"The sky is blue. It also has white areas."
Therefore, I can safely say that the sky is made of blue Jell-O, and also has whipped cream on it.
Now, I challenge anyone to prove me wrong. You are not allowed to use any outside information. The only information you can use is the above quoted statement.
The above quoted statement is completely accurate. It is not misleading in any way, nor is it ambiguous. It is 100% true.
Simply put, you can not prove me wrong with just that information. It's impossible. However, you can propose an alternate interpretation.
For example, you could propose "The sky is therefore made of blueberry ice cream swirled with vanilla ice cream."
And this would also be 100% accurate, given only the above quotation. However, now we come to a conflict, as the sky can not be made of "blue Jell-O and whipped cream" if it is made of "blueberry ice cream swirled with vanilla ice cream".
Let us examine something more relevant to Vatican II and Sedevacantists, or any who oppose Vatican II for that matter.
The Sedevacantist will provide...
Second Council of Constantinople, can. 10, 553 AD: “If anyone does not
confess his belief that our lord Jesus Christ, who was crucified in his
human flesh, is truly God and the Lord of glory and one of the members
of the holy Trinity: let him be anathema (cursed).”
Now, let us examine this statement, as a Sedevacantist would...
Jews, as a whole, do not accept Jesus Christ as the Son of God, or as God. Therefore, Jews, as a whole, are accursed.
Can I prove this statement wrong? No. Given what he has provided, he is
100% accurate, and his statement can not be refuted. Much like my
statement above, where one can not refute my reasoning on the sky, given
the provided info.
I could provide an alternate interpretation though.
All mankind who believes Jesus Christ is truly God, but never is given opportunity to confess the following statement "our lord Jesus Christ, who was crucified in his human flesh, is truly God and the Lord of glory and one of the members of the holy Trinity", let them be anathema.
Or...
Children to young to understand who do not confess "our lord Jesus Christ, who was crucified in his human flesh, is truly God and the Lord of glory and one of the members of the holy Trinity" are cursed.
All statements can be seen as accurate, given what we have been provided.
How do we settle disputes? I could say that, though the above statement provided by the sedevacantist is possibly correct, my statement is what was actually meant by the council. Clearly, more information from a valid source is needed to determine who is on the right track.
Intelligent interpretation requires many things. First off, it requires
careful examination. Secondly, it requires sufficient information. We
also need to be prepared to accept our reasoning was incorrect when
shown that we have not fully examined, nor accepted valid information.
Careful examination consists of several things. First, is the source
reliable? The information you are examining, is it accurate? Is it
complete? Does it contain subtle changes or special formatting to lead
you to believe something other than what is said? Does it paraphrase?
Does it insert inaccurate interpretation?
If possible, read the information in it's original context. Find an
approved source, and than, double check the source, which is approved,
is accurate. In this case, one can not be too thorough.
Sufficient information. Perhaps the most difficult part. You can never
have too much information, however, for each piece of information, you
need, again, careful examination. Therefore, the more information you
gather, the more examination required, the more time consumed. For
people truly diligent and interested, this usually raises no issue.
Willing to change. No one is impartial, it is an impossibility. We all
have our biases, and we will, depending on the circumstances, view our
information and interpret things in favor of our bias. The best we can
do is keep an open mind as much as possible, with a willingness to
adjust our opinion if we feel we can not adequately respond or address
information provided, or a dedication to continue our research and
obtain the knowledge so we can adequately respond.
Ultimately, it is impossible to completely refute or 'prove' anything.
Jesus Christ did not prove, beyond a doubt, to certain people he was the
Son of God. I believe he is, there is enough proof for me, but those who
do not are a perfect example of people who have not gathered
information, carefully examined and thrown aside their personal bias.
And it follows, one can not completely refute a sedevacantist. It is an
impossibility, just as one can not completely refute a novus ordite.
Each side has a valid information, has carefully examined, and, I
believe, been willing to change (though this would a personal choice,
and I can attest to myself, but not others). The only factor left to
decide is a valid authority, and according to one side, it does not
exist, and the other side, it is the Vicar of Christ.
“Reason and faith cannot be separated without diminishing the capacity
of men and women to know themselves, the world and God in an appropriate
way.” - Pope John Paul II
Let us not abandon our faith in the Lord to maintain his Church because
our reason says it must be so. We should fully examine everything, and
not just that which we see.
I may say that "I hate Pancakes", which is true, but it is also true
that "I love Pancakes with Maple Syrup.
“Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to
the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a
desire to know the truth - in a word, to know himself - so that, by
knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of
truth about themselves.” - Pope John Paul II
Friday, April 24, 2009
Thursday, April 9, 2009
The Major Heresies (Revisited) (Part 2)
The Major Heresies of the Novus Ordo Sect, as Taught by the Apostate Second
with some modification
The Novus Ordo sect officially teaches that Jews are not rejected by God, denies that the Scriptures clearly indicate that they are cursed.
Antipope Giovanni “Paul VI” Montini, Second Vatican Council, Nostrae Aetate, 1965: “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.”
Note: If you read this in context with the rest of Nostra Aetate, you will see that Vatican II condemns the social mistreating of Jews(Anti-Semitism, Holocaust, etc). Certainly, all who do not recognize the Catholic religion and Jesus Christ are accursed, but this give's us no right to socially treat them as such.
The Catholic Church teaches that Jews are rejected by God, and that Scripture teaches they are cursed.
Perhaps the most laughable proof provided in this document. All of that which is provided is not pointed solely at the Jews at all, save for one papal quote.
St. Matthew 10:33 But he that shall deny me before men, I will also deny before my Father who is in heaven.
Applies to any who shall deny Jesus Christ, not just the Jews.
1 Corinthians 16:22 If any man love not our Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema (cursed)…
Applies to any who do not love Jesus Christ, not just the Jews.
St. Matthew 27:25 And the whole people answering, said: His blood be upon us and our children.
Why does this apply to the entirety of the Jewish people, and not just those who were present and condemned our Lord? Clearly the entirety of Judaism was not present at this gathering
Second Council of Constantinople, can. 10, 553 AD: “If anyone does not confess his belief that our lord Jesus Christ, who was crucified in his human flesh, is truly God and the Lord of glory and one of the members of the holy Trinity: let him be anathema (cursed).”
Again, does not apply solely to the Jews, but to any who does not confess the above.
Pope Clement VIII, 1605: “The Bible itself says that the Jews are an accursed people.”
First off, this is not infallible, if we are to use the sedevecantist theology against themselves. We can not 'assume' it is an infallible statement. When we 'assume', it makes an ass out of u and me. Unless otherwise proven, we should take this as personal papal opinion, and not infallible doctrine. It could easily be addressed if it was infallible, however.
For example, is he speaking of the Jews who make a firm stance in defense of Judaism, Jews who are ignorant of the gospel, Jews who are still children and lack sufficient reason to understand? Jews in a social or religious aspect? Even if this is infallible, it does not in any way address those ignorant through no fault of there own (though I myself doubt very few invincibly ignorant Jews exist.).
1 Thessalonians 2:14 For you, brethren, are become followers of the churches of God which are in Judea, in Christ Jesus: for you also have suffered the same things from your own coutrymen, even as they have from the Jews, 15 Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and the prophets, and have persecuted us, and please not God, and are adversaries to all men;
I please not God when I throw my McDonalds Happy Meal bag out the side of my car window, and show disrespect to the earth He created. This does not mean I am accursed. It means I have sinned.
The Novus Ordo sect officially teaches that the god of the Mohammedans, who is not the Triune God, is the one true God.
Antipope Giovanni “Paul VI” Montini, Second Vatican Council, Nostrae Aetate, 1965: “The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth…”
The Catholic Church teaches that the One True God is the Holy Trinity and that anyone who denies the Holy Trinity denies God.
1 St. John 2:22 Who is a liar, but he who denieth that Jesus is the Christ? This is Antichrist, who denieth the Father, and the Son. 23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father.”
Athanasian Creed: “And the Catholic Faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity…So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not Three Gods, but One God…the whole Three Persons are Co-eternal together, and Co-equal.”
Pope Sixtus III, Council of Ephesus, 431 AD: “If anyone dares to say that Christ was a God-bearing man and not rather God in truth…let him be anathema.”
Pope St. Leo IX, Congratulamur Vehementer, 1053: “For I firmly believe that the Holy Trinity, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, is one omnipotent God, and in the Trinity the whole Godhead is co-essential and consubstantial, co-eternal and co-omnipotent, all things, through whom all things, in whom all things [Rom. 11:36] which are in heaven or on earth, visible or invisible. Likewise I believe that each person in the Holy Trinity is the one true God, complete and perfect.”
