NationStates Jolt Archive

I was raised a Catholic, but I really don't practice. Unfortunatly my faith has been shaken by all that's been going on in the Church recently. Despite this, I have been studying the religion, and have been following its progress.

I'm sorry to say that I really don't know all that much about Pre-Vatican II Catholisism. I do know that Vatican II is a more liberal version, gets rid of "Limbo" and Mass is no longer conducted in Latin.

Two part question.

1. What are the differences between the Pre and Post Vatican II Council?

2. Based on these, would you consider Vatican II's changes to be successful?

Last but not least. This is for information gathering purposes only. KEEP IT CIVIL.

Only "pre-Vatican II" Catholicism is actually Catholicism. The "Second Vatican Council" was a farce initiated by Jews and Freemasons.

Okay...Why?

I asked for differences.

The Catholic Mass is always in Latin; there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church; the Jews are all guilty of deicide; religious liberty is CONDEMNED...
The list goes on and on...

The bigest difference?

pre-Vatican II is the Official Mel-Gibson-approved version of Christianity.

And he should know best.... after all - he's a star!

:D

The bigest difference?

pre-Vatican II is the Official Mel-Gibson-approved version of Christianity.

And he should know best.... after all - he's a star!

:D

You're just jealous that you didn't think of the Passion movie first.

You're just jealous that you didn't think of the Passion movie first.


On the contrary. If I wanted to be noted for having written a movie that ended in a crucifixion, I'd much rather be able to take credit for the Life of Brian.

t'was a much more enjoyable movie in my opinion.

:D

Pre Vatican II?

Better times. Women knew their place. Blacks knew their place. Jews, gays.....

Nuns had to wear their habits.

A bunch of nasty old tossers told you sex was only for procreation.

Alter Boys didn't talk about being molested.....

Now for a serious question?

Why do you want to know?

On the contrary. If I wanted to be noted for having written a movie that ended in a crucifixion, I'd much rather be able to take credit for the Life of Brian.

t'was a much more enjoyable movie in my opinion.

:D
Yay, another Monty Python fan. Not to many of those at my age (17)

Always look on the bright side of life..... ;)

The Catholic Mass is always in Latin; there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church; the Jews are all guilty of deicide; religious liberty is CONDEMNED...

That's a fairly accurate list of things that actually changed because of Vatican II. Mass is now done in the language of the attendents, other sects of Christianity are recognized to exist and are seriously talked to and delt with, it is actually debatable now whether every single person with Jewish blood in them is instantly condemned to hell, and the religion is presented in a way that hearkens back to a group of marketing strategists more then a group of old priests. There were other changes too, such as the church making a transition from an organization that would pander to inhumane governments in order to keep its special status and privilages in society to being on the forefront of the crusade for human rights. It's much less sedentary today then it was before the council. Whether the changes are in the right or wrong direction is up to the observer. They aren't perfect and I have little doubt that there'll be a Vatican III in our lifetime.


If you're really interested in Vatican II you can read the documents (http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/) that came out of it. They're kind of long but they aren't a very difficult read.

If you're really interested in Vatican II you can read the documents (http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/) that came out of it. They're kind of long but they aren't a very difficult read.

Nice link!

And Black Forest. I'd like to know because I'm a raised Catholic, and while I am taking classes, I'd like to know what things were like in the past.

My mom would tell me stories about how every business would be closed on Sundays, and how Mass would last FOREVER.

So, naturaly, I'm curious.

That's a fairly accurate list of things that actually changed because of Vatican II. Mass is now done in the language of the attendents, other sects of Christianity are recognized to exist and are seriously talked to and delt with, it is actually debatable now whether every single person with Jewish blood in them is instantly condemned to hell, and the religion is presented in a way that hearkens back to a group of marketing strategists more then a group of old priests. There were other changes too, such as the church making a transition from an organization that would pander to inhumane governments in order to keep its special status and privilages in society to being on the forefront of the crusade for human rights. It's much less sedentary today then it was before the council. Whether the changes are in the right or wrong direction is up to the observer. They aren't perfect and I have little doubt that there'll be a Vatican III in our lifetime.



