Skip to comments.Meet "Kosher Frank" (Pope says Church cannot engage in proselytism)
Posted on 10/07/2013 5:36:12 PM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
click here to read article
Thanks for the info, but you left out some things, such as,
Eugenio Scalfari has said he did show the text to the Holy Father for approval, but it isnt clear how closely the Pope read it... It [the Vatican] has nevertheless attested to the overall "trustworthiness" of the interview.
The obvious question arises as to why the Pope was not better advised, even if just to check that the interview was being properly recorded. Both this and the interview with La Civilta Cattolica the week before have raised many questions and concerns over the confusion they have caused, even if much of their content has been welcomed.
But the picture emerging is of a Pope who does whatever he wants with little or no consultation with his closest aides. The irony is that the Pope is very much into consultation, and consulting across the globe, said one Vatican source, referring to the international council of cardinals on curial reform that met earlier this week. But hes clearly not consulting too much here.
Hes also viewed as being totally unpredictable, preferring to do things arbitrarily and on his own..-http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/vatican-scalfari-interview-misses-details-conflates-facts
Fr. Federico Lombardi, SJ has attested to the overall trustworthiness of the Scalfari interview. Nevertheless, some minor, unprecise details have caused a stir among you. One of the details involves hesitation on the part of Pope Francis in accepting the election to the papacy and another, a so-called mystical experience of Pope Francis on the night of his election to the Papacy, March 13, 2013.- http://saltandlighttv.org/witness/msg-dario-vigano.php
While stressing the basic trustworthiness of a recent blockbuster interview with Pope Francis by Italian journalist Eugenio Scalfari, Fr. Federico Lombardi, the Vatican spokesman, left room on Oct. 2 for the possibility of small imprecisions. -http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/dolan-confirms-error-scalfari-interview
Thus your dismissal of this interview, which is not even the conversation the OP here is referring to, as being discredited for significant fabrication, is contrary to the Vatican's view, which sees it as trustworthy, with only some minor, unprecise details being a issue. And the pope himself gave the OK to it. And if he did not read even his own interview well, then that impugns his character (and the judgment of his electors) as a wise watchman over truth and papal reputation. While you can condemn the knee-jerk overreaction of those RCs who criticize the pope, the same is seen in overzealous defending him.
Second, even if Pope Francis had made a remark against proselytism (we don't know if he did or he didn't), that's not the same as being against evangelization.
There is no little warrant for doubting that he made a at least one disparaging remark against proselytism, while that is just what RCs do - incldg here - in seeking to convert their "separated brethren" to Rome!
As for the distinction between proselytism and evangelization, as one of many RC sites says, "Converting Protestants Is A Foremost Catholic MIssion..The tide of modernism greatly affected the perception of Catholics about evangelization. In our contemporary society the term Proselytism has a negative connotation, when people hear this word the first thing that comes into their mind is the act of forcefully converting a person to another belief. But this is not what it meant 2000 years ago during the time of the apostles, proselytism in the early church is the act of evangelizing Jews and Gentiles through preaching of the gospel without any coercion. " http://www.catholiceternaltruth.com/2011/09/converting-protestants-is-foremost.html
But at least Rome does not practice its overt carnal means of persuasion (though it has not rejected the use of force) for false members that it once did with papal sanction.
As even Aquinas counsels,
there are unbelievers who at some time have accepted the faith, and professed it, such as heretics and all apostates: such should be submitted even to bodily compulsion, that they may fulfil what they have promised, and hold what they, at one time, received". Living Tradition, Organ of the Roman Theological Forum, http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt119.html
Well, this is probably the first time I have agreed with GPH.
For all the Francis apologists, just before Francis said that proselytism is NONSENSE, the interviewer made a comment that all of his friends said that the pope will try to convert him. Convert was the operable word that Francis was replying to, so to Francis “proselytize” = “convert”. Francis sees converting others as nonsense. No need to be Catholic folks! Right from a CATHOLIC (?) pope’s mouth!
And why is ANYONE arguing that this is in fact what he (and all of the post-Vatican II “popes”) believes??? These papal claimants are too busy attending non-Catholic services which is condemned prior to Vatican II.
Vatican II= New Church.
The same can be said of other words which have experienced semantic shift between Church usage and common usage.
"Cult" for instance, has an honorable meaning with in Catholicism; in the words in general, however, it means a deeply erroneous, manipulative and fraudulent sectarian movement.
"Propaganda" is used by the Church to mean simply the dissemination of truths of the Faith ("Propaganda Fide"); in common parlance, it means a program of blatant slant and spin, not in service of the Truth.
