Vatican II's non-binding pastoral "spirit" still wreaking havoc - Page 3

PabloSerna

1:08p, 5/27/24

After you answer the question I raised above, which from all I have read not just from you but other sources- it will be clear that SSPX is not in full communion and obedient to the papacy. Unless, the history between SSPX has suddenly changed in the past 2 days- SSPX has stated clearly that they do not accept the liturgical reforms among other renewals promulgated by Vatican II and implemented since Pope Paul VI.

I am not saying that SSPX is in schism- they are not. However, they are not in full communion since they are rejecting authority. It is a matter of fact that SSPX has established themselves in communities without permission from the local Bishop. They have also consecrated Bishops apart from approval by the Vatican.

Put all those facts together and there you have it. They are on a path, even a lucrative one, to schism. That you cite money, and contributions, as evidence in light of Jesus's words about giving money for glory is a bit surprising. Jesus wants your heart not your money.

Serviam

1:17p, 5/27/24

In reply to PabloSerna

PabloSerna said:
So that means, by your own words, that you fully accept the recent Apostolic Letter from Pope Francis, Traditionis Custodes? Yes?

Of course I don't fully accept it. It's an apostolic letter, not an ex Cathedra statement. In ranking of importance it ranks below an encyclical, would you like me to go through 2000 years of papal encyclicals and see if there's one that you disagree with? You know who else doesn't fully accept everything that comes from Pope Francis? The eastern Catholic Churches who flat out said "this doesn't apply to us" with regards to Fiducia Supplicans. Are they in communion with Rome?

Pope Francis is the Holy Father, this means he deserves my full attention and digestion of everything he says; whether it be an Alitalia throwaway quote to an encyclical. This doesn't mean that I agree with or that everything he says is valid.

Serviam

1:19p, 5/27/24

In reply to PabloSerna

PabloSerna said:
After you answer the question I raised above, which from all I have read not just from you but other sources- it will be clear that SSPX is not in full communion and obedient to the papacy. Unless, the history between SSPX has suddenly changed in the past 2 days- SSPX has stated clearly that they do not accept the liturgical reforms among other renewals promulgated by Vatican II and implemented since Pope Paul VI.

I am not saying that SSPX is in schism- they are not. However, they are not in full communion since they are rejecting authority. It is a matter of fact that SSPX has established themselves in communities without permission from the local Bishop. They have also consecrated Bishops apart from approval by the Vatican.

Put all those facts together and there you have it. They are on a path, even a lucrative one, to schism. That you cite money, and contributions, as evidence in light of Jesus's words about giving money for glory is a bit surprising. Jesus wants your heart not your money.

Do you give money to the Church, Pablo? I am always amazed at how you cannot judge the heart of the gay, or the trans, or the pro-abortion, yet you know for a fact that the traditionalists are somehow gaming the Latin Mass for cash. I will ask again, what are the hallmarks of partial communion? Are we only given "some" grace by the Body and Blood of Christ? Do we only participate "partly" in His life, death and resurrection?

PabloSerna

1:24p, 5/27/24

In reply to jrico2727

Two points:

First, there are no "traditionalist" nor "progressives" in the Roman Catholic Church. Only the devil seeks to divide and conquer. That is why I am pointing out this fallacy.

There is Tradition, capital T, that forms the foundation of our doctrine and understandings. Confusing this with with rituals that have changed over 2000 years is a mistake. I just read that even the TLM has made some recent changes to the liturgy, so let that sink in.

Second, if you and Servium think that Vatican II was merely "pastoral" and "non-binding" you may want to speak with your priest about such a misunderstanding. It was indeed a major renewal that carried with it full ecclesiastical authority to all corners of the church worldwide.

What distinguishes the Roman Catholic Church from other denominations is this unity. Not always easy as is evident here- but necessary. The Pope together with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith are very real and make up the Magisterium. All of this I know you know because you are more than knowledgeable about matters of the RCC. This is for the others that would believe your errors.

From the latest I am reading, is that the Vatican is working hard to reconcile SSPX back into the fold. I hope so. I will admit that the respect and devotion to the mass is on another level - very pious and beautiful. This to me, is the real fruit of SSPX.

PabloSerna

1:27p, 5/27/24

In reply to Serviam

It's not about me and it's not about you.

You wrote the words that said that SSPX would save the church and I disagree.

