican II sect.

what we have so far, according to Anna, is a Pope who is a heretic and a catechism that is incorrect.
Similtaneously however you proclaim the Church, her teaching and the Pope to be infallible.

I am going to sit back and watch the two of you sort this out.

The Traditional Catholics argue very appropriately that once you've issued a Dogmatic statement, you have to live with it forever. This simply because The Church always has and always will teach the exact same things as the Apostles, and rightly having the Spirit of God in the Vicar, is recipient and deposit of the Real Teaching.

So, for Anna and her group, some of whom follow Pope Michael, previous Dogmatic statements are inviolable no matter who or how they might be circumvented. Those who seek to circumvent them, even through slight of hand, nuanced arguments that sound as though the changes are continuous teaching, are heretics by simple definition.

And if heretics, outside the church by definition, and not saved.

Every bishop, priest, or layman who has believed the heresies of V2 are heretics. If those were Bishops, any they have consecrated after becoming a heretic are illicit, including Cardinals and Popes. Which is why some acknowledge Pope Michael.

It simply doesn't matter what the heretical V2 supporters teach in their catechism because they are heretics/illicit/damned/cut off from the church.

Well, yes...bit the same Anna defended the stance that even if the Pope would be Satan incarnate, Catholics are supposed to rest their heads on his bosom, and follow his edicts.
Apparently something is quite off here.

From the point of infallibility, there really is no escape from not following and/or accepting the teaching of the Church and her Pope.
Not following V2 would mean you doubt infallibility...hence you are anathema.
And the same goes for rejecting a Pope, or rejecting (part of) the Catechism.

AVZ,

You're very confused. Catechisms are not infallible and heretic cannot be Pope.

'First, the quote is taken out of its historical context and misapplied to a totally different situation.   St. Catherine is speaking in the context of people who were refusing obedience to the validly elected Pope, Urban VI, because they didn't like his demeanor and his way of dealing with people.  They found him to be too harsh and so found a "Pope" more to their liking.  This initiated the Great Western Schism.  In that context, St. Catherine is basically saying: no matter what his shortcomings are, even if he is the devil himself, he is the validly elected Pope and we must submit to him.  She is not addressing the issue of whether a manifest heretic can be the Pope.  Urban VI was not a heretic.

Second, St. Catherine of Siena is not infallible; she isn't even a Doctor of the Church.  (She was invalidly declared a Doctor of the Church by Antipope Paul VI).  Even if she had said, "I would accept a heretic as the Pope" (which she never did) then she would have simply been wrong, since it is a dogmatic fact (rooted in the defined dogma that a heretic is not a member of the Church) that a heretic cannot be the Pope.  I don't care if an "angel" allegedly from heaven comes down and tells me that a heretic is the Pope, since I know by divine faith that a heretic cannot be Pope.

Galatians 1:8-9 "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.  As we said before, so now I say again: If anyone preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema."

St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30:
"For, in the first place, it is proven with arguments from authority and from reason that the manifest heretic is 'ipso facto' deposed. The argument from authority is based on St. Paul (Titus 3:10), who orders that the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is, after showing himself to be manifestly obstinate - which means before any excommunication or judicial sentence. And this is what St. Jerome writes, adding that the other sinners are excluded from the Church by sentence of excommunication, but the heretics exile themselves and separate themselves by their own act from the body of Christ."

St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30: "This principle is most certain. The non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope, as Cajetan himself admits (ib. c. 26). The reason for this is that he cannot be head of what he is not a member; now he who is not a Christian is not a member of the Church, and a manifest heretic is not a Christian, as is clearly taught by St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2), St. Athanasius (Scr. 2 cont. Arian.), St. Augustine (lib. De great. Christ. Cap. 20), St. Jerome (contra Lucifer.) and others; therefore the manifest heretic cannot be Pope."

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, "Cantate Domino," 1441, ex cathedra:"The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics..."

