|
|
| How "Binding" is Vatican II? (1176348) | |
 |
|
| Home > OTChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
|
| (1176356) | |
Re: How ''Binding'' is Vatican II? |
|
|
Posted by kew gardens teleport on Sun Apr 20 13:59:08 2014, in response to How "Binding" is Vatican II?, posted by Mitch45 on Sun Apr 20 12:53:33 2014. Are any of the other Christian denominations bound by any of the provisions of Vatican II?No way. We don't want Vatican I, Trent, Lateran I-V, Basel-Ferrara-Florence, Constance, Vienne, Lyons I-II, or the RC version of Constantinople IV either. We absolutely do not condone the Bishop of Rome's pretended infallibility, the officially-sanctioned mariolatry, Jesuitry, the condemnation of the Pragmatic Sanction, the establishment of pawn shops, the pretended supremacy and Petrine succession of the Bishop of Rome, the death sentence passed on John Hus, Philip IV of France's little spat with the Knights Templar, dodgy deals with the Ilkhan Emperor, the deposition of Frederick II, dubious definitions of the Real Presence, auricular confession, imposition of special dress on Muslims and Jews, the special procedures for the election of the Bishop of Rome by the red-hat brigade rather than the diocese, the notion that ordinations made by antipopes are invalid, clerical celibacy, different standards of evidence at law for Jews, prohibitions against gender-mixed monasteries, the pointless prohibition on going into Benevento with an army, the indulgence for those who fund crusades, and the Bishop of Rome's pretended deposition of the Patriarch Photius of Constantinople. All these pseudo-councils are exercises in corruption and reprehensibility. |
|
|
| (1176357) | |
Re: How ''Binding'' is Vatican II? |
|
|
Posted by Mitch45 on Sun Apr 20 14:05:06 2014, in response to Re: How ''Binding'' is Vatican II?, posted by kew gardens teleport on Sun Apr 20 13:59:08 2014. I'll take that as a "no" vote.But what about this statement you made: "the establishment of pawn shops" Pawn shops were established by the Catholic Church? I had no idea. Do the three balls represent the Trinity? |
|
|
| (1176360) | |
Re: How ''Binding'' is Vatican II? |
|
|
Posted by kew gardens teleport on Sun Apr 20 14:16:47 2014, in response to Re: How ''Binding'' is Vatican II?, posted by Mitch45 on Sun Apr 20 14:05:06 2014. Pawn shops were established by the Catholic Church?Yep. |
|
|
| (1176362) | |
Re: How ''Binding'' is Vatican II? |
|
|
Posted by Mitch45 on Sun Apr 20 14:41:38 2014, in response to Re: How ''Binding'' is Vatican II?, posted by kew gardens teleport on Sun Apr 20 14:16:47 2014. Wow. That is interesting. |
|
|
| (1176368) | |
Re: How ''Binding'' is Vatican II? |
|
|
Posted by RockParkMan on Sun Apr 20 15:45:46 2014, in response to Re: How ''Binding'' is Vatican II?, posted by Mitch45 on Sun Apr 20 14:41:38 2014. Remember, he is bigoted against Catholics. |
|
|
| (1176371) | |
Re: How ''Binding'' is Vatican II? |
|
|
Posted by kew gardens teleport on Sun Apr 20 16:02:28 2014, in response to Re: How ''Binding'' is Vatican II?, posted by RockParkMan on Sun Apr 20 15:45:46 2014. If I were so bigoted, I would have pointed out that the original intention was at least partially to drive Jews bankrupt. Which is unprovable, if blatantly true. But let's stick to what the mediaeval western Church and it's Romish successor's councils purported to do. |
|
|
| (1176383) | |
Re: How ''Binding'' is Vatican II? |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sun Apr 20 17:35:09 2014, in response to Re: How ''Binding'' is Vatican II?, posted by RockParkMan on Sun Apr 20 15:45:46 2014. He has strong opinions about Catholicism and knows all its skeletons. But I would definitely not call him bigoted. |
|
|
| (1176385) | |
Re: How ''Binding'' is Vatican II? |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Apr 20 17:37:29 2014, in response to Re: How ''Binding'' is Vatican II?, posted by kew gardens teleport on Sun Apr 20 14:16:47 2014. But not invented. |
|
|
| (1176388) | |
Re: How ''Binding'' is Vatican II? |
|
|
Posted by Mitch45 on Sun Apr 20 18:31:21 2014, in response to Re: How ''Binding'' is Vatican II?, posted by kew gardens teleport on Sun Apr 20 16:02:28 2014. I've never understood how one Christian can call another Christian "bigoted". Isn't Christianity one big tent? |
|
|
| (1176391) | |
Re: How ''Binding'' is Vatican II? |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Apr 20 18:44:10 2014, in response to Re: How ''Binding'' is Vatican II?, posted by Mitch45 on Sun Apr 20 18:31:21 2014. Nope. |