747Ag

1:33p, 5/27/24

In reply to Serviam

Serviam said:
PabloSerna said:
After you answer the question I raised above, which from all I have read not just from you but other sources- it will be clear that SSPX is not in full communion and obedient to the papacy. Unless, the history between SSPX has suddenly changed in the past 2 days- SSPX has stated clearly that they do not accept the liturgical reforms among other renewals promulgated by Vatican II and implemented since Pope Paul VI.

I am not saying that SSPX is in schism- they are not. However, they are not in full communion since they are rejecting authority. It is a matter of fact that SSPX has established themselves in communities without permission from the local Bishop. They have also consecrated Bishops apart from approval by the Vatican.

Put all those facts together and there you have it. They are on a path, even a lucrative one, to schism. That you cite money, and contributions, as evidence in light of Jesus's words about giving money for glory is a bit surprising. Jesus wants your heart not your money.

Do you give money to the Church, Pablo? I am always amazed at how you cannot judge the heart of the gay, or the trans, or the pro-abortion, yet you know for a fact that the traditionalists are somehow gaming the Latin Mass for cash. I will ask again, what are the hallmarks of partial communion? Are we only given "some" grace by the Body and Blood of Christ? Do we only participate "partly" in His life, death and resurrection?

Canonical limbo is the more accurate term. Partial communion is a novelty and an innovation.

Further, facilities are granted from Rome. Local ordinaries and pope are prayed for during the Mass. They are Catholics celebrating a Catholic Rite.

Lastly, Cardinal Wojtya defied the papal interdict on ordinations during Ostpolitik and proceeded nonetheless, with the involvement of an auxiliary bishop and with the knowledge of the superiors in question. The same is true of a momentous event in the life of the late Cardinal Josef Slipyj.

Serviam

1:50p, 5/27/24

In reply to PabloSerna

PabloSerna said:
It's not about me and it's not about you.

You wrote the words that said that SSPX would save the church and I disagree.

I can't argue with that because both are a statement of opinion. "Ok". It's the rest of the stuff you used to bolster your argument that had more holes in it than a Swiss cheese sandwich made on ciabatta

Serviam

1:50p, 5/27/24

In reply to 747Ag

747Ag said:
Serviam said:
PabloSerna said:
After you answer the question I raised above, which from all I have read not just from you but other sources- it will be clear that SSPX is not in full communion and obedient to the papacy. Unless, the history between SSPX has suddenly changed in the past 2 days- SSPX has stated clearly that they do not accept the liturgical reforms among other renewals promulgated by Vatican II and implemented since Pope Paul VI.

I am not saying that SSPX is in schism- they are not. However, they are not in full communion since they are rejecting authority. It is a matter of fact that SSPX has established themselves in communities without permission from the local Bishop. They have also consecrated Bishops apart from approval by the Vatican.

Put all those facts together and there you have it. They are on a path, even a lucrative one, to schism. That you cite money, and contributions, as evidence in light of Jesus's words about giving money for glory is a bit surprising. Jesus wants your heart not your money.

Do you give money to the Church, Pablo? I am always amazed at how you cannot judge the heart of the gay, or the trans, or the pro-abortion, yet you know for a fact that the traditionalists are somehow gaming the Latin Mass for cash. I will ask again, what are the hallmarks of partial communion? Are we only given "some" grace by the Body and Blood of Christ? Do we only participate "partly" in His life, death and resurrection?

Canonical limbo is the more accurate term. Partial communion is a novelty and an innovation.

Further, facilities are granted from Rome. Local ordinaries and pope are prayed for during the Mass. They are Catholics celebrating a Catholic Rite.

Lastly, Cardinal Wojtya defied the papal interdict on ordinations during Ostpolitik and proceeded nonetheless, with the involvement of an auxiliary bishop and with the knowledge of the superiors in question. The same is true of a momentous event in the life of the late Cardinal Josef Slipyj.

I have heard of him, I expect big things

Leonard H. Stringfield

1:51p, 5/27/24

In reply to Serviam

Just a little house cleaning...often times one can be a little too eager to initiate messages.

There are more appropriate spots for that "message". But make no mistake...change is in wind IMO and many won't be comfortable with it. As a Christian, it hasn't been easy in these shoes. Hence, trying to get out in front of that. Breaking the ice if you will. It would be irresponsible on my part if I didn't. And the change won't be limited to just Christianity.

carry on and gigem

PabloSerna

2:05p, 5/27/24

In reply to 747Ag

All faculties?

