Did Catholic Doctrine change after Vatican II?

Reedolo · 08-01-2007, 03:52 PM

To all of you Protestants who would love to see me leave the Catholic Church and join your ranks.. Here's your chance to convert me.

If anyone can actually prove that Catholic doctrine changed at Vatican II, I will of course have no choice but to leave the Church, because I can't very well believe the Church is infallible if it changed its doctrine.

I might not be Protestant, though.. I might decide to be Eastern Orthodox or Anglican instead. Then I could still say my Hail Marys.

But there are no Eastern Orthodox Churches near where I live, unfortunately.. and only one Episcopal Church that I don't like very much.

Really, I don't think it's going to be an issue, because I don't believe that Vatican II changed any doctrine. But if anyone disagrees with me, i'd like to hear what you have to say.

Peace,
Reed

goldenchild · 08-01-2007, 05:55 PM

Well if that's going to be your attitude then I wish to have no part in convincing you of the errors of Vatican II & beyond. Denying belief in the Church simply because evil men could infiltrate it is a very dangerous position to take and I will not, even to show you the real errors of the Vatican II Church, take part. The Novus Ordo Church is not the Catholic Church, that is the only way it is not protected by infallibility. Denying the infallibility of the Catholic Church, simply because a non-Catholic church "pretending to be Catholic" doesn't have infallibility, is not a Catholic position at all. Do you deny the Catholic Church's infallibility just because the Lutheran church, or the Baptist church or any other Church doesn't have it? I assume not, so why deny it if you find that yet another non-Catholic Church (the Novus Ordo Church) does not have it? Just because one church pretends to be the Catholic Church doesn't mean that they are, and it doesn't mean that the Catholic Church is not still real and alive and true.

theguidedheart · 08-01-2007, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by goldenchild

Well if that's going to be your attitude then I wish to have no part in convincing you of the errors of Vatican II & beyond. Denying belief in the Church simply because evil men could infiltrate it is a very dangerous position to take and I will not, even to show you the real errors of the Vatican II Church, take part. The Novus Ordo Church is not the Catholic Church, that is the only way it is not protected by infallibility. Denying the infallibility of the Catholic Church, simply because a non-Catholic church "pretending to be Catholic" doesn't have infallibility, is not a Catholic position at all. Do you deny the Catholic Church's infallibility just because the Lutheran church, or the Baptist church or any other Church doesn't have it? I assume not, so why deny it if you find that yet another non-Catholic Church (the Novus Ordo Church) does not have it? Just because one church pretends to be the Catholic Church doesn't mean that they are, and it doesn't mean that the Catholic Church is not still real and alive and true.

Well can you give me some examples then.. (I have read through some in the past, and don't find the few arguments I have read to hold any water, and quite honestly don't expect them to, but I want to know your position because I have not read alot about it) and don't worry, I will never leave the Catholic Church

...

Peace

Reedolo · 08-01-2007, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by goldenchild

Well if that's going to be your attitude then I wish to have no part in convincing you of the errors of Vatican II & beyond. Denying belief in the Church simply because evil men could infiltrate it is a very dangerous position to take and I will not, even to show you the real errors of the Vatican II Church, take part. The Novus Ordo Church is not the Catholic Church, that is the only way it is not protected by infallibility. Denying the infallibility of the Catholic Church, simply because a non-Catholic church "pretending to be Catholic" doesn't have infallibility, is not a Catholic position at all. Do you deny the Catholic Church's infallibility just because the Lutheran church, or the Baptist church or any other Church doesn't have it? I assume not, so why deny it if you find that yet another non-Catholic Church (the Novus Ordo Church) does not have it? Just because one church pretends to be the Catholic Church doesn't mean that they are, and it doesn't mean that the Catholic Church is not still real and alive and true.

Because what you call the "Novus Ordo Church" is the Church that has Apostolic Succession and has the succcessor of Peter. That's an undisputable, historical fact. Christ promised that the gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church. I don't see how one moment the Church can be the Church, and the next moment it isn't, just because a small group of people claim that a pope fell into heresy. What does that say about the integrity of Christ's promise that the Church would never fall?

I believe that if the Catholic Church in union with the bishop of rome isn't the true church, then Sedevacantism certainly isn't, either. There's no pope there. I believe that Peter was made the rock of the church, and my criteria for discerning which church is the true one is following the succession of Peter. If i'm wrong about seat of Peter, then why even bother being Roman Catholic at all? I could be an Eastern Orthodox Catholic, if I've been wrong about the pope all this time.

The only reason why I chose Roman Catholicism over Eastern Orthodoxy in the first place was because of the Papacy. I almost became Orthodox, but the papacy was what finally convinced me that Rome was the way to go.

What I'm saying, in a nutshell, is that all of the popes up to HH+PB16 have been valid successors of Peter, so if the Church I belong to isn't the fullness of the Apostolic Church, then I must have been wrong about the role of the successor of Peter. I could still very much believe in the Catholic Church and be an Eastern Orthodox Catholic.

It would make more sense to me to be Eastern Orthodox as opposed to Sedevacantist, because if the Roman Church was wrong about Papal Infallibility, then that would seem to indicate that the Roman CHurch was the one that was in schism in the first place and that the Eastern Orthodox Church was right.

Sedevacantists still acknowledge the doctrine of papal infallibility, and yet simultaneously claim that the pope fell into heresy.

That doesn't make any sense to me at all. It would make more sense to claim that Rome was wrong and Constantinople was right, and that the bishop of Rome was never anything more than the first among equals.

All I'd have to do is start doing the Sign of the Cross the other way and give up the doctrines of Papal Infallibility and the Immaculate Conception of Mary. I'm not saying it would be easy.. but what would be the alternative?