I could go on. Ebb tide, for the sake of accuracy we must be knowledgeable about variances in meaning, which may seem over-subtle but which is mass communication (across a variety of audiences) can be decisive and significant.
Mine at 103.
This is semantic degeneration, and sometimes rash judgment.
So is that what you believe boatbums? That Jews who don't believe in Jesus Christ will go to hell?
just getting clarification on your beliefs here
It is a wonderment how actively sharing the faith and wanting to see others come to Christ, to save them from hell, could be construed as evil or malicious. I suppose those who have those COEXIST bumper stickers are either atheists or Catholics.
Don't try to figure it out. Your head will explode. In the end they are only fooling themselves.
Evangelizing to someone who has absolutely no opinion and is open to all views (if there is such a thing) is good. Sharing your faith with someone of another religion in hopes of seeing them come to Christ is very, very bad.
Except when you want to get on "The Journey Home" on EWTN.
And yet Catholics have no compunction about telling others that if they are not Catholic, they will go to hell; no salvation outside the Catholic church and all.
Nor does their objection to proselytism keep THEM from *encouraging* others to *swim the Tiber* and run back into the *loving* arms of the Catholic church, or encouraging those seeking who've never been Catholic from checking out the "One True Church".
And of course, it's not malicious or evil when THEY do it.
Much like the very first Bishop of Rome, I should think. Jesus named him "rock," --- presumably meaning "solid" --but he seemed to move this way and that in small avalanches.
As for Aquinas, keep in mind that in his age (as in most ages), serious theological dissent was held to be socially and even politically seditious, understood by all: the accuser would say "This is sedition," and the accused would say "Damn right it is." So Aquinas was supplying more edifying reason for coercing true belief: not just saving the king's and bishop's britches, but primarily to push a person back into the way of salvation: if his body is compelled, his mind may follow.
Many would have derived that from Luke 14:23 - "And the lord said unto the servant, 'Go out into the highways and hedges and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled."
That view fell during the 16th century Wars of Religion, where it drowned in blood: Catholic, Reformed and Anabaptist. No Christian would take that view now.
And besides, Aquinas didn't die for my sins.
I'll STILL need to hear what the POPE's definition is!
Some Christians define "proselytism" more narrowly as the attempt to convert people from one Christian tradition to another; those who use the term in this way generally view the practice as illegitimate and in contrast to evangelism, which is converting non-Christians to Christianity. An Eastern Orthodox writer, Stephen Methodius Hayes has written: "If people talk about the need for evangelism, they meet with the response, 'the Orthodox church does not proselytize' as if evangelizing and proselytism were the same thing." However the boundary varies from group to group. For instance the Moscow Patriarchate has repeatedly strongly condemned what it describes as Catholic proselytism of Orthodox Christians within Russia and has therefore opposed a Catholic construction project in an area of Russia where the Catholic community is small. The Catholic Church claims that it is supporting the existing Catholic community within Russia and is not proselytizing. Recently, the Balamand declaration on proselytism was released between the Roman Catholic Church and Orthodox Churches.
Groups noted for proselytism include:
ANYONE who does not believe in Jesus is going to hell. Doesn't matter what their religion or what their heritage.
Peter, a Jew, the guy y'all claim is your first pope, speaking here to his fellow Jews IN JERUSALEM on the day of Pentecost.
Acts 2:36-41 Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.
Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, Brothers, what shall we do? And Peter said to them, Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself. And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, Save yourselves from this crooked generation. So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.
Peter, a Jew, the guy y'all claim is your first pope, speaking here to his Jewish leaders IN JERUSALEM.
Acts 4:5-12 On the next day their rulers and elders and scribes gathered together in Jerusalem, with Annas the high priest and Caiaphas and John and Alexander, and all who were of the high-priestly family. And when they had set them in the midst, they inquired, By what power or by what name did you do this? Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, Rulers of the people and elders, if we are being examined today concerning a good deed done to a crippled man, by what means this man has been healed, let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the deadby him this man is standing before you well. This Jesus is the stone that was rejected by you, the builders, which has become the cornerstone. And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.
Here, Paul, a Jew, Romans 2:25-29 For circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision. So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? Then he who is physically uncircumcised but keeps the law will condemn you who have the written code and circumcision but break the law. For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.
Romans 8:9 You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.
Paul a Jew, circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless, writing this says.....
Philippians 3:7-9 But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith
Speaking of *What's your point?*, why start out with such a baseless accusation? Trying to start a flame war or what? Just where did GPH even mention Jews in his post? He merely posted an article.
