FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: An Outlook on the upcoming Doctrinal Talks between SSPX and the Vatican
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
In my head, this makes sense, but I have been having trouble writing it down, but I'll try.  But it seems to me, that if these talks are to be held.  There is a potential for a bombshell to occur.  The Vatican does have a lot to lose by them (pending on point of view).  Because if the talks are mainly about clarification of Vatican II, especially in "light of tradition."  Which means the Vatican officials have to defend that.  The question is whether the Vatican can successfully argue that point.  If the aftermath of Vatican II was caused by a "misinterpretation" that is easy enough to fix I guess, but if the documents of Vatican themselves are falliable and to blame. 

First off, that suggests that the Church is fallible or that it will be interpreted by the enemies of the Church as that.  Secondly, the Church has been living outside of tradition for the most part and in rupture. Thirdly, this greatly damages the papacy of Paul VI and John Paul II as implementors of the reforms while vindicating Archbishop Lefebvre, which some tradtionalists will herald as the modern Athanasius (aside from those of you who think that already).  Now, much of the discussion could be swept under the rug and we will never know what happens.  But if such an admission that the documents of Vatican II were not made "in light of tradition" was made public that means every priest formed in the last 40 years have severe deficienies as most seminaries are essentially built around Vatican II as a starting point.  And ultimately, it becomes a question of where the Church goes from here.  We can't simply go back to the way it was.  Nor we can't continue on the path we are right now.  The hope will be a gradual reversion to Tradition, while maintaining the better aspects of Vatican II.  Indeed there could lead to another council to settle the matter, but I doubt the pope in his old age will call a council.  I could see in 30 years from now, another council being called when all the moobats are dead that will settle matters once and for all.  However, I can see schism on the horizon where the half-protestantized catholics will leave the church and form their own church or join the Anglicans, which many would say good but this would be detrimental to a lot of souls for that to happen.

I don't know if any of this makes much sense, but this is something I have been thinking about, perhaps I am thinking too much into it or being too grand in my interpretation of events. 
As one who thinks Lefabvre is the modern Athanasius I agree. When these talks are done if and thats a big if the Vatican is honest it is going to throw mud all over the past 50 years of the Church and especialy Paul VI and JPII which is why I dont think the Vatican will be honest they can not admit that JPII ever did anything wrong. Including the current Pope.
I don't think that there is anyone at the Vatican saying JPII never did anything wrong.

There's a reason his Cause has been slowed down.

For example, even before his election, the Holy Father was already saying that VII had to be interpreted in the light of tradition. Clearly the way was being paved even then for a reconcilliation.

Have a bit more faith than that and we all might be pleasantly surprised.
First of all, I think St Anthanasius differed from Lefabvre substantially. The former did not caused a schism in the Church.

Second, I think AntoniusMaximus has brought up some good observations about the serious consequences for the Church if Vatican II has erred in the 'light of Tradition". It is my view that  Vatican II was 'the Church in proceeding', and therefore an event in 'the light of Tradition' in the history of the Church. Any subsequent proclamations made by Vatican II have to be 'in the light of Tradition' because it was so from the beginning. If one claims that it was not, then the Church has to be 'in rupture' prior to and at the beginning of Vatican II. This lead to a very disturbing question (and a contradiction): if the Church has not being in continuity, now or in the past, which is the true Church? The protestant-reformers have every right to claim theirs are true churches!
Wow, it's not every day that you see somebody so ignorant of the facts here at FE.  CAF, yeah, that's normal.  Here?  Not so much.

Shall I start with your first sentence?  Ok, what schism did Lefebvre caused [sic]?
CL

It's a deluge of wit we have.


As far as talks...let me be as repetative as I love to be...


I ain't hold'n my breath...
Well CL, setting up another church constitutes a schism for me. It is only my view and I don't want to 'hackle' with anyone who doesn't think likewise.
Ig,
Serious question:  Why are you so alarmed about problems with Vat. II, but don't feel the same way about full blown heresies preached by Bishops?  The idea that Vat. II can be erroneous shakes your faith, but a Bishop preaching Jews don't have to be baptized doesn't?  Please explain the difference.
James02, my concern is unity in the Church and be faithful to the one true and holy Catholic Church. The problem with Vatican II was not that it is a 'false' council but with how the declarations of the council were distorted or misunderstood or misapplied. I agree that some bishops succumbed to modernist tendencies and relativism. They were just poor servants of Christ. I do feel that matters will resolved within the Church with time and perspectives, as in the past. I do not want to get into details of differences or argue 'hot and cold' over who is right or wrong. Yeah, I do think some things should be better explained or done and some bishops should have the courage to defend the Church.
(08-02-2009, 04:33 AM)James02 Wrote: [ -> ]Ig,
Serious question:  Why are you so alarmed about problems with Vat. II, but don't feel the same way about full blown heresies preached by Bishops?  The idea that Vat. II can be erroneous shakes your faith, but a Bishop preaching Jews don't have to be baptized doesn't?  Please explain the difference.

Jesus Christ kept the judgment to Himself, it is exclusively His decision who will enter the eternal Kingdom of God, and He will disclose His only in the end of world. This is very solid Catholic dogma: Inde venturus est judicare vivos et mortuos.

Any of your opinion about the salvation have to be reconciled with this dogma. You do not judge who will be saved.

I do not know how to resolve the seeming contradiction with other statement, but we had to be extremely careful about the Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. Mark said that those who are baptized will be (could be) saved, but he did not said the those who are not baptized will be damned. Only those who intentionally reject the faith, to trust themselves to God. A Jew can trust himself to God w/o baptism, A Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Shintoist too. God will decide. 

In the time of the Florentine council everyone around was Catholic, and those outside explicitly opposed the Church fought against it. Now we are living in a world were the Catholic Church is a relatively small group, we cannot say that everybody outside it will be damned. Hitler was Catholic, Schweitzer, Gandhi were not. The Judge will be Jesus Christ, not anyone else now.

laszlo
Pages: 1 2 3