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, 09:57 AM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(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.

a) Devil worshippers, inter alia, prayed at Assisi 3, I would not call it 'purified'
b) No one says that the magisterium is wrong or heretical for disagreeing with their opinion, this is a straw man and a rather typical attempt by you to misrepresent other peoples positions, what they do say is that the 'magisterium' is wrong or heretical for disagreeing with the pre conciliar Magisterium or that what people today believe is the magisterium is not in fact the magisterium at all
c) No one disputes that they know what they are doing, twisting and mangling church teaching to their own unorthodox ends
Turning again to the main question the thread posed, the subforum should be reopened.  Most of the people on this forum seem very committed to the traditions of the Church.  In charity, we should be able to keep that fact in mind when we debate.  It helps also to recall that, as traditionalists well know, religion is something we practice, not something we merely think.  Especially among the older members here ( Shocked), how many remember being told by priests and fellow Catholics "I still cherish the old ways...." or "nothing has really changed...."?  We knew better, because the words that were said, the gestures that were made, and the attitude that was displayed were patently different.  For us, religion is as much a verb as a noun.  We all have a very clear understanding of what is "meet and right" to do. 

We are oxen yoked to the same plow.  I might add that we draw for the same Ploughman.  If we plan to hoe the row, we ought not to gore one another over much! 

(01-24-2013, 10:43 AM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-24-2013, 09:57 AM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]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.

a) Devil worshippers, inter alia, prayed at Assisi 3, I would not call it 'purified'
b) No one says that the magisterium is wrong or heretical for disagreeing with their opinion, this is a straw man and a rather typical attempt by you to misrepresent other peoples positions, what they do say is that the 'magisterium' is wrong or heretical for disagreeing with the pre conciliar Magisterium or that what people today believe is the magisterium is not in fact the magisterium at all
c) No one disputes that they know what they are doing, twisting and mangling church teaching to their own unorthodox ends

From my perspective, some people have a lot of difficulty distinguishing between their opinion of what the pre-conciliar Magisterium taught and the pre-conciliar teaching.  In effect, this means they place their opinion above the current Magisterium.

If you are accusing the current Magisterium of twisting and mangling Church teaching to their own unorthodox ends, then I certainly do dispute it. They, unlike you, actually have the authority to interpret pre-conciliar teaching.  If your opinion about it disagrees with them, then you are probably wrong.

As for misrepresenting people's positions, I think I have come closer than "blah, blah blah."
(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.

That's what St. Gregory Nazienzen said:

"To tell the truth, I am convinced that every assembly of bishops is to be avoided, for I have never experienced a happy ending to any council; not even the abolition of abuses..." (Epistle 130 to Procopium)

Less extreme, there's a famous saying by the 17th century Cardinal, Pietro Pallavicini, in his history of the Council of Trent, "to convoke a General Council, except when absolutely demanded by necessity, is to tempt God." He said this while describing all the shenanigans that went on at Trent and the resulting strife.  The point he was making was that, given the inherent risks demonstrated by the history of Councils, they should be a last resort when no other means will do and when the necessities outweigh the risks.  This is how the Council of Trent itself was treated—it’s convocation was highly controversial at the time since what happened at Constance and Basel-Florence during similar circumstances still weighed heavily in many minds (Lateran V was a pretty forgettable affair). That’s not to say all Councils have been treated that way, but it is a recurring argument against certain ones—most notably the last two.

Both Popes who called them had similar outward looking motives (rather than to fix some internal crisis)  including to display the unity of the Church and to be a special time of grace that would lead to the reunion of separated Christians.  The criticisms of the convocation of the Second Vatican Council given the state of the Church at the time, the maneuverings and conspiracies during it, and the resulting chaos are pretty well known on this forum.  That of the First are less so.   In Cardinal Manning’s pastoral letter on that Council, he notes that while the world was growing more and more radical and hostile to the Church, the Church internally was quite united.  He quotes Cardinal Pallavicini above when discussing the fears expressed by some veteran Romans, and notes that these fears came to pass in the early sessions (Manning says in the later sessions, things went harmoniously, but this seems to vary with other accounts.  For example, St. Anthony Mary Claret's account in his autobiography relates continuing shameful tactics, and heresies and blasphemies being uttered on the Council floor; St. Anthony even notes that, at the Council, Cardinal Manning personally commended him for opposing such things).  