Christianity fulfilled the promises made to Israel. It did not supersede them. Judaism still remains a religion to which God is faithfulso long as they are faithful to Him.
Wrong on so many levels.
Written by Paul, a Jew, circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless,....
Galatians 2:15-21 We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.
But if, in our endeavor to be justified in Christ, we too were found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin? Certainly not! For if I rebuild what I tore down, I prove myself to be a transgressor. For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.
Galatians 3:10-29 For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them. Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for The righteous shall live by faith. But the law is not of faith, rather The one who does them shall live by them. Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for usfor it is written, Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.
To give a human example, brothers: even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified. Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, And to offsprings, referring to many, but referring to one, And to your offspring, who is Christ. This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise.
Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary. Now an intermediary implies more than one, but God is one.
Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.
So what was going on in the Acts of the Apostles?
Seems to me the new definition of evangelism would apply to a newspaper that prints the news but refuses to deliver the paper.
LOL good try.
The question was answered quite well by Greetings_Puny_Humans, which negates any probability in the comment “probably”
Plus Cicero’s comment was seeped in ludicrousity.
Interesting twist of the message that Jesus preached.
Many scriptures show Jesus spreading the message and admonishing people to follow Him to have salvation.
Those that chose, or in the future choose, to reject His offer (that you describe as His "rule of Salvation.") send themselves to hell.
It's their choice.
Jesus didn't hate the Jews, He loved them enough to give His life for their salvation.
If they, or even you, reject the message, the destination is eternal separation from God, now that is hell!
The bigger question is why some anti-Protestant Catholics are so wretchedly haughty that they think the Pope can redefine words to fit his own view of the faith and the rest of Christendom MUST go along with it?
Proselyte is a transliteration from the word which appears twice in the New Testament and strictly means a person previously converted to Judaism, now converted to Christianity. That Christians didn’t have to pass through a ritual of proselytism to Judaism was settled in the Council of Jerusalem. So, Francis is correct that to proselyte doesn’t make any sense, if he’s thinking biblically.
I have no idea what he is really thinking.
There's absolutely nothing new about Catholicism not being a proselytary religion. None of the ancient churches engage in proselytism. Their whole mindset is that the world converted seventeen hundred years ago, so now chrstians just reproduce sexually. I suppose it has something to do with being an ethnic religion, which the ancient churches are.
In addition to that, Catholicism today considers proselytism to be a Protestant concept. Like creationism, the Catholic Church sort of defines itself against proselytism. And they scream as loud as any anti-missionary Jew when they find a tract under their windshield wiper. (The whole "we don't steal other churches' sheep" is just another form of this anti-proselytary mindset.)
“The bigger question is why some anti-Protestant Catholics are so wretchedly haughty that they think the Pope can redefine words to fit his own view of the faith and the rest of Christendom MUST go along with it?”
No words were redefined. Here’s how an Eastern Orthodox writer put it more than a decade ago:
“”Proselytism” has as many appealing connotations as “root canal.” It’s not just “evangelism,” sharing the Gospel with any and everyone. Proselytism implies dynamiting an existing faith to clear ground for a new one.”
So, we see that Protestant anti-Catholics are unfamiliar with a word’s definition but haughtily assume it was redefined by the pope when in fact the definition is understood by educated people.
And go ask the Russians about it too: http://wwrn.org/articles/615/?&place=russia§ion=catholic
The very much non-Orthodox “Rabbi” Skorka operates under the auspices of the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism and the Jewish Theological Seminary of America.
Can't be said better than that. The Word is like the seed that is scattered.
"Listen! A farmer went out to plant some seeds. 4 As he scattered them across his field, some seeds fell on a footpath, and the birds came and ate them. 5 Other seeds fell on shallow soil with underlying rock. The seeds sprouted quickly because the soil was shallow. 6 But the plants soon wilted under the hot sun, and since they didnt have deep roots, they died. 7 Other seeds fell among thorns that grew up and choked out the tender plants. 8 Still other seeds fell on fertile soil, and they produced a crop that was thirty, sixty, and even a hundred times as much as had been planted! 9 Anyone with ears to hear should listen and understand.
Anyone who has ears to hear can choose their ground.