How can one believe in papal infallibility and at the same time claim that the pope fell? If it can be proven that a pope fell into heresy, then the most logical conclusion would be that the doctrine of Papal Infallibility is wrong, and make a move to Eastern Orthodox Catholicism, who have Apostolic Succession and never accepted that doctrine in the first place.

Reedolo · 08-01-2007, 08:30 PM

note: I know some Catholics don't like hte term "Roman Catholic", but in this case I don't know any other way of expressing what I'm trying to say, because there is dispute even to this day whether the "true" Catholic Church is the Roman Church or the Eastern Orthodox Church, and both of them have valid Apostolic Succession, and thus valid Sacraments.

Iceman-bass14 · 08-01-2007, 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reedolo

Because what you call the "Novus Ordo Church" is the Church that has Apostolic Succession and has the succcessor of Peter. That's an undisputable, historical fact. Christ promised that the gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church. I don't see how one moment the Church can be the Church, and the next moment it isn't, just because a small group of people claim that a pope fell into heresy. What does that say about the integrity of Christ's promise that the Church would never fall?

Acts 20:29 "For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock."
Maybe this is some of those wolves?Dont get me wrong im not saying thats the case and i dont wish to get in an argument over this cause idk much about catholic churches and vatican II but His church wont fail but it will come under attack at times.

milkmandog · 08-01-2007, 09:23 PM

what do you guys think of this group:
http://www.truecatholic.org/

Reedolo · 08-01-2007, 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iceman-bass14

Acts 20:29 "For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock."
Maybe this is some of those wolves?Dont get me wrong im not saying thats the case and i dont wish to get in an argument over this cause idk much about catholic churches and vatican II but His church wont fail but it will come under attack at times.

Yes Christ did promise that there would be false teachers. The promise of Christ that I am referring to, though, is this one:

Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
Mat 16:18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Mat 16:19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

The Roman Catholic interpretation of this passage is that Christ built His Church on Peter, and through succession, Peter's successors, the popes. So it's like a promise that Christ has given the Church a firm, visible authority that will never be led astray.

This is the interpretation that makes the mose sense to me, and that is precisely why I am a Roman Catholic and not an Eastern Orthodox Catholic, even though both Churches have valid Apostolic Succession and valid Sacraments. To me that is the most crucial difference between the two churches. Roman Catholics believe that the bishop of Rome has preeminent authority, while the Eastern Orthodox believe he was simply the first among equals. We think they're wrong, and they think we're wrong.

The issue of papal authority was the main cause of the Great Schism of 1054. The point I'm trying to make in this thread is that if Vatican II changed doctrine, and the papacy fell into heresy, then the only logical conclusion would be that Rome was wrong about papal infallibility, and the EO were right all along.

Reedolo · 08-01-2007, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkmandog

what do you guys think of this group:
http://www.truecatholic.org/

Conclavists.

More pseudo-Catholics who didn't like Vatican II so they thought they could start their own little "Catholic Church".

KFBobInsanesMom · 08-01-2007, 11:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reedolo

Yes Christ did promise that there would be false teachers. The promise of Christ that I am referring to, though, is this one:

[COLOR=Blue]Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
Mat 16:18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Mat 16:19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

[COLOR=Black]
The Roman Catholic interpretation of this passage is that Christ built His Church on Peter, and through succession, Peter's successors, the popes. So it's like a promise that Christ has given the Church a firm, visible authority that will never be led astray.

It says "on this rock", not "on this rock and it's successors".

KFBobInsanesMom · 08-01-2007, 11:47 PM

Reed, there is really no reason to do this again because you have been shown things over and over, and each time you just answer as the RCC would and not address what is shown you with your own reasoning. You can deny "one must be in submission to the Pope or one is going to suffer the torment of fires" and say it doesn't say that, as the RCC now does, but you have yet to say what it does mean. How about YOU address this, what does this mean if it doesn't mean one must be in subjection to the Pope to be saved??

Bryan · 08-01-2007, 11:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

It says "on this rock", not "on this rock and it's successors".

agreed, but I don't see how this current line of discussion has anything to do with the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church changing after Vatican II.

KFBobInsanesMom · 08-01-2007, 11:49 PM

Reed, I'll have to continue this discussion with you on PM because I"m not interested in having this thread closed and Bryan accusing me of "contempt" .

Reedolo · 08-02-2007, 01:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

Reed, there is really no reason to do this again because you have been shown things over and over, and each time you just answer as the RCC would and not address what is shown you with your own reasoning. You can deny "one must be in submission to the Pope or one is going to suffer the torment of fires" and say it doesn't say that, as the RCC now does, but you have yet to say what it does mean. How about YOU address this, what does this mean if it doesn't mean one must be in subjection to the Pope to be saved??

Show me the original text again. I don't think it says "you must be in submission to the pope or you go to Hell".

And was this before or after the Great Schism of 1054? Just curious.

Reedolo · 08-02-2007, 01:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

Reed, I'll have to continue this discussion with you on PM because I"m not interested in having this thread closed and Bryan accusing me of "contempt" .

No, I think we can discuss it here. It relates to the thread, because if a pope once said ex-cathedra that all who aren't in submission to the pope will go to Hell, that will certainly indicate that Church changed post- Vatican II.

Bryan, I don't think her posts are contemptuous.

Ms. Renee, I think succession is implied because more than once in the NT there is talk of an "office" being filled, and also it would make no sense to build the Church on Peter and then have no replacement for when Peter dies. If there is no replacement, then the "rock" of Christ's church would die along with Peter.