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
I, being an independent Catholic theologian, am able to penetrate a little more deeply and be much more critical, as I have always done in this apostolate. Although some still regard me as a "Catholic apologist," unlike Jimmy Akin and Catholic Answers I no longer consider myself an apologist for the modern Catholic Church. When compared to the Catholic Church of tradition, I have resolved that the modern Catholic Church will be required to stand on its own, for I simply cannot defend it any longer. There are simply too many doctrinal aberrations and moral laxities in today's Catholic Church that are indefensible. In light of these problems, I have assumed what I believe is the more appropriate position - that of being a prophet of warning rather than one an apologist seeking to exonerate the Church from false accusations.

Today many accusations against the Church are quite legitimate and I certainly will not be a party to sweeping them under the rug. Hence, I presently take my model from that of Jeremiah, Isaiah, Ezekiel and all the other prophets who spoke out against similar doctrinal aberrations and moral laxities that occurred in Israel before God finally judged them. I believe that if the modern Catholic Church stays on the course it has chosen, it also will be judged by God as Israel was, and, in fact, it is already being judged as we have seen the deterioration in the Church for the last few decades. I'm sorry to have to say this, but from all my knowledge and experience, I would have to say that the last few pontificates have been an almost total disaster for the Catholic Church, especially the pontificate of John Paul II - Robert Sungenis
(01-02-2013, 04:09 PM)James02 Wrote: [ -> ]
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".

Simply reading the Catholic Encyclopedia article is enough to show that there are various ways in which the term "predestination" can be used.  Here is the paragraph which specifically mentions how it can refer to the universal salvific will of God.
Quote:But even when man's supernatural end alone is taken into consideration, the term predestination is not always used by theologians in an unequivocal sense. This need not astonish us, seeing that predestination may comprise wholly diverse things. If taken in its adequate meaning (prædestinatio adæquata or completa), then predestination refers to both grace and glory as a whole, including not only the election to glory as the end, but also the election to grace as the means, the vocation to the faith, justification, and final perseverance, with which a happy death is inseparably connected. This is the meaning of St. Augustine's words (De dono persever., xxxv): "Prædestinatio nihil est aliud quam præscientia et præparatio beneficiorum, quibus certissime liberantur [i.e. salvantur], quicunque liberantur" (Predestination is nothing else than the foreknowledge and foreordaining of those gracious gifts which make certain the salvation of all who are saved). But the two concepts of grace and glory may be separated and each of them be made the object of a special predestination. The result is the so-called inadequate predestination (prædestinatio inadæquata or incompleta), either to grace alone or to glory alone. Like St. Paul, Augustine, too, speaks of an election to grace apart from the celestial glory (loc. cit., xix): "Prædestinatio est gratiæ præparatio, gratia vero jam ipsa donatio." It is evident, however, that this (inadequate) predestination does not exclude the possibility that one chosen to grace, faith, and justification goes nevertheless to hell. Hence we may disregard it, since it is at bottom simply another term for the universality of God's salvific will and of the distribution of grace among all men (see GRACE). Similarly eternal election to glory alone, that is, without regard to the preceding merits through grace, must be designated as (inadequate) predestination.
(01-02-2013, 04:18 PM)James02 Wrote: [ -> ]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.

An Apostolic Letter is not the same level of authority as a document issued by an Ecumenical Council.  James could you please cite an official pronouncement which says Vatican II documents are non-binding and fallible.
(01-02-2013, 05:00 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-02-2013, 04:18 PM)James02 Wrote: [ -> ]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.

An Apostolic Letter is not the same level of authority as a document issued by an Ecumenical Council.  James could you please cite an official pronouncement which says Vatican II documents are non-binding and fallible.
Well said. Except in groups who are outside and/or not in full communion with The Church will he find such an "official document".
So you failed the sincerity test.

Back to your recent point, this is certainly not a discussion on the predestination of GRACE.  No, JPII specifically identifies it as predestination to union with the Father.  Therefore the excuse that he is referring to an inadequate predestination is proven wrong.

