[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / agatha2 / arepa / ausneets / cafechan / islam / schweiz / tingles ]

/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Winner of the 81rd Attention-Hungry Games
/y2k/ - 2000s Nostalgia

Entries for the 2019 Summer Infinity Cup are now open!
May 2019 - 8chan Transparency Report
Email
Comment *
File
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.


The Lord is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? the Lord is the strength of my life; of whom shall I be afraid?

File: 33b7d849529a030⋯.png (151.84 KB, 250x250, 1:1, ClipboardImage.png)

c8a867  No.742008

Some even say it is CIA puppetry?

131e79  No.742012

>Entire history of Catholicism until V2

No salvation outside the Church

>V2

Who cares if you don't believe in Jesus?


4b9e4a  No.742025

>>742008

It's the wicked council predicted by Mary.


f438da  No.742029

>>742025

Heresy.

>>742008

To parrot E. Michael Jones, there's nothing wrong with Vatican II in itself, the errors came afterward.


efb7d6  No.742050

>>742029

I would disagree. VII purposely twisted words, opened ways to do the errors. There is everything wrong with VII. IF you repeated the s**t ten times you would get the same result.


f438da  No.742068

>>742050

"Opening the way to do the errors", is not the same as actually doing the error.


1cc8fa  No.742075

>>742008

It contains errors because it refused protection and infallibility by the holy spirit


ae6f6e  No.742089

>>742012

>bearing false testimony

Repent retard

>Entire history of Catholicism until V2

No salvation outside the Church

>V2

Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.

t. Lumen gentium


ae6f6e  No.742090

>>742075

Every ecumenical council is guided by the Holy Spirit.

The only problem with this one is the kind of people that got into the church after it.


b8aa06  No.742098

>>742008

I don't know anything about it besides the memes

Can i have a noob rundown?


16fab0  No.742100

>>742098

>church needs to decided new stragegy to deal with this new winnie the poohed up world

>repeats the same doctrine in a friendly way so that non catholics could feel attracted to the church

>after the council modernistic heretics twist the words of the council for their own agenda

>on the other side of the spectra "traditionals" use the same arguments of the liberals, but this time to schism from the church and larp as catholics without a pope

>Popes have been saying the Liberal interpretation of the VII is heresy

>nobody seems to care because "lol JPII kissed the Koran" meme


f6fff2  No.742142

>>742008

>You are not allowed to criticize jews anymore. They are our big brother now.

>You are not allowed to discriminate anymore.

>We winnie the pooh up the liturgy (specifically because of modernist after VII, who used this occasion)

>Talk and talk for nothing.

>Women are allowed to assist this council

>Proties participate in liturgy commission, while there is NO orthobro.

I think I forgot a lot of things.


efb7d6  No.742146

>>742068

That's like saying allowing pornography is not to be blamed for porn problem in our culture as long as we say it is bad though.

VII purposely brought "innovations" that would reform the church to the shape it is now. If there was no VII there would not be a leeway for modernism. If you repeated V II 6 times you would eventually get the same, or very similar result.


ccfc1a  No.742151

>>742068

>let's just remove that armor you were given, it's too heavy anyways, it will be easier for you

>nah don't worry about those arrows, just have faith and they won't sting as bad

Freedom is no excuse for irresponsibility.


16fab0  No.742162

>>742142

>You are not allowed to criticize jews anymore. They are our big brother now.

Said who? Still our mission is to make them Catholic

>You are not allowed to discriminate anymore.

?

>We winnie the pooh up the liturgy (specifically because of modernist after VII, who used this occasion)

Agreed. The new roman rite is a mess.

>Talk and talk for nothing.

Meh kinda

>Women are allowed to assist this council

Its not the first time. There were councils where the whole laity assisted the council.

>Proties participate in liturgy commission, while there is NO orthobro.

? Protestants as well as Orthos were invited to assist the council.

Even in Vatican I that happened but the Orthos harshly refused our kind invitation. And if one of the main points of the council was to discuss how to get the heretics and schismatics back into the church it makes sense we should invite them to assist.


4ed16e  No.742168

>>742162

>4. As the sacred synod searches into the mystery of the Church, it remembers the bond that spiritually ties the people of the New Covenant to Abraham's stock.

>Thus the Church of Christ acknowledges that, according to God's saving design, the beginnings of her faith and her election are found already among the Patriarchs, Moses and the prophets. She professes that all who believe in Christ-Abraham's sons according to faith (6)-are included in the same Patriarch's call, and likewise that the salvation of the Church is mysteriously foreshadowed by the chosen people's exodus from the land of bondage. The Church, therefore, cannot forget that she received the revelation of the Old Testament through the people with whom God in His inexpressible mercy concluded the Ancient Covenant. Nor can she forget that she draws sustenance from the root of that well-cultivated olive tree onto which have been grafted the wild shoots, the Gentiles.(7) Indeed, the Church believes that by His cross Christ, Our Peace, reconciled Jews and Gentiles. making both one in Himself.(8)

>The Church keeps ever in mind the words of the Apostle about his kinsmen: "theirs is the sonship and the glory and the covenants and the law and the worship and the promises; theirs are the fathers and from them is the Christ according to the flesh" (Rom. 9:4-5), the Son of the Virgin Mary. She also recalls that the Apostles, the Church's main-stay and pillars, as well as most of the early disciples who proclaimed Christ's Gospel to the world, sprang from the Jewish people.

>As Holy Scripture testifies, Jerusalem did not recognize the time of her visitation,(9) nor did the Jews in large number, accept the Gospel; indeed not a few opposed its spreading.(10) Nevertheless, God holds the Jews most dear for the sake of their Fathers; He does not repent of the gifts He makes or of the calls He issues-such is the witness of the Apostle.(11) In company with the Prophets and the same Apostle, the Church awaits that day, known to God alone, on which all peoples will address the Lord in a single voice and "serve him shoulder to shoulder" (Soph. 3:9).(12)

>Since the spiritual patrimony common to Christians and Jews is thus so great, this sacred synod wants to foster and recommend that mutual understanding and respect which is the fruit, above all, of biblical and theological studies as well as of fraternal dialogues.

>True, the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ;(13) still, what happened in His passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today. Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures. All should see to it, then, that in catechetical work or in the preaching of the word of God they do not teach anything that does not conform to the truth of the Gospel and the spirit of Christ.

>Furthermore, in her rejection of every persecution against any man, the Church, mindful of the patrimony she shares with the Jews and moved not by political reasons but by the Gospel's spiritual love, decries hatred, persecutions, displays of anti-Semitism, directed against Jews at any time and by anyone.

>Besides, as the Church has always held and holds now, Christ underwent His passion and death freely, because of the sins of men and out of infinite love, in order that all may reach salvation. It is, therefore, the burden of the Church's preaching to proclaim the cross of Christ as the sign of God's all-embracing love and as the fountain from which every grace flows.

Sauce: http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html


d346c1  No.742180

>>742068

>Firing the gun is not the same as killing the man, your honor.


3b3aa9  No.742185

>>742168

>Abraham's stock

According to 1 Maccabees, wouldn't this include the Spartans too?


f438da  No.742186

>>742151

If you say the Council preaches error, you say the Holy Spirit preaches error. As far as I can see, while there is nothing wrong with Vatican II, the Church was surrounded by wolves in the bush, waiting to spring.

Aren't we meant to be tested by fire though? We have Christ's assurance.

>>742146

> If you repeated V II 6 times you would eventually get the same, or very similar result.

