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
(01-24-2013, 12:55 AM)SouthpawLink Wrote: [ -> ]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.

It was not abandoned rashly.  There is a good reason to talk about more positive aspects of non-Catholic sects.  They are our potential allies in the battle against growing secularism, materialism, atheism, etc.  When the greatest threat to the Church was non-Catholic sects, obviously the most important thing to talk about was their errors.  Now we need to say, "They are in error, but ...." 

This is a more complex teaching because we need to get the balance between continuing to recognize the error while acknowledging the common ground on which we can form alliances.  It was much simpler when all we had to say was "they are bad bad bad."  But the shift in ecclesiology was not some capricious whim.  It is a reasonable response to the conditions of our time. 

There is no question that some people have used the teaching to promote ideas that are not compatible with Tradition.  Almost every heresy of the past had some basis in true doctrine.  This does not mean that those true doctrines are any less true. 
(01-23-2013, 10:11 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]I say stuff a bit like that, but when I say it, it makes sense.   Smile

You flatter yourself. It makes as little sense when you say it, as when anyone else repeats it.
(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.

I knew I'd seen it somewhere  Sticking tongue out at you
(01-23-2013, 11:52 PM)Parmandur Wrote: [ -> ]
(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.

Rich coming from you, I can't remember the last time you quoted me or anyone we were discussing correctly.
(01-24-2013, 09:04 AM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-24-2013, 12:55 AM)SouthpawLink Wrote: [ -> ]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.

It was not abandoned rashly.  There is a good reason to talk about more positive aspects of non-Catholic sects.  They are our potential allies in the battle against growing secularism, materialism, atheism, etc.  When the greatest threat to the Church was non-Catholic sects, obviously the most important thing to talk about was their errors.  Now we need to say, "They are in error, but ...." 

I would argue that indifferentism is an even greater danger, because even more insidious.  I don't believe I can take seriously any argument that claims that Assisi didn't promote indifferentism, even if it is claimed that that was not the pope's intention.  And our previous popes have said that indifferentism leads to atheism.

I think it should be clear by now that the clear, sharp lines that the Church always drew in the past are not less, but MORE necessary now, if we are to have any kind of common cause with Protestants, et al.  The fact that those lines have become so severely blurred is matter for serious concern, to say the least.
(01-24-2013, 07:00 AM)OHCA Wrote: [ -> ]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.

This has all been pointed out, apparently what people seem to believe is that some future pope who wasn't at V2 will know more than the people present at V2 about what it actually means...
(01-24-2013, 09:04 AM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-24-2013, 12:55 AM)SouthpawLink Wrote: [ -> ]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.

It was not abandoned rashly.  There is a good reason to talk about more positive aspects of non-Catholic sects.  They are our potential allies in the battle against growing secularism, materialism, atheism, etc.  When the greatest threat to the Church was non-Catholic sects, obviously the most important thing to talk about was their errors.  Now we need to say, "They are in error, but ...." 

This is a more complex teaching because we need to get the balance between continuing to recognize the error while acknowledging the common ground on which we can form alliances.  It was much simpler when all we had to say was "they are bad bad bad."  But the shift in ecclesiology was not some capricious whim.  It is a reasonable response to the conditions of our time. 

There is no question that some people have used the teaching to promote ideas that are not compatible with Tradition.  Almost every heresy of the past had some basis in true doctrine.  This does not mean that those true doctrines are any less true. 

No, they were used by the very same people who invented them and the last few popes to do this, so tell me if they couldn't get the interpretation right, who can?
(01-24-2013, 07:00 AM)OHCA Wrote: [ -> ]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?

He did write about concerns about the Mass and gave an instruction on it. Mysterium Fidei in 1965  http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_v...um_en.html
Quote: 9.There are, however, Venerable Brothers, a number of reasons for serious pastoral concern and anxiety in this very matter that we are now discussing, and because of Our consciousness of Our Apostolic office, We cannot remain silent about them.

10. For We can see that some of those who are dealing with this Most Holy Mystery in speech and writing are disseminating opinions on Masses celebrated in private or on the dogma of transubstantiation that are disturbing the minds of the faithful and causing them no small measure of confusion about matters of faith, just as if it were all right for someone to take doctrine that has already been defined by the Church and consign it to oblivion or else interpret it in such a way as to weaken the genuine meaning of the words or the recognized force of the concepts involved.

He also provided Humanae Vitae.  This met with such resistance and open dissent that he never wrote another encyclical.

(01-24-2013, 07:00 AM)OHCA Wrote: [ -> ]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.

