Did the Catholic Church turn herself upside down, or just mix in heresy with her doctrine to fool the people.?
After that "mixing" was she able to throw out all of her Catholic authors of the last 150 years to show that all of their Imprimaturs and Nihil Obstats never meant anything? As to why she did that, can anyone explain why?
The unorthodox and the Protestants had wanted her to "change." Did she change to bring THEM in? Or to bring herself out? The doctrinal books if not null then why discarded? If not null, then why do the Novus Ordo Catholics not read those doctrinal books, Ecclesiastical Reviews and Encyclicals to check them out and see if they are valid? If valid once, not valid now? If Doctrine indefectible once, NOW defectable? Does this make sense when we are speaking of the eternal Word of God? Had the Professors of Theology and the Doctorates dissertations written catholicly in their serious apologetic studies? The alternative is that the Roman Catholic Church been in heresy for 1958 years just as do the Protestants and the unorthodox and all the break-away variations of religion claim, and now the Vatican Church finally admitted it?
Does NewChurch place God above Man; confess to brothers first, and then to God? Was this all backwards, and now they can say the Apostles were wrong? That they should confess to their friends first? Is that heresy? Is it brotherhood? Is Brotherhood a Religion? But--- Is not the real teaching of the True Faith that the brotherhood of the Catholic Church is/was already a well-defined family arrangement? And it gains its new members by the usual family route: they are born into it — through the regenerative power of Baptism? And once baptized, they become, as the Baltimore Catechism puts it, sons of God and heirs to the kingdom of Heaven? Is this NOT the true teaching from all of eternity? Then why throw those books out?
Here is a list of a few apologetic books--books which Scott Hahn, and his once-friend and many other famous NewChurch members know, just so you can inter-loan them --the books are archived (hidden, lost or discarded)---and THEN comment, but not before:
Canon Fr. George D. Smith, "The Teaching of the Catholic Church"; Fr. Henry James Coleridge, The Return of the King";
Fr. Koch "Manual of Apologetics";
Fr, Prachensky, "The Church of the Parables";
Fr. S. Hunter, S.J. "Outlines of Dogmatic Theology";
Fr. Jos.Clifford Fenton, Prof. Dogmatic Theol., Cath.Univ., Concept of Sacred Theology";
Henry Denzinger, "Sources of Catholic Dogma" 1952, rev. by Karl J. Rahner, S.J.
Bored: Who are the fundamentalists, what is “everything” and who is being fooled?
Sweetie: Now who is being fooled? Books shown are from scholars of Catholicism. You have not read any.
Ricky: What is the “official” birth control dogma? Perhaps lack of chastisement was meant to drive people away.
Denise: Answer the question. Pope Pius X, IX, V, VIII, VI were led by the Holy Ghost also. Read encyclicals.
Orchid my dear: Read carefully. Catholics write books--about dogma, dogma is catechetical. Traditional dogma is defined by Doctors, promulgated by popes. Read all popes, not just selected ones. All definitions in dogma ended in 1952 with the Assumption of Mary promulgated as de fide by Pope Pius XII.
John W: Answer the questions. The Paraclete guides legitimate Councils which are called to define dogma. All dogmatic definitions ended in 1952. The Invisible Vicar, a dogma of the Church, always guides the Church, even “between” vicars for He will not leave us orphans. This Question is not about Abp. Lefebvre, you have digressed. I will reply on it since no one seems to have a clue about the Canon Law in place on the actions of Abp. Lefebvre [please use his title, he is, before God, a priest forever; God uses the Bishop’s title, too]. Abp. Lefebvre has changed no dogma, established no church. His acts are those of a single person who opened a seminary with episcopal permission. His priestly society has no ecclesial power; it commands no one, nor excommunicates anyone. The only pending fault of those who hold to the Vatican II popes and disobey them is that it is diametrical They admit but disobey. If this is expressed in the open forum, the only choice is to obey. (con’t)
John W (con't): He who will not obey to what he admits commits mortal sin; he who will not admit to what he disobeys commits mortal sin. Many of these will not learn, and their crime is self-willed ignorance, a crime against the Holy Ghost of disobedience in the light of intelligence. It is first the sin against the First Commandment. Not all schism is dogmatic and/or excommunicable. Abp.Lefebvre’s schism for which he cannot be excommunicated (the writ was left unsigned and is not published in the Acta Sedis Apostolis) is that of espiscopal consecrating without a mandate. In the past the Catholic Church has restored schismatic bishops for their error by a public declaration of the Abjuration against Error, the Oath Against Modernism, and private absolution. (Encyclical of Pope Pius V) Read Bishops at Large, Peter Anson. Focus on your dogma 30 A.D. to 1952 and answer the question.
John W: Thank you for your excellent observation on the missing catechesis. It is true that overkill in the question was used as a device to stir the minds. The new catechesis, opines Fr. Trinchard, Dr. Coomaraswamy, Fr. Cekada, and others who are scholars in theology is that the struggles of theologians, popes, saints and martyrs are unheard, missing popes and saints, theologians and doctors are unmentioned, there is a gap in history, a canyon between generations due to denigrating what the elders learned and remember. This is lethal to continuity of doctrine. How shall the weakly catechized know there exists true doctrine decreed by Christ, left by papal Encyclicals? He is told nothing of it. 150 years of missing ecclesial history does not convey Catholicism. It does convey much “deviation,” always explained away. The literary record by ecclesial theologians and doctrinists is locked away. The titles will not be known unless there is a beginning point. This is that point.