FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Bp W Column, 5.30.09
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
On the assumption that the Second Vatican Council established within the Catholic Church a serious split between Catholic Truth and Catholic Authority, "Eleison Comments" three weeks ago ("Flat Contradiction") divided today's Catholics between those who cling to Truth and have problems with Catholic Authority, and those who cling to Catholic Authority and have problems with Catholic Truth or doctrine, for instance on religious liberty.

To read the entire column:

http://dinoscopus.blogspot.com/2009/05/e...laims.html
Bishop W is wrong.  In the Church there is no such opposition between Catholic truth and the divinely constituted teaching authority (papal magisterium).  He presumes that the magisterium can actually defect from the true faith -- but this is impossible.  He would do well to read this on Rupture Theologyhttp://opuscula.blogspot.com/2009/05/on-...ology.html
No I think he's talking about specific people within the Church and he's actually right, as he is one of them. He is one who clings to Truth but not authority.
To reject the divinely constituted authority of the Pope is to already take leave of Truth.  These go together and are never separated.  The contrary notion is Protestant -- they think they can have Truth apart from the magisterium.  Its false.

"It is clear therefore that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others." (CCC #95)
(05-30-2009, 11:29 AM)newschoolman Wrote: [ -> ]To reject the divinely constituted authority of the Pope is to already take leave of Truth.  These go together and are never separated.  The contrary notion is Protestant -- they think they can have Truth apart from the magisterium.  Its false.

Authority figures can be wrong.  Even the Pope can be wrong.  It has happened in the past.  Sure, there's debate about whether it's happening now, but the point is that it's possible.  Yes, the Pope has divinely constituted authority, but not everything he says, even in religious matters is bound to be correct.
(05-30-2009, 11:44 AM)IrishCowboy Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-30-2009, 11:29 AM)newschoolman Wrote: [ -> ]To reject the divinely constituted authority of the Pope is to already take leave of Truth.  These go together and are never separated.  The contrary notion is Protestant -- they think they can have Truth apart from the magisterium.  Its false.

Authority figures can be wrong.  Even the Pope can be wrong.  It has happened in the past.  Sure, there's debate about whether it's happening now, but the point is that it's possible.  Yes, the Pope has divinely constituted authority, but not everything he says, even in religious matters is bound to be correct.

The Papal Magisterium, as such, can't DEFECT in the teaching of Faith and morals.  This is a fact and anything to the contrary is just Rupture Theologyhttp://opuscula.blogspot.com/2009/05/on-...ology.html

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Excerpt:

What is implicit in rupture theology is an assertion that the Papal Magisterium, as such, can defect in faith and morals by teaching heresy.  Opposed to this view, however, is the constant teaching of the Papal Magisterium concerning its own indefectibility in the realm of faith and morals.  For example, Pope Sixtus IV condemned outright the proposition that: “The Church of the city of Rome can err.”  The First Vatican Council would later set forth this teaching as follows:

"...in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept undefiled, and her well known doctrine has been kept holy...knowing full well that this See of Saint Peter remains ever free from all blemish of errors, according to the divine promise of the Lord Our Saviour..."


This teaching has been continually affirmed by the Popes.  Pope Pius XI, for example, reminds us of the “perfect and perpetual immunity of the Church from error and heresy.”  A few years later Pope Pius XII would affirm that the Church is “spotless in the Sacraments” and also “in the faith which she has always preserved inviolate…”


Some may ask whether the Second Vatican Council can be considered an “exception” to the rule as if the divine assistance could somehow be suspended for a period of time and the Magisterium of the Popes could now suddenly defect from faith and morals.  Pope Paul VI explicitly rejected such a notion:


“Nothing that was decreed in this Council, or in the reforms that We enacted in order to put the Council into effect, is opposed to what the two-thousand-year-old Tradition of the Church considers as fundamental and immutable.  We are the guarantor of this, not in virtue of Our personal qualities but in virtue of the charge which the Lord has conferred upon Us as legitimate Successor of Peter, and in virtue of the special assistance that He has promised to Us as well as to Peter: ‘I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail’ (Lk 22:32).”

(05-30-2009, 11:29 AM)newschoolman Wrote: [ -> ]To reject the divinely constituted authority of the Pope is to already take leave of Truth.  These go together and are never separated.  The contrary notion is Protestant -- they think they can have Truth apart from the magisterium.  Its false.

"It is clear therefore that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others." (CCC #95)


This is being proven true by the crisis in the Church.  The Conciliar Church is falling apart.  The problem is, it is the conciliarists who have rejected the Divinely constituted authority of the Pope.  "Collegiality" was the hall mark of JPII"s pontificate and destroying the supremacy of the Pope was carried on in smaller ways by both Paul VI with his removal of the crown and Pope Benedict with his removal of the crown from his coat of arms. 

The SSPX does not have Truth apart from the Magisterium, they accept the Magisterium and rely on it.  The heirarchy by contrast rarely if ever invokes the Magisterium.  Should they genuinely  do that on a particular issue like Baptism of Desire or Blood, (if for the sake of argument the Magisterium  supported Fr. Feeney's position ) the SSPX will have to fall in line.