John Paul II wrote about the Mass and his concerns over its abuse.  For example, early in his papacy he wrote, Dominicae Cenae http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_p...ae_en.html in which we find:
Quote:However, we also find in recent years another phenomenon. Sometimes, indeed quite frequently, everybody participating in the eucharistic assembly goes to Communion; and on some such occasions, as experienced pastors confirm, there has not been due care to approach the sacrament of Penance so as to purify one's conscience. This can of course mean that those approaching the Lord's table find nothing on their conscience, according to the objective law of God, to keep them from this sublime and joyful act of being sacramentally united with Christ. But there can also be, at least at times, another idea behind this: the the life of our communities to lose the good quality of sensitiveness of Christian conscience, guided solely by respect for Christ, who, when He is received in the Eucharist, should find in the heart of each of us a worthy abode. This question is closely linked not only with the practice of the sacrament of Penance but also with a correct sense of responsibility for the whole deposit of moral teaching and for the precise distinction between good and evil, a distinction which then becomes for each person sharing in the Eucharist the basis for a correct judgment of self to be made in the depths of the personal conscience. St. Paul's words, "Let a man examine himself,"(64) are well known; this judgment is an indispensable condition for a personal decision whether to approach Eucharistic Communion or to abstain.


In this Apostolic Letter, he also writes critically of Communion in the Hand, Extraordinary Ministers of Communion and other abuses.  Later in his papacy he wrote an Encyclical (this carries even more weight) on the same subject, Ecclesia de Eucharista http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_p...ch_en.html
Quote: In some places the practice of Eucharistic adoration has been almost completely abandoned. In various parts of the Church abuses have occurred, leading to confusion with regard to sound faith and Catholic doctrine concerning this wonderful sacrament. At times one encounters an extremely reductive understanding of the Eucharistic mystery. Stripped of its sacrificial meaning, it is celebrated as if it were simply a fraternal banquet. Furthermore, the necessity of the ministerial priesthood, grounded in apostolic succession, is at times obscured and the sacramental nature of the Eucharist is reduced to its mere effectiveness as a form of proclamation. This has led here and there to ecumenical initiatives which, albeit well-intentioned, indulge in Eucharistic practices contrary to the discipline by which the Church expresses her faith. How can we not express profound grief at all this? The Eucharist is too great a gift to tolerate ambiguity and depreciation.

It is my hope that the present Encyclical Letter will effectively help to banish the dark clouds of unacceptable doctrine and practice, so that the Eucharist will continue to shine forth in all its radiant mystery.

I am wondering on what you base your assessment of these papacies.  You say these popes "did not offer much affirming clear Catholicism and its rock solid unwavering character."  Did you form this opinion after reading their teachings?
(01-24-2013, 09:20 AM)JuniorCouncilor Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-24-2013, 09:04 AM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-24-2013, 12:55 AM)SouthpawLink Wrote: [ -> ]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.

It was not abandoned rashly.  There is a good reason to talk about more positive aspects of non-Catholic sects.  They are our potential allies in the battle against growing secularism, materialism, atheism, etc.  When the greatest threat to the Church was non-Catholic sects, obviously the most important thing to talk about was their errors.  Now we need to say, "They are in error, but ...." 

I would argue that indifferentism is an even greater danger, because even more insidious.  I don't believe I can take seriously any argument that claims that Assisi didn't promote indifferentism, even if it is claimed that that was not the pope's intention.  And our previous popes have said that indifferentism leads to atheism.

I think it should be clear by now that the clear, sharp lines that the Church always drew in the past are not less, but MORE necessary now, if we are to have any kind of common cause with Protestants, et al.  The fact that those lines have become so severely blurred is matter for serious concern, to say the least.

Indifferentism is a serious problem.  I agree with you about Assisi and so did Cardinal Ratzinger.  After becoming pope, his own version of Assisi was an attempt to get rid of the elements that led to indifferentism while still countering atheism.  Unfortunately, it seems to have been too tainted by the previous ones to have much success.

Anyhow we could debate back and forth on how to best respond to atheism and each have our own opinion.  I do not understand why some people are so sure that their opinions on this question are correct that they are prepared to say the Magisterium is wrong (or even heretical) for disagreeing with them.  There are those in authority in the Church whose job it is to make this kind of decision.  There really is a possibility that they know what they are doing.
(01-24-2013, 08:07 AM)JuniorCouncilor Wrote: [ -> ]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.

Sometimes it is necessary to have an ecumenical council in spite of the inevitable conflict and confusion.  On a human scale it seems to go on very long.  I was a small child during the last council and do not expect to see it completely assimilated in my lifetime.  But the Church is eternal and we should not limit ourselves to a human scale when we consider Her.
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