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (#15), June 29, 1896:"No one, therefore, unless in communion with Peter can share in his authority, since IT IS ABSURD TO IMAGINE THAT HE WHO IS OUTSIDE CAN COMMAND IN THE CHURCH." Quoted from VaticanCatholic.com

Quote from: Catholica on Mon Sep 16, 2013 - 11:51:21
AnnaM, please clarify: what does it mean to be "in the Catholic Church"?

To be inside the Catholic Church a person must receive water baptism and possess the Catholic faith.

Quote
From the point of infallibility, there really is no escape from not following and/or accepting the teaching of the Church and her Pope.
Not following V2 would mean you doubt infallibility...hence you are anathema.
And the same goes for rejecting a Pope, or rejecting (part of) the Catechism.

There is actually a fine legal distinction made by Anna's group.

V2 was not a Dogmatic conference. In essence it was some nice bishops getting together to kick around some ideas about church and whatnot. Because it was not Dogmatic, individual lay Catholics are free to reject any and all parts of it. Because it was largely just shooting the bull (no pun intended), it may be that some heretical parties overly influenced the good-willed orthodox bishops, causing some heresies to be promoted.

Unfortunately, as soon as an orthodox bishop believes something contradictory to existing Catholic Dogma, they become by definition, heretical, outside the Church, and lose immediately any sufficiency of office.

If the Pope was the Devil incarnate but never believed anything contrary to Catholic Dogma, or taught against it, the Faithful would be obliged to follow him. It is not the character of the man, but the charism given as the Vicar that grants the Bishopric and it's authority.

Quote from: HRoberson on Tue Sep 17, 2013 - 09:36:06

QuoteV2 was not a Dogmatic conference. In essence it was some nice bishops getting together to kick around some ideas about church and whatnot. Because it was not Dogmatic, individual lay Catholics are free to reject any and all parts of it. Because it was largely just shooting the bull (no pun intended), it may be that some heretical parties overly influenced the good-willed orthodox bishops, causing some heresies to be promoted.

Vatican II was a false council. It was not about getting together to kick around some ideas.

Vatican II: Council of Apostasy (full length)

Quote from: AnnaM on Tue Sep 17, 2013 - 09:07:04
AVZ,

You're very confused. Catechisms are not infallible and heretic cannot be Pope.

Anna, I am confused indeed.
This is what you wrote in the thread "What is marriage" post #14

"While I'm aware of what you mention, I'm a traditional Catholic (sedevacantist) and do not accept that a raging heretic like Francis can be pope nor do I accept his evil stance on contraception. "

You say both that the Pope is a heretic, or in fact a raging heretic...and you say that you do not accept him as Pope.

Quote from: HRoberson on Tue Sep 17, 2013 - 09:36:06

Quote
From the point of infallibility, there really is no escape from not following and/or accepting the teaching of the Church and her Pope.
Not following V2 would mean you doubt infallibility...hence you are anathema.
And the same goes for rejecting a Pope, or rejecting (part of) the Catechism.

There is actually a fine legal distinction made by Anna's group.

V2 was not a Dogmatic conference. In essence it was some nice bishops getting together to kick around some ideas about church and whatnot. Because it was not Dogmatic, individual lay Catholics are free to reject any and all parts of it. Because it was largely just shooting the bull (no pun intended), it may be that some heretical parties overly influenced the good-willed orthodox bishops, causing some heresies to be promoted.

Unfortunately, as soon as an orthodox bishop believes something contradictory to existing Catholic Dogma, they become by definition, heretical, outside the Church, and lose immediately any sufficiency of office.

If the Pope was the Devil incarnate but never believed anything contrary to Catholic Dogma, or taught against it, the Faithful would be obliged to follow him. It is not the character of the man, but the charism given as the Vicar that grants the Bishopric and it's authority.

That may be, and I am aware that the V2 doctrines are free to be accepted or rejected by a Catholic.

