FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Doctrinal preamble leaked?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
http://z10.invisionfree.com/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=10008&view=getnewpost

Why think ye?

Sorry posting from a smartphone so difficult to cut and past whole thing.
Here is the post, Greg. From http://z10.invisionfree.com/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?s=9d311c65eb946f0240026441ea7d5acf&showtopic=10008&st=0&#last
Quote:"From Brazil, the blog Fratres in Unum has published a portion of the doctrinal preamble (or at least a summary thereof) between the Holy See and the SSPX. According to Fr. Pfluger, First Assistant to the Superior General of the SSPX, these are the terms that the Vatican laid down that the SSPX had to (and did) accept:

“O critério e o guia para a compreensão dos ensinamentos do Concílio Vaticano II deve ser a Tradição da Fé Católica integral, que por sua vez esclarece certos aspectos da vida e doutrina da Igreja ainda não formulados, mas implicitamente presentes nela. As afirmações do Concílio Vaticano II e do Magistério Pontifício posterior relativas à relação entre as Igreja Católica e as confissões cristãs não-católicas devem ser entendidas à luz de toda a Tradição”.

My translation:
"The criteria and guide for the understanding of the teachings of the Second Vatican Council are to be the whole Tradition of the Catholic Faith, which on its part makes clear certain aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church, which are not yet formulated, but implicitly present in it. The affirmations of the Second Vatican Council and of the Pontifical Magisterium of the past relative to the relationship between the Catholic Church and the non-Catholic christian confessions are to be understood in light of all of Tradition."

I can't see how any traditionalist can oppose that. I can however, see how many a modernist can object to this statement of the Holy See as it means that they can no longer have altar girls, Mass facing the people, Communion in the hand, and all the other innovations that Vatican II never permitted-not to mention no more compromise with other religions when it comes to ecumenical dialogue.

Pray that the situation is resolved quickly, as the whole text of the doctrinal preamble is expected to be made public afterwards and this type of statement is exactly what the Church needs to hear in an authoritative context from the Vatican. Modernists have fraudulently carried out liturgical and doctrinal abuses in the name of Vatican II for too long.
(06-25-2012, 06:34 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: [ -> ]Here is the post, Greg.

------------------------------------------------

which on its part makes clear certain aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church, which are not yet formulated, but implicitly present in it.

I can't see how any traditionalist can oppose that.

With respect (and thank you for the translation, Crusader), I think a statement such as this could be quite troubling for a trad. That is quite different from "opposing the errors of Vatican Council II."
"The criteria and guide for the understanding of the teachings of the Second Vatican Council are to be the whole Tradition of the Catholic Faith, which on its part makes clear certain aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church, which are not yet formulated, but implicitly present in it.

What does this mean?

Does it mean that the teachings of the second Vatican Council were implicit in Tradition?
(06-25-2012, 07:25 PM)ggreg Wrote: [ -> ]"The criteria and guide for the understanding of the teachings of the Second Vatican Council are to be the whole Tradition of the Catholic Faith, which on its part makes clear certain aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church, which are not yet formulated, but implicitly present in it.

What does this mean?

Does it mean that the teachings of the second Vatican Council were implicit in Tradition?

See, that's the other way of looking at it.  It's too vague to know whether they're essentially neutering the novelty or trying to find further justification and support for novelty in the tradition of the Church, thus neutering true traditional Catholicism.
Could it mean in future they can make more changes which were implicit ? Wiggle words, maybe,I think.

tim
Typical V-II double talk. No?
And what about this:

Quote: I put this up before but I fear my post might not have been clear, or clearly understood.
There has been much speculation (and much condemning of those speculating) about what +F signed regarding an agreement, if indeed he signed anything. Most will remember that the SSPX was given an ultimatum on the 15th of March to respond to Rome's demand for a definitive clarification of the Doctrinal Preamble set down by the CDF last September. +F replied around the 15th April. His first assistant, Fr. Pfluger, revealed part of this reply on the 5th June. He termed +F's reply as a "Doctrinal Declaration". It is the basis of the doctrinal declaration that would be acceptable to the SSPX, as expressed by the General Council, leading to a Canonical regularisation.
Here is what Fr Pfluger revealed:

We promise to always be faithful to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff. We declare that we accept the teaching of the Magisterium of the Church in matters of faith and morals.

The entire tradition of catholic faith must be the criteria and guide in understanding the teaching of the second Vatican council, which, in turn, enlightens certain aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church implicitly present within itself [the council] and not yet formulated.

The affirmations of the second Vatican council […] and of the posterior pontifical Magisterium concerning relations between the Catholic Church and non-Catholic Christian confessions […] must be understood in the light of the entire and uninterrupted Tradition in a manner which is coherent with truths previously taught by the Church and without accepting any interpretation whatsoever.

That is why it is legitimate to promote through a legitimate discussion the study and theological explanation of expressions or formulas of the second Vatican council and the ensuing Magisterium whenever these do not appear reconcilable with the Church’s previous Magisterium.


http://z10.invisionfree.com/Ignis_Ardens...opic=10031
(06-25-2012, 06:34 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: [ -> ]My translation:
"The criteria and guide for the understanding of the teachings of the Second Vatican Council are to be the whole Tradition of the Catholic Faith, which on its part makes clear certain aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church, which are not yet formulated, but implicitly present in it. The affirmations of the Second Vatican Council and of the Pontifical Magisterium of the past relative to the relationship between the Catholic Church and the non-Catholic christian confessions are to be understood in light of all of Tradition."

Because it implies that the nonsense introduced by V2 was 'implicit' in the previous tradition, whereas we all know that is not the case.
Nota bene: That original post is just a repost from Ignis Ardens. Neither the translation, nor the views expressed, are mine.
Pages: 1 2 3