Couple questions about Christianity

[Peter666]

"A pope supported by a minority of the college of bishops stands yet on firm ground supported by the Holy Spirit. And a pope supported by the vast majority of such bishops cannot be validly accused of heresy."

This only works when the Pope and Bishops are making de fide statements that have the necessary criteria to be infallible regardless of numbers of bishops. Any innovative pronouncements that are not part of the Deposit of Faith have no spiritual backing whatsoever. This would apply to some of the things stated in the Vatican Two Council, which the Popes themselves claimed was a pastoral council and not a council making de fide statements, hence opening itself up to errors. This despite the fact that the Pope and majority of bishops would agree on an erroneous point.

As for the SSPX, I told you before that going to the New Rite of Mass or the Indult Mass offered by the Society of St. Peter has nothing to do with the validity of the mass itself. It has everything to do with the bastardization of the new mass and the fact that those under the auspices of the Fraternity of St. Peter who say the Indult must agree with the bastardization of the New mass as told to them by their local diocesan bishop. Plus now they must even celebrate it too. That's why one should not attend the indult. It gives in to those who assume that choosing your rite of mass is merely a matter of "personal preference" and not an essential matter of Faith.

Hiya RJT,


So, it is OK to say on this part of the dogma I'll hold off on believing since it may change in the future?

We are getting into full on mental acrobatics here [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Of course, if the church teachings are evolutionary and subject to change at any time in the future... they may be even cleverer than I thought, those catholics [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
Hiya RJT,


So, it is OK to say on this part of the dogma I'll hold off on believing since it may change in the future?

We are getting into full on mental acrobatics here [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Of course, if the church teachings are evolutionary and subject to change at any time in the future... they may be even cleverer than I thought, those catholics [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't really have much time right now. But for now, Jesus' words are static. Like <u>Moby Dick</u> the words on the page don't change.

[BluffTHIS!]

Since Vatican II was not a dogmatic council, which you agree with, then it follows that any of its statements that you disagree with cannot be labeled heresy. Because matters concerning the liturgy especially are matters of practice and not doctrine. Isn't that correct?

[ QUOTE ]
It gives in to those who assume that choosing your rite of mass is merely a matter of "personal preference" and not an essential matter of Faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is not an essesntial matter of faith. And in fact the liturgical rite to which you belong is canonically determined by that of your parents. Thus most of us belong to the western/Roman rite as opposed to one of the Eastern Rites. But the form of the mass of the western rite has always been a matter of canonical determination. Your position is no different than if you decided you wanted to attend a Sarum Rite mass if some priests would celebrate it, and all without canonical permission.

Liturgy is decided by the synod of bishops and the pope, not by minority interests in the church. If you maintain otherwise, then once again you are merely adopting a position based upon the spirit of protestantism.

[Peter666]

"Since Vatican II was not a dogmatic council, which you agree with, then it follows that any of its statements that you disagree with cannot be labeled heresy."

Of course Vatican II's erroneous statements can be heretical. Any statement made that contradicts traditional doctrine is heresy no matter the source. How could it be otherwise?

"Because matters concerning the liturgy especially are matters of practice and not doctrine. Isn't that correct?"

No. The Liturgy is the highest expression of the Catholic Faith because it is the highest form of worship. The whole thing is implicitly and explicitly an expression of Catholic Dogma contained in practical worship.

"But the form of the mass of the western rite has always been a matter of canonical determination."

Of course, they can choose any rite they wish. That is not the issue. The issue is that the Novus Ordo rite of Mass has removed the Catholicity of the mass to appease Protestants and is a bastardized rite that should not be used for it leads one to false conclusions of the Catholic Faith. See the Ottaviani Report for a start.

"Liturgy is decided by the synod of bishops and the pope, not by minority interests in the church." But as discussed in the previous post, even a synod of Bishops and Pope can be wrong when not making use of their infallible authority.

[Peter666]

"It is not a matter of the statements made by the Church, rather our (sometimes new) understanding of said statements that changes/or grows."

RJT, do you realize that this is the heresy of Modernism?

Midge was absolutely right in assuming that the meaning and understanding of a Church Dogma can never change or grow. That is why they attach the anathema part to it.

You're confusing when a dogma has to be applied to new circumstances and hence clarification may be needed, but that never does anything to change the meaning or our understanding of the dogma.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]

"Liturgy is decided by the synod of bishops and the pope, not by minority interests in the church."

But as discussed in the previous post, even a synod of Bishops and Pope can be wrong when not making use of their infallible authority.

[/ QUOTE ]

See you can't have it both ways. If liturgy=doctrine then a council's positions on liturgy affirmed by the pope has to be infallible (councils don't have to use the formula "I define and declare"). And if it's not doctrine, then it is a practice regulated by canon law, and the canonical decision is necessarily right since the bishops and pope have the right to make the determinations which should be followed, and failing to do so is disobediance.

[PrayingMantis]

god has just PMed me, he says you are both crazy. he's sorry he won't be able to participate since he's busy bonus whoring, but in any case he doesn't have anything to say. he also sends his love and regards. (he's running pretty bad at the moment, in fact, so he's not in such a great mood).

[Peter666]

"If liturgy=doctrine then a council's positions on liturgy affirmed by the pope has to be infallible (councils don't have to use the formula "I define and declare")."

No it does not. The only time a council or Pope do not use the "I define and declare" line is when they merely reaffirm a previous dogma already declared (which they did do in Vatican II at places, which is fine). This is a restatement of an infallible doctrine and is therefore also infallible. As mentioned previously, a synod of Bishops and Popes affirming something new is no guarantee of infalliblity unless specifically invoked. And whatever they affirm cannot be a new innovation, but a Deposit of the Faith.

That being said, where have a synod of Bishops and Pope ever affirm the Novus Ordo Rite? This was a rite legally promulgated by Paul VI, which he has the authority to do. And yes, not following it is disobedience. And disobedience in not following a scandalous rite is a good thing.

[Peter666]

Here, go play with these "Catholic" losers, I think they will be to your liking.