Well, since it's impossible to do this, you should leave aside such fallacious reasoning.


c2fa9a  No.742202

>>742186

>As Holy Scripture testifies, Jerusalem did not recognize the time of her visitation,(9) nor did the Jews in large number, accept the Gospel; indeed not a few opposed its spreading.(10) Nevertheless, God holds the Jews most dear for the sake of their Fathers;

A council of men aren't the Holy Spirit


16fab0  No.742219

>>742168

And? Doesn't St Paul say that the Jews will be saved before the end?

That always was the Catholic doctrine.

And the document is just pointing out the common background of Christianity and Judaism in an effort to convert them.

Sincerely what did you expect?

>hurr winnie the pooh murderous Jews stop worshipping Satan and repent!!


16fab0  No.742221

>>742202

Romans 11:1-2

>Therefore, I say: Has God driven away his people? Let it not be so! For I, too, am an Israelite of the offspring of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. God has not driven away his people, whom he foreknew. And do you not know what Scripture says in Elijah, how he calls upon God against Israel?


16fab0  No.742223

Romans 11:25-29

>For I do not want you to be ignorant, brothers, of this mystery (lest you seem wise only to yourselves) that a certain blindness has occurred in Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has arrived. And in this way, all of Israel may be saved, just as it was written: “From Zion shall arrive he who delivers, and he shall turn impiety away from Jacob. And this will be my covenant for them, when I will take away their sins.” Certainly, according to the Gospel, they are enemies for your sake. But according to the election, they are most beloved for the sake of the fathers. For the gifts and the call of God are without regret.


4ed16e  No.742230

>>742219

Than why bother being a Christian if Jews still get a free pass?


16fab0  No.742242

>>742230

Do they? Just because in the end of the world Elijah will warn them doesn't mean Jews living today will be saved.

Those in the last day will the offered the last minute ticket to heaven. Its up to them to accept it.

As for the Jews living today, if they don't become Catholic they will burn in hell like their parents.


4ed16e  No.742245

>>742242

But your Catholic Church says Jews will be saved too. So why bother being Catholic when Judaism is still favored by God? Heck, you Catholics don't even blame the Jews for Jesus' death anymore.


d346c1  No.742246

The desacralization of the Mass to make it more palatable to apostates is what people hate the most about the events surrounding it.

Though they did literally the same thing by accepting eastern and coptic liturgies, it's nothing new.

>>742219

>Imagine being such a die hard papist that you have to defend kikes being above us spiritually for merit of their race alone otherwise you're racist.

I mean, Pope Francis said he followed the jewish feasts, calendar, and attending synagogues in Argentina. He literally admitted to being a jew, and nothing happened.


16fab0  No.742249

>>742245

What part of if you're a jew youre going to hell didn't you understand?


16fab0  No.742250

>>742246

>I mean, Pope Francis said he followed the jewish feasts, calendar, and attending synagogues in Argentina. He literally admitted to being a jew, and nothing happened.

Next protestant fancy is that Pope Francis is actually in contact with the lizard people.

Keep dreaming dude.


f438da  No.742263

>>742245

>But your Catholic Church says Jews will be saved too

No, they didn't. Ethnic Jews who convert to Catholicism can be saved.


4ed16e  No.742278

>>742249

What part of

>God holds the Jews most dear

>Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God

Did you not understand?


d1edbf  No.742279

>>742230

>Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved. -t. Lumen gentium

VII is fairly clear on this matter, whether or not you want to recognize that.


16fab0  No.742282

>>742278

I don't get your point? The church is saying the same thing Saint Paul says in Romans.

That's why he is sending Elijah in the end times to try to save the remaining Jews that didn't convert because of their stupidity.

Instead of saying shit actually read the rest of the documents in which the clear doctrine of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salum is explicit. And read Romans pls.

winnie the pooh /pol/ ruins everything it touches.


1cc8fa  No.742288

>>742090

Wrong. This council explicitly denied that protection. The popes after affirmed as such saying it was merely pastoral and affirmed no new dogma.


16fab0  No.742300

>>742288

>dogmatic constitution

Hmmmmm


800505  No.742321

File: c4c02656a05f70e⋯.jpg (343.85 KB, 1453x2105, 1453:2105, the madman himself.jpg)

>>742008

Let us take look at it

>the church must change and is no longer the only holder of the Truth

masonic. no doubt.

>the church is the friend of the world and should work together with it for a """better""" future

wrong. the church is meant to stand against the world which is ruled by satan.


16fab0  No.742349

>>742321

Thank God the church still believes in that.


1cc8fa  No.742361

>>742300

Welcome to the weasel word lies of Vatican 2


f6fff2  No.742373

File: b3049aa6e7cd7c9⋯.jpg (213.28 KB, 739x1024, 739:1024, Helmet_Nosy_Face.jpg)

>>742162

For jews :

>Nostra aetate 4. True, the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ;(13) still, what happened in His passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today. Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures. All should see to it, then, that in catechetical work or in the preaching of the word of God they do not teach anything that does not conform to the truth of the Gospel and the spirit of Christ.

>Furthermore, in her rejection of every persecution against any man, the Church, mindful of the patrimony she shares with the Jews and moved not by political reasons but by the Gospel's spiritual love, decries hatred, persecutions, displays of anti-Semitism, directed against Jews at any time and by anyone.

For the discrimination in general :

>Nostra aetate 5. We cannot truly call on God, the Father of all, if we refuse to treat in a brotherly way any man, created as he is in the image of God. Man's relation to God the Father and his relation to men his brothers are so linked together that Scripture says: "He who does not love does not know God" (1 John 4:8).

>No foundation therefore remains for any theory or practice that leads to discrimination between man and man or people and people, so far as their human dignity and the rights flowing from it are concerned.

>The Church reproves, as foreign to the mind of Christ, any discrimination against men or harassment of them because of their race, color, condition of life, or religion. On the contrary, following in the footsteps of the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, this sacred synod ardently implores the Christian faithful to "maintain good fellowship among the nations" (1 Peter 2:12), and, if possible, to live for their part in peace with all men,(14) so that they may truly be sons of the Father who is in heaven.(15)

For the women :

>Its not the first time. There were councils where the whole laity assisted the council.

Oh, I'm not sure about that, but it was presented as a new thing. Laity is not the same as women. Also the problem is this comes with feminism (these women being feminist).

>True, all men are not alike from the point of view of varying physical power and the diversity of intellectual and moral resources. Nevertheless, with respect to the fundamental rights of the person, every type of discrimination, whether social or cultural, whether based on sex, race, color, social condition, language or religion, is to be overcome and eradicated as contrary to God's intent. For in truth it must still be regretted that fundamental personal rights are still not being universally honored. Such is the case of a woman who is denied the right to choose a husband freely, to embrace a state of life or to acquire an education or cultural benefits equal to those recognized for men.

Also, orthobros didn't participated in the comission for the liturgy.


f6fff2  No.742374

>>742373

For the last quote, it's from gaudium et spes 29.


9d28b6  No.742378

File: aaed10b931c9e48⋯.webm (6.46 MB, 720x480, 3:2, dignitatis humanae.webm)

i dont want to be a heretic but i really dont understand vatican ii


3dcf76  No.742592

>>742364

What's invencible ignorance? Are you rejecting Pius IX too?

>so far as their human dignity and the rights flowing from it are concerned

Holy shit Jews are human too who would have known?


08a397  No.742596

>>742592

Second part meant for >>742373


08a397  No.742597

>>742364

>Although Jews cannot believe in Jesus Christ as the universal redeemer, they have a part in salvation, because the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable,

>part of the plan of salvation

Everything is part of the plan of salvation dude. The loss of the Jews was the profit of the gentiles like St. Paul says.

But its fun how the media twist every word they find.

