How many of you accept trent?

Thank you for your answers.

-- Steven S (Seven@schneider.net), November 10, 2003

Answers

To my knowledge Trent was an infallible council, and therefore must be accepted by all Catholics. †AMDG

-- Jeff (jmajoris@optonline.net), November 10, 2003.

Steven,

That kind of general language won't do with the schismatics here, they'll say something like: "oh, I accept it 100%" and say to themselves (as a council that actually occured, of course I only have to believe the parts of it I choose to). You see, that's exactly what they do with another ecumenical council Vatican II, so the same situation should apply to trent.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), November 10, 2003.

so how about it Frank? do you accept trent %100? Y/N.

-- Steven Schneider (steven@schnieder.net), November 10, 2003.

I assent to every teaching of every General [Ecumenical] Council of the Catholic Church, including the Council of Trent and the two Vatican Councils.

Also, to any doctrine taught by any pope in history to the whole Church, regardless of whether a Council is in session, I give my assent -- including every one of the hundreds of doctrines in the new Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Finally, to every currently effective disciplinary decree of the Church -- be it in Canon Law, Liturgical Law, or elsewhere -- I express my free will to be obedient.

I hope that you and all Catholics will join me in making this profession of faith and allegiance, Steven S -- even if it done silently, in the heart, rather than by a public post.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@Hotmail.com), November 10, 2003.

Council of Trent, Canon 2:

"If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ: 'Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost,' let him be anathema."

That's pretty unambiguous.

"I hope that you and all Catholics will join me in making this profession of faith and allegiance, Steven S -- even if it done silently, in the heart, rather than by a public post."

Silently? Gee, I wonder why. I'll do it publicly.

I give my complete assent to all the restatements of Catholic doctrine as well as dogmatic definitions and clarifications found in the Council of Trent.

Frank says:

"That kind of general language won't do with the schismatics here, they'll say something like: "oh, I accept it 100%" and say to themselves (as a council that actually occured, of course I only have to believe the parts of it I choose to). You see, that's exactly what they do with another ecumenical council Vatican II, so the same situation should apply to trent."

And in fact the same situation does apply to Trent. It might be interesting to note that not all of what is put forth in a dogmatic council possesses the character of infallibility, but only those portions which occur within the parameters of what constitutes infallibility.

So I'll do right by you:

I give my complete assent to all the restatements of Catholic doctrine as well as dogmatic definitions and clarifications found in Vatican II.

I think you might be assuming things.

For instance, that there are any dogmatic definitions in Vatican II. There aren't. It was a pastoral, not a dogmatic council, and no definitions of doctrine are contain in the documents of Vatican II.

But in Trent, there are clarifications, including Canon 2, with anathemas attached, as I posted above. Do you give your assent to Canon 2?

How about you, John?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 10, 2003.

John,

Do acknowledge, follow, and respect, the teaching of each Pope? Y/N

-- Steven S (Seven@schneider.net), November 10, 2003.

Emerald,

How about you? And all the others that claim that they are in full communion of the church.. Do acknowledge, follow, and respect, the teaching of each Pope? Y/N

-- Steven S (Seven@schneider.net), November 10, 2003.

As it is that the office of Vicar of Christ charges the Pontiff to uphold and teach the Catholic Faith, Absolutely yes I do, each and every one of them from the current one all the way back to Peter.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 10, 2003.

John,

Well how about it? Do you acknowledge, follow, and respect, the teaching of each Pope? Y/N

-- Steven S (Seven@schneider.net), November 10, 2003.

john, i will join you in your pledge...

I assent to every teaching of every General [Ecumenical] Council of the Catholic Church, including the Council of Trent and the two Vatican Councils.

Also, to any doctrine taught by any pope in history to the whole Church, regardless of whether a Council is in session, I give my assent -- including every one of the hundreds of doctrines in the new Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Finally, to every currently effective disciplinary decree of the Church -- be it in Canon Law, Liturgical Law, or elsewhere -- I express my free will to be obedient.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), November 10, 2003.

Faith, guys. It's all about faith for me.

Ecclesia Speramus - in the church we trust

God bless

Franc

-- Franc (francois.de-fleuriot@unilever.com), November 11, 2003.

Steven,

Of course I accept the council as binding, as well as those before it and after it. That's what separates us Catholics from the schismatics who post here. Obedience.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), November 11, 2003.

Jmj

Steven, you posted two or three messages -- after my profession of faith and allegiance -- that were addressed to someone named "John." We have at least two "Johns" and two "Davids" and three "Pauls" here, so you need to be more specific (e.g., by adding a last initial).

However, I know that you couldn't have been addressing me, because I had already answered your questions, in effect, within my profession, which I'm sure you must have read.

My profession was followed by an attempted deception from the bowels of hell -- one that contained the following words from a non-Catholic E-demon:
"Silently? Gee, I wonder why. I'll do it publicly. I give my complete assent to all the restatements of Catholic doctrine as well as dogmatic definitions and clarifications found in the Council of Trent."

"I'll do it publicly," the E-demon said.
Do what?
The E-demon falsely claimed to be referring back these closing words of mine: "I hope that you and all Catholics will join me in making this profession of faith and allegiance, Steven S -- even if it done silently, in the heart, rather than by a public post."