If you're really interested in Vatican II you can read the documents (http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/) that came out of it. They're kind of long but they aren't a very difficult read.


If anyone says that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vernacular tongue; or that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice because it is contrary to the institution of Christ, let him be anathema.
--Council of Trent

The day the Church abandons her universal tongue {LATIN} is the day she returns to the catacombs.
--Pope Pius XII

"We profess that there is no salvation outside the Church. ...For the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth. With reference to those words Augustine says: `If any man be outside the Church he will be excluded from the number of sons, and will not have God for Father since he has not the Church for mother.'"
--Pope Leo XII

"There is no entering into salvation outside the Church, just as in the time of the deluge there was none outside the ark, which denotes the Church."
--Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

Judaism, since Christ, is a corruption; indeed, Judas is the image of the Jewish people: their understanding of Scripture is carnal; they bear the guilt for the death of the Savior, for through their fathers they have killed Christ. The Jews held Him; the Jews insulted Him; the Jews bound Him; they crowned Him with thorns; they scourged Him; they hanged Him upon a tree.
--Saint Augustine of Hippo

"The Bible itself says that the Jews are an accursed people."
--Pope Clement VIII

Nice link!

And Black Forest. I'd like to know because I'm a raised Catholic, and while I am taking classes, I'd like to know what things were like in the past.

My mom would tell me stories about how every business would be closed on Sundays, and how Mass would last FOREVER.

So, naturaly, I'm curious.

Your mom isn't fibbing.

Mass took a loooooooonnnnnngggggg time. Heck if you do a mass wedding, you add 2+ hours to it.

There are people who will argue both sides of the camp, but one interesting thing I once heard(can't remember the source so take it with a grain of salt) is that there are/were Italians in the Vatican who thought the pope can only be Italian.

I don't mind Vatican II myself.

Ex-Alter Boy. ;)

I thought of something else. Priests now face the congregation when performing mass. Women can now be acolytes and eucharistic ministers. Let me save Servus Dei the trouble.

"It must be taught, then, that to priests alone has been given power to consecrate and administer to the faithful, the Holy Eucharist. That this has been the unvarying practice of the Church ... as having proceeded from Apostolic tradition, is to be religiously retained." - Council of Trent


Lots of bold print.

Those things, the exception being the belief that any church other then the Roman Catholic church and maybe Eastern Orthodox are legitimate, are inferences and are subject to debate. You listed precedents and precedents are always subject to reevaluation. I don't think that the evaluation done at Vatican II was all that great but I can't say that it is fundamentally wrong. For instance, where in the bible does it hint to mass having to be done in Latin? It was tradition by the time of the Council of Trent because Latin was the common language used by people that were Catholic. That's all it was: tradition. I don't think they could have done anything more there then create a guideline.

There are people who will argue both sides of the camp, but one interesting thing I once heard(can't remember the source so take it with a grain of salt) is that there are/were Italians in the Vatican who thought the pope can only be Italian.

Were those the same folks who think that English (La Lingua Pura) is a "dirty" language, because it isn't fully derived from Latin.

Oh those silly humans!

I thought of something else. Priests now face the congregation when performing mass. Women can now be acolytes and eucharistic ministers. Let me save Servus Dei the trouble.

Priests say the Mass ad orientam.

Question for Servus Dei...why is the Council of Trent all of a sudden any more valid than Vatican II? The Church has changed things in the past (like, for example, AT THE COUNCIL OF TRENT), why can they not do so in the present?

Question for Servus Dei...why is the Council of Trent all of a sudden any more valid than Vatican II? The Church has changed things in the past (like, for example, AT THE COUNCIL OF TRENT), why can they not do so in the present?
The Council of Trent is dogmatic. "Vatican II" is non-dogmatic. Trent is fully Catholic; V2 is Protestant and Freemason. And evolution of dogma is CONDEMNED!