The current Rosary Crusade is a request for a Magisterial act.  Only the Pope and bishops can consecrate Russia to fulfill the Fatima request because only the Pope has universal jurisdiction.  A Rosary Crusade for more "interreligious dialogue or ecumenical unity in diversity " would not be for a Magisterial act and  probably leave the Blessed Mother very angry and woe to the people that anger the Blessed Mother because her Son is not going to like it one bit.


(05-30-2009, 11:08 AM)newschoolman Wrote: [ -> ]Bishop W is wrong.  In the Church there is no such opposition between Catholic truth and the divinely constituted teaching authority (papal magisterium).  He presumes that the magisterium can actually defect from the true faith -- but this is impossible.

And it appears you have a problem with reality. You are arguing against fact.
This is just another manifestation of Rupture Theologyhttp://opuscula.blogspot.com/2009/05/on-...ology.html

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Excerpt:

What is implicit in rupture theology is an assertion that the Papal Magisterium, as such, can defect in faith and morals by teaching heresy.  Opposed to this view, however, is the constant teaching of the Papal Magisterium concerning its own indefectibility in the realm of faith and morals.  For example, Pope Sixtus IV condemned outright the proposition that: “The Church of the city of Rome can err.”  The First Vatican Council would later set forth this teaching as follows:

"...in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept undefiled, and her well known doctrine has been kept holy...knowing full well that this See of Saint Peter remains ever free from all blemish of errors, according to the divine promise of the Lord Our Saviour..."


This teaching has been continually affirmed by the Popes.  Pope Pius XI, for example, reminds us of the “perfect and perpetual immunity of the Church from error and heresy.”  A few years later Pope Pius XII would affirm that the Church is “spotless in the Sacraments” and also “in the faith which she has always preserved inviolate…”


Some may ask whether the Second Vatican Council can be considered an “exception” to the rule as if the divine assistance could somehow be suspended for a period of time and the Magisterium of the Popes could now suddenly defect from faith and morals.  Pope Paul VI explicitly rejected such a notion:


“Nothing that was decreed in this Council, or in the reforms that We enacted in order to put the Council into effect, is opposed to what the two-thousand-year-old Tradition of the Church considers as fundamental and immutable.   We are the guarantor of this, not in virtue of Our personal qualities but in virtue of the charge which the Lord has conferred upon Us as legitimate Successor of Peter, and in virtue of the special assistance that He has promised to Us as well as to Peter: ‘I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail’ (Lk 22:32).”
(05-30-2009, 12:45 PM)newschoolman Wrote: [ -> ]This is just another manifestation of Rupture Theologyhttp://opuscula.blogspot.com/2009/05/on-...ology.html

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Excerpt:

What is implicit in rupture theology is an assertion that the Papal Magisterium, as such, can defect in faith and morals by teaching heresy.  Opposed to this view, however, is the constant teaching of the Papal Magisterium concerning its own indefectibility in the realm of faith and morals.  For example, Pope Sixtus IV condemned outright the proposition that: “The Church of the city of Rome can err.”  The First Vatican Council would later set forth this teaching as follows:

"...in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept undefiled, and her well known doctrine has been kept holy...knowing full well that this See of Saint Peter remains ever free from all blemish of errors, according to the divine promise of the Lord Our Saviour..."


This teaching has been continually affirmed by the Popes.  Pope Pius XI, for example, reminds us of the “perfect and perpetual immunity of the Church from error and heresy.”  A few years later Pope Pius XII would affirm that the Church is “spotless in the Sacraments” and also “in the faith which she has always preserved inviolate…”


Some may ask whether the Second Vatican Council can be considered an “exception” to the rule as if the divine assistance could somehow be suspended for a period of time and the Magisterium of the Popes could now suddenly defect from faith and morals.  Pope Paul VI explicitly rejected such a notion:


“Nothing that was decreed in this Council, or in the reforms that We enacted in order to put the Council into effect, is opposed to what the two-thousand-year-old Tradition of the Church considers as fundamental and immutable.   We are the guarantor of this, not in virtue of Our personal qualities but in virtue of the charge which the Lord has conferred upon Us as legitimate Successor of Peter, and in virtue of the special assistance that He has promised to Us as well as to Peter: ‘I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail’ (Lk 22:32).”

I love stuff like this that uses a phrase like "rupture theology" to dismiss facts, like

Ecumenism is destroying the notion of the Church of Christ as explained by Pius XII in Mystici Corporis.  Ecumenism as defined and practiced both because of the documents of and on behalf of, Vatican II.  The old "spirit of the Council" nonsense isn't going to fly 40 years after the Council.  We know that this crisis was precipitated because the documents of Vatican II ARE NOT CATHOLIC DOCUMENTS.  So, we don't have to do the mental gymnastics by people who ignore the RUPTURE that Vatican II represents with CATHOLICISM.

Religious Liberty which laicized several Catholic states.  Is it Catholic to tell a state to no longer be Catholic?  Does that please Our Lord?  How does that reconcile with a papal encyclical, Quas Primas?

I could go on, but Catholics know that choosing between papal encyclicals (ordinary Magisterium) and teachings of a still dubious and absurd council is an easy choice, once you've come to realize that the documents of Vatican II themselves are a rupture from not only Catholic teaching, but Catholic style in doctrine.  Catholicism is specifically NOT ambiguous.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16