And what was my "profession"? I will repeat it now for two reasons --
(1) to prove that the E-demon is incapable of making the identical profession, and (2) to encourage you again, Steven, to make this Catholic profession of faith and allegiance along with me:

"I assent to every teaching of every General [Ecumenical] Council of the Catholic Church, including the Council of Trent and the two Vatican Councils.
"Also, to any doctrine taught by any pope in history to the whole Church, regardless of whether a Council is in session, I give my assent -- including every one of the hundreds of doctrines in the new Catechism of the Catholic Church.
"Finally, to every currently effective disciplinary decree of the Church -- be it in Canon Law, Liturgical Law, or elsewhere -- I express my free will to be obedient."

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 12, 2003.

Just a quick thought for you all. When Our Lady appeared to the childeren at LaSallette she was weeping and told them that "Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the anti-Christ" Kinda makes ya think, doesn't it? †AMDG

-- Jeff (jmajoris@optonline.net), November 13, 2003.

No, Jeff. It shouldn't make us doubt in God. We have no reason to accept such apparitions as binding on our faith. The seat of the Anti-Christ is in your imagination.

Our Holy Redeemer promised his Church at the beginning: ''On this Rock I will build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.''

The seat of the Anti-Christ? Is Our Lord helpless to keep out the Anti-Christ when he comes to try taking that ''seat''--? Do you believe in Jesus Christ, Jeff? Or in the last apparition you heard about? How many souls have been saved by faith in an apparition?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 13, 2003.

First of all it was an approved appration, so it is not my imagination. Secondly the Lord is NOT powerless, but rather He is removing the chaf from the wheat, so to speak. †AMDG

-- Jeff (jmajoris@optonline.net), November 13, 2003.

If such a heretical "message" was actually attributed to the apparition at Fatima, the "apparition" cound never have been approved.

Yes, it does make me wonder when people place more faith in supposed "apparitions" than they place in the Word of God and the infallible teaching of His Holy Church.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 13, 2003.

told them that "Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the anti-Christ" Kinda makes ya think, doesn't it?

yes, kinda makes me think... that aside from the fact that Jesus Himself pledged that hell would not prevail against His church (a claim which you have just called a lie), the book of revelations CLEARLY states that the antichrist will rule from israel. NOT ROME.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), November 13, 2003.

Jeff;
Please investigate these apparitions. La Salette isn't an approved apparition to begin with. One reason the Church cautioned her faithful not to put store in it was precisely these negative prophesies, which are clearly contradictory to scripture. It's a long time since I studied the La Salette events; but I recall another proof brought against their authenticity. In later years one of the visionaries actually confessed parts of these accounts were fabricated in the first reports. The Church had no choice but to refuse the apparitions any support.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 13, 2003.

"the book of revelations CLEARLY states that the antichrist will rule from israel. NOT ROME." You seem to like to interpret scripture for yourself. The Church has always taught that in prophesy "Israel" refer to the Roman Catholic Church. And Eugene, please show me where you found that LaSalette is not an approved appartion

-- Jeff (jmajoris@optonline.net), November 13, 2003.

Eugene, I think that you didn't do your homework. I think that you need to tell the Archbishop in charge of the archdiocese in which LaSalette is that it isn't an approved appration. I don't htink that he knows that. Also you need to tell a bishop in Georgia because there is a Church that is under her patronage there. Here is the site ( http://www.midnite-media.com/lasalette/ )

-- Jeff (jmajoris@optonline.net), November 13, 2003.

Hello, Gene and Jeff.

Gene, it is true that your memory about La Salette was out of focus. It is a private revelation that the Church considers "worthy of belief." That is ... (1) no one is required to believe it is genuine, (2) but nothing claimed to have been said at La Salette is contrary to the Catholic faith, and (3) our belief in it is permitted).

Now, having said that, I have to turn to Jeff and tell him that he had presented a bogus quotation. It's about the fourth time in the last two years that someone has presented this alleged quotation -- which is so popular at pseudo-traditionalist sites (because the people who hang around there are longing for an excuse to reject the pope's teachings and disciplines). Jeff's quasi-quotation -- "Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the anti-Christ" -- is not actually comtemporaneous with the accepted events of La Salette. Rather, it is something that came out of the mind of one of the La Salette "seers" much later in her life -- when, it is believed, she either lost her sanity or her virtue. We should all ignore it, for it did not come from the lips of our Blessed Mother.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 15, 2003.

John I very much appreciate your kind admonishment. However as for the source, it didn't come from a "pseudo-Traditionalist site" it was a Novus Ordo site. †AMDG

-- Jeff (jmajoris@optonline.net), November 15, 2003.

Thanks, John --for the heads up. My recall of La Salette is from the 70's. I was immersed in bibliographies and contemplation; and I guess it may be the testimony of that deranged witness; my salient knowledge. Nevertheless;

You will agree no judgment of men can be tolerated which impugns the House of God. Whatsoever might come out of these arguments deprecating or teaching deprecation of holy mother Church is simply anathema. God is in the Church; not anti-Christ.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 15, 2003.