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, 03:09 PM)Parmandur Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-24-2013, 03:06 PM)Cooler King Wrote: [ -> ]I move to petition to clean house.

Well, certainly, this thread has deteriorated.  And shown why the topic oughtn't be broached on a Catholic forum, at any rate.

Fo' Shame

Do not attribute out mistakes to sedes, neither of us are sedes and neither of us were arguing about it.
(01-24-2013, 03:11 PM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-24-2013, 03:09 PM)Parmandur Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-24-2013, 03:06 PM)Cooler King Wrote: [ -> ]I move to petition to clean house.

Well, certainly, this thread has deteriorated.  And shown why the topic oughtn't be broached on a Catholic forum, at any rate.

Fo' Shame

Do not attribute out mistakes to sedes, neither of us are sedes and neither of us were arguing about it.

No, this little rabbit hole is not their direct fault.  But it did start with a sede making accusations using false characterizations.  And the thread had gone poorly before that point.
(01-24-2013, 03:14 PM)Parmandur Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-24-2013, 03:11 PM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-24-2013, 03:09 PM)Parmandur Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-24-2013, 03:06 PM)Cooler King Wrote: [ -> ]I move to petition to clean house.

Well, certainly, this thread has deteriorated.  And shown why the topic oughtn't be broached on a Catholic forum, at any rate.

Fo' Shame

Do not attribute out mistakes to sedes, neither of us are sedes and neither of us were arguing about it.

No, this little rabbit hole is not their direct fault.  But it did start with a sede making accusations using false characterizations.  And the thread had gone poorly before that point.

I'll trust the sedes to prove you wrong  Grin Now I need to go do some shopping for dinner, so goodbye.
(01-24-2013, 03:15 PM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-24-2013, 03:14 PM)Parmandur Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-24-2013, 03:11 PM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-24-2013, 03:09 PM)Parmandur Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-24-2013, 03:06 PM)Cooler King Wrote: [ -> ]I move to petition to clean house.

Well, certainly, this thread has deteriorated.  And shown why the topic oughtn't be broached on a Catholic forum, at any rate.

Fo' Shame

Do not attribute out mistakes to sedes, neither of us are sedes and neither of us were arguing about it.

No, this little rabbit hole is not their direct fault.  But it did start with a sede making accusations using false characterizations.  And the thread had gone poorly before that point.

I'll trust the sedes to prove you wrong  Grin Now I need to go do some shopping for dinner, so goodbye.

Way to go!
(01-23-2013, 10:43 PM)JuniorCouncilor Wrote: [ -> ]This thread makes me glad I'm sufficiently anti-democratic not to vote...  Wink

Oh, you should vote in online polls.  They're very reliable.  LOL

It's elections you want to avoid because if voting in them really did anything, they'd be illegal.
"[Paul VI] 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"

That was written a few years before the new mass was perpetrated and that served to exacerbate the very things he was supposedly lamenting in 1965.  Doesn't really address the irreverent practices of the new mass, particularly as this writing pre-dates the perpetration thereof.

"[Paul VI] also provided Humanae Vitae.  This met with such resistance and open dissent that he never wrote another encyclical."

What a good shepherd--what leadership!!  He shut up because of resistance and dissent?!?!?!  Can we declare him a martyr and make him a saint this instant?!?!

"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."

All of the things he is supposedly lamenting are a natural consequence of the irreverent new mass.  Why didn't he firmly say no more communion in the hand?  Instead he permitted it to continue, and the new mass to continue.  No wonder people stopped recognizing the real presence--the sacrifice is de-emphasized in the new mass and people grab hosts with unconcecrated hands.  Who would expect otherwise?

"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?"

In no small measure from the perpetration and continuation of the new missal; permissiveness toward resulting irreverancies; and the example set in Assisi.
Coming around the corner with one length to go, they're neck and neck folks!
(01-24-2013, 07:54 PM)The Curt Jester Wrote: [ -> ]Coming around the corner with one length to go, they're neck and neck folks!
It is wonderful to know that we are democratic.
(01-24-2013, 07:34 PM)OHCA Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-24-2013, 09:44 AM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(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.
That was written a few years before the new mass was perpetrated and that served to exacerbate the very things he was supposedly lamenting in 1965.  Doesn't really address the irreverent practices of the new mass, particularly as this writing pre-dates the perpetration thereof.

