Posted on 06/15/2005 6:27:05 PM PDT by murphE
No they aren't. There were no other Christians at the time they were written, only the Church and other faiths.
Please remove me from your ping list, and find someone else who desires to hear your views.
quotes from the CDF are spam?
* I don't have a ping list. But, I will not post to you in the future
and find someone else who desires to hear your views.
* you sound just like my wife
You are the individual attempting to start a flame war by introducing the sspx on a thread which has nothing to do with the sspx.
Please be more careful in the future. Stop falsely accusing others
And you brought up Abp. Lefebvre because...?
He signed it. I have read many on these threads who consider him the individual who defines Tradition. I reasoned that if he is the one who defines Tradition, then the fact he signed the Document I cited would prove my point that Vatican Two and the Magisterium are perfectly in line with Tradition when it comes to Ecumenism. If it wasn't, why would Lefevbre have signed it?
And you pinged people to your post who are either SSPX Mass-goers or sympathetic to the SSPX because...?
I copied and pasted the names MurphE pinged in post number 2. I don't know who most of those folks are - say nothing about where they stand vis a vis the Catholic Church.
And you added this jab in your last post "the sspx or any other schism"...because?
I was correcting the false charge MurphE made that it was I who was introducing the sspx as a topic in this thread.
Stop falsely accusing others.
Nothing false about it.
I was falsely accused of introducing the sspx onto this thread. If you can illustrate it was me who introduced the sppx into this thread, post the evidence. Otherwise, you too can stop falsely accusing me.
stop pinging me to this thread. I have had a belly-full of the nasty and false accusations.
Out of curiosity, how do you deal with Lutherans who are not very conservative? I know that there are many liberal Catholics, but it is fairly easy for me to deal with the fact that their errors can be authoritatively condemned, and any new errors/excuses that they come up with in the future can also be authoritatively condemned. But if you are dealing with a liberal Lutheran, once he has come up with his list of standard excuses (Sodom was destroyed for 'inhospitality', etc.) what do you do with him?
The reason I ask is that I have read much lately on the historical formation of the Roman Catholic Church. From what I have seen five "churches" and really rather "congregations" formed in the earliest of times during and immediately after the apostolic period 33-100ad...
Actually there were dozens, if not hundreds of Churches formed throughout the Empire (just take all of the Churches St. Paul wrote to as a starting point). There were several Churches that were especially prestigious for various reasons, and many times a local Church was considered to have authority over other local Churches (e.g. Alexandria over the other Coptic Churches). But Rome was the one and only Church which was considered to have a universal jurisdiction.
If there were five legitimate descendants or successive churches when and why did the whittling down to only the Roman Bishop and his church become the only of the congregations that was the One Holy and Catholic and Apostolic Church? Did the churches started by Paul and the other Apostles not believe the same things as the church that stakes its claim to have the successor of Peter as its leader?
The Churches were united by the one faith. But only the successor of St. Peter was given the grace to remain in the faith always. Of the "big five" every single diocese fell into heresy at one point or another, except Rome. As a conservative Lutheran you can easily look through all of the original doctrinal controversies, look at the side that you yourself see as orthodox, and then realize that in every one of the Christological/Trinitarian controversies of the first 1000 years of Christianity, "your" side is the "Roman" side.
In case there was any doubt left about the "big five," it seems to me that God did a pretty good job settling the controversy by wiping out four of them...
In the future, don't bother to ping me. It is obvious you don't consider it necessary that another individual is required for a dialogue.
Of course, I know that you will ping me (the last word and all that) but I won't respond.
Good bye, sir.
You did introduce the SSPX and Lefevbre into this thread via posts 33 and 34.
Link didn't work. How about just asking the question? And stop posing as the Grand Inquisitor--because you are not. You are not the determiner of the orthodoxy of people who post here.
Read the second one a long time ago. Sorry. David Armstrong is not an authority to me. The first link doesn't answer the question nor prove that ecumenism, as it is usually practiced, is part of Tradition. In fact, it was specifically forbidden by penalty of mortal sin in the old code of canon law--especially worship with non-Catholics. Before it is a mortal sin, and now it is mandatory? Hmmm...
du Lubac context? What are you trying to say? You want me to selectively quote some saints with very specific and impassioned criticisms of the Pope? I can fill the entire board if you would like...
Last I checked, du Lubac has not been canonized... Did I miss it?
Catholics are bound by Tradition. Ecumenism is not dogma. It is not even doctrine. Give it a rest. You are in over your head. Either show me some specific references from Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, the Summa or the Catechism of the Council of Trent, or ANYTHING authoritative, that shows that ecumenism, as practiced for the past 40 years, is part and parcel to the Faith. The tock continues to tick... tick... tick...
I have read the entire document by Ratzinger to THEOLOGIANS (which none of us are, as far as I know, so it doesn't apply to us) more than once in its entirety. I also know that it did not have the sections bolded that you bolded. Is this your way of commentary, by bolding the parts YOU THINK PERSONALLY are more important? How do you know this was the mind of the author? Appears to be personal interpretation to me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.