The Council of Trent is dogmatic. "Vatican II" is non-dogmatic. Trent is fully Catholic; V2 is Protestant and Freemason. And evolution of dogma is CONDEMNED!

I suggest that you quickly board a flight to the Vatican, and inform the Pope that he's been making a terrible mistake...

I suggest that you quickly board a flight to the Vatican, and inform the Pope that he's been making a terrible mistake...

I wouldn't follow that advice Servus Dei, Swiss Guard will be all over your ass in a second you step one foot near the Pope.

So, you're saying that at this point there are two Catholic faiths; the Dogmatic Catholics, and Vatican II. Am I correct in assuming this?

Read the Many Heresies of John Paul II thread...

bolol.
vatican II was the church's way fo keeping up with the changes in society made over a couple of hundred years. they officially condemned slavery and made the church more accessable. the language was changed to the verncaular from latin because it would make it easier for people to worship. they also changed the way communion is recieved and some of the silly rules like head covering for women were removed. eucharistic ministers were allowed after II so that larger parishes with one priest could accomidate all those wishing to recieve communion. there are many more things and i hope you really wanted to know and you should look around more online. i was raised catholic and attended catholic school for 13 years. so i hope i was of help. oh and we came from jews and our religion is based on judaism and we still share a strong link to them...so any christian is a jew at heart ans hould remember that jesus was jewish. and arabic.

The Council of Trent is dogmatic. "Vatican II" is non-dogmatic. Trent is fully Catholic; V2 is Protestant and Freemason. And evolution of dogma is CONDEMNED!
Why is evolution of dogma "CONDEMNED"? And I want a logical reason, not a quote by some anti-Semitic assbite like Pius XII.

Why is evolution of dogma "CONDEMNED"? And I want a logical reason, not a quote by some anti-Semitic assbite like Pius XII.

For the same reason it was a problem in that movie, Dogma.

Priests say the Mass ad orientam.

Oh. Well, not anymore.

The liberalist council leader Paul VI actually answered to many of John XXIII's naive statements...


"I want to throw open the windows of the Church. . ."
--"Pope John XXIII"

“It is as if from some mysterious crack, no, it is not mysterious, from some crack the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God: the doubt, uncertainty, the problematic, the inquietude, the dissatisfaction occur daily...
--"Pope Paul VI"

http://www.traditio.com/comment/com0412ze.jpg

"It is now only dawn. . ."
--"Pope John XXIII"

We believed that after the Council would come a day of sunshine in the history of the Church. But instead there has come a day of clouds and storms, and of darkness ...We have dug new abysses in place of filling them up. And how did this come about? We will confide to you the thought that may be, we ourselves admit in free discussion, that may be unfounded, and that is that there has been a power, an adversary power. Let us call him by his name: the devil.
--"Pope Paul VI"

Why is evolution of dogma "CONDEMNED"? And I want a logical reason, not a quote by some anti-Semitic assbite like Pius XII.
The Church has condemned it.

The Catholic Mass is always in Latin; there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church; the Jews are all guilty of deicide; religious liberty is CONDEMNED...
The list goes on and on...

Ah, because you're unbiased, and your username has nothing to do with the ever so slightly </sarcasm> cultish Opus Dei?

Nice link!

And Black Forest. I'd like to know because I'm a raised Catholic, and while I am taking classes, I'd like to know what things were like in the past.

My mom would tell me stories about how every business would be closed on Sundays, and how Mass would last FOREVER.

So, naturaly, I'm curious.

Mass lasted only about an hour unless it was a high Mass which lasted about an hour and a half. For a kid that was forever. No one except the priest could touch the host or serve communion. When you went to receive communion you would kneel at the altar rail. Women would cover their heads when entering the church. No altar girls, only altar boys. If you went to Mass at a church that had a Catholic school, the kid Mass was downstairs and the meanest nuns in the world patrolled the isles. You went to confession almost every Saturday. Confession was in a booth and there was a screen between you and the priest. The only people who could go to heaven were Catholics as the Catholic Church was the one true religion.