Now with all due respect.
What we have here are contradicting statements:
1. outside the Church there is NO salvation
2. outside the Church there is salvation

Now if statement 1 is true, then statement 2 CANNOT be true.
But if a Catholic is free to believe statement 2, then obviously statement 1 is not true.

Hence, this IS a matter of infallibility.

AVZ,

I said he's a raging heretic. I said I don't accept him as pope. But I never said that Francis IS pope. That's contrary to Catholic dogma which says a heretic cannot be pope.

Quote from: AVZ on Tue Sep 17, 2013 - 09:58:26That may be, and I am aware that the V2 doctrines are free to be accepted or rejected by a Catholic.

The Vatican II heresies are not free to be accepted or rejected by a Catholic. Catholic are not free to accept heresies. They must reject them.

Quote from: AVZ on Tue Sep 17, 2013 - 09:58:26

Now with all due respect.
What we have here are contradicting statements:
1. outside the Church there is NO salvation
2. outside the Church there is salvation

Now if statement 1 is true, then statement 2 CANNOT be true.
But if a Catholic is free to believe statement 2, then obviously statement 1 is not true.

Hence, this IS a matter of infallibility.

Question: which statement is Catholic? The answer is clearly #1 as I've shown in previous posts. Your reply only proves the Vatican II sect is not the Catholic Church. I suggest you watch the video. It will make things very clear for you.

Quote from: AVZ on Tue Sep 17, 2013 - 09:58:26

Quote from: HRoberson on Tue Sep 17, 2013 - 09:36:06

Quote
From the point of infallibility, there really is no escape from not following and/or accepting the teaching of the Church and her Pope.
Not following V2 would mean you doubt infallibility...hence you are anathema.
And the same goes for rejecting a Pope, or rejecting (part of) the Catechism.

There is actually a fine legal distinction made by Anna's group.

V2 was not a Dogmatic conference. In essence it was some nice bishops getting together to kick around some ideas about church and whatnot. Because it was not Dogmatic, individual lay Catholics are free to reject any and all parts of it. Because it was largely just shooting the bull (no pun intended), it may be that some heretical parties overly influenced the good-willed orthodox bishops, causing some heresies to be promoted.

Unfortunately, as soon as an orthodox bishop believes something contradictory to existing Catholic Dogma, they become by definition, heretical, outside the Church, and lose immediately any sufficiency of office.

If the Pope was the Devil incarnate but never believed anything contrary to Catholic Dogma, or taught against it, the Faithful would be obliged to follow him. It is not the character of the man, but the charism given as the Vicar that grants the Bishopric and it's authority.

That may be, and I am aware that the V2 doctrines are free to be accepted or rejected by a Catholic.

Now with all due respect.
What we have here are contradicting statements:
1. outside the Church there is NO salvation
2. outside the Church there is salvation

Now if statement 1 is true, then statement 2 CANNOT be true.
But if a Catholic is free to believe statement 2, then obviously statement 1 is not true.

Hence, this IS a matter of infallibility.

A Catholic is not free to believe heresy, which statement 2 is, from Anna's view. My statement about referencing accepting or rejecting non-dogmatic statements was meant to apply only to those things which are non-dogmatic. Because V2 was not a dogmatic conference, nothing resulting from it is dogmatic, nor can it be. Those things promulgated by V2 which are in accord with Dogma remain Dogma. Those things which are in the area of opinion or mere practice remain in those realms and subject to mutation.

However, those things that resulted from V2 which contravene Dogma, are by definition heretical. There does seem to be some acknowledgement that Dogma has changed from time to time, being modified by subsequent dogmatic statements. However, even if that is so, Anna's group relies on the fact that V2 was decidedly NOT a dogmatic conference and therefore could not have changed previous dogma.

Ergo, salvation is only for those baptized believers who hold to the entirety of the Catholic faith. Statement 2 in this instance is a non-starter because it contravenes previous dogmatic statements. This remains true despite what the V2 heretics assert as truth.