So yes, someone predestined to Grace WILL (see the sincerity test) receive that Grace, though he may still end up in hell.  Someone (everyone according to JPII) predestined to union with the Father WILL end up in union with the Father (beatific vision).
Not binding:
Vatican II (de fide) Wrote:"Taking conciliar custom into consideration and also the pastoral purpose of the present Council, the sacred Council defines as binding on the Church only those things in matters of faith and morals which it shall openly declare to be binding.
  No where does the Council openly declare anything to be binding.  Now Popes may have used their authority to implement changes, but they are under no obligation, so a future Pope could just as easily place the whole council on the Index.

Fallible (i.e. can have errors)
Pope Paul VI Wrote:“There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification, the Council intended to give to its teachings, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the Church’s infallible teaching authority. The answer is known by those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964. In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility.”

Pastoral
Prefect of the Congregation for the doctrine of the Faith Wrote:The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council.”

Quote:  Except in groups who are outside and/or not in full communion with The Church will he find such an "official document".

Can you try again on that?  Who is "he"?  As for me, I have stated my opinion, MD is merely a theological reflection, as stated by the Church.  Therefore we can safely burn it and forget about it.
(01-02-2013, 05:06 PM)James02 Wrote: [ -> ]So you failed the sincerity test.
I explained why it is not a good test.  What one fills in the blank will depend on which meaning of predestination one is using.  Just because I am aware of the multiple meanings of this word does not make me insincere.

(01-02-2013, 05:06 PM)James02 Wrote: [ -> ]Back to your recent point, this is certainly not a discussion on the predestination of GRACE.  No, JPII specifically identifies it as predestination to union with the Father.  Therefore the excuse that he is referring to an inadequate predestination is proven wrong.

So yes, someone predestined to Grace WILL (see the sincerity test) receive that Grace, though he may still end up in hell.  Someone (everyone according to JPII) predestined to union with the Father WILL end up in union with the Father (beatific vision).

This is probably why there was a subsequent statement from the Vatican to identify this letter as a theological reflection rather than binding teaching.  I think he really meant it in the sense of universal salvific will of God, but it is open to being understood the way that you have. 
(01-02-2013, 05:00 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]An Apostolic Letter is not the same level of authority as a document issued by an Ecumenical Council.  James could you please cite an official pronouncement which says Vatican II documents are non-binding and fallible.

Vatican II Was Not Infallible
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religi...2260/posts

Pope John XXIII:
Quote:“The salient point of this council is not, therefore, a discussion of one article or another of the fundamental doctrine of the Church which has repeatedly been taught by the Fathers and by ancient and modern theologians, and which is presumed to be well known and familiar to all. For this a council was not necessary. [...] The substance of the ancient doctrine of the Deposit of Faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another. And it is the latter that must be taken into great consideration with patience if necessary, everything being measured in the forms and proportions of a magisterium which is predominantly pastoral in character.” (Opening Address, October 11, 1962; Walter M. Abbott, SJ, The Documents of Vatican II, p. 715)

Pope Paul VI:

Quote:“Today we are concluding the Second Vatican Council. [...] But one thing must be noted here, namely, that the teaching authority of the Church, even though not wishing to issue extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements, has made thoroughly known its authoritative teaching on a number of questions which today weigh upon man’s conscience and activity, descending, so to speak, into a dialogue with him, but ever preserving its own authority and force; it has spoken with the accommodating friendly voice of pastoral charity; its desire has been to be heard and understood by everyone; it has not merely concentrated on intellectual understanding but has also sought to express itself in simple, up-to-date, conversational style, derived from actual experience and a cordial approach which make it more vital, attractive and persuasive; it has spoken to modern man as he is.” (Address during the last general meeting of the Second Vatican Council, December 7, 1965; AAS 58)
Quote: This is probably why there was a subsequent statement from the Vatican to identify this letter as a theological reflection rather than binding teaching.  I think he really meant it in the sense of universal salvific will of God, but it is open to being understood the way that you have. 
  I have no idea what his internal beliefs were, as he is dead, and can't defend himself.  As written, it is material heresy, as he restricts the term "predestination" to "union with the Father".  I do know one thing, someone who is, at best, this sloppy with theology should not be given any honors by the Church due to the grave scandal it causes the Faithful.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8