But I was expecting that from (((Israel national news))). Its like trusting this guys for a serious report of the holocaust.


08a397  No.742600

To conclude so yeah we can say the Jews are part of the plan of salvation, just like rocks are it is because of their disbelieve that we are now the chosen people so to say.

But even if your news report was correct then what the pope had said would be an heresy against the same Vatican Council, who never minding the religion and race of a person, says that those who don't believe in the Church are doomed forever and ever.

Polite sage

>>742380

You can't reject an ecumenical council lad, specially based on you own interpretations.


f6fff2  No.742613

>>742596

read my last paragraph, for the church, human dignity and rights flowing from it is total equality.


d8085c  No.743098

File: 3814a9d7569b00c⋯.jpeg (51.65 KB, 513x287, 513:287, 4961F7E2-DA18-4279-9C52-F….jpeg)

>>742738

This is absolutely false. Demonstrably so. The Second Vatican Council proclaimed no new dogma and new no doctrines. It just didn’t, it never intended to, and so it didn’t. It was pastoral and concerned with promulgating the Faith, the pure and undistorted Faith passed down by the Church through the ages, to a modern world. Pope St. John XXIII said so in his opening address, ‘For this [the discussion of the articles, the dogmas and the doctrines of the Faith proclaimed by the Church since its establishment] a Council was not necessary. But from the renewed, serene, and tranquil adherence to all the teaching of the Church in its entirety and preciseness, as it still shines forth in the Acts of the Council of Trent and First Vatican Council, the Christian, Catholic, and apostolic spirit of the whole world expects a step forward toward a doctrinal penetration and a formation of consciousness in faithful and perfect conformity to the authentic doctrine, which, however, should be studied and expounded through the methods of research and through the literary forms of modern thought. The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another. And it is the latter that must be taken into great consideration with patience if necessary,

everything being measured in the forms and proportions of a magisterium which is predominantly pastoral in character.’ And Pope St. Paul VI, when promulgating Lumen Gentium, says, ‘There is no better comment to make than to say that this promulgation really changes nothing of the traditional doctrine. What Christ willed, we also will. What was, still is. What the Church has taught down through the centuries, we also teach. In simple terms that which was assumed, is now explicit; that which was uncertain, is now clarified; that which was meditated upon, discussed and sometimes argued over, is now put together in one clear formulation.’


39bfd8  No.743150

File: 193d344fc1f0701⋯.webm (368.53 KB, 640x360, 16:9, Pope Pius XIII - 'It's ti….webm)

>>742008

becuz people came to believe the lie that over two thousand years the church had never changed and are now upset at modernisms

That said, as this guy >>742029 notes, it was more an excuse for certain priests and parishioners to relax the tight belt of actually being Christian and start being something … easier.

Ultimately, it will be a good thing because the chaff will slowly blow out of the church and it can start another real evangelism campaign to re-evangelise the west after the muzzos take over (which is after the riots that dethrone the pink-haired onlyonegender types)


ffd9df  No.743155

File: 5737bb46a610813⋯.jpg (62.41 KB, 640x480, 4:3, 1458696874238-1.jpg)

>>743150

>Implying anyone is going to genuinely believe that the newest rites are harder to do

I need not even further elaborate.


39bfd8  No.743156

>>743155

>newest rites are harder to do

where do I imply that?


160fcc  No.743160

>>743123

What you think is the connection between these two statements?


f438da  No.743161

>>743123

That's not a contradiction, nor can you pass off any reasoning you dislike as Talmudism, much as the Baptists screech "Babylon!" or the Orthodox scream "papists!"

If the Jews were presented as rejected or cursed by God, it is tantamount to saying they are damned. The Church in Her Wisdom and Her Fidelity to Her Groom cannot usurp Christ's judgement.

"anathematize" doesn't mean that the Church has damned them, it means they are de-facto excommunicated from the flock, and the Jews already de-facto deny Christ anyway


ffd9df  No.743167

>>743156

Okay, that is a further point I should elaborate on.

I'm feeling foggy right now but let's see if my post is readable:

>it was more an excuse for certain priests and parishioners to relax the tight belt of actually being Christian and start being something… easier

Even if among the group of people who prefer Tridentine Mass or believe that the Pope is a material heretic, there are some who are just in it to have "easier rules", it means nothing for your argument.

It is a logical fallacy to say that everyone in a group is wrong because of some people inside of that group.

(I don't believe that there are people who are looking for a "easier" Christianity in traditionalism out of all places, but I wrote as such for the sake of my argument).


f438da  No.743175

>>743170

>Yes, Jews and any other non-Catholics are damned and rejected by God until and unless they convert. Anyone not in the Church is rejected by God and will burn in hell after death.

They are all guilty of mortal sins worthy of the eternal fire, but only Christ alone has the judgement.

>…We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff

Also true. Yet, the Church does not usurp Christ's judgement.

>Talmudize this one you cryto-kikes.

OK, then why has the Holy Church never proclaimed -anybody- damned?


f438da  No.743192

>>743182

Any ex cathedra statement cannot contradict Scripture or the Tradition.

>then you must accept that this was an infallible statement guarded from error by the Holy Spirit.

There are conditions attached to this, for example, not contradicting Scripture or Tradition.

>It follows that God has explicitly declared to us that no-one not subject to the Roman Pontiff is saved

It is a necessary condition for salvation, but the Church cannot proclaim who is not actually saved, being damned by Jesus Christ.

>This CANNOT be squared with Vatican II.

Yes it can. You're in a very precarious position, you seem to accept papal infallibility to a degree you yourself implicitly fail.


39bfd8  No.743196

>>743167

> there are some who are just in it to have "easier rules", it means nothing for your argument.

And my argument is…?

>It is a logical fallacy to say that everyone in a group is wrong because of some people inside of that group.

I'm not suggesting that.

Maybe I'm wrong here, but I think you are inserting your own interpretation on what I actually said.

I'm not bagging V2. I'm not saying it was a bad thing. I'm agreeing with this guy >>742029 who suggests it was hijacked by others, later, who wanted an excuse to "relax the belt" and, seeing this, the true Christians are blaming V2 for that side-effect.

Oooooooh, I get it, no, I'm suggesting amid (and not all) the modernisers are the "relax the belt" folk, not the folks who demand a return to traditionalism. There are certainly going to be some who prefer latin mass, others who prefer localised. I agree, neither is "easier", but I think the CHANGE allows other changes to creep in. I mean, let's face it, I've known people whose faith is suspect but they'll swear by traditions, and there's no shortage of the other. My point was simply that V2 meant change, and change permits other changes to sneak in that allow a "loosening of the belt" and allowed people an excuse or the freedom to abandon attendance and, ultimately, the church.

Clearer? Am I still wrong? It's only a working theory.


f438da  No.743199

>>743195

"Papal infallibility, then, is not some magical power by which a pope can transform any old thing he wishes into a truth that all are bound to accept. It is an extension of the infallibility of the preexisting body of doctrine that it is his job to safeguard, and thus must always be exercised in continuity with that body of doctrine. Naturally, then, the pope would not be speaking infallibly if he taught something that either had no basis in Scripture, Tradition, or previous magisterial teaching, or contradicted those sources of doctrine. If it had no such basis, it could be mistaken, and if it contradicted those sources of doctrine, it would be mistaken."

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2015/11/papal-fallibility.html

Educate yourself. Going by Vatican II, the Pope cannot officially contradict the Scripture either. Just because the "Pope is speaking ex cathedra", doesn't mean it's "ex cathedra" if it defies Sacred Scripture. If it defies other ex cathedra statements, or Scripture, it is de-facto, not ex cathedra.


f438da  No.743202

>>743195

>Yes, that is the DEFINITION of an ex cathedra statement, it is not in error.