Heretics in this instance is defined as including any priest, bishop, cardinal or Pope who accepts the heretical teachings of V2 - and any who have been ordained by them. Which amounts to pretty much the entire Curia, the various councils of Bishops, and even Francis.

These rules are so detailed, we could go on forever with the nuanced mudslinging. For instance, among Anna's ilk, there is a split between those who claim to accept communion with the Vicar, and those who have logically concluded that if the Vicar is a heretic, they cannot be in communion with him. Some in the first group hedge their bets and nuance their statements so that they can be in communion with the Bishop of Rome (whoever that is, or even if it remains vacated) as the office, but not in communion with the heretic now calling himself the Bishop of Rome.

It's great fun, and you have to listen very closely.

Quote from: HRoberson on Tue Sep 17, 2013 - 11:06:28

Quote from: AVZ on Tue Sep 17, 2013 - 09:58:26

Quote from: HRoberson on Tue Sep 17, 2013 - 09:36:06

Quote
From the point of infallibility, there really is no escape from not following and/or accepting the teaching of the Church and her Pope.
Not following V2 would mean you doubt infallibility...hence you are anathema.
And the same goes for rejecting a Pope, or rejecting (part of) the Catechism.

There is actually a fine legal distinction made by Anna's group.

V2 was not a Dogmatic conference. In essence it was some nice bishops getting together to kick around some ideas about church and whatnot. Because it was not Dogmatic, individual lay Catholics are free to reject any and all parts of it. Because it was largely just shooting the bull (no pun intended), it may be that some heretical parties overly influenced the good-willed orthodox bishops, causing some heresies to be promoted.

Unfortunately, as soon as an orthodox bishop believes something contradictory to existing Catholic Dogma, they become by definition, heretical, outside the Church, and lose immediately any sufficiency of office.

If the Pope was the Devil incarnate but never believed anything contrary to Catholic Dogma, or taught against it, the Faithful would be obliged to follow him. It is not the character of the man, but the charism given as the Vicar that grants the Bishopric and it's authority.

That may be, and I am aware that the V2 doctrines are free to be accepted or rejected by a Catholic.

Now with all due respect.
What we have here are contradicting statements:
1. outside the Church there is NO salvation
2. outside the Church there is salvation

Now if statement 1 is true, then statement 2 CANNOT be true.
But if a Catholic is free to believe statement 2, then obviously statement 1 is not true.

Hence, this IS a matter of infallibility.

A Catholic is not free to believe heresy, which statement 2 is, from Anna's view. My statement about referencing accepting or rejecting non-dogmatic statements was meant to apply only to those things which are non-dogmatic. Because V2 was not a dogmatic conference, nothing resulting from it is dogmatic, nor can it be. Those things promulgated by V2 which are in accord with Dogma remain Dogma. Those things which are in the area of opinion or mere practice remain in those realms and subject to mutation.

However, those things that resulted from V2 which contravene Dogma, are by definition heretical. There does seem to be some acknowledgement that Dogma has changed from time to time, being modified by subsequent dogmatic statements. However, even if that is so, Anna's group relies on the fact that V2 was decidedly NOT a dogmatic conference and therefore could not have changed previous dogma.

Ergo, salvation is only for those baptized believers who hold to the entirety of the Catholic faith. Statement 2 in this instance is a non-starter because it contravenes previous dogmatic statements. This remains true despite what the V2 heretics assert as truth.

Heretics in this instance is defined as including any priest, bishop, cardinal or Pope who accepts the heretical teachings of V2 - and any who have been ordained by them. Which amounts to pretty much the entire Curia, the various councils of Bishops, and even Francis.

These rules are so detailed, we could go on forever with the nuanced mudslinging. For instance, among Anna's ilk, there is a split between those who claim to accept communion with the Vicar, and those who have logically concluded that if the Vicar is a heretic, they cannot be in communion with him. Some in the first group hedge their bets and nuance their statements so that they can be in communion with the Bishop of Rome (whoever that is, or even if it remains vacated) as the office, but not in communion with the heretic now calling himself the Bishop of Rome.