I don't see how any other interpretation can be true. Jesus IS the Messiah as foretold all throughout the Hebrew Scriptures. That he would be rejected of his own people was one of those prophecies. It doesn't excuse the Jews from having to believe in Him anymore than it does all the rest of humanity. Just as Peter said:
"He is the STONE WHICH WAS REJECTED by you, THE BUILDERS, but WHICH BECAME THE CHIEF CORNER stone. "And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved." (Acts 4:11,12)
It’s the Roman Catholic Church as it was BEFORE Vatican II, if he’s being specific. Are you, ebb tide?
For the record, GPH asked another poster the question, "So youre okay with Jews going to hell since they do not believe in Jesus Christ?". It is dishonest to only quote a part of someone's sentence. But, since you asked me, YES, not only Jews, but Muslims, Hindus, atheists, humanists and every other ism or ist that rejects Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord will be in hell for eternity, separated from God because of unbelief. At one time, I believe, this was even the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, was it not? Just for clarification, are you not in sync with your own church now?
What you say is true, HOWEVER, God got pretty angry with those he made the Covenant with...God even became disgusted with the animal sacrifices that were part of the ritual for atonement...
God told the Jews he would send them a Messiah...They looked forward to the Messiah but the Messiah wasn't what they had envisioned...So they rejected him...
Jesus put the blinders on the Jews for that transgression so that they can not get with the church program...Romans 11...
Reading Romans 11 coupled with numerous OT scriptures and some in Revelation it is clear that God is not done with the Jews...
Jesus will again reveal himself to the Jews and they will accept him this time...
When Jesus comes and sits and rules from the throne of David, that old Covenant will come back into play, for about a thousand years...
"We" see nothing of the kind! LOL. Do yourself a favor and search the word "proselyte" or "proselytize". When you do you'll see:
Middle English proselite, from Anglo-French prosilite, from Late Latin proselytus proselyte, alien resident, from Greek prosÄlytos, from pros near + -Älytos (akin to Älythe he went) more at pros-, elastic First Known Use: 14th century
Synonyms: neophyte, convert
Related Words: regenerate; newcomer, novice, novitiate, recruit; catechumen
Should we be scared of a word because some people dislike how it sounds? Both the Old Testament and the New Testament use the word (see Exodus 12:49; Matt. 23:15; Acts 2;10; Acts 6:5). Maybe you can explain why your new Pope shied away from using it when speaking of evangelizing or sharing the gospel with the unsaved?
That’s a lie. I have criticized the Pope and VC II, but I have rejected neither.
“”We” see nothing of the kind! LOL. Do yourself a favor and search the word “proselyte” or “proselytize”. When you do you’ll see:”
I already know what I’ll see. And what you fail to comprehend is that the language is a living thing that can have more than one meaning. Here’s an example for 6 years before Francis became pope (again, having to do with the Orthodox):
“Todays Christian missionaries often contrast “proselytism” with “evangelism”; the former is what they accuse rival denominations of doing, while the latter is what they claim to do themselves. Surprisingly, there is no rigorous distinction between the two terms in canon law or in theological dictionariesor for that matter in legal dictionaries. The Greek Constitution, for example, has outlawed “proselytism” since 1911 without ever defining it. The term is sometimes used to denounce Christian “sheep stealers” who seek converts among those who are already members of some other Christian confession, as distinct from missionaries who appeal to those who have never been baptizedbut no Church council or other authoritative religious organ has ever formalized that usage.”
“Consider the following examples. In 1961 the World Council of Churches pronounced “proselytism” to be “a corruption of Christian witness” that uses “cajolery, bribery, undue pressure, or intimidation, subtly or openly, to bring about seeming conversion.” In a footnote to the documents of Vatican II the Roman Catholic Church defined proselytism as “a corruption of the Christian witness by appeal to hidden forms of coercion or by a style of propaganda unworthy of the Gospel. It is not the use but the abuse of the right to religious freedom.””
This, the word has been used that way BY PROTESTANTS for at least 52 years. And yet you’re blaming the pope? How smart is that????http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/01/donrsquot-call-it-proselytism-16
Some people don’t like the use of the term (and example from 1999) - “The use of the term proselytism in a pejorative way to criticize the outreach activities of faith communities was rejected by all participants.” http://www.irla.org/226
But none of that changes the fact that the term is used that way whether you like it or not.
So, the Greeks (all of them Orthodox) banned the practice of it in their constitution in 1911. Protestants have used the word the same way since 1961 at least. Looks like Pope Francis was the last one to use it. And yet you accuse him of changing the definition when Protestants have been using it that way for 5 or more decades? Have you no shame at all?
We have very similar beliefs. It would be interesting to sit down and talk theology with you one on one.
You’re ignoring the following dialogue:
Atheist editor to the Pope: “It’s a joke, I tell him. My friends think it is you want to convert me.”
Pope’s response: He smiles again and replies: “Proselytism is solemn nonsense, it makes no sense”.
It’s Pope Francis, not I, who immediately equates conversion to proselytism. In other words, Pope Francis “evangelization” has no intent to convert anyone to the One, True Faith. Ask the Argentine rabbi who’s been bunking with him in Casa Santa Marta, ask the muslims at Lampedusa.
The pope says, “The world is crisscrossed by roads that come closer together and move apart, but the important thing is that they lead towards the Good.” Only a Universalist or an atheist would make such a statement.
Thats a lie. I have criticized the Pope and VC II, but I have rejected neither. \
Then i sincerely apologize for my conclusion. You had said "Pay no attention to any Popes after Pope Pius XII. Pay no attention to the Second Vatican council,..Dont expect me to defend one jota of VC II or any pope since Pius XII."
And you affirmed the more historical pre V2 view on EENS, rejecting Lumen Gentium as (commonly understood) the work of modernists.
And you affirmed that RCs consider you to be a schismatic, and that that you would pick up the Cross the pope dropped.
How you can tell us to ignore any Popes after Pope Pius XII and the Second Vatican council and yet not reject them i know not, but i will let you interpret yourself.
I think most people who have been following this convoluted story, have grasped the significance of that.
Your argument depends heavily on context which, for all you know, may have been clipped away by the bagful by the atheist interviewer.
It would be futile to spend any further time on this.
Nonetheless, I think we have beaten this horse to death. I have headed off toward the kitchen. I wish I could offer you some of this nice German Potato Soup.
Nice try, but no cigar. The final article was reviewed and approved by the Pope and has been posted on the Vatican's website. If you question the interview's veracity, blame the Pope and his leper curial court (as he fondly addresses it), don't blame me.
VC II was a pastoral council. No pope has spoken infallibly since prior to 1962.
Does that help?
G'night now, ebb tide.
“Youre ignoring the following dialogue”
I’m not ignoring anything.
And I'm not favorably impressed by those who defend the Pope for every statement he makes like atheists can go to Heaven, as long as they follow their idea of "Good", whatever they think "Good" is.
So you agree the pope has no intent to convert anyone to Catholicism?
If you don’t, you’re ignoring the dialogue.
2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:
Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another’s statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.*280
*280 St. Ignatius of Loyola, Spiritual Exercises, 22
I have to admit that I don’t always succeed in following the above.
So and unless a teaching is infallible then it can be ignored (parts of encyclicals, bulls, etc.). And there is disagreement as to this and what is infallible Thus you need an infallible list of all infallible teachings.
And according to thee, despite what other RCs say, V2 did not speak infallibly in "clarifying" past infallible teaching (such as EENS). I can see why other RCs hold you to be in schism.
Not that you do not have a case, but in criticizing V2 one TRC site states,
Paul VI, in closing the Council stated that "the teaching authority of the Church, even though not wishing to issue extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements, has made thoroughly known its authoritative teaching." Still later he stated that the Council "avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility" but that it conferred on its teachings "the value of the supreme ordinary Magisterium" (Speech of Jan 12, 1966), and that "it has as much authority and far greater importance than the Council of Nicea". Elsewhere he has called it "the greatest of Councils", and "even greater than the Council of Trent."
Perhaps the most clear cut statement is to be found in a letter to Archbishop Lefebvre demanding his submission to the post-Conciliar Church: You have no right any more to bring up the distinction between the doctrinal and the pastoral that you use to support your acceptance of certain texts of Vatican Council II and your rejection of others. It is true that the matters decided in any Council do not all call for an assent of the same quality; only what the Council affirms in its 'definitions' as a truth of faith or as bound up with faith requires the assent of faith. Nevertheless, the rest also form a part of the SOLEMN MAGISTERIUM of the Church, to be trustingly accepted and sincerely put into practice by every Catholic." -http://www.the-pope.com/wvat2tec.html#_ftn10
Does this mean going to convince someone to become became Catholic? No, no, no! You are just reaching out to meet him, he is your brother! That is enough. You reach out to help them, the rest is done by Jesus, by the Holy Spirit. Pope Francis.
I'm just the messenger; Pope Francis is the author.
Quick answer: No; unless they contradict perennial Church teaching. And much of VC II does.
If you are truly interested in Catholicism, please PM me. You are obviously not "invincibly ignorant".
I don’t think you’re a faithful messenger. I didn’t see you deliver this message:
and I could go on.