FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Thoughts on Vatican II and a question for you
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
Quote from Zakhur:
"This situation will, perhaps soon, lead to the almost worldwide persecution of Christianity.  The world, the secular, is opposed, in its essence, to Christ, to God.  Christ always said so."

And so it may be. But, what's your point?

"Therefore, give to caesar what belongs to caesar, and to God what belongs to God" (Mt 22:21)
Well... I thought my point was to expand on my previous statement about a more external manifestation of the crisis.

We are not to give to Caesar what does not belong to him.
Are we absolutely sure what belongs to caesar does not belongs to us also?

Since the beginning the Church Militant has been trying to give back to caesar what belongs to him. It is in its history. It is also in its history that for those who thought the Church ,at a particular time, belonged to caesar only, eventually became schismatics or protestants. Are we witnessing it again in this present time?
I'm not really sure what you are saying. ???
(07-28-2009, 11:53 PM)Zakhur Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-27-2009, 02:59 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-27-2009, 02:55 PM)Zakhur Wrote: [ -> ]Who said anything about today's ecclesiastical authority being illegitimate?  That's not the point, and those who say so are simply wrong.  The sedevacantist position is dead wrong.

"Archbishop Lefebvre" Wrote:"It appears to us much more certain that the faith taught by the Church over twenty centuries cannot contain error than that there is absolute certainty that the Pope really is the pope. Heresy, schism, ipso facto excommunication, and the invalidity of the election are all potential reasons why a Pope was never really the pope or should cease to be the pope. In such a case, clearly a very exceptional one, the Church would find herself in a situation similar to that which she experiences after the decease of a Sovereign Pontiff. For, in a word, a very serious problem presents itself to the conscience and the faith of all Catholics since the beginning of the papacy of Paul VI. How is that a Pope, the true successor of Peter, assured of the assistance of the Holy Spirit, could preside over the destruction of the Church, the most profound and extensive in her history, in such a short space of time, something which no heresiarch has ever succeeded in doing? To this question there will one day have to be a reply." - Declaration by Mgr Lefebvre to Figaro, reproduced in Monde et Vie no 264, for 27 August 1976. This was shortly after he was suspended a divinis (in July 1976) for ordaining priests contrary to the order of Paul VI.

lamentabili,

Your point is well taken.  However, I cannot forget Liberius.

"De Romano Pontifice, St Robert Bellarmine" Wrote:"In addition, unless we are to admit that Liberius defected for a time from constancy in defending the Faith, we are compelled to exclude Felix II, who held the pontificate while Liberius was alive, from the number of the Popes: but the Catholic Church venerates this very Felix as Pope and martyr. However this may be, Liberius neither taught heresy, nor was a heretic, but only sinned by external act [emphasis in original Latin], as did St. Marcellinus, and unless I am mistaken, sinned less than St. Marcellinus." (lib. IV, c. 9, no. 5)

Further, after explaining that Felix was for a time an antipope, he continues (no. 15): "Then two years later came the lapse of Liberius, of which we have spoken above. Then indeed the Roman clergy, stripping Liberius of his pontifical dignity, went over to Felix, whom they knew [then] to be a Catholic. From that time, Felix began to be the true Pontiff. For although Liberius was not a heretic, nevertheless he was considered one, on account of the peace he made with the Arians, and by that presumption the pontificate could rightly [merito] be taken from him: for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple [simpliciter], and condemn him as a heretic.

Quote:I cannot forget Alexander IV.  The latter brought such infamy to the hierarchy that I wonder if he did not in some way contribute to the Protestant Reformation.
This is scandal and immorality, right? Those things do great damage and we were warned that scandals would come.

Quote:I do not in any way think that what those two popes did was as damaging to the Faith on Earth as what Paul VI did.
I agree.

Quote:They merely, with Peter's denial of Christ, open the way for me to begin to understand how a pope could do what Paul VI did.
Except Peter's threefold denial came before his threefold profession:

"Gospel of St. John, Chapter 21" Wrote:Christ manifests himself to his disciples by the sea side and gives Peter the charge of his sheep.