|
|
| (1176392) | |
Re: How ''Binding'' is Vatican II? |
|
|
Posted by RockParkMan on Sun Apr 20 18:46:09 2014, in response to Re: How ''Binding'' is Vatican II?, posted by Mitch45 on Sun Apr 20 18:31:21 2014. Christianity is fractured and fragmented. Most of the "pieces" are benevolent but the fact remains that many of these groups dislike each other. All part of the diversity which defines Mankind. |
|
|
| (1176393) | |
Re: How ''Binding'' is Vatican II? |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Apr 20 18:54:46 2014, in response to Re: How ''Binding'' is Vatican II?, posted by Mitch45 on Sun Apr 20 18:31:21 2014. You've never heard of the Great Schism and the Reformation, did you?Who teaches you about Christianity? |
|
|
| (1176397) | |
Re: How ''Binding'' is Vatican II? |
|
|
Posted by gp38/r42 chris on Sun Apr 20 19:31:28 2014, in response to Re: How ''Binding'' is Vatican II?, posted by Mitch45 on Sun Apr 20 18:31:21 2014. Far from it |
|
|
| (1176399) | |
Re: How ''Binding'' is Vatican II? |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Sun Apr 20 19:36:34 2014, in response to How "Binding" is Vatican II?, posted by Mitch45 on Sun Apr 20 12:53:33 2014. Only the RCC is bound by Vatican II.your pal, Fred |
|
|
| (1176477) | |
Re: How ''Binding'' is Vatican II? |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Mon Apr 21 01:02:10 2014, in response to How "Binding" is Vatican II?, posted by Mitch45 on Sun Apr 20 12:53:33 2014. If one is a Catholic, may one refuse to comply with Vatican II? Is it a "sin" if one does not comply? I've heard of "traditional" Catholics who refuse to recognize Vatican II and consider it heresy/ But if the Pope is an infallible leader of the world's Catholics, can these "traditional" Catholics not comply and not be in sin?There's two groups of "traditional" Catholics: the SSPX, which rejects Vatican II (and the Pope) and has since branched off into crazyland. They were a part of the Catholic church until the 80s when the archbishop in charge of them appointed his own bishops (something only the Pope is allowed to do). This broke church law but did not violate Apostolic succession (any bishop can make more bishops, they're just not allowed to), so in theory they could reunite rather easily (their sacraments are considered valid), but their values have diverged significantly. Then there's the less crazy type. I'm one of these "traditional" Catholics (at least when I'm not agnostic) and generally, we have nothing against Vatican II as it was written. As written, the traditional ways were not outlawed. The problem is, the "spirit of Vatican II" was used to justify forcing out the traditional ways. A lot of rules were relaxed, and parishes and bishops took it upon themselves to move to the most relaxed end of the spectrum, even to the point of physically modifying churches so the traditional method was no longer possible. For example: because the people could now receive communion standing up, the railing where people would kneel to receive was removed. Because the mass "could" be said in the vernacular, the mass "had" to be said in the vernacular. Because nuns no longer needed to wear habits, many convents effectively banned them. The funny thing is, until Vatican II, you could go to any Catholic church in the world, and follow along using your own missal in your own language. It really was the "universal church". It no longer is, and this is what makes Vatican II *as implemented* a bad idea. |
|
|
| (1176496) | |
Re: How ''Binding'' is Vatican II? |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Mon Apr 21 08:30:08 2014, in response to How "Binding" is Vatican II?, posted by Mitch45 on Sun Apr 20 12:53:33 2014. Vatican II was pastoraly focused. It did not issue any "requirements" to be Catholic. So really the question of whether it is binding is moot. Take a look at the documents. Some things are being said in new ways, but it's not like some new never-heard-of-before dogma is to be found there.What a lot of people may not like is the practices that developed upon the release of the Vatican II documents. If you're thinking in terms of liturgy, such as perhaps the rephrasing of the prayer for Jewish people, that may be a fruit of Vatican II, but not directly. The Roman Missal is not a Vatican II document and it was changed separately. |
|
|