It's great fun, and you have to listen very closely.

With statement 2 I am referring to CCC #841 which states that Muslims too are in the plan of salvation.
So obviously there is a conflict between statement 1 and CCC #841

Now Anna has already declared #841 as heresy, but the obvious question then arises, what else in the Catholic Catechism is heresy?
Are Catholics not supposed to follow the teaching of the Cathechism? Or are they free to reject whatever they like?

Yes I know that Anna is on the far side of the spectrum, and that makes everything more interesting.
It seems to me that there is as much diversion in the Catholic Church, people calling each other heretics, or even calling their "divinely appointed Pope" a heretic.
If I wouldn't know better I would say Catholics are Protestants in denial.

Quote from: AVZ on Tue Sep 17, 2013 - 12:33:18

Quote from: HRoberson on Tue Sep 17, 2013 - 11:06:28

Quote from: AVZ on Tue Sep 17, 2013 - 09:58:26

Quote from: HRoberson on Tue Sep 17, 2013 - 09:36:06

Quote
From the point of infallibility, there really is no escape from not following and/or accepting the teaching of the Church and her Pope.
Not following V2 would mean you doubt infallibility...hence you are anathema.
And the same goes for rejecting a Pope, or rejecting (part of) the Catechism.

There is actually a fine legal distinction made by Anna's group.

V2 was not a Dogmatic conference. In essence it was some nice bishops getting together to kick around some ideas about church and whatnot. Because it was not Dogmatic, individual lay Catholics are free to reject any and all parts of it. Because it was largely just shooting the bull (no pun intended), it may be that some heretical parties overly influenced the good-willed orthodox bishops, causing some heresies to be promoted.

Unfortunately, as soon as an orthodox bishop believes something contradictory to existing Catholic Dogma, they become by definition, heretical, outside the Church, and lose immediately any sufficiency of office.

If the Pope was the Devil incarnate but never believed anything contrary to Catholic Dogma, or taught against it, the Faithful would be obliged to follow him. It is not the character of the man, but the charism given as the Vicar that grants the Bishopric and it's authority.

That may be, and I am aware that the V2 doctrines are free to be accepted or rejected by a Catholic.

Now with all due respect.
What we have here are contradicting statements:
1. outside the Church there is NO salvation
2. outside the Church there is salvation

Now if statement 1 is true, then statement 2 CANNOT be true.
But if a Catholic is free to believe statement 2, then obviously statement 1 is not true.

Hence, this IS a matter of infallibility.

A Catholic is not free to believe heresy, which statement 2 is, from Anna's view. My statement about referencing accepting or rejecting non-dogmatic statements was meant to apply only to those things which are non-dogmatic. Because V2 was not a dogmatic conference, nothing resulting from it is dogmatic, nor can it be. Those things promulgated by V2 which are in accord with Dogma remain Dogma. Those things which are in the area of opinion or mere practice remain in those realms and subject to mutation.

However, those things that resulted from V2 which contravene Dogma, are by definition heretical. There does seem to be some acknowledgement that Dogma has changed from time to time, being modified by subsequent dogmatic statements. However, even if that is so, Anna's group relies on the fact that V2 was decidedly NOT a dogmatic conference and therefore could not have changed previous dogma.

Ergo, salvation is only for those baptized believers who hold to the entirety of the Catholic faith. Statement 2 in this instance is a non-starter because it contravenes previous dogmatic statements. This remains true despite what the V2 heretics assert as truth.

Heretics in this instance is defined as including any priest, bishop, cardinal or Pope who accepts the heretical teachings of V2 - and any who have been ordained by them. Which amounts to pretty much the entire Curia, the various councils of Bishops, and even Francis.