Serviam

2:07p, 5/27/24

Dear Pablo what do you think about the Holy father's recent pronouncement

VATICAN

Pope Francis has called for gays to be prevented from becoming seminarians

The pope said there is too much 'f*ggotry' pic.twitter.com/xXVCOD7PIu
— Catholic Arena (@CatholicArena) May 27, 2024

Serviam

2:10p, 5/27/24

“C’è già troppa ‘frociaggine’”. Papa Francesco invita così i vescovi italiani a non ammettere seminaristi gay https://t.co/Z0ZY5QiTSA
— Repubblica (@repubblica) May 27, 2024

PabloSerna

2:24p, 5/27/24

In reply to Serviam

How is this different from the 2005 document regarding guidelines for new seminarians? He has said this before, admittedly without such colorful language.

PabloSerna

2:29p, 5/27/24

In reply to Serviam

Is this the same Cardinal that excommunicated several SSPX clergy for illicit ordination to the office of Bishop?
(Pope John Paul II for those following along)

So I did some more digging- and it is not licit for a person claiming to be a Roman Catholic to attend a SSPX mass if there is a local parish that is part of a diocese with an approved Bishop. Do you agree?

Serviam

2:31p, 5/27/24

In reply to PabloSerna

PabloSerna said:
How is this different from the 2005 document regarding guidelines for new seminarians? He has said this before, admittedly without such colorful language.

Do you believe that no new homosexuals are being admitted to the seminaries?

Serviam

2:38p, 5/27/24

In reply to PabloSerna

PabloSerna said:
Is this the same Cardinal that excommunicated several SSPX clergy for illicit ordination to the office of Bishop?
(Pope John Paul II for those following along)

So I did some more digging- and it is not licit for a person claiming to be a Roman Catholic to attend a SSPX mass if there is a local parish that is part of a diocese with an approved Bishop. Do you agree?

You keep jumping to new things, the point wasn't about Pope St.John Paul II, it was about a cardinal who would become pope and then a Saint who disobeyed a Papal interdict without repercussion.

With regards to your question, I do not agree with it, I have seen the same interview you have, and the statement is not binding. I remember during Covid when all the other churches closed, yet the SSPX kept offering mass. They did more to stop the Virus than the vaccine.

Serviam

2:46p, 5/27/24

In reply to PabloSerna

PabloSerna said:
Two points:

First, there are no "traditionalist" nor "progressives" in the Roman Catholic Church. Only the devil seeks to divide and conquer. That is why I am pointing out this fallacy.

There is Tradition, capital T, that forms the foundation of our doctrine and understandings. Confusing this with with rituals that have changed over 2000 years is a mistake. I just read that even the TLM has made some recent changes to the liturgy, so let that sink in.

Second, if you and Servium think that Vatican II was merely "pastoral" and "non-binding" you may want to speak with your priest about such a misunderstanding. It was indeed a major renewal that carried with it full ecclesiastical authority to all corners of the church worldwide.

What distinguishes the Roman Catholic Church from other denominations is this unity. Not always easy as is evident here- but necessary. The Pope together with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith are very real and make up the Magisterium. All of this I know you know because you are more than knowledgeable about matters of the RCC. This is for the others that would believe your errors.

From the latest I am reading, is that the Vatican is working hard to reconcile SSPX back into the fold. I hope so. I will admit that the respect and devotion to the mass is on another level - very pious and beautiful. This to me, is the real fruit of SSPX.

I just caught this nugget Pablo, for some reason I think my priest will feel similarly.

jrico2727

2:56p, 5/27/24

In reply to PabloSerna

PabloSerna said:
Two points:

First, there are no "traditionalist" nor "progressives" in the Roman Catholic Church. Only the devil seeks to divide and conquer. That is why I am pointing out this fallacy.

There is Tradition, capital T, that forms the foundation of our doctrine and understandings. Confusing this with with rituals that have changed over 2000 years is a mistake. I just read that even the TLM has made some recent changes to the liturgy, so let that sink in.

Second, if you and Servium think that Vatican II was merely "pastoral" and "non-binding" you may want to speak with your priest about such a misunderstanding. It was indeed a major renewal that carried with it full ecclesiastical authority to all corners of the church worldwide.

What distinguishes the Roman Catholic Church from other denominations is this unity. Not always easy as is evident here- but necessary. The Pope together with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith are very real and make up the Magisterium. All of this I know you know because you are more than knowledgeable about matters of the RCC. This is for the others that would believe your errors.

From the latest I am reading, is that the Vatican is working hard to reconcile SSPX back into the fold. I hope so. I will admit that the respect and devotion to the mass is on another level - very pious and beautiful. This to me, is the real fruit of SSPX.