I understood your question to be asking whether there was papal teaching after the Council that offered guidance about how the Mass should be done.


(01-24-2013, 07:34 PM)OHCA Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-24-2013, 09:44 AM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]He also provided Humanae Vitae.  This met with such resistance and open dissent that he never wrote another encyclical.

What a good shepherd--what leadership!!  He shut up because of resistance and dissent?!?!?!  Can we declare him a martyr and make him a saint this instant?!?!
I never claimed he was a good leader.  I was presenting evidence that his understanding of the Eucharist was orthodox.

(01-24-2013, 07:34 PM)OHCA Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-24-2013, 09:44 AM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(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.

All of the things he is supposedly lamenting are a natural consequence of the irreverent new mass.  Why didn't he firmly say no more communion in the hand?  Instead he permitted it to continue, and the new mass to continue.  No wonder people stopped recognizing the real presence--the sacrifice is de-emphasized in the new mass and people grab hosts with unconcecrated hands.  Who would expect otherwise?
Communion in the hand was not specified as part of the new Mass.  It was something that various bishops had introduced without permission.  If he had firmly said "no more Communion in the hand" they would have ignored him.  Leaders know not to give commands that they cannot enforce.  He instead went for something that had some hope of compliance - telling them to do it more reverently.

None of this has anything to do with your original question about what guidance did the popes offer about how Mass should be celebrated.  This encyclical makes it clear that he taught against the abuses in the Mass.



(01-24-2013, 07:34 PM)OHCA Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-24-2013, 09:44 AM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]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?
In no small measure from the perpetration and continuation of the new missal; permissiveness toward resulting irreverancies; and the example set in Assisi.

So you made your claim about papal teaching without having actually looked at any papal teaching.

Others have made the point that these popes, having been present at the council, can give us some idea of the intent of the council.  According to that principle, the passages that I have sited show that the abuses of the Mass were not intended nor were they sanctioned.  While one might be able to make a case for poor leadership, the problem cannot be ascribed to bad Eucharistic theology.
(01-24-2013, 12:19 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: [ -> ]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.

There were so many things claiming the title of "Thomism" at that point that, it itself, it was theological pluralism.  Here is an article that you might like on the subject: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:VHDM54BzkbYJ:jakomonchak.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/thomism-at-vatican-ii.pdf+&hl=en&gl=ca&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShG4QAZcsNsd9iqXI6Y4Bn9wRE73v1V851a-Q0td7wKw7Eo1E3HtF58ac8Ii5TUQXLxObYmBiXnkzurKI-O0CnCvoOqyF7r--cpnbQuoyixz69356VHJWYFjpmpemqIHAu6gEf3&sig=AHIEtbTy9X4diWYPfI1E7hz3rmspAEB5tg

To some extent, more recent instructions from the Vatican have restored Thomism. 
Quote:12. The philosophy of Saint Thomas Aquinas is important both for the acquisition of intellectual “habitus” and for the mature assimilation of the philosophical heritage. He knew how to place “faith in a positive relation with the dominant form of reason of his time.”[32] For this reason, he is stilled called the “apostle of truth.”[33] “Looking unreservedly to truth, Thomas’ realism was able to recognize the objectivity of truth and produce not merely a philosophy of ‘what seems to be’ but a philosophy of ‘what is’.”[34] The Church’s preference for his method and his doctrine is not exclusive, but “exemplary”.[35]
from THE DECREE ON THE REFORM OF ECCLESIASTICAL STUDIES OF PHILOSOPHY http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congre...ia_en.html

(01-24-2013, 12:19 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: [ -> ]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.

As we have discussed many times, I do not understand the recent teaching  as incompatible with Tradition nor as heretical.  You interpret it otherwise.  We have reached an impasse on this topic.
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