These rules are so detailed, we could go on forever with the nuanced mudslinging. For instance, among Anna's ilk, there is a split between those who claim to accept communion with the Vicar, and those who have logically concluded that if the Vicar is a heretic, they cannot be in communion with him. Some in the first group hedge their bets and nuance their statements so that they can be in communion with the Bishop of Rome (whoever that is, or even if it remains vacated) as the office, but not in communion with the heretic now calling himself the Bishop of Rome.

It's great fun, and you have to listen very closely.

With statement 2 I am referring to CCC #841 which states that Muslims too are in the plan of salvation.
So obviously there is a conflict between statement 1 and CCC #841

Now Anna has already declared #841 as heresy, but the obvious question then arises, what else in the Catholic Catechism is heresy?
Are Catholics not supposed to follow the teaching of the Cathechism? Or are they free to reject whatever they like?

Yes I know that Anna is on the far side of the spectrum, and that makes everything more interesting.
It seems to me that there is as much diversion in the Catholic Church, people calling each other heretics, or even calling their "divinely appointed Pope" a heretic.
If I wouldn't know better I would say Catholics are Protestants in denial.

#841 has to be taken in context.

841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."

These are the facts concerning this statement:

1. The Church teaches that Muslims are not saved by observing Islam.
2. God's plan of salvation involves all men.  All of them.  It is a PLAN of salvation.
3. There is only one God.  Muslims try to worship God in the way they are taught.  Though their beliefs are fraught with heresy, they try to worship God.
4. God is still the judge on the last day.  This statement doesn't mean that Muslims will be judged saved.  It is a statement of commonality between the religions.

I don't know why people are so offended by this statement about Islam, they should be equally offended by the Church's stance toward the Jews, who have rejected Christ completely.  Even the Muslims see him as a prophet.

#841 has to be taken in context with the whole of the Catechism.  Here are some follow on paragraphs::

Quote"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

    Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

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

848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."

847 states those who don't know the Gospel of Christ or his Church MAY achieve eternal salvation.  The meaning of this is that 1) We know of only one way to be saved, and that is to be in Christ Jesus, in his Church which is His body, and 2) God is sovereign and may operate outside of that assurance which He provides through the Church.  BUT there is no assurance following that track.  Their hope is a desperate one.  But we know this about God: "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."

Quote from: AVZ on Tue Sep 17, 2013 - 12:33:18
If I wouldn't know better I would say Catholics are Protestants in denial.

See now, that got a chuckle. 

In fact, I observed that Anna may be just that - a fundamentalist Protestant, in fact.

She clearly doesn't accept the teaching of the Magisterium on a number of points, and accuses Francis of being a non-Pope heretic.

If she's a member of Pope Michael's group, I'm thinking Protestant is a good moniker.

I think the Eastern Orthodox are correct -- Protestantism is the fruit of Papal arrogance and is the natural fruit of forming one's own church without regard to the larger church.

Quote from: HRoberson on Tue Sep 17, 2013 - 13:54:01

Quote from: AVZ on Tue Sep 17, 2013 - 12:33:18
If I wouldn't know better I would say Catholics are Protestants in denial.

See now, that got a chuckle. 

In fact, I observed that Anna may be just that - a fundamentalist Protestant, in fact.

She clearly doesn't accept the teaching of the Magisterium on a number of points, and accuses Francis of being a non-Pope heretic.

If she's a member of Pope Michael's group, I'm thinking Protestant is a good moniker.

I think the Eastern Orthodox are correct -- Protestantism is the fruit of Papal arrogance and is the natural fruit of forming one's own church without regard to the larger church.

I think Protestantism are people who desire to worship God in spirit and truth without any authority figures telling them how to worship. The result of Protestantism came about because the leadership could no longer be trusted or tolerated any more. Gods people had enough and desired to be set free from man made commandments. A bit like how Israel, even though began with a righteous king David, who is a type of Jesus, ended up with wicked kings like Zedekiah.
It was the established church that had no regard to the church or the people of God. Did they preach the gospel, heal the sick, cast out devils, raise the dead?. Instead they did silly council meetings telling everyone how they had absolute authority over all people.