I do agree there shouldn't be camps within Catholicism. One is either a faithful Catholic or not. I was responding to your use of those terms, but I probably have become to comfortable with their use as well. What I was pointing is the current novelization what it means to be faithful, I assert that it's meaning has remained constant.

I do believe that the magisterium consists of more than two offices by most definitions, since we are being so careful to be free from error. There is a papal magisterium along with an ordinary and conciliar magisterium as well. These are not bound to just current proclamations of our time, but with those that came before. They should not contradict each other either, that is how we have a universal faith not just for this current time but with the eternal church.

Vatican II is an enigma. One one hand it is the largest and most ecumenical council ever. One the other it was proclaimed by it's founder to be pastoral in nature. It did not proclaim anything new. If only those possessed by the spirit of VII would stick to the letter of its proclamations all of these arguments would be pointless. If you think the decimation of religious orders, a collapse of vocations, a laity so poorly catechized that hardly any believe in the core teachings of the church are good fruits, than I understand your love of this council, or better yet it's spirit.

PabloSerna

4:18p, 5/27/24

Because there is some confusion and there may be some people lurking searching for the truth:

PabloSerna

4:19p, 5/27/24

In reply to Serviam

Ah yes- your priest bats left handed. Tuche.

PabloSerna

4:55p, 5/27/24

In reply to jrico2727

You say Vatican II is an "enigma" and I can agree that there is a lot of misinformation out there by very intelligent people who would say they reject all or parts of the documents of Vatican II. However, to me and others, Vatican II was more like opening windows and letting in "the fresh air." A quote attributed to Pope John XXIII.

PabloSerna

4:58p, 5/27/24

"[The Council] has invested its teachings with the authority of the supreme ordinary magisterium, which ordinary magisterium is so obviously authentic that it must be accepted with docility and sincerity by all the faithful, according to the mind of the Council as expressed in the nature and aims of the individual documents."
-Pope St. Paul VI

Because the seriousness of SSPX's founding, here is a letter from Pope Paul VI to the founder of SSPX, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, sent in October 1976.

jrico2727

5:04p, 5/27/24

In reply to PabloSerna

PabloSerna said:
You say Vatican II is an "enigma" and I can agree that there is a lot of misinformation out there by very intelligent people who would say they reject all or parts of the documents of Vatican II. However, to me and others, Vatican II was more like opening windows and letting in "the fresh air." A quote attributed to Pope John XXIII.

Or quite possibly the smoke of satan his immediate successor Paul the VI mentioned. Either way there is a stark comparison to be made between the pre and post conciliar church.

PabloSerna

5:12p, 5/27/24

In reply to jrico2727

I mentioned it before, the "smoke of Satan" are those that "no longer trust in the Church." Here is a better explanation by Jimmy Akin.

From the article,
"In this way the devil has thwarted the work of the Council in bringing in the day of joy and renewal that should have followed the Council." - Jimmy Akin.

jrico2727

5:38p, 5/27/24

In reply to PabloSerna

The imprecise homily from the article

Referring to the situation of the Church today, the Holy Father
affirms that he has a sense that "from some fissure the smoke of Satan
has entered the temple of God." There is doubt, incertitude,
problematic, disquiet, dissatisfaction, confrontation. There is no
longer trust of the Church; they trust the first profane prophet who
speaks in some journal or some social movement, and they run after him
and ask him if he has the formula of true life. And we are not alert
to the fact that we are already the owners and masters of the formula
of true life. Doubt has entered our consciences, and it entered by
windows that should have been open to the light. Science exists to
give us truths that do not separate from God, but make us seek him all
the more and celebrate him with greater intensity; instead, science
gives us criticism and doubt. Scientists are those who more
thoughtfully and more painfully exert their minds. But they end up
teaching us: "I don't know, we don't know, we cannot know." The
school becomes the gymnasium of confusion and sometimes of absurd
contradictions. Progress is celebrated, only so that it can then be
demolished with revolutions that are more radical and more strange, so
as to negate everything that has been achieved, and to come away as
primitives after having so exalted the advances of the modern world.

This state of uncertainty even holds sway in the Church. There was
the belief that after the Council there would be a day of sunshine for
the history of the Church. Instead, it is the arrival of a day of
clouds, of tempest, of darkness, of research, of uncertainty. We
preach ecumenism but we constantly separate ourselves from others. We
seek to dig abysses instead of filling them in.

So one could read as just those who don't trust the church and stop there easily enough. That would be easy to dismiss anyone who may ask questions or we could read the reasons listed for mistrust.

