FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Bishop Fellay: A Summary of Recent Events, 12-28-12
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
Quote:  it is impossible to explain the apparent contractions and that anyone who attempts to do so has abandoned reason.
  Ok, here's one to "explain":

Quote: The particular union of the "Theotókos" with God - which fulfils in the most eminent manner the supernatural predestination to union with the Father which is granted to every human being (filii in Filio) - is a pure grace and, as such, a gift of the Spirit.

Material heresy.  The author is dead, so I won't accuse him of being a formal heretic, since he can't defend himself.

There is no explaining this.  But we have had Popes in the past who believed in heresies.  One was dug up and tossed into the Tiber.  That will probably happen again.
(01-02-2013, 01:31 PM)James02 Wrote: [ -> ]
Quote:  it is impossible to explain the apparent contractions and that anyone who attempts to do so has abandoned reason.
  Ok, here's one to "explain":

Quote: The particular union of the "Theotókos" with God - which fulfils in the most eminent manner the supernatural predestination to union with the Father which is granted to every human being (filii in Filio) - is a pure grace and, as such, a gift of the Spirit.

Material heresy.  The author is dead, so I won't accuse him of being a formal heretic, since he can't defend himself.

There is no explaining this.  But we have had Popes in the past who believed in heresies.  One was dug up and tossed into the Tiber.  That will probably happen again.

I thought we were talking about Vatican II.  Isn't that a quote from Mulieris Dignitatem?

The entire passage is:
Quote:The particular union of the "Theotókos" with God - which fulfils in the most eminent manner the supernatural predestination to union with the Father which is granted to every human being (filii in Filio) - is a pure grace and, as such, a gift of the Spirit. At the same time, however, through her response of faith Mary exercises her free will and thus fully shares with her personal and feminine "I" in the event of the Incarnation. With her "fiat", Mary becomes the authentic subject of that union with God which was realized in the mystery of the Incarnation of the Word, who is of one substance with the Father. All of God's action in human history at all times respects the free will of the human "I". And such was the case with the Annunciation at Nazareth.

I don't see anything especially heretical about it in context.  Could you explain the problem you see in it?
So context explains away the statement that EVERYONE is predestined to union with the Father?

So yes, please explain how a statement (however couched) that EVERYONE is predestined to union with the Father is not a filthy heresy.

edit:
Quote: I thought we were talking about Vatican II
  Did ggreg limit himself to Vat. II?
(01-02-2013, 02:05 PM)James02 Wrote: [ -> ]So context explains away the statement that EVERYONE is predestined to union with the Father?

So yes, please explain how a statement (however couched) that EVERYONE is predestined to union with the Father is not a filthy heresy.

edit:
Quote: I thought we were talking about Vatican II
  Did ggreg limit himself to Vat. II?

No, but the silent premise that "everyone=not everyone" makes it perfectly orthodox.

Hermeneutic of continuity, dontchaknow.
(01-02-2013, 02:05 PM)James02 Wrote: [ -> ]So context explains away the statement that EVERYONE is predestined to union with the Father?

So yes, please explain how a statement (however couched) that EVERYONE is predestined to union with the Father is not a filthy heresy.

It sounds to me like it is talking about the universal salvific will of God.  The following sentence in the context alludes to the interaction with human free will that results in people losing the union with God that he means them to have. 

(01-02-2013, 02:05 PM)James02 Wrote: [ -> ]edit:
Quote: I thought we were talking about Vatican II
  Did ggreg limit himself to Vat. II?

You were responding to my comment: "Greg is going beyond claiming VII is problematic or contains apparent contradictions.  His claim, as I understand it, is that it is impossible to explain the apparent contractions and that anyone who attempts to do so has abandoned reason.  It is an extremely strong claim and he has not backed it up." 

Earlier in the thread you thought he was talking about VII.  You wrote: "You and I had a discussion on Vat. II, and we both agreed is was problematic, to say the least.  This we agreed on, and we disagreed how it would be resolved.  I actually think it will be dropped, and you thought it would be "explained" away, that is, the Tradional teachings would be reemphasized, and it would be noted that the contradictory sections would be declared to mean the traditional interpretation.  The example I gave was with regards to the Mass, where basically the authority will have to be removed from the "territorial authority" with regards to liturgical innovation.  Ring a bell?  Anyhow, ggreg is saying the same thing."
(01-02-2013, 02:18 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-02-2013, 02:05 PM)James02 Wrote: [ -> ]So context explains away the statement that EVERYONE is predestined to union with the Father?

So yes, please explain how a statement (however couched) that EVERYONE is predestined to union with the Father is not a filthy heresy.

edit:
Quote: I thought we were talking about Vatican II
  Did ggreg limit himself to Vat. II?

No, but the silent premise that "everyone=not everyone" makes it perfectly orthodox.

Hermeneutic of continuity, dontchaknow.

It is perfectly orthodox to believe that God's perfect will is that everyone be saved and His permissive will is that not everyone is saved.
Quote: It is perfectly orthodox to believe that God's perfect will is that everyone be saved and His permissive will is that not everyone is saved.
  Non sequitur since JPII doesn't say this.  Instead he wrote:
Quote:  which fulfils in the most eminent manner the supernatural predestination to union with the Father which is granted to every human being
  So he is talking about PREDESTINATION (obviously).  If you are trained in theology, are you now claiming ignorance into the huge conflicts (e.g. Dominicans vs. Jesuits) within the Church over predestination?  Do you not understand the extreme precision of the terms surrounding predestination due to this conflict?

To say that predestination to union with the Father is granted to every human being is material heresy.  Whether this is formal heresy can not be determined, but this statement deserves condemnation.

Here's a sincerity test.  Fill in the blank with either WILL or MIGHT:  "What God predestines _________ come to pass".
For the neo-Catholics lurking here, this is a good opportunity to help you all out.  First, with regards to Mulieris Dignitatem, it is probably the most heretical thing ever written by a Pope.  However, an interesting thing happened with regards to it.  The Vatican (probably Ratzinger) issued a clarification that this Apostolic Letter was merely a theological meditation, i.e. a private reflection.  Same with regards to Vat. II.  It has been officially described by the Church as a non-binding, pastoral, fallible Council.  Rather strange, but facts are facts.

I encourage all neo-Catholics to read "The Great Facade", which describes this in full.  To go about making excuses for obvious abuses, even heresies, will cost you your faith.  I believe that the Pope is the Pope, and that the Catholic Church is the one and only Church of Christ, outside of which it is impossible to be saved.  And yet I don't hide from the scandals, or make excuses for them.
(01-02-2013, 12:19 PM)GodFirst Wrote: [ -> ]The video and mp3 are all garbled. So what is everyone talking about?

They are not ALL garbled.

Depending on the platform they can play garbled or perfectly clear.

Must have something to do with the Codec or something like that.
Quote: Hermeneutic of continuity, dontchaknow.

Mith, did I complain about the "don't cha know" phase in the past, or is this just the Minn. coming out of you?

I've had some rather comical times up in ND, where the waitress and I are barely able to understand each other.  I think if I put "don't cha know" at the end of each sentence, they'll understand me better.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8