By the way, there is an order that observes the Latin Mass and pre-Vatican II traditions associated with the Mass and Confession. Unfortunately, I can’t remember the name of the order.

Ah, because you're unbiased, and your username has nothing to do with the ever so slightly </sarcasm> cultish Opus Dei?
The left-wing anti-Catholic charismatic cult called "opus 'dei'" will be crushed.

Oh, wow. The Pope. The absolute highest authority of Christianity. Except, for mabye JESUS?

The Bible says to spread the Word of Christ throughout the world. There is nothing in the Bible about Latin being mandatory for the liturgical language. Jesus would want us priests to do mass in the vernacular language to better spread the Word. The requirement for Latin was just made by a guy in a silly hat.

The left-wing anti-Catholic charismatic cult called "opus 'dei'" will be crushed.
:) coolies... I was unsure if you were pro/anti Opus Dei if I'm honest ...

Oh, wow. The Pope. The absolute highest authority of Christianity. Except, for mabye JESUS?

The Bible says to spread the Word of Christ throughout the world. There is nothing in the Bible about Latin being mandatory for the liturgical language. Jesus would want us priests to do mass in the vernacular language to better spread the Word. The requirement for Latin was just made by a guy in a silly hat.
Christ did not use vernacular in prayer. At His time and place He first used Hebrew as His prayer language, though that was not His vernacular.

The Church has condemned it.
So? I condemn cheese. Hence, cheese shall forever be anathema!

:) coolies... I was unsure if you were pro/anti Opus Dei if I'm honest ...
A sickening Talmudic sect...

Christ did not use vernacular in prayer. At His time and place He first used Hebrew as His prayer language, though that was not His vernacular.

Well then by that logic we should be using Hebrew in the mass, not that devil Latin...

I don't feel like feeding the troll again, Defensor Fidei.

I wouldn't follow that advice Servus Dei, Swiss Guard will be all over your ass in a second you step one foot near the Pope.

So, you're saying that at this point there are two Catholic faiths; the Dogmatic Catholics, and Vatican II. Am I correct in assuming this?

Make that three. Some of us are in-between but lean more to the dogmatic side than the Vatican II side. Vatican II turned a lot of things I was taught in Catechism and Catholic school upside-down. :(

Christ did not use vernacular in prayer. At His time and place He first used Hebrew as His prayer language, though that was not His vernacular.

Which surely is even MORE indicitive that Jesus himself felt that using the vernacular tongue of those you are preaching to was the appropriate method.

But hey - who is he to disagree with a Papal order made some time after his passing......right?

Well then by that logic we should be using Hebrew in the mass, not that devil Latin...

I don't feel like feeding the troll again, Defensor Fidei.

How is he trolling?

remember that jesus was jewish. and arabic.

Jewish yes, arabic no.

Well then by that logic we should be using Hebrew in the mass, not that devil Latin...

No, Western Christians are Latin-rite.

Which surely is even MORE indicitive that Jesus himself felt that using the vernacular tongue of those you are preaching to was the appropriate method.

But hey - who is he to disagree with a Papal order made some time after his passing......right?
Because Christ did not use vernacular, this makes it "MORE indicitive" that we should? :confused:

I'd like to know because I'm a raised Catholic, and while I am taking classes, I'd like to know what things were like in the past.

If you want to include the beginning in the past, things were quite different, but in some ways, more like they are now.

By that, I mean that celebrating Mass and receiving the Eucharist was done with one Celebrant who performed the rituals WITH the celebrants. Usually in secret in someone's house, an underground location or anyplace they would be unlikely to be discovered. But different from now, because those who chose to celebrate Mass had to be willing to be tortured or killed because of it, should they be discovered.

But the thing to remember is that the church became, and remains, a very powerful and rich political machine. Historically, there were some corrupt Popes, and I believe, that corruption filtered down through the ranks, as well. I don't mean to imply that our current Pope is corrupt, as I would assume he is not, but he did not get chosen to be the leader of The Church just because he could genuflect nicely. If you read about him, he was, and continues to be, a very ambitious and driven individual, and while he is supposed to be God's representative on earth, I believe his word comes more from those surrounding him, that from direct prayer.