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Cantate Domino, 1442: “First, then, the holy Roman church, founded on the words of our Lord and Saviour, firmly believes, professes and preaches one true God, almighty, immutable and eternal, Father, Son and holy Spirit…Most firmly it believes, professes and preaches that the one true God, Father, Son and holy Spirit, is the creator of all things that are, visible and invisible…It professes that one and the same God is the author of the old and the new Testament…since the saints of both testaments spoke under the inspiration of the same Spirit.”
Exodus 20:2 I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. 3 Thou shalt not have strange gods before me.
None of these directly address Islam. They all address the Trinity and Jesus' full divinity. The quote below does directly address Islam. Take note the date. Clearly, this has been a teaching in the Church for quite some time, or Pope Gregory spouted his heresy quite plainly.
‘Almighty God, who wishes that all should be saved and none lost, approves nothing in so much as that after loving Him one should love his fellow man, and that one should not do to others, what one does not want done to oneself. You and we owe this charity to ourselves especially because we believe in and confess one God, admittedly, in a different way, and daily praise and venerate him, the creator of the world and ruler of this world.’ Pope Gregory VII, letter to Al-Nasir, the Muslim Ruler of Bijaya, present day Algeria., circa 1076.
I would also suggest reading the following article, which explains it in a biblical sense, which, I feel, is an adequate explanation for the bible verses provided.
http://the-supplement.blogspot.com/2008/03/observations-for-those-who-deny-that.html
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
The Major Heresies (Revisited)
The Major Heresies of the Novus Ordo Sect, as Taught by the Apostate Second
with some modification
The Novus Ordo sect officially teaches religious liberty.
Antipope Giovanni “Paul VI” Montini, Second Vatican Council, Dignitatis Humanae, 1965: “This Vatican Council declares that everyone has the right to religious LIBERTY…The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself.”
I have bolded, capitalized, and underlined the word liberty because this has been changed from the original. Most likely in an attempt to prove a point. You will find this quote no where else on the internet with the word liberty.
*****(Note: At this point, the source article has been changed since I brought this to the attention of the source. The Author has recognized his error on this part, and revised the word Liberty to Freedom.) *****
The quote in it's entirety...
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.
The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself.(2)
2. Cf. John XXIII, encycL "Pacem in Terris", April 11, 1963: AAS 55 (1963), pp. 260-261; Pius XII, radio message, Dec. 24, 1942: AAS 35 (1943), p. 19; Pius XI, encycl. "Mit Brennender Sorge", March 14, 1937: AAS 29 (1937), p. 160; Leo XIII, encycl. "Libertas Praestantissimum", June 20, 1888: Acts of Leo XIII 8 (1888), p. 237-238.
Here, Vatican II clearly explains what it means by religious freedom, which in no way contradicts that which has been taught by the Catholic Church. Let's examine the quotes provided
The Catholic Church condemns religious liberty.
False. No where will you find a quote stating such. You will find quotes which 'seemingly' prove it, but only when taken out of context and applied to a scenario they were never meant to be applied to.
According to Syllabus Errorum, the Catholic Church condemns INDIFFERENTISM (indifferentism is a condemned heresy that holds that one religion is as good as another, and that all religions are equally valid paths to salvation.), and LATITUDINARIANISM (the belief that, while Christianity generally is superior to other faiths, it makes no difference which of the several Christian denominations the believer chooses to join. Catholicism condemns Protestantism specifically for this sort of indifferentism, noting that many Protestant denominations do not claim that they exclusively possess the truth of the Christian gospel, and that various forms of worship may be equally pleasing to God: a latitudinarian position.)
Pope Pius IX, Syllabus Errorum, 1864: “Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true.” -- CONDEMNED
Pope Leo XIII in Immortale Dei (November 1, 1885) taught:
“The Church is wont to take earnest heed that no one shall be forced to embrace the Catholic Faith against his will, for, as
Let us reconcile this encyclical with Syllabus Errorum.
Again, unless Leo was heretical in this Encyclical, we can see the continuous teaching of the catholic church, man does not have the right in a 'spiritual' sense to choose a faith contrary to Catholicism, however, man does have the right to choose, in a 'physical' sense, what he is to believe.
Pope Pius IX, Syllabus Errorum, 1864: “In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship.” -- CONDEMNED
This in no way applies to religious liberty whatsoever. Is it expedient (suitable) that the catholic religion should be held as the only religion? Certainly! It alone contains the full truth! Is it possible? Only if the state is not forced to do so, as 'Man cannot believe otherwise than of his own free will."
In Etsi Multa, state and church are clearly distinguished as separate entities. Pius wrote...
"...Nevertheless the faith teaches and human reason demonstrates that there is a twofold order of things. Two kinds of powers must be distinguished on earth-one natural that looks to the tranquility and secular business of human society; the other, whose origin is above nature, which is in charge of the Church of Christ, divinely instituted for the salvation and peace of souls."
Pope Pius IX, Syllabus Errorum, 1864: “The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church.” -- CONDEMNED
Again, not condemned because the State and the Church should be a singular unit, but the state should rely on the Church for her social teaching and truth. For, how would the state know what Truth is, without the Church, where all truth is given from?
Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, 1832: "This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone."
Comment Provided by http://the-hermeneutic-of-continuity.blogspot.com/2009/02/hermeneutic-of-continuity-and-freedom.html
So how can we reconcile such coercion with Vatican II? Clearly we must read Vatican II in the light of tradition, interpret it in accord with the constant teaching of the Church: we must apply the "hermeneutic of continuity."
In fact, we can find some hints even in Dignitatis Humanae itself to support such a reading. Earlier on, the Declaration affirmed that:
On their part, all men are bound to seek the truth, especially in what concerns God and His Church, and to embrace the truth they come to know, and to hold fast to it. (n.1)
This principle is prior to the principle of freedom of conscience. A further restraint on liberty of conscience is provided by the test of "public order." Speaking of religious freedom (although the principle also applies to freedom of conscience) Dignitatis Humanae says that a person should have immunity from coercion but adds an important proviso:
In consequence, the right to this immunity continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it and the exercise of this right is not to be impeded, provided that just public order be observed. (n.2 - my empahsis)
In some states, denial of the holocaust is a criminal offence - the state intervenes for the sake of the public order to prevent the encouragement of neo-nazism. Such states recognise that liberty of conscience has its limits. Most people also think that the truth about the holocaust is an important matter - whether or not holocaust denial is punishable in civil law. As far as the holocaust is concerned, "error has no rights" and the world concords with Blessed Pope Pius IX in seeing the absolute liberty of conscience as an insanity.
Indeed the world's press agrees with Pope Gregory XVI in being horrified at the "monstrous doctrines and prodigious errors" that are proclaimed when the liberty of conscience is unrestrained by the obligation of seeking the truth and the duty to preserve public order and recognises that the idea that liberty of conscience should be proclaimed for everyone is "an absurd and erroneous proposition."
The media furore over Bishop Williamson thus neatly demonstrates that it is perfectly reasonable to interpret Dignitatis Humanae in the light of Mirari Vos and Quanta Cura.
Pope Pius VII, Post Tam Diuturnas, 1814: “But a much more grave, and indeed very bitter, sorrow increased in Our heart - a sorrow by which We confess that We were crushed, overwhelmed and torn in two - from the twenty-second article of the constitution in which We saw, not only that "liberty of religion and of conscience" (to use the same words found in the article) were permitted by the force of the constitution, but also that assistance and patronage were promised both to this liberty and also to the ministers of these different forms of "religion". There is certainly no need of many words, in addressing you, to make you fully recognize by how lethal a wound the Catholic religion in
What is the wound struck by this article? It is not "liberty of religion and of conscience", but rather "For when the liberty of all "religions" is indiscriminately asserted, by this very fact truth is confounded with error and the holy and immaculate Spouse of Christ, the Church, outside of which there can be no salvation, is set on a par with the sects of heretics and with Judaic perfidy itself. For when favour and patronage is promised even to the sects of heretics and their ministers, not only their persons, but also their very errors, are tolerated and fostered: a system of errors in which is contained that fatal and never sufficiently to be deplored heresy which, as St. Augustine says (de Haeresibus, no.72), "asserts that all heretics proceed correctly and tell the truth: which is so absurd that it seems incredible to me."
The error is not liberty of religion and of conscience. The error is that all religions are on par with Catholicism. Again, the error is indifferentism.
The Novus Ordo sect officially teaches collegiality.
Antipope Giovanni “Paul VI” Montini, Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, 1964: “The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head.”
Key part left out. Just prior to the quote provided, we read...
"But the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head. The pope's power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power."
Vatican II does not teach collegiality, as is clearly demonstrated above. There is no need to address the proof provided, as Lumen Gentium clearly shows on it's own it is no official teaching on collegiality.
(To Be Continued)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)