FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Sedevacantism Debate at this Forum
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 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35
(01-23-2013, 11:26 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-23-2013, 09:07 PM)Parmandur Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-23-2013, 09:05 PM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]Jayne, in more than a few posts, has posted this. 'Oh every council needs time, maybe in a hundred years it'll be sorted' to paraphrase her words.

Paraphrase is a dangerous tool.  What were her exact words, and where?

Yes, Jayne did say this recently, in response to one of my posts, so I can find it for you.  As for my points earlier, I exaggerated a little ("infinitely more"), but I have heard others say that we're not qualified to compare Magisterial documents and that, like Protestants, we're engaging in private interpretation (if I'm not mistaken, it was a discussion between Jayne and INP, but I've got to look through 497 pages of her posts to find it, assuming it took place within the last year).

Here it is: http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...sg33853051

JayneK Wrote:As I understand it, it is typical for there to be a period of confusion after a Council as its teachings become assimilated.  The historical pattern is that one should allow at least a hundred years for this.  I have seen enough progress in the last 50 years that I have no trouble believing that we are moving through the process and will arrive at more clarity in the future.

You originally paraphrased this as "But doctrine has developed, and we need to give the Magisterium time to work out the kinks in the admittedly novel points of doctrine which have appeared since 1964."  That is hardly what Jayne was saying here.  Hence why I earlier said that paraphrase is a dangerous tool.
To repeat from SouthpawLink's post:
(01-15-2013, 09:24 AM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]As I understand it, it is typical for there to be a period of confusion after a Council as its teachings become assimilated.  The historical pattern is that one should allow at least a hundred years for this.  I have seen enough progress in the last 50 years that I have no trouble believing that we are moving through the process and will arrive at more clarity in the future.

(Funny thing is I just found that quote and was about to post it when SPL's popped up. I didn't remember it was in response to him, so it took me a while to find it.  What JayneK said disturbed me at the time.)

What evidence is there that there has been such confusion after other councils besides Vatican II?

Assuming Vatican II teachings are correct but just confusing, isn't the confusion still resulting in some people coming to conclusions that are novel doctrine?  The overall impact is the spreading of novel doctrine, by confusion.  When did this happen with other councils?
(01-24-2013, 12:04 AM)Doce Me Wrote: [ -> ]To repeat from SouthpawLink's post:
(01-15-2013, 09:24 AM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]As I understand it, it is typical for there to be a period of confusion after a Council as its teachings become assimilated.  The historical pattern is that one should allow at least a hundred years for this.  I have seen enough progress in the last 50 years that I have no trouble believing that we are moving through the process and will arrive at more clarity in the future.

(Funny thing is I just found that quote and was about to post it when SPL's popped up. I didn't remember it was in response to him, so it took me a while to find it.  What JayneK said disturbed me at the time.)

What evidence is there that there has been such confusion after other councils besides Vatican II?

Assuming Vatican II teachings are correct but just confusing, isn't the confusion still resulting in some people coming to conclusions that are novel doctrine?  The overall impact is the spreading of novel doctrine, by confusion.  When did this happen with other councils?

Nicaea I, Constantinople I, Ephesus, Chalcedon for starters all caused massive chaos, maybe as much as they solved.  Indeed, the latter two Councils are still causing waves, with non-Ephesian and non-Chalcedonian groups still in existence.  Vatican I is another good example of the chaos that can result after a Council, what with the Kulturkampf and the creation of splinter sects.  The responses to Ecumenical Councils are never nice.
I think Doce Me was highlighting the novel doctrine part more than anything else.

What other councils resulted in fifty years of rampant, massive and near universal novelty in doctrine? 
(01-21-2013, 09:44 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: [ -> ]I have nothing else to say.  The forum speaks for itself.  If this thread doesn't make the need for such a subforum obvious, nothing will.   Smile

THIS.
(01-24-2013, 12:26 AM)Mithrandylan Wrote: [ -> ]I think Doce Me was highlighting the novel doctrine part more than anything else.

What other councils resulted in fifty years of rampant, massive and near universal novelty in doctrine? 

Actually, the same could be said of the early Councils I just cited.  The resistance to Nicaea was particularly focused on many being deeply uncomfortable with the novel language used by the Council Fathers about the Godhead.  Many, many people felt that Chalcedon directly contradicted Ephesus, and though they were wrong it is a subtle matter.
Parmandur Wrote:You originally paraphrased this as "But doctrine has developed, and we need to give the Magisterium time to work out the kinks in the admittedly novel points of doctrine which have appeared since 1964."  That is hardly what Jayne was saying here.  Hence why I earlier said that paraphrase is a dangerous tool.

To be honest, I conflated her statement with Pope John Paul II's statement from Ecclesia Dei Adflicta (2 July 1988.):

"Indeed, the extent and depth of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council call for a renewed commitment to deeper study in order to reveal clearly the Council's continuity with Tradition, especially in points of doctrine which, perhaps because they are new, have not yet been well understood by some sections of the Church" (5/b).

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_p...ei_en.html

Another thing to consider is Pope Pius XII's warning in Humani Generis: the Church's terminology and philosophy should not be rashly abandoned, and yet this is what was done at Vatican II.  There is a fair amount of testimony that scholastic terms were avoided in the council's constitution on the Church (e.g., Fr. Ratzinger).  This was done deliberately, so that ecumenism could be fostered and non-Catholic sects could be painted in a more positive light.  Despite several clarifications from the CDF, the doctrine on the communion between the Catholic Church and the false sects is still unclear.
(01-24-2013, 12:42 AM)Parmandur Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-24-2013, 12:26 AM)Mithrandylan Wrote: [ -> ]I think Doce Me was highlighting the novel doctrine part more than anything else.

What other councils resulted in fifty years of rampant, massive and near universal novelty in doctrine? 

Actually, the same could be said of the early Councils I just cited.  The resistance to Nicaea was particularly focused on many being deeply uncomfortable with the novel language used by the Council Fathers about the Godhead.  Many, many people felt that Chalcedon directly contradicted Ephesus, and though they were wrong it is a subtle matter.

We're talking about two different things.  I'm wondering which council resulted in close to all of the clergy adopting unCatholic principles.  The examples now that could be give are ecumenism, religious liberty, collegiality.
Wasn't Paul VI the one who closed the council?  Didn't he live about 13 more years thereafter?  Shouldn't his guidance have been a treasure trove in sorting through the aftermath of the council and getting it right?  What did he provide in that regard?

Didn't Paul VI live about 9 more years or so after perpetrating his new missal?  Shouldn't he have been a treasure trove of knowledge and wisdom in getting that "right?"  Wasn't irreverence already widespread in practicing his missal before he died?  What did he straighten out, clarify, etc., before he died?  What are the examples of his providing guidance or reprimand in addressing common irreverancies?

And wasn't John Paul II of the era such that he, too, should have been a treasure trove in sorting through the aftermath of VCII and the implementation of the perpetration of the new missal?  Didn't he reign about 27 years?  Was he able to square VCII to sound soundly Catholic and the new mass to be reverent?

As far as the proposition that the work of councils take so long for the fruits to shake out, the 40 years following VCII under two popes (omitting JPI) who lived through the council did not offer much affirming clear Catholicism and its rock solid unwavering character.
So what I'm hearing is that the Church should never have ecumenical councils, because they just mess things up?  That doesn't seem right.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35