Pre-VII, the members of the church were kept at a distance and believed what they were told because it came from a higher authority. Supposedly from God, but it had to filter down through the ranks, so who knows what spin it got before it reached the masses? Priests were not always pure souls who felt the unbridled need to serve God, but often younger sons who were offered to The Church as a way providing vocation and also to bring honor to the family.

Now that church members are allowed to get up-close and more involved in the workings of the church, things like affairs between priests and women, altar boys being molested and such, has been reported. I don't believe these things haven't happened before, just that it never became known because The Church exercised such absolute power.

I'm getting long-winded, but I see some big changes ahead for The Catholic Church, and I hope some are for the better. The world changes and any institution that wants to continue to operate needs to change, too. There are those who complain about the changes (like my dad), but really, without changes, you just have stagnation.

The damage done by the Second Vatican Council will be undone, Our Lady assures us of this.

The damage done by the Second Vatican Council will be undone, Our Lady assures us of this.
What about my condemnation of cheese? Will that be undone, too? Because that would be an evolution of dogma of the Church of the Invisible Pink Pony, which is evil according to your (supposed) logic.

The damage done by the Second Vatican Council will be undone, Our Lady assures us of this.

Mary can't do crap.

I'm tired of your trolling in various forms. This thread should be locked, you should be banned, and we should get on with our lives.

What about my condemnation of cheese?

How dare you condemn cheese, you heretic?! That goes against everything I have ever learned in The Church of the Green Bay Packers. ;)

(Sorry. Just a little American Football humor, there...)

What about my condemnation of cheese? Will that be undone, too? Because that would be an evolution of dogma of the Church of the Invisible Pink Pony, which is evil according to your (supposed) logic.

Irrelevent. Your doctrine was not changed by Vatican II and therefore cannot be undone by the undoing of Vatican II.

Mass lasted only about an hour unless it was a high Mass which lasted about an hour and a half.

You had short winded Priests! ;)

As an Evengelical Catholic known by the name of our founder Dr. Martin Luther-Lutherans, I must say that saying that dogmantic change is wrong is contradictory to everything that both the Papal Confutation and the Council of Trent stand for. Tradition is to stand as an equel part in the authority of the Scripture, with the Magistairium the only authority, as granted and approved by the sitting pope while sitting ex cathedra and thus exercising his infallible powers, that can interpret this authority of Scripture and Tradition. This accounts for the many, many inconsistancies of the "infallible" popes over the years that have overturned the decisions of previous popes.
And, if that weren't easy enough to understand, there are some who refuse to humble themselves before the decisions of popes and councils, and yet argue that anyone who doesn't is damned? It is only under the freedom provided within the Roman tradition under Vatican II that this groups is even allowed to exist, for without it, they would be facing mass excommunication according to the rules in regards to Trent. If they truly were the loyal sons of the church that they claim to be, they would have to say that since Vatican II is issued as a Papal document and spoken ex cathedra, making it infallible, that they must wholeheartedly agree to it or face damnation, whether they agreed with it or not. To not do this to PROTEST the decisions of the popes and councils, well what would one do with these PROTESTERS or even PROTESTANTS?

As a Lutheran, I recognise that as a member of the true Catholic tradition, the Thomists who dared to filter the Holy Word of God through pagan philosophies, and the Scholastics, who refused to believe that they had been wronged by the Rennescience popes, who were "Remarkably untouched by Christianity," derailed the traditions of the Catholic tradition and introduced new and Satanic doctrines, forcing Humanist reformers like Dr. Luther, to look for "ad fontes" or from the fountain, or from the source, believing that the closer one came to the source of revelation, the more pure it was, and since popes cannot claim, even through the extremely thin arguement of Apostalic succession, that they can be more pure than the true Word of God, they found the source of all Truth in Jesus Christ in His Holy Scriptures.

But, have had this conversation to death, I go to Concordia University, and am studying to become a Pastor, and eventually a Doctor of Theology, and our philosophy department boasts most of the Seminarians from the nearby Newman College who are entering the priesthood, so this has been done.