Fortunately, other than the Old Catholic schism and the endless debates about which papal documents were or were not infallible, not much happened in the aftermath—mostly because the Council was unfinished and left in a kind of limbo, and its decisions that were passed were mostly in the speculative order, not requiring any real practical action on anyone’s part.
(01-24-2013, 11:37 AM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-24-2013, 10:43 AM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-24-2013, 09:57 AM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]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.

a) Devil worshippers, inter alia, prayed at Assisi 3, I would not call it 'purified'
b) No one says that the magisterium is wrong or heretical for disagreeing with their opinion, this is a straw man and a rather typical attempt by you to misrepresent other peoples positions, what they do say is that the 'magisterium' is wrong or heretical for disagreeing with the pre conciliar Magisterium or that what people today believe is the magisterium is not in fact the magisterium at all
c) No one disputes that they know what they are doing, twisting and mangling church teaching to their own unorthodox ends

From my perspective, some people have a lot of difficulty distinguishing between their opinion of what the pre-conciliar Magisterium taught and the pre-conciliar teaching.  In effect, this means they place their opinion above the current Magisterium.

If you are accusing the current Magisterium of twisting and mangling Church teaching to their own unorthodox ends, then I certainly do dispute it. They, unlike you, actually have the authority to interpret pre-conciliar teaching.  If your opinion about it disagrees with them, then you are probably wrong.

As for misrepresenting people's positions, I think I have come closer than "blah, blah blah."

No. These people take the liberty of actually quoting pre conciliar teaching, this is an improvement over most of those in authority who like to pretend it doesn't exist, this would explain how after 50 years there is still no official attempt at reconciling pre and post conciliar teaching, when those in authority actually try and do this I will take your position a little but more seriously, also when they retract all their statement alleging that the old stuff was no longer relevant i.e. escaping from actually reconciling it, that they were building a new christianity etc... etc..

No jayne, this is called blind faith, it is something you and others on here suffer from, quite severely, it does not logically follow that just because X has authority X is more likely to be right than Y who does not have ordinary authority, in fact when X has failed to make any attempt to reconcile pre and post conciliar teachings and when X has engaged in all manner of scandalous actions and teachings, it is quite likely X is more likely than Y to be wrong, and by quite some way.

No Jayne, you do misrepresent others positions, on almost every occasion you mention someone else's position. You have admitted the quote I alleged was yours, was in fact yours and in fact it's been shown to be true, we on the other hand are still waiting for you to show that people here believe that going against their opinion is equivalent to heresy.
(01-24-2013, 11:52 AM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]No. These people take the liberty of actually quoting pre conciliar teaching, this is an improvement over most of those in authority who like to pretend it doesn't exist, this would explain how after 50 years there is still no official attempt at reconciling pre and post conciliar teaching, when those in authority actually try and do this I will take your position a little but more seriously, also when they retract all their statement alleging that the old stuff was no longer relevant i.e. escaping from actually reconciling it, that they were building a new christianity etc... etc..

No jayne, this is called blind faith, it is something you and others on here suffer from, quite severely, it does not logically follow that just because X has authority X is more likely to be right than Y who does not have ordinary authority, in fact when X has failed to make any attempt to reconcile pre and post conciliar teachings and when X has engaged in all manner of scandalous actions and teachings, it is quite likely X is more likely than Y to be wrong, and by quite some way.

No Jayne, you do misrepresent others positions, on almost every occasion you mention someone else's position. You have admitted the quote I alleged was yours, was in fact yours and in fact it's been shown to be true, we on the other hand are still waiting for you to show that people here believe that going against their opinion is equivalent to heresy.

To me you are the one who seems blind because you do not see the attempts to reconcile pre and post Vatican teaching.  Nor do you see the role that authority plays in the transmission of Catholic teaching.  Nor do you see how many here cling to their opinions as if they were dogmas.  Since my previous attempts to show you such things have failed and other duties demand my time, I will not make further attempts just now.
(01-24-2013, 11:58 AM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-24-2013, 11:52 AM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]No. These people take the liberty of actually quoting pre conciliar teaching, this is an improvement over most of those in authority who like to pretend it doesn't exist, this would explain how after 50 years there is still no official attempt at reconciling pre and post conciliar teaching, when those in authority actually try and do this I will take your position a little but more seriously, also when they retract all their statement alleging that the old stuff was no longer relevant i.e. escaping from actually reconciling it, that they were building a new christianity etc... etc..

No jayne, this is called blind faith, it is something you and others on here suffer from, quite severely, it does not logically follow that just because X has authority X is more likely to be right than Y who does not have ordinary authority, in fact when X has failed to make any attempt to reconcile pre and post conciliar teachings and when X has engaged in all manner of scandalous actions and teachings, it is quite likely X is more likely than Y to be wrong, and by quite some way.

No Jayne, you do misrepresent others positions, on almost every occasion you mention someone else's position. You have admitted the quote I alleged was yours, was in fact yours and in fact it's been shown to be true, we on the other hand are still waiting for you to show that people here believe that going against their opinion is equivalent to heresy.

To me you are the one who seems blind because you do not see the attempts to reconcile pre and post Vatican teaching.  Nor do you see the role that authority plays in the transmission of Catholic teaching.  Nor do you see how many here cling to their opinions as if they were dogmas.  Since my previous attempts to show you such things have failed and other duties demand my time, I will not make further attempts just now.

a) there have been none, if you disagree please list some apparent attempts, I am sure we will all be very interested. I have however yet to see the pope reconcile the issues with for example religious liberty, collegiality, no salvation outside the church etc...
b) so you continue repeating but you haven't actually shown any evidence of such.
c) As usual Jayne, when challenged, you leg it. I could say much the same, your arguments have been disproved by any number of people on here more times than I can remember yet you continue peddling your wares as if nothing ever happened.
(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. 

Romano Amerio (Iota Unum, pp. 534ff.) would beg to differ; Vatican II never cited Pope Leo's encyclical (Aeternis Patris), nor did Pope John Paul II in Sapientia Christiana.  Instead, Thomism was treated as a method rather than a body of doctrine; his privileged place was abolished in favor of theological pluralism (which was observed at the centennerary of Aeternis Patris).  Cardinal Ratzinger kindly informed us that Pope Pius XII's Mystici Corporis Christi was "corrected" because it was too rigid in its treatment of who belonged to the Catholic Church.  It was for this reason that we don't read about "members of the Church" (baptism, true faith, submission to legitimate authority) in the documents of Vatican II.

What I meant about the positive aspects of the non-Catholic sects is the positive ecclesial character given to them by the Church, despite the fact that they're false religions and their existence is not positively willed by God.  The Catholic Church is now in "partial communion" with dead branches (despite the total lack of unity of faith and government), with them seen as partially the Church of Christ (though not fully, due to their separation from Rome).  The Church of Christ is now a "broader entity" than the Catholic Church, so that there is no longer an exclusive identity with it.

The adoption of heresy is not a reasonable response to the needs of our time.  You will never hear Pope Benedict state that the Catholic Church and she alone is the true Church of Christ (simply read his CDF documents and the one he approved in 2007).  Yes, he'll state that she alone is fully the Church of Crist, but always with the caveat that the Eastern Orthodox are partially the Church, seeing as how they have "many of the elements of the Church," with the Church being "present and operative" in them.
(01-24-2013, 11:37 AM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-24-2013, 10:43 AM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-24-2013, 09:57 AM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]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.

a) Devil worshippers, inter alia, prayed at Assisi 3, I would not call it 'purified'
b) No one says that the magisterium is wrong or heretical for disagreeing with their opinion, this is a straw man and a rather typical attempt by you to misrepresent other peoples positions, what they do say is that the 'magisterium' is wrong or heretical for disagreeing with the pre conciliar Magisterium or that what people today believe is the magisterium is not in fact the magisterium at all
c) No one disputes that they know what they are doing, twisting and mangling church teaching to their own unorthodox ends

From my perspective, some people have a lot of difficulty distinguishing between their opinion of what the pre-conciliar Magisterium taught and the pre-conciliar teaching.  In effect, this means they place their opinion above the current Magisterium.

If you are accusing the current Magisterium of twisting and mangling Church teaching to their own unorthodox ends, then I certainly do dispute it. They, unlike you, actually have the authority to interpret pre-conciliar teaching.  If your opinion about it disagrees with them, then you are probably wrong.

As for misrepresenting people's positions, I think I have come closer than "blah, blah blah."

That is because you are tainted with Modernism, and think respecting the arguments of others and trying understand them is good.  Also, that context matters, and other such nonsense.
(01-24-2013, 11:52 AM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]No Jayne, you do misrepresent others positions, on almost every occasion you mention someone else's position. You have admitted the quote I alleged was yours, was in fact yours and in fact it's been shown to be true, we on the other hand are still waiting for you to show that people here believe that going against their opinion is equivalent to heresy.

SouthPaw found a quote, but it was not was alleged.  Still not sure you are reading it correctly.  Eye-roll
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