I think to read further those who trusted a profane prophet, social movements and those who put science above faith are to whom he refers. I would be interested in who the profane prophet is. Mr Akin didn't provide answer. I don't know who it is considering the backlash he received from the rejection of humanae vitae from much of the episcopate it could be related to that

Serviam

5:47p, 5/27/24

In reply to PabloSerna

PabloSerna said:
"[The Council] has invested its teachings with the authority of the supreme ordinary magisterium, which ordinary magisterium is so obviously authentic that it must be accepted with docility and sincerity by all the faithful, according to the mind of the Council as expressed in the nature and aims of the individual documents."
-Pope St. Paul VI

Because the seriousness of SSPX's founding, here is a letter from Pope Paul VI to the founder of SSPX, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, sent in October 1976.

Pope Paul VI was erroneous with regard to the ordinary magisterium which consists of the Bishops authoritatively teaching what has always been taught. There are many things once considered "ordinary magisterium" (such as the death penalty) which some would argue has recently been changed. The magisterium did not apply to Vatican II which did not seek to teach, but rather set suggestions for "how to church correctly" as suggested by a motley crew of Jews, atheists and Protestants.

With all that being said, there have been some major changes to the status of the Society in recent years. The bishops have had their excommunications revoked; this means they have the authority to ordain priests and confirm Catholics. They have been given faculties to wed and absolve. The only reason there is any doubt left as to their status is due to the grey region the Vatican keeps them in so they don't have to deal with them.

I've shown you many examples of how Vatican II is ignored, by both sides. Why are you only focusing on my side?

PabloSerna

7:52p, 5/27/24

In reply to Serviam

I thought it was "our" side we were on? Did you slip?

PabloSerna

7:58p, 5/27/24

In reply to jrico2727

This is the same Pope Paul VI who wrote to Archbishop Lefebvre (read his letter (1976) above). "There is no longer trust of the Church" is the key phrase in any language. We see this all around us now. So his words were prophetic.

PabloSerna

8:21p, 5/27/24

In reply to Serviam

"The magisterium did not apply to Vatican II which did not seek to teach, but rather set suggestions for "how to church correctly" as suggested by a motley crew of Jews, atheists and Protestants."

+++

This is like a half-truth, which I grew up understanding is a lie.

First, that you think Vatican II was a "set of suggestions" is disingenuous because of the volumes of work that has flowed from this important ecumenical council (1962-1965). Here is a quote from someone who was there,

"To defend the true tradition of the Church today means to defend the Council. . . . We must remain faithful to the today of the Church, not the yesterday or tomorrow. And this today of the Church is the documents of Vatican II, without reservations that amputate them and without arbitrariness that distorts them."

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI)

Second, you keep disparaging the invited observers, some of who were Jews, atheists, Protestants, and even Orthodox. I don't know why you do that, except please stop. One of the aims of Vatican II is to have unity with other people of faith and those of no particular faith. They were a part of that moment and in my opinion have added to our understanding of how to best engage the mission of bringing the Good News to everyone.

Afterall that is what Jesus commanded us to do.

ETA: Here is a great LINK to a Vatican II FAQ hosted by Word on Fire.

Serviam

8:22p, 5/27/24

In reply to PabloSerna

PabloSerna said:
I thought it was "our" side we were on? Did you slip?

Nope, I understand that the hallmark of the Catholic Church is its unity however that doesn't preclude the use of adjectives to describe the different movements in the church; there is absolutely a progressive and a traditional wing. The progressivists want ordained women clergy and sacramental gay marriages and environmental issues on par with abortion; and the traditionalists want rigid adherence to doctrine, a return to the pre-62 missal, more focus on the 4 last things, and public Catholic figures held accountable for their actions.

Within the Catholic Church we are on opposing sides. I feel like you are trying to make it into something it's not, nor has ever been; and I feel like I am trying to take it back to how it was for hundreds of years, before the 60's.

Obviously I disagree with the Pope on a lot, that is generally a very poor place to be as a Catholic. As Vicar of Christ every care should be made to give him benefit of the doubt, and I only disagree with him on issues where he is not speaking infallibly (99.9% of the time) and when his statements fail to ring true after being back tested against hundreds or thousands of years of church teaching.

Most of the time I want to believe the Pope, take the death penalty for example. I took his words and dug into church teaching on the death penalty and realized that the last few Popes had taken a line that went counter to over 1500 years of church teaching. They cannot do that, if they want to do that, they need to get in the chair, and issue an ex Cathedra statement, but the Holy Spirit will not let them do that.