Eph. 2:8-9
WWJD
Amen.

The damage done by the Second Vatican Council will be undone, Our Lady assures us of this.

Nah. The old tossers that long for the days before Vatican II are dying off.

Nah. The old tossers that long for the days before Vatican II are dying off.
Correct. The new Catholics who wish to maintain their Holy religion are what is growing as the pathetic 60s generation dies out. The Newchurch closes seminaries every week as their numbers decline.

Why is evolution of dogma "CONDEMNED"? And I want a logical reason, not a quote by some anti-Semitic assbite like Pius XII.

Let me see what I can do with this. First, we need the definition of dogma:
n. pl. dog·mas or dog·ma·ta (-m-t)

1. A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.
2. An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true.
3. A principle or belief or a group of them:

In the second definition, dogma is considered absolute truth. Absolute truth cannot change because if it did it could not be absolute truth. Therefore, if dogma is absolute truth and absolute truth cannot change, dogma cannot evolve. To change absolute truth (dogma) must be condemned.

Correct. The new Catholics who wish to maintain their Holy religion are what is growing as the pathetic 60s generation dies out. The Newchurch closes seminaries every week as their numbers decline.

Well if the new Catholic Priests would stop attacking boys, they might get more people into the Religion.

The same tossers of Pre-Vat II protected and still protect them.

You had short winded Priests! ;)

Also had one who gave his sermons in a monotone. Try staying awake for that.

Servus, you should read Luther's "Open Letter to Leo X," it' a fun read, or even "The Freedom of the Christian," but if one is more for Confessional theology, Melanchthon's "The Power and Primacy of The Pope" is also enlightening. I'm warning you though, they are fairly polemnic in tone.

WWJD
Amen.

Hey guys, I couldn't help but notice this thread and read through it and since I have taken quite a few courses on Catholic doctrine and dogma and have studied Vatican II I figure that I might be abel to answer a few of the questions that were brought up.

Before Vatican II came about, all Catholic Masses, as has already been stated were said in Latin, the priest never faced the congregation, the Tabernacle was set at the center of the altar, incense was more frequently used among other changes.

During the early 1960's, it was brought to the attention of Pope John XXIII that many Catholics were feeling that the Church was becoming too out of touch with the rest of the world, as a result John XXIII called for a reform in the Catholic Mass. The result is what we see today: masses being said in the Vernacular, a system where everyone in the world would have the same readings on the same day, the priest was to face the congregation, the tabernacle was moved, etc. The idea behind all of this was to make worship more communal by involving the congregation more and opening the doors for lay ministry.

There were also some changes as to the roles of members of the Church heirarchy: Bishops were to become less associated with administrative tasks and focus more on pastoral duties.

There was also a new turn that the Church took as a result of the Second Vatican Council, and that was a renewal of the Ecumenical Movement. The Catholic Church would no longer condemn other religions but accept their role in the world and recognize that any faith that attempts to bring the souls of men closer to God was not an enemy of the Church, but an ally. Faiths like Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, the Protestant and Orthodox Christian faiths, and Buddhism are no longer looked down upon but are now viewed as vestibules for the human soul to reach God ("There is but one story, only the sages tell it many ways"). In fact, in its Ecumenical declaration the Church CONDEMNS ANTISEMITISM and recognizes "the bond that spiritually ties the people of the New Covenant to Abraham's stock".

Servus Dei was also right, there was no dogmatic change to the Catholic faith as a result of Vatican II. The reason why the Church refuses to change dogma is because the Catholic Church is descended of two things: the Bible and Tradition. Many aspects of Church dogma come straight from the source and an adendum to much of Church dogma would result in editing the Bible -- this is not something that would go over well with anyone. The second half is Tradition: the Church will always work to retain the rituals and beliefs that have characterized it since ancient times. This does not mean the Church is resitant to change, on the contrary the Church has always been one of the greatest benefactors to science and the arts (I know that someone will give me shit for this by pointing to Gallileo, but if you do your reasearch, you'll find that this is a very vaild statement), instead the Church acts to so that we do not accept change for the sake of change, but so that we may take a step back and examine issues more closely and make sure that they are really what's essential. Because of this unique blend of tradition and Bible, Church dogma can not be changed (There's also the whole issue that Church dogma is inspired directly by the Holy Spirit and by changing dogma you change the will of God).