1 After this, Jesus shewed himself again to the disciples at the sea of Tiberias. And he shewed himself after this manner. 2 There were together Simon Peter, and Thomas, who is called Didymus, and Nathanael, who was of Cana of Galilee, and the sons of Zebedee, and two others of his disciples. 3 Simon Peter saith to them: I go a fishing. They say to him: We also come with thee. And they went forth, and entered into the ship: and that night they caught nothing. 4 But when the morning was come, Jesus stood on the shore: yet the disciples knew not that it was Jesus. 5 Jesus therefore said to them: Children, have you any meat? They answered him: No.

6 He saith to them: Cast the net on the right side of the ship, and you shall find. They cast therefore; and now they were not able to draw it, for the multitude of fishes. 7 That disciple therefore whom Jesus loved, said to Peter: It is the Lord. Simon Peter, when he heard that it was the Lord, girt his coat about him, (for he was naked,) and cast himself into the sea. 8 But the other disciples came in the ship, (for they were not far from the land, but as it were two hundred cubits,) dragging the net with fishes. 9 As soon then as they came to land, they saw hot coals lying, and a fish laid thereon, and bread. 10 Jesus saith to them: Bring hither of the fishes which you have now caught.

11 Simon Peter went up, and drew the net to land, full of great fishes, one hundred and fifty-three. And although there were so many, the net was not broken. 12 Jesus saith to them: Come, and dine. And none of them who were at meat, durst ask him: Who art thou? knowing that it was the Lord. 13 And Jesus cometh and taketh bread, and giveth them, and fish in like manner. 14 This is now the third time that Jesus was manifested to his disciples, after he was risen from the dead. 15 When therefore they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon son of John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs.

16 He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. 17 He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep. 18 Amen, amen I say to thee, when thou wast younger, thou didst gird thyself, and didst walk where thou wouldst. But when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and lead thee whither thou wouldst not. 19 And this he said, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had said this, he saith to him: Follow me. 20 Peter turning about, saw that disciple whom Jesus loved following, who also leaned on his breast at supper, and said: Lord, who is he that shall betray thee?

17 "Feed my sheep"... Our Lord had promised the spiritual supremacy to St. Peter; St. Matt. 16. 19; and here he fulfils that promise, by charging him with the superintendency of all his sheep, without exception; and consequently of his whole flock, that is, of his own church.

Quote:If Paul VI's cause for canonization is ever brought forth, we will then get our answer.  If not sooner.
I think there are many other ways to look at Paul VI. Pius X was the first Pope canonised in 500 years, the lack of canonisation doesn't prove much.
There is always a caesar in us.

In asking whether the Church has betrayed itself is like Pilate asking Jesus whether he can be true to himself. Is it happening now as it had happened during the Great Schism and the Reformation in the past?
Quote:begin[/i] to understand how a pope could do what Paul VI did.

If Paul VI's cause for canonization is ever brought forth, we will then get our answer.  If not sooner.

I think you mean Pope Alexander VI, not Pope Alexander IV.

As for Pope Paul VI's cause, for all intents and purposes, it's been derailed.

http://catholictradition.blogspot.com/20...0365866115

http://athanasiuscm.blogspot.com/2007/10...glish.html
Of course the moral rot of the Popes and clergy of the Middle Ages was directly responsible for the Protestant revolt. Don't kid yourself into thinking, oh, theirs was only a moral problem. At least doctrine was sound!  ::)

And Protestantism led to the Enlightenment and Modernism. It's all connected, people! When charity leaves there comes the crisis.

- Lisa
(07-29-2009, 07:13 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote: [ -> ]Of course the moral rot of the Popes and clergy of the Middle Ages was directly responsible for the Protestant revolt. Don't kid yourself into thinking, oh, theirs was only a moral problem. At least doctrine was sound!  ::)

And Protestantism led to the Enlightenment and Modernism. It's all connected, people! When charity leaves there comes the crisis.

- Lisa

Well... Hilaire Belloc did not agree that the moral rot of the hierarchy was responsible for the Reformation.  That's why I was hesitant to say it was directly responsible.  He knew more history than I probably will ever know.

As for Protestantism leading to the Enlightenment etc., I totally agree.
Crusader and lamentabili:

I'm not saying that a canonization process is necessary to learn more about Paul VI.  I'm saying that such a process would reveal more about him to certain people.  Nor am I saying that such a process is even possible.  I have no illusions whatsoever about Pope Paul VI.  He made horrifying decisions.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11