Serviam

8:26p, 5/27/24

In reply to PabloSerna

PabloSerna said:
"The magisterium did not apply to Vatican II which did not seek to teach, but rather set suggestions for "how to church correctly" as suggested by a motley crew of Jews, atheists and Protestants."

+++

This is like a half-truth, which I grew up understanding is a lie.

First, that you think Vatican II was a "set of suggestions" is disingenuous because of the volumes of work that has flowed from this important ecumenical council (1962-1965). Here is a quote from someone who was there,

"To defend the true tradition of the Church today means to defend the Council. . . . We must remain faithful to the today of the Church, not the yesterday or tomorrow. And this today of the Church is the documents of Vatican II, without reservations that amputate them and without arbitrariness that distorts them."

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI)

Second, you keep disparaging the invited observers, some of who were Jews, atheists, Protestants, and even Orthodox. I don't know why you do that, except please stop. One of the aims of Vatican II is to have unity with other people of faith and those of no particular faith. They were a part of that moment and in my opinion have added to our understanding of how to best engage the mission of bringing the Good News to everyone.

Afterall that is what Jesus commanded us to do.

ETA: Here is a great LINK to a Vatican II FAQ hosted by Word on Fire.

Can you imagine inviting me to a Jewish seminar on how to properly engage the laity in authentic Judaism? What could I possibly add to that conversation other than trying to convert everyone to Catholicism? Again, this is fantastic for a seminar that is trying to discuss ways to better evangelize to non-Catholics, it is absolutely terrible for a council proposing to modify the praxis of how we worship.

PabloSerna

8:42p, 5/27/24

In reply to Serviam

"Ex cathedra" wasn't that Vatican I?

We have this massive compendium called the Catechism of the Catholic Church that is a summary of the teachings that we all hold to be doctrine. To my knowledge, Popes have only invoked "ex-cathedra" maybe 2 times? What the last couple of Popes have said about the death penalty not being necessary and only foments vengeance is true. Here is the update I assume you take issue with? You may object, but it is written and it is our doctrine because as you have stated, we are in communion even if canonically irregular. No?

Serviam

9:13p, 5/27/24

In reply to PabloSerna

PabloSerna said:
"Ex cathedra" wasn't that Vatican I?

We have this massive compendium called the Catechism of the Catholic Church that is a summary of the teachings that we all hold to be doctrine. To my knowledge, Popes have only invoked "ex-cathedra" maybe 2 times? What the last couple of Popes have said about the death penalty not being necessary and only foments vengeance is true. Here is the update I assume you take issue with? You may object, but it is written and it is our doctrine because as you have stated, we are in communion even if canonically irregular. No?

There have been two ex-Cathedra statements issued by Popes both on Marian dogmas during times of confusion surrounding the beliefs.

The Pope is infallible when a bunch of different precepts are met: speaking about an issue concerning faith and morals, speaking for the entire Church, must determine a point of doctrine in a final way, must be clear that the statement he makes binds the entire church. Go look at the wording used in Munificentissimus Deus to get an idea of what that looks like. The Pope can also relay infallible teachings, but the teachings are infallible insofar as they're correctly related.

Obviously the Catechism is not infallible, I believe the issue of the death penalty itself was revised twice in both '95 and '97, and this is without even speaking of the Catechism of Pope Pius X and the Baltimore catechism, which explicitly allow it.

PabloSerna

9:43p, 5/27/24

In reply to Serviam

That's like saying slavery was allowed in the past. We are talking about now, not then. In a way, you and Biden, Pelosi, among others share in this idea that you can pick and choose certain doctrines. You are still Catholic, but take exception to certain doctrines of the Catechism?

ETA: added "?"

Serviam

10:01p, 5/27/24

In reply to PabloSerna

PabloSerna said:
That's like saying slavery was allowed in the past. We are talking about now, not then. In a way, you and Biden, Pelosi, among others share in this idea that you can pick and choose certain doctrines. You are still Catholic, but take exception to certain doctrines of the Catechism?

ETA: added "?"

In all human history "then" was at one time "now" and slavery was never a doctrine nor dogma of the church. Something cannot be "conditionally infallible"; if the Catechism can change, it is not infallible. Cdl Ratzinger, one year before becoming Pope Benedict said "there may be legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regards to abortion and euthanasia". Cafeteria Catholics are people who do not follow teachings they do not like, I do not follow teachings that are 1. Not authoritatively taught, 2. Are recent innovations that would invalidate hundreds or thousands of years of Church teaching.