Hopefully this answers your questions about Vatican II.

Oh and since I have a few issues with some of the things that were said, I'm going to go on a bit of a rant:

The Jews were not guilty of deicide, that blame goes to the Pharisees who bribed the crowd to support Barabas's stay of execution. I know when you read the book of Matthew he refers to "The Jews" over and over... he was not referring to the Jews but the Pharisees and other religious leaders who saw Jesus as a threat to their power. Look in any of the other Gospels and they differentiate between the people and the Pharisees.

Oh and here's something to floss your brain with: since Jesus embraced his destiny, the fact that he was born to die, does that make Judas a tool of God as opposed to Satan? Someone needed to do the dirty work so that humanity could be saved. Pilate, Judas, the Pharisees... were they really evil and deserving of our condmenation, or were they just pawns and part of a divine plan?

Don't be so quick to point fingers, you never know what place religions and people are supposed to play in our world. To condemn people based on ONE PERSON'S interpretation of the life of Jesus (St. Matthew) is dangerous.

Also, as to the language that Jesus spoke, he spoke in Aramaic and most likely preached in it. Jesus preached to all people, Jews, Romans, Samaritans, and other Gentiles. I'm sure there were times that he preached in Hebrew, but the Bible doesn't account for when he did and didn't, thus we can assume that he would have probably used Aramaic.

As for the reference to "Our Lady", I'm assuming you mean the Virgin Mary. I have not heard of this and I'd like to know what you are citing. If you mean the visitation at Fatima, that is yet to be sanctioned by the Church as valid if I've done my research correctly. I can't speak so much on this and I'm just curious as to what you're refencing.

Sorry about the length of this post, but there's alot to be said about this conversation.

Let me see what I can do with this. First, we need the definition of dogma:
n. pl. dog·mas or dog·ma·ta (-m-t)

1. A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.
2. An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true.
3. A principle or belief or a group of them:

In the second definition, dogma is considered absolute truth. Absolute truth cannot change because if it did it could not be absolute truth. Therefore, if dogma is absolute truth and absolute truth cannot change, dogma cannot evolve. To change absolute truth (dogma) must be condemned.
Thanks much.

The Church has always taught that the Jews are all guilty of deicide.

*snip*
Sorry about the length of this post, but there's alot to be said about this conversation.

Well said.

Hmm Science and the arts.

Well you should put a little more definition into that. Art was supported as long as it glorified the Chruch. Not exactly a great benefactor of Art as a whole.

Science? Ok You have me curious. What exactly would you call the support of Science?

Vatican II is valid! Any "Catholic" who denies this is a heretic and a seperatist. This is what many Saints and Church fathers have to say about heretics-


"Schism is proximate to heresies"

"There are an infinite number of ways to fall,
but there is only one way to stand." --G.K. Chesterton


"It is a shorter thing and sooner done to
write heresies than to answer them." --Saint Thomas More.


"Whoever looks in the Church for something other than
Christ is a mercenary,"---St. Augustine

Ubi Petrus, Ibi Ecclesia, Where Peter is, there is the Church ---St. Ambrose

St. Thomas Aquinas: “We must abide rather by the Pope’s judgment than by the opinion of any of the theologians,
however well versed he may be in the divine Scriptures.” (Quodlibetum IX,Q.8, Quaest. Quodlibetales)

Vatican 1 "Catholics" promote schism and heresy and therefore are not Catholics.

the traditional "birthday" of the Church is Pentecost i believe. on this day what happened. the apostles went out and preached to people in the tongues of the people they were preaching to. not really trying to prove a point one way or the other (though i am in favor of Vatican II), but i think this is something to consider when pondering the use of latin in the mass.

the traditional "birthday" of the Church is Pentecost i believe. on this day what happened. the apostles went out and preached to people in the tongues of the people they were preaching to. not really trying to prove a point one way or the other (though i am in favor of Vatican II), but i think this is something to consider when pondering the use of latin in the mass.