No no no, it goes: "Yes, that is the DEFINITION of an ex cathedra statement, IF it is not in error."

If the Pope proclaimed Jesus Christ is not God, then that would de-facto, not be an ex cathedra statement, and I would not be in error for rejecting something contrary to the Catholic Faith.


f438da  No.743203

>>743200

I recommend reading Edward Feser's blog (and books) and thesacredpage.com folks. Fr Ripperger and the blessed Fulton Sheen are also a great resource.


f438da  No.743210

>743208

>The ONLY requirements for an ex cathedra statement are for the Pope to clearly state that he is defining a matter of doctrine, and doing so for the entirety of the Church. The whole point of the doctrine of papal infallibility is that the Holy Spirit will not allow the Pope to pronounce any statement which is in error when he speaks in this way.

You are reducing it to a magical statement. In any case, there's nothing in Vatican II that contradicts anything else, Brother.

>then either he was not really a Pope or Catholicism is false.

It's the former.

>AGAIN, the WHOLE POINT of papal infallibility is that the Holy Spirit makes it literally impossible for the Pope to speak in error when he speaks ex cathedra.

With conditions.

In any case, sounds like you're ready and willing to completely accept Vatican II, brother.


d8085c  No.743222

File: b62d4a1cb9f6096⋯.jpeg (306.59 KB, 538x677, 538:677, C3368048-F98A-48E0-8F07-B….jpeg)

>>743123

>Yes, it didn't, because the Holy Spirit did not allow it. However, its non-dogmatic statements clearly contradict previous dogmatic statements.

No, it didn’t. The Ecumenical Council of Basel-Ferrara-Florence (1431-45) has a context, background that must be take into account.

>Vatican II Declaration, Nostra Aetate (#4): “Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or cursed by God, as if such views followed from the holy scriptures.”

>Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Bull Cantate Domino, 1442, ex cathedra: “…the holy Roman Church, founded on the words of our Lord and Savior, firmly believes, professes and preaches one true God, almighty, immutable and eternal, Father, Son and Holy Spirit… Therefore it [the Holy Roman Church] condemns, rejects, and anathematizes all who think opposed and contrary things, and declares them to be aliens from the Body of Christ, which is the Church.”

(1) Nostra Aetate and Bull Cantate Domino: This is no contradiction. The Church has never affirmed that all Jews are damned, nor all unbelievers, nor other such people. This is what I was taught:

The Bull Cantate Domino (1442) is, firstly (and as a sidenote), only called a ‘Bull’ because this session was presided over by Pope Eugene IV, it is not an ex cathedra decree but a dogmatic decree of the Council of Florence; secondly, Lumen Gentium confirms the teachings of Florence, saying, ‘Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.’; thirdly, we can see clearly from the language of the Bull that it speaks of people ‘remaining outside the Catholic Church’, thus follows is a list of ways someone could remain outside the Church, but not a condemnation, rejection and anathematisation of people who do not consciously or willingly rejects the Catholic Church. Implicit in the language is the assumption that to remain outside the Church, you must consciously reject it; fourthly, the Bull Cantate Domino is a reiteration of St. Fulgentius of Ruspe and St. Augustine of Hippo, who do not address invincible ignorance (I am unsure of Augustine, but I am sure of Fulgentius), nor natural law and St. Paul in Romans 2:15 (when these are accounted for, we see, that their works on Salvation are reconcilable to the Faith of the Catholic Church, and there was no doubt to that in the first place). Therefore, Nostra Aetate is not in contradiction with Florence, as Jews who are invincibly ignorant of the Catholic Church, their consciences and God’s call, follow the law ‘written unto their hearts’ and natural law are not outside the Church: they cannot be said to be ‘rejected and cursed’ by God.

(2) Nostra Aetate does not say that the Jews are saved from damnation, it doesn’t even comment on the subject, as it was entirely knowledgeable of the teachings of the Church and of the very same Council it is featured in (it references Lumen Gentium). The purpose Nostra Aetate is explicit, ‘In Her task of promoting unity and love among men, indeed among nations, she considers above all in this declaration what men have in common and what draws them to fellowship.’ (Nostra Aetate, #1); and Jews in particular, to ‘foster and recommend that mutual understanding and respect which is the fruit, above all, of biblical and theological studies as well as of fraternal dialogues.’ (Nostra Aetate, #4) Do not mistake this for saying that Jews who know of Christ and reject him are saved.

>You need to REALLY Talmudize to conclude from this that Vatican II is anything but in plain contradiction to previous ex cathedra statements.

It isn’t ‘Talmudising’ to explain what the Second Vatican Council actually teaches, that, like the Council Fathers intended, the Second Vatican Council was meant to be read in the Hermeneutic of Continuity, in the light, spirit and meaning of the teachings of the Catholic Church taught to us by Jesus Christ, the Apostles, the prophets, the Early Christians, all twenty-one Ecumenical Councils, the Saints and the Church Fathers.


d8085c  No.743223

>>743222

Nostra Aetate actually reminds me of (the saintly) Pope Innocent III and his constitution on Jews (although it is true he became increasingly harsh with the Jews):

‘Although the Jewish perfidy is in every way worthy of condemnation, nevertheless, because through them the truth of our own faith is proved, they are not to be severely oppressed by the faithful. . . . We, follow- ing in the footsteps of our predecessors . . . grant their petition and offer them the shield of our protection. We decree that no Christian shall use violence to force them to be baptized as long as they are unwilling and refuse, but that if anyone of them seeks refuge among the Christians of his own free will and by reason of his faith, (only then,) after his willingness has become quite clear, shall he be made a Christian without subjecting himself to any calumny. For surely none can be believed to possess the true faith of a Christian who is known to have come to Christian baptism not willingly, and even against his wishes. Moreover, without the judgment of the authority of the land, no Christian shall presume to wound their persons, or kill (them) or rob them of their money, or change the good customs which they have thus far enjoyed in the place where they live. Furthermore, while they celebrate their festivals, no one shall disturb them in any way by means of sticks or stones, nor exact from any of them forced service, except that which they have been accustomed to perform from ancient times. In opposition to the wickedness and avarice of evil men in these mat- ters, we decree that no one shall presume to desecrate or reduce the cemetery of the Jews, or, with the object of extorting money to exhume bodies there buried. If any one, however, after being acquainted with the contents of this decree, should presume to act in defiance of it . . ., he shall suffer loss of honor and office, or he shall be restrained by the penalty of excommunication, unless he shall have made proper amends for his presumption. We wish, however, to place under the protection of this decree only those (Jews) who have not presumed to plot against the Christian Faith.’ (Pope Innocent III, 15 September 1199)


d8085c  No.743224

>>743170

Feeneyism is a heresy, brut.


8c1be9  No.743228

>>743222

Anyone whom at the moment of their death is not a member of the Catholic Church goes to hell. No exceptions. This is dogma. Anything that contradicts this is satanic.

Only those who hold the Orthodox Catholic faith can be saved and that faith is a supernatural grace.

Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salus


d8085c  No.743233

>>743228

Feeneyism is a heresy, bruh.


691d5d  No.743382

>>743233

That's not feeneyism, that's No one gets to the father except by me


9d28b6  No.743428


0b1749  No.743458

>>742029

> E. Michael Jones

who the winnie the pooh is this guy and why has he randomly started appearing on every alt-right podcast under the sun, he come out of nowhere and has that annoying oratory sound of a man that takes themselves too seriously but not in a satire way, he's like Alex Jones but not a joke


459c47  No.743475

>>742008

Paul VI said that he was about to blow the seven trumpets of the Apocalypse right before implementing Vatican II.


cb1334  No.743478

>entire thread is full of the same old back and forth

Can anyone quote me an actual V2 document that is even quasi-heretical? I mean really, let's see the worst of it. Until thrn i will ignore the supposed boogie man in the closet and accept it as a valid council.

Schismatics and (((sedevacantists))) do nothing but play into the hands of the masonic hegelian dialectic, thus making themselves to be part of the problem rather than working toward any solution.

I suggest all you edgelord sedes follow E Michael Jones on this.


c9a5e7  No.743484

>>743478

Read the document on religious freedom then if you need more convincing read the old anathemas on religious freedom.

But intuition will tell you that V2 contains error. Legalism and corrupt rationalisation will try to justify it under "hermeneutics of continuity" or whatever that means.


cb1334  No.743488

>>743484

I've read thee olde anathemas before. I will look into "the document on religious freedom". Do you know the latin title(s)?

>>743428

The Athanasian Creed does not mention Extra Ecclesium Nullas. For example, there are surely some Protestant sects which adhere in faith to the entirety of the Athanasian Creed but fail to adhere to other dogmas of the Faith.


cb1334  No.743495

>>743488

>>743484

Dignitatis Humanae states

>This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.

tl; dr - no one should be coerced into a religion (mohammedism much?)

Again, where is the explicit heresy or even the toying with heresy like i asked for here >>743478

inb4 i am left emptyhanded again

>>743489

People using V2 as an excuse to promote evils like communion in the hand does not necessarily mean that V2 is the promulgator of those evils...


f6d264  No.743517

File: 31ddf224802a038⋯.png (196.78 KB, 720x1280, 9:16, Screenshot_20181213-210439.png)


9d28b6  No.743518


c9a5e7  No.743522

>>743495

>no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly,

This implies that if someone believes it is OK to murder and does so they cannot be forced to stop. Example: a state cannot stop murderers or law breakers, or sodomites or child sacrificers etc. from acting in a way contrary to their beliefs (not murdering and raping children)

It is the heresy of tolerance, which precipitates societal collapse.

Also public expression of false religion is anathematised and forbidden under the social reign of Christ.

Error cannot be elevated to the same rights and dignity as truth.


c9a5e7  No.743524

>>743522

Eg. Satanists believe child sacrifice is their religious right and V2 says you cannot force them to stop sacrificing children

Islam believes apostates must be executed and V2 says you cannot force them to stop executing apostates.

It is the insanity of the vice of tolerance and apathy


f438da  No.743560

>>743524

You're speaking complete nonsense and preaching disobedience.

>>743484

All the trends were already in place prior to V2.


d8085c  No.743651

>>743382

A strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla sulas to mean anyone who isn’t visibly a member of the Catholic Church, that is, baptised in the Catholic Church, sounds like feeneyism, mate.

The Church has clarified, and believed since Christ instituted it, that people can be invisibly members of the Catholic Faith under certain conditions already stated.

>>743428

Throwing the Athanasian Creed at me doesn’t contradict the Second Vatican Council.


cb1334  No.743698

>>743517

Yes I'm aware of this and agree entirely. Many moslems are demonstrably preferable to practically all Westerners and even Protestants nowdays. At least they worship God, however flawed their religion might be. It is still not as flawed as the secularists and pagans living next door to me.

>>743518

I dont need unholy family monastery to tell me how to interpret religious documents, believe me. kek Reread my post. That is the more accurate interpretation. Those guys are often in error tbqhwys.

>>743522

>>743524

That's not what it means at all. It means that people shouldn't be coerced into religion, and that governments should respect the dignity big clue!! and free will of the human being.

>>743560

D&C tactics within the Church, as if Prots weren't bad enough

Honestly guys, there are less cringey and hellbound positions to take. Look into FSSP and Latin mass parishes if your grievances are sincerely held.


c9a5e7  No.743780

>>743651

An erroneous interpretation not strict. Extra ecclesia nulla salus allows for the grace of final repentance at the moment of death and we know baptism of desire and blood exist. The point is they are incorporated into the Catholic Church at the moment of their death and they believe the Catholic faith.

If anyone is not incorporated into the Church visibly or invisibly at the moment of their death then they go to hell.


c9a5e7  No.743781

>>743560

Please explain how it is nonsense and disobedience. One is obliged to disobey your superiors when they order you to adopt heresy or to sin.

Yes we can agree that these horrors were in trend before V2, and actually the most impactful and damaging break from tradition was St Pius X's breviery revolution which through out sacred tradition for no good reason.


c9a5e7  No.743782

>>743698

Muslims do not worship God, they worship a unitarian demon called Allah who is an ancient Arabic moon god.

If you do not have the son you do not have the father. If you profess you worship the same God as the Muslims then you profess to not worship Christ as their God has no Christ.

As for V2 religious freedom, that is what it means because that is what it says. Led Orandi Lex Credendi. You don't get to decide that something means something different to what it says. That is delusion.


c9a5e7  No.743783

>>743698

Do you think satanists should be coerced into not sacrificing children? If so then you reject V2.


ccbf48  No.743789

>>742008

>Why is Vatican 2 so controversial?

Look at the Church in 1950, now look at it now.


d8085c  No.743798

File: 594c18f8975535b⋯.jpeg (82.42 KB, 960x702, 160:117, E0C4048E-DD86-4D91-B8CE-C….jpeg)

>>743780

No. Extra ecclesiam nulla sulus allows for people, with no knowledge of the Catholic Church (invincibly ignorant), to be possibly saved if they live according to the law written unto their hearts (Romans 2:15), natural law, and the conscience which is the voice of God. They’re considered ‘invisible’ members of the Church, who, though lacking the fullness of the Faith, can be saved by God. To suggest otherwise (with exception to saying we cannot say what happens to people invincibly ignorant and thus leave it to God) is to suggest God would damn men for being ignorant of Christ.

I will repeat Lumen Gentium, ‘Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.’ Those who are knowledgeable of the Catholic Church and reject it are damned, because ‘outside the church there is no salvation’.


d8085c  No.743806

>>743799

I try not to talk about the salvation of others, honestly. Aristotle and Plato I cannot say to havd much of an opinion on, but I don’t think they’re virtuous.


c9a5e7  No.743824

>>743798

I don't know why you said No, as you did not contradict but only supported what I said.

You err though in suggesting the invincibly ignorant are invisible members of the Church before the moment of their death. They are not. Baptism is required and baptism of desire and of blood can only be applied at the moment of their death, with angels being the ministers of said baptisms, who also provide the living water and words necessary for baptism.

Until they are baptised they are not a part of the Church.


0a20ae  No.747437

File: add6f93711d2e31⋯.jpg (169.62 KB, 1017x679, 1017:679, DUJsi93UMAAxaXE.jpg)

File: d02b0fd158964f3⋯.jpg (213.41 KB, 1200x800, 3:2, golden_hammer_wielding_nob….jpg)

File: 48541d19b50306e⋯.png (3.52 MB, 1510x2328, 755:1164, 48541d19b50306ec55e163ad15….png)

File: 20ebb9a283f8904⋯.jpg (44.46 KB, 634x568, 317:284, pope-on-a-5b7cf8[1].jpg)

File: fce166f283ff4ed⋯.png (1.01 MB, 981x733, 981:733, No One Said It Would Be Ea….png)

<^>

wow…

this is really a thing.

<awesomr

>here.


088cc4  No.747508

>>742250

But he is! I have several dodgy jpegs, out of context passages of scripture and quotes from books that have never existed to prove it!


088cc4  No.747514

>>743458

He’s a TradCath author and editor of a magazine called “Culture Wars”, and has written a bunch of great books from an Orthodox Catholic perspective. He goes on these AR podcasts because the WigNats like to hear him talk about jews(he’s entirely correct and backs up his assertions with sources), they don’t like how he’s a “ChristCuck” and not racist though. Surprised you’ve never heard of him before.

t. former WigNat who is converting based on his influence and having heard him speak on said WigNat podcasts.


45266a  No.747516

>MUH CIA!!!1!


0d80eb  No.747613

So basically the whole debate is that it's technically not VII but Modernism's fault? We can call it by different names but we all know that there is a big problem in the Church and in the world. Getting mad because 'akchuyally it was not VII' is silly.


0d80eb  No.747615

>>743458

His book 'libido dominandi' is excellent and essential to understand modern hypersexualided society & moral crisis


e8df71  No.747624

>>747613

No the debate is if it is in error or has merely been erroneously interpreted. The answer is both, it contains error and it is written poorly to purposefully be badly interpreted. And orthodox parts of it have been misinterpreted. It is a robber council like Ephesus.


d8085c  No.747981

File: 26ef442b6084ebe⋯.jpeg (109.82 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, 3483CD8A-5DCB-4F9E-84D9-1….jpeg)

>>747618

Uh, yeah, it is necessary, because the likelihood of achieving salvation is very difficult, as Jesus Christ has informed us. It is even more difficult for people without a clear path in front of them, like the Church (though God is more lenient on those who do not know the Truth), and are invincibly ignorant. People who know of the Church and reject it are condemned to eternal damnation. It is perfectly thought out because the Church is safest path to salvation, it is necessary for salvation. So, you have very little to worry about, because most people (most especially people outside the Church) won’t find eternal life.

Tell me this, how is the erroneous (or strict) interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla sulus any better than Calvinism (and any Calvinist can correct me if I mistake their beliefs)? How can you call God Love and Good if he condemns men to hell for having never heard of Him? How is that any different to having people predestined to Hell in Calvinism? How do you square that? It is ludicrous.


d8085c  No.747986

>>747981

>allows for people, with no knowledge of the Catholic Church (invincibly ignorant), to be possibly saved if they live according to the law written unto their hearts (Romans 2:15), natural law, and the conscience which is the voice of God. They’re considered ‘invisible’ members of the Church, who, though lacking the fullness of the Faith, can be saved by God. To suggest otherwise (with exception to saying we cannot say what happens to people invincibly ignorant and thus leave it to God) is to suggest God would damn men for being ignorant of Christ.

I mean, come on. Most Catholics, let alone an invincibly ignorant man or woman, could not abide by these rules because they’re simply sinful, most likely ourselves as well.


93045a  No.747990

>>747986

Can you further elaborate on this assertion? Are you talking about following the law perfectly? In which case its not "most Catholics" but "all Catholics", nobody is sinless. The actual fix is regretting your sin.


93045a  No.747991

>>747437

>Close US military base globally

Not having military bases everywhere is bad? Wew.


d8085c  No.748042

>>747990

You cannot follow the Law perfectly (except for Christ, Mary, though Mary is not a god, I should mention for those who would accuse the Church of making a god, and who ever God wishes), so no. The likelihood of an invincibly ignorant person achieving salvation by what I’ve said is slim, slimmer than their chance in the Catholic Church, but not impossible. It is not defined what it looks like to follow your conscience, the law written unto our hearts and/or natural law, nor what is sufficient, though it is supposed that the standards are high, imo. A Catholic has a far likelier chance of achieving Salvation through the Church (because of extra ecclesiam nulla sulus), which is why we must spread it among all peoples and nations. In fact, if I didn’t misinterpret >>743824 (thanks for the correction), then those people who God Judges to be sufficient are baptised on their deaths and become members of the Invisible Church.


bd046e  No.748204

>>747624

No you're wrong. The council has nothing heretical. It has some ambiguous stuff that devilish minds are readily apt to use to justify their agenda.

Its it can't be a robber council since it had Papal approval.


3cb8c2  No.748419

File: d692aaed48370ef⋯.png (228.93 KB, 352x540, 88:135, 20180117_065543.png)

>>747991

>æı Think ye may've

mist the pointé there…

<abit.


d8085c  No.748551

File: fb5241920ccdcfe⋯.jpeg (61.52 KB, 721x500, 721:500, 12CDD943-76D6-48AB-B89C-0….jpeg)

>>748149

>If you don't know God, then you won't go to Heaven.

‘Jesus saith to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me.’ (John 14:6)

This is true, certainly. To know Jesus Christ (where ‘know’ means ‘to believe’, because ‘without faith it is impossible to believe in God’ Hebrews 11:6) is the only means of knowing the Father. God, in His Wisdom, for He is Wisdom, however, draws all men (and things) to Himself (John 12:32) and gives all men the chance of salvation, for ‘God ... desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all’ (1 Timothy 2:4-5), and thus makes a way for them to come to know Him. The Church has elaborated on how someone, whom be invincibly ignorant of the Church and thus Jesus Christ, may come to know Jesus Christ and be saved through Him. In the CCC, 847 to 848, it is written:

[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.’

Or, in other words, how I put it before, though with some amendments: allows for people, with no knowledge of the Catholic Church (invincibly ignorant), to be possibly saved if they live according to the law written unto their hearts (Romans 2:15), natural law, and the conscience which is the voice of God, [and the ‘the laver of regeneration or the desire for it’, as per the Canon ‘Apostolicam De Presbytero Non Baptizato’ and the Ecumenical Council of Trent in Session 6, Chapter 4, without which there cannot be salvation]. Though lacking the fullness of the Faith, [these people] can be saved by God [and lead to Him. On their deaths, if they maintain a state of grace, are baptised and joined to the Church.] To suggest otherwise (with exception to saying we cannot say what happens to people invincibly ignorant and thus leave it to God) is to suggest God would damn men for being ignorant of Christ.


d8085c  No.748553

>>748551

>If people can be saved by just "following their conscience," then almost nothing Jesus did or said makes any sense at all. Moreover, Jesus explicitly said that few are saved, and he never said anything which would imply that it is only necessary to believe in him to increase the likelihood of being saved, he said that no-one comes to the father except through him.

Do you disagree with the Church and St. Paul that people, who of no fault of their own, have the Law written unto their hearts, their conscience bearing witness to them and their thoughts accusing them (Romans 2:15)? Are the men who are the doers of the Law (whether it is the person within the Law, or someone who have not the Law, but do that which is the Law by nature and whose having not becomes the Law unto themselves)not justified (Romans 2:13)? As for what Wisdom the Lord Jesus said to us, that no one comes to the Father except through Him, I have attempted to explain to the best of my ability.

All these things lead to Jesus Christ and thus the Father in Heaven, following their conscience (literally the voice of God, which ‘rouses us to Holy fear’ according to St. Francis de Sales), natural law and the law written unto their hearts leads, by the grace of God, these souls who have never heard of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, to the Saviour. Furthermore, as Pope Ven. Pius XII asserts, ‘those who do not belong to the body of the Catholic Church, [the Sovereign Pontiff] mentions those who “are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire,” and these he by no means excludes from eternal salvation… But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved. It is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith…’ (In His Letter against the dissent and disobedience of Fr. Leonard Feeney, August 8, 1949) The gifts of faith and charity is what follows from following their conscience, natural law and the law written unto their hearts.

>Calvinism denies free will. Catholicism does not deny free will. There is no comparison.

The erroneous interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla sulus leaves no room for free will, at all. You cannot exercise the free will to accept the Church and join Her if you have no knowledge of Her. So, in this erroneous interpretation, I cannot see any difference with Calvinism, which has men predestined to hell: in that, basically, God isolates men from His Church all over the globe and damns them for never having heard of Her. They never had the chance to acquaint themselves with Her.

>Whatever God does is good by definition. If he does something which seems "bad" according to worldly morality, then its the world that is in error, not God, no matter how bad that may make you feel.

God’s goodness is never in question. Only the erroneous conception of God that predestines men to hell for being ignorant of His Church. Thank God that His Church condemned Feeneyism for the heresy it was.

>I square that by noting that Jesus explicitly commanded his disciples to go out and preach the gospel to all nations.

As much as the Church affirms what could possibly bring the invincibly ignorant into salvation, to Him and His Faith, it does not presume that anyone will be saved without the Catholic faith, only that it is possible by certain requirements. We do not despair at the deaths of the invincibly ignorant, because only God knows their hearts and if they had been lead to Him. And so we spread the Gospel by deed and word to all nations, because God commanded us to and we unsure of the salvation of those nations. Let the Holy Spirit do the rest and let the Judge and Savior do the judging and saving.

>As far as I am concerned, "invincibly ignorant" refers to people who are literally incapable of understanding God's word, like the mentally retarded. Normal people living far from the Middle East are not "invincibly" ignorant.

I think that they certainly count as invincibly ignorant, but an Amazonian isolated from the world is also certainly invincibly ignorant. That is not to say you’re automatically saved for being invincibly ignorant, of course.


5cf908  No.748610

>>748149

>Look. Hell is just the absence of God.

This is really minimizing hell as described in the bible. "Absence of God" by itself would be something like limbo as described by Dante.

This absolutely doesn't account for the fire not going out, the worm not dying, so on and so forth.


f438da  No.748613

>>748610

the Saints tell us that the fires of Hell are way more ferocious than any fire even possible on earth.

earthly fires are the cause of nature, the eternal raging fire is caused directly by God's wrath.


e0d79d  No.748614

I think you can be ignorant if the very people meant to guide you are the ones created stumbling blocks to the God's word.

Why do you think Jesus pronounced judgement for those who harmed children the most? And especially religious leaders? My Catholic brothers, think about why it's so horrifying why this has also plagued the church.

"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves."


e0d79d  No.748619

In addition, I think there are many Americans whose only real exposure to the church are those crazy TV preachers (or real church ones)… who, I believe, are actually demon possessed themselves and purposely trying to make Christianity look stupid. People are purposely being blocked and kept in ignorance of what the Church actually teaches.. and then get disgusted and mock the things of God.


e0d79d  No.748658

>>748656

>Are Americans who are only exposed to crazy TV preachers "invincibly ignorant" despite being surrounded by Catholic churches and having access to the Internet?

You actually think Orthodox aren't saved? For what? All of the sacraments are valid, even by Catholic standards. You expanded the Gospel into being about believing in one specific Bishop, instead of Christ, sacraments, and moral law.


e0d79d  No.748662

>>748659

>Wait, so you actually think schismatics are saved?

I am the schismatic.

Even I don't think that about Catholics. I mostly think you need to stop editing the Nicene creed. Mostly for your own church's benefit... not some point of salvation.


e0d79d  No.748668

>>748666

Schismatic over mere jurisdictional disagreements. Not schismatic over core beliefs and theology - and in most Catholic's minds, probably not even the filioque. I doubt they even understand it's implications (but it is big nonetheless).

Those fathers you quote are all shared between East and West. We all literally believe the same thing. You'd have to quote a post 1000AD scholar and some kind of innovation Roman Catholics have made to convince me.


e0d79d  No.748670

>>748669

>My point is that from the Orthodox perspective, Catholics absolutely are in schism, and the church fathers say schismatics are not saved.

>

>The disagreements between Rome and the Orthodox Churches are NOT only jurisdictional, that's frankly crazy to suggest. The filioque alone would be enough, but also, how about the immaculate conception? How about transubstantiation?

I think the objective of immaculate conception and transubstantiation aren't "wrong": You believe Mary was a pure virgin: So do Orthodox. You believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist: So do Orthodox. The problem is Catholic presuppositions behind each and how they go about explaining them. For the IC, the concept of original sin is different. For the RC specific view of the Eucharist, it assumes a lot of philosophical notions from Aristotle about the eternal nature of matter. When I would say Orthodox don't believe in Aristotle, and if it resembles anything scientific, it's actually kind of a "quantum" view instead (I hate saying that though).


e0d79d  No.748671

The main point of contention is authority. I don't think it's my business to start calling out people's salvation over it. It's not like treating outsiders (Muslims, Hindus, etc), and I pray for an end to schism (far fetched though it may be).


d8085c  No.748690

>>748656

Invincible ignorance does not save anyone, and anyone who tells you so is wrong. It doesn’t even say the invincibly ignorant will be saved, only that some may (I cannot emphasise This enough) be saved, and that is only known by God and God alone. This is no some modernist innovation, it has been a teaching of the Church since the beginning.You share one thing with those ‘conservatives’, you don’t know what you’re talking about and are ignorant of what the actual doctrines. But if your happy to accept heresy like Feeneyism...

To answer your question. There exists invincible ignorance, vincible ignorance and affected ignorance. Invincible ignorance cannot be overcome due to a lack of capability or opportunity, which is why it is not a sin to be invincibly ignorant; vincible ignorance is where there is a capability and opportunity to come to the Faith if given enough time, and which is why it can be a sin, though that culpability is subject to being diminished if the voluntary act is itself diminished; affected ignorance is willingingly and consciously neglecting your duty to seek the faith, and thus you’ve sinned.

According to Bl. Pius XI, ‘Those who are hampered by invincible ignorance about our Holy Religion, and, keeping the natural law, with its commands that are written by God in every human heart, and being ready to obey him, live honourably and uprightly, can, with the power of Divine light and grace helping them, attain eternal life. For God, who clearly sees, searches out, and knows the minds, hearts, thoughts, and dispositions of all, in his great goodness and mercy does not by any means suffer a man to be punished with eternal torments, who is not guilty of voluntary fault.’ (Quanto Conficiamur Moerore)


d8085c  No.748885

Uhh, Mods at it again?


c5e158  No.748900

Let's settle some facts: it is a Catholic dogma that everyone must be baptised to enter into the Catholic Church and attain salvation. A valid baptism requires living water as the matter and "I baptise you in the name of the father son and holy spirit" as the form.

It is impossible for the unbaptized to enter heaven. This is dogma, any who do not profess this are not catholic and are heretics.

We know from sacred tradition that martyrs of the faith are baptised in their own blood, the blood providing the living water of the matter and the angels ministering the formula. This is how the holy innocents murdered by herod were baptised and saved. Some Fathers and Doctors have also argued the possibility of people being baptised in a similar way out of their desire, although I have no idea where the water would come from (maybe their tears?).

The standard baptism in the font is the way God wishes all to be saved and gives it to all as a grace. However humans have free will and murderers can interrupt God's plan for people to receive this ordinary baptism, hence why he provides extraordinary baptism in these other ways. This is why murder is a sin that cries out to the heaven for vengeance because it interrupts God's plan.

We must assert that all non baptised people go to hell or we are not Catholic.


3d7ce8  No.752950

>>743783

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.

Furthermore, society has the right to defend itself against possible abuses committed on the pretext of freedom of religion. It is the special duty of government to provide this protection. However, government is not to act in an arbitrary fashion or in an unfair spirit of partisanship. Its action is to be controlled by juridical norms which are in conformity with the objective moral order. These norms arise out of the need for the effective safeguard of the rights of all citizens and for the peaceful settlement of conflicts of rights, also out of the need for an adequate care of genuine public peace, which comes about when men live together in good order and in true justice, and finally out of the need for a proper guardianship of public morality.

These matters constitute the basic component of the common welfare: they are what is meant by public order. For the rest, the usages of society are to be the usages of freedom in their full range: that is, the freedom of man is to be respected as far as possible and is not to be curtailed except when and insofar as necessary.

Please, don't be ridiculous.

>>743782

>Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: “People of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. 23 For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: to an unknown god. So you are ignorant of the very thing you worship—and this is what I am going to proclaim to you.

We're not saying the Muslim God is ours. We're saying they adore the One True God, the Saint Trinity without knowing. We're not changing anything about our belief about God, if anything, we're changing muslim's beliefs. We're saying 'they adore God but through shadows, they pray to God, but they do not know him as much as we do, and they have erroneous ideas about Him.' I think maybe they pray to the same God as ours, but maybe He doesn't exauce their prayers, or only if it can benefits them to find the true religion which is ours. It think it's the same for Jews, they still pray to the same God as ours, but they deny the Son. Did God stop listening to their prayers? I don't think though, but they're not His chosen people anymore, so I would think God exauces their prayers when it can benefits them to worship Christ as well. Again, this muslim thing is a bit hard for me to understand but the way I see it it kinda makes sense. Don't quote me on that,


529be6  No.753592

>vatican 2 happens

>"do not worry it's just a PASTORAL thing, we are not gonna change the Faith"

>*throws away 2 millennia of tradition and treats christianity with the depth that appeals to a 5yo*

>christians begin to flee

>"clearly we need the spirit of vatican 2 to be more present in the church"

wat


529be6  No.753598

>>752950

>We're saying they adore the One True God, the Saint Trinity without knowing

I say that they are admirable when they selflessly want to please God (they also selfishly want to please God, as we do too, it's easier for them though).

But for us the manifestation of God in the universe, which is the only way we can understand him, is the Christ (not merely Jesus, JESUS CHRIST) and at the concept of Jesus being the Christ, son of god therefore god, the muslim foams at the mouth.

This isn't a good sign. Plus, putting another prophet IN FRONT OF Jesus is literally ANTE CHRISTUM. Coincidentally their sacred day is the day of the death of the Christ. Coincidentally they think 666 is an OK number. Coincidentally among the 99 names for God they don't have ours, "Father".


b3477c  No.753704

File: 6a6b03b1048d254⋯.png (194.57 KB, 933x1174, 933:1174, The Big Con 1.png)

File: 41abeb146a87c45⋯.png (173.41 KB, 930x1198, 465:599, The Big Con 2.png)

File: 9c9b5cacf8134bb⋯.png (89.54 KB, 926x756, 463:378, The Big Con 3.png)

AnnaVonReitz.com

PaulStramer.net


4b44b4  No.753706

History is a winnie the pooh LIE

JESUS DIED IN THE XVII CENTURY


da06b2  No.753749

>>753704

>The roman catholic church paid mohammed to spread the quran


3f2116  No.754744

>>753749

>in order to confiscate land from the Moors (who hadn't invaded Spain yet) the Vatican paid Muhammad to spread a book (which hadn't been written yet)


4776b2  No.754748

>>742029

Michael E Jones also insists that Muslims worship the same God as Christians.


59b06e  No.754749

This ecumenical council got hijacked by the Communists and Freemasons under the leadership of Satan. This was all revealed in our Lady’s message to the three children at Fatima. Obviously, the 3rd Secret was quite incriminating of Pope John XXIII and the modernist cardinals and bishops, therefore it remained a secret.


99f0a2  No.754770

>>753706

Is that a reference to Anatoly Fomenko?


3d8ec2  No.754922

>>754749

It is quite a coincidence that the 3rd secret should reportedly have been released by the 60s, as there were a deadline or something.

What about the curious "bishop dressed in white". Is it Francis (implying something in his pontificate is not quite regular) being killed in a false flag, to start a holy war, or to start persecuting traditionalists? is it Benedict, the ex-pope?


3d8ec2  No.754926

>>754748

>Christians think Christ is not only God, but also THE WAY.

>The other two religions are born out of REFUSING this statement. One denying Jesus, one putting another man in front of him.

Appealing to the Father against the Son is a reasonable position, but first you have to ask yourself "is the Son against the Father? how so? does the Son speak with authority?"


ce0591  No.755261

>>742008

It's closer to actual Christianity which triggers mundies.


a43f0b  No.755386

>>742185

The Spartan's are Lacadaimon's and, more or less, genetically dead by their own people's reckoning. As such, the point is moot. Any claim to being a Spartan would, in and of itself, be in violation of Spartan law.


d2e3b8  No.755749

File: 650fa4eaa52ab72⋯.jpg (94.57 KB, 960x574, 480:287, 49844982_2659721470706509_….jpg)

>>742008

Vatican II was writen in part with the intention of moving closer to the prots

The reason this got in was many due to the german branch of the Church. This is by far the richest branch of the Church and has a martin luther complex: they want to be just like/convert the prots. The problem with this is that the german prots have been converting the german Church instead of the other way around.

As a result of this Vatican part was shadow written by several protestant representatives.

At one point going so far as to exclude any mention of Mary the Mother.

Vatican II also has issues in legitimacy because the pope who called for the assembly that passed it died before it was complete. And technically they should have re-convened the assembly under the new pope. This where 90%+ of the sedevantists get their argumentation.

Vatican II is largely none binding though and you can still live a perfectly valid traditional per-vatican II life in the of the Church, SSPX ect.

The problem came with implementation and a lot of higher ups in the church have been pushing an ever more liberal and prot reading of the texts.

This freedom in interpreting and thus implementing of Vatican II has cause a much larger but far less addressed problem.

It has opened up the forming of a slow schism between the more conservative part of the Church. Largely 2nd and 3rd world growing in faithful but poor. And the more liberal parts of the church. Largely 1st world, shrinking but rich.

This has caused a difference in form and teaching that while still under the same document and this both in keeping with the church. Has created a de facto separated church only held together by the mutual interests of the both parts for those things the other can provide and no one wanting to be the one that slit the Church.

This in turn leads to the confused and contradicting message the Pope is forced to bring. Yes we should be open to gays (liberal church pandering) but gay sex is a mortal sin (conservative Church pandering).

It is paradoxically the glue that divides or the wedge that unites.


f0ece2  No.755762

Modernism


959a82  No.755985

back to church billy boy


880896  No.756109

V2 was written to be able to be interpreted heretically and is gleefully so intepreted.

Catholics have a lot of problems other than V2. St. Paul says bishops are supposed to be married, for example.


51ba3b  No.756122

File: d2933edb382cfce⋯.jpg (286.55 KB, 2000x1333, 2000:1333, BuddyChrist.jpg)

Because it was a rewrite of the religion. The liberal cardinals threatened a schism (which terrifies conservative catholic leaders for obvious reasons) to push their faggy bullshit into cannon. And it worked.

It was more or less the admission that they don't really believe what they preach. "Christianity" as preached by the holy see is a money making scam more concerned with PR and appealing to the next crop of rubes than being stewards of the faith. They also got rid of Ratzinger for the same reason. Gotta get them tithing young.

I don't know if the CIA was involved, their involvement probably would not be necessary, but I would not be surprised.

I think pic related was supposed to be a direct dig at V2. And even if it was not it pretty much says it all. Never saw the movie though so no idea on the actual context.


1ad929  No.756843

>>756109

Even Ordodox require celibacy of bishops




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / agatha2 / arepa / ausneets / cafechan / islam / schweiz / tingles ]