We can still have a Latin Mass under Vatican 2. As long as the local Bishop allows it, the Mass will be in Latin, except for the sermon and prayer requests. Latin is still the Church's sacred language under Vatican 2, just not in Mass so the people can understand it.

The Novus Ordo Missae= invalid!

The Novus Ordo Missae= invalid!

Catholic Church hides pedophiles thus any message invalid.

The Novus Ordo Missae= invalid!

Schism= Heresy!

Catholic Church hides pedophiles thus any message invalid.

Pedophiles are condemned to hell and the Pope knew nothing so you fail.

Schism= Heresy!
You know schism and heresy are not synonymous...

You know schism and heresy are not synonymous...

Vatican II was a valid Catholic council and anyone who denies it is a seperatist and not a member of the Church any longer but a member of a heretical sect led by an antipope.

First off I'd like to appologize for not being here to supervise, I had things that I neededd to take care of yesterday.

I'd like to thank everyone who posted information on Vatican II as well as thier opinions, especially Irish Seas (yeeesh that was long!).

Thank you again.

Let me see what I can do with this. First, we need the definition of dogma:
n. pl. dog·mas or dog·ma·ta (-m-t)

1. A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.
2. An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true.
3. A principle or belief or a group of them:

In the second definition, dogma is considered absolute truth. Absolute truth cannot change because if it did it could not be absolute truth. Therefore, if dogma is absolute truth and absolute truth cannot change, dogma cannot evolve. To change absolute truth (dogma) must be condemned.

If that's the case, why did the Catholic church change the Ten Commandments, which incidentally, God Himself wrote in stone? If they shouldn't be dogma, nothing deserves to be.

If that's the case, why did the Catholic church change the Ten Commandments, which incidentally, God Himself wrote in stone? If they shouldn't be dogma, nothing deserves to be.


forgive my ignorance, but when did the Catholic Church change the ten commandments.

forgive my ignorance, but when did the Catholic Church change the ten commandments.

You don't remember?

"I give you 15 *CRASH* 10! 10 Commandments!"

Ok well that Church didn't do it! ;)

You don't remember?

"I give you 15 *CRASH* 10! 10 Commandments!"

Ok well that Church didn't do it! ;)

Ah...Brooks. A man deserving of so many awards he never recieved.

May he continue to make the whole of humanity look like a bunch of dumbasses!

If that's the case, why did the Catholic church change the Ten Commandments, which incidentally, God Himself wrote in stone? If they shouldn't be dogma, nothing deserves to be.

Oh! This is news to me. What specifically in the Ten Commandments did the Catholic Church change and when?

Catholic Church hides pedophiles thus any message invalid.

No, the message is not invalid, but the messenger may be corrupt. :(

Oh! This is news to me. What specifically in the Ten Commandments did the Catholic Church change and when?


http://www.positiveatheism.org/crt/whichcom.htm

We can assume that the Proddy ones are wrong, since they showed up last. But surely that means the Catholic ones are inaccurate too...

Pedophiles are condemned to hell and the Pope knew nothing so you fail.

I disagree about the Pope not knowing about the pedophilia. How could he not know when the Bishops knew and did nothing? When Cardinal Law the Arch Bishop of Boston submitted his resignation as Arch Bishop the first time, the Pope refused it. After more scandal, the Pope accepted the second resignation and eventually Law was given a job at the Vatican.

The bastard should have been defrocked or at least reduced to the status of priest and sent to a cloistered monastery. Instead, he goes to Rome and gets to vote for the next Pope. How many lives were ruined because of Laws actions? You expect me to trust the Catholic Church? I'm sorry I can't and now consider myself a non-practicing Catholic. I will never trust any Priest, Minister, or Rabbi again. :mad: