FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Rorate Caeli: Many FI priests petitioning to be relieved of pontifical vows
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
I still don't understand this notion of "if it's pastoral we can ignore it" regarding Vatican II. It is considered an ecumenical.Council of the Roman Catholic Church and was called for by a Saint, directed and guided by another soon to be saint (Paul VI) and implemented by another saint(John.Paul II). How can one simply ignore what was called for and orchestrated by saints and whose decrees have been implemented and put into force as basically the bedrock of everything for the last 60 years? What precedent do we have for ignoring ecumenical councils? Soon to be "saint" paul vi called Vatocan II "as big.or bigger than(or as important, can't remember which) as Nicea". Just because the word "pastoral" is used doesn't mean we.can simply ignore it. To do so and admit that these men were real popes and that this was a real ecumenical council seems temerarious at best. I'm just saying, doesn't seem to be anyway around it other than neo catholic acceptance of the consequences of the post conciliar reforms as good things or sedevavantism. Is this whole rejection of a council.and popes justified simply because of this idea of being "pastotal"? Not being flippant either, I'm really struggling with this. As you can see, as far as I'm concerned making these popes saints who surrounded the Counvik is a game changer; it automatically envelopes the last 60 years and the Council in a cloud and aura of extraordinary sanctity.   The credibility of Roman Catholicism (at least.in my eyes, barring sedevacantism.which has it's own host of perplexities) is severely damaged by Vatican.II and the post conciliar aftermath. Is it really possible that all the wreckvation we see around us in everything from protestant style sacramental rites to architecture  to "saint" popes kissing korans will simply disappear? Can this evil council and the evil men who called it and pushed it's protestantizing,secularizing decrees actually be condemned some day, or must we act like the followers of a cult and accept as Catholic whatever is handed down to us by these men whose writings,actions and words in so many places flatly contradict pre conciliar doctrine,dogma,custom and tradition?
(05-16-2014, 11:26 PM)triumphguy Wrote: [ -> ]I took this quote directly from the order's website.

That note was written by one of the 5 original dissenting friars; other sources say the numbers are much much higher. And a new lax constitution will be the undoing of the Franciscans of the Immaculate.  It might be called that but the true FI follows the charism of its founders and its patrons: Sts. Francis,Clare, Maximilian and Pio.
I disagree, formerbuddhist, though I appreciate all you have said here. Had this Council been one that was expressed in language that did not lend itself to ambiguity, there would me something to what you are saying. But you are talking about this Council as if it had been expressed and interpreted like most other councils, which is simply not the case. No one alive today can say what VII means. Its pastoral suggestions are meant to be suggestions. The last pope made it very clear that the whole thing had to be "interpreted" and this, within the hermeneutic of continuity. Therefore, if you want to consider the Council  as seriously binding in some way, you are told to interpret it in such a way that nothing in it is in contradiction with previous Magisterium. Therefore, we are instructed by the Church's highest authority to reject any interpretation of it which contradicts Tradition. If you  think the whole thing contradicts Tradition, in conscience you are to deem that the highest authority of the Catholic Church asks you to ignore it. If parts, then parts. I see nothing wrong with this. We put a bunch of brainy bishops together to have a Council for no right reason,  and, surprise, surprise, we got a crappy Council. The future will ignore this Council, or praise it as the occasion that led to so many clarifications later on that we all felt better about ourselves as having had a great learning experience. At least we will have learned how not to do it in future.

In addition, some groups have permission to simply follow the praxis of the pre-VII church. Therefore it is clearly possible to ignore it, except in those cases where there is no contradiction. In such cases, there shouldn't be a problem anyway.

And I don't think the SSPX would have a problem with any of this. Already they can ignore VII. They are not sedes. BUT, they would like the right to criticize VII and to correct or publicly disagree with bishops and/or cardinals and/or the Pope himself. This is the sticking point, I am sure. And yet, what could be more collegial than allowing everyone to have their say, allowing everyone to have "freedom of conscience" that the post-VII Church so loves? This is the same double standard we see everywhere else: The Nutty US nuns can continue their circus with some warnings, whereas the FFI are shut down. We are told not to judge gays, and I agree entirely, but we seem to be able to judge the SSPX. In civil society, we can bash the Catholic Church, but we cannot say a peep about Islam. This is a double standard that is running right through the world today, and the more worldly the prelates, the more double the standard is going to be. BXVI was not too worldly, so he tried to fix these things. I think BXVI was our last chance to get this fixed without a calamity of some sort.

God will not abandon His Church. Never. Therefore, if so many in the positions of power in the Church abandon Him, He will have no choice but to act decisively, for the sake of His little ones. Could be anything. Could be the pope dies soon. He's old, not too sane, has one lung, likes taking chances in large crowds . . . Could be something goes wrong at a WYD and we lose a whole bunch of prelates. Could be Rome gets nuked. Could be a plague. Could be a change of heart by a number of  cardinals who realize what they have done, and who make an alliance to effect a serious change next time. Whatever. Either way, He will not abandon His Church. I also believe it will be sooner rather than later, not because of prophecies or anything, but just because the Church is at a crossroads now, and there is a lot of danger about taking the wrong turn, and there are still a lot of good prelates out there who could help rebuild. Maybe I am naive. So be it. For now, we live. I got my children through the sacraments by skating around all kids of parish minefields, and we are still on track to have our eldest receive Confirmation this month, in the Traditional rite, by no less than a Cardinal of the Catholic Church. So there is still life and hope, and no need for despair . . . yet.
Thanks for the thoughts Maldon; you've given me much to ponder. Interesting take on Francis by the way. I had no idea he had one lung! He does take risks in crowds and if he's not.careful he could get assassinated. I certainly don't wish that on him but it's possible. I heard he didn't want to use the Popemobile for the Holy Land trip which puts him in serious danger from militant Jews and Muslims. I've no doubt that he'd be fast tracked to sainthood instantly if he were assassinated but I digress... Indeed there is a crossroads and something has got to give. I can't imagine a worse Pope to follow the moderately neoconservative(by post conciliar standards) Benedict XVI and his recklessness must be stopped.

One of the most illuminating and disheartening things I've ever read about the Council was Ratzinger's "Theological Highlights of Vatican II". It's astounding the disdain for Latin, for the traditional liturgy, for the notion of a sacrificial priesthood and for traditional ecclesiology Ratzinger and the Council fathers that got their way had! These men wanted to bury counter reformation and medieval Catholicism; of that I've no doubt after reading that book and the documents of the Council. Is it even possible to actually reconcile the documents of the Council, not to mention the postconciliar reforms ( new sacramental rites,blessings,etc.) with what came before? I guess if it were me in charge I'd want any reforms to be based solely on the conciliar documents as seen through the prism of Tradition and nothing else. I'd say perhaps Vatican II could be reconciled with tradition, especially the document on the liturgy, but only if we took the 1962 Latin Mass.and reformed it in line with Sacrosanctum Concilium. The Mass, not to mention the sacramental rites (episcopal and priestly consecration, book of blessings etc.) are clear departures from the traditions of Latin Christendom and are utter novelties that must be abrogated.
formerbuddhist,

I have no doubt that at some point the NO will be revisited and "reformed", and to do so they will go back to the 1962 missal and look to SC for one or two touches, but nothing more.
I am also given hope in the case of the change of heart that took place in Ratzinger, for it made him at least get to being BXVI, that is, a man with regrets for that younger, more foolish age, and that whole generation. We need more such changes of heart. And younger priests coming up with the TLM in dioceses are trying to figure this out, studying what happened at the Council and then what happened after, and what happened to Ratzinger. One of these men will one day be Pope, a Pope who sees there are only 2 roads with VII: Benedict's and Kung's. Right now we seem to have a pope who is like a Ratzinger without the change. So we must pray for him. And for his successors to come.
(05-17-2014, 02:27 PM)maldon Wrote: [ -> ]formerbuddhist,

I have no doubt that at some point the NO will be revisited and "reformed", and to do so they will go back to the 1962 missal and look to SC for one or two touches, but nothing more.
I am also given hope in the case of the change of heart that took place in Ratzinger, for it made him at least get to being BXVI, that is, a man with regrets for that younger, more foolish age, and that whole generation. We need more such changes of heart. And younger priests coming up with the TLM in dioceses are trying to figure this out, studying what happened at the Council and then what happened after, and what happened to Ratzinger. One of these men will one day be Pope, a Pope who sees there are only 2 roads with VII: Benedict's and Kung's. Right now we seem to have a pope who is like a Ratzinger without the change. So we must pray for him. And for his successors to come.

I absolutely disagree. I am certain the Novus Ordo will be abrogated completely in the future, after Our Lady's triumph. As with all the new rites. They cannot be reformed for they are poisoned to the core. We will go back to the TLM contained in the 1962 missal. If this is reformed, it will draw on previous pre-1962 editions, but none of the books that came after...none. So if anything, the future TLM will be even more trad than the 1962 missal. I am sure of it.
(05-17-2014, 01:44 PM)formerbuddhist Wrote: [ -> ]Thanks for the thoughts Maldon; you've given me much to ponder. Interesting take on Francis by the way. I had no idea he had one lung! He does take risks in crowds and if he's not.careful he could get assassinated. I certainly don't wish that on him but it's possible. I heard he didn't want to use the Popemobile for the Holy Land trip which puts him in serious danger from militant Jews and Muslims. I've no doubt that he'd be fast tracked to sainthood instantly if he were assassinated but I digress... Indeed there is a crossroads and something has got to give. I can't imagine a worse Pope to follow the moderately neoconservative(by post conciliar standards) Benedict XVI and his recklessness must be stopped.

One of the most illuminating and disheartening things I've ever read about the Council was Ratzinger's "Theological Highlights of Vatican II". It's astounding the disdain for Latin, for the traditional liturgy, for the notion of a sacrificial priesthood and for traditional ecclesiology Ratzinger and the Council fathers that got their way had! These men wanted to bury counter reformation and medieval Catholicism; of that I've no doubt after reading that book and the documents of the Council. Is it even possible to actually reconcile the documents of the Council, not to mention the postconciliar reforms ( new sacramental rites,blessings,etc.) with what came before? I guess if it were me in charge I'd want any reforms to be based solely on the conciliar documents as seen through the prism of Tradition and nothing else. I'd say perhaps Vatican II could be reconciled with tradition, especially the document on the liturgy, but only if we took the 1962 Latin Mass.and reformed it in line with Sacrosanctum Concilium. The Mass, not to mention the sacramental rites (episcopal and priestly consecration, book of blessings etc.) are clear departures from the traditions of Latin Christendom and are utter novelties that must be abrogated.

Don't worry. After Our Lady's triumph, they will be abrogated.

It is quite possible Pope Francis will be assassinated. The part of the Third Secret that has been revealed, concerning the 'bishop dressed in white', describes his murder at the hands of an angry mob, with bullets and arrows, atop a hill before a wooden cross and corpses, amidst a burning city.

This is city is presumably Rome. And the bishop in white is presumably Pope Francis or Benedict XVI.
Miles Immaculatae,
I apologize for having offended you, and would like you to know that I was not trying to have you banned.  I was merely defending my position that to be a Modernist is to be a heretic.  You've defended yourself by saying, "I do believe Pope Francis is Modernist... I was not accusing anybody of heresy."  But Modernism is a heresy, so how can one be a Modernist without simultaneously being a heretic?  This is where your responses have left me confused.

I do know what this forum is about (and that Traditional Catholicism is so much more than about the TLM), as I've been here for more than five years.  My own position, to be clear, is that Pope Francis is not actually the Sovereign Pontiff of the Holy Catholic Church precisely because he is a Modernist; I hold to the sedevacantist position.

Once again, I do apologize to you.  I was not looking for an argument, but considered the consequences of both your and Scotus' statements ("modernist," "heterodox") and was surprised that nothing was said.  Again, I don't want either of you to get into trouble (I'm especially a fan of Scotus' posts), but I simply had gotten the impression that the rules have been relaxed somewhat, given Francis' many, many troubling statements over the past year.

GodFirst,
Yes, Protestants are considered to be formal heretics in the external forum, while perhaps many or even most of them are considered as being in good faith.  You said that, "Catholics cannot be formal heretics unless a superior make such a judgment rightfully and justly declares them excommunicated," but the problem with that is the Roman Pontiff has no canonical superior and so cannot be judged as Pope.  He would have already fallen from office through his violation of divine law (by committing an act of formal heresy) and then would be canonically judged as a non-Catholic.

As for the posssibility of a Catholic being a material heretic, please see this article: http://www.sedevacantist.com/pertinacity.html

Here are the relevant paragraphs:

John S. Daly Wrote:What muddied the waters was the misleading linguistic development by which material heresy was said to make the person professing it a material heretic. No conclusion could seem more natural to the layman, but it does not in fact follow in logic. A retired lion-trainer is not, after all, a man who trains retired lions! And a serious problem arises when one designates as a material heretic anyone who assents, without moral guilt, to a heretical proposition. The first is that you have created a category which comprises two quite distinct sorts of member and you therefore run the risk of confusing the two. For according to that definition, a good Catholic who inadvertently holds a condemned doctrine, not realising that it is condemned is a material heretic. And so too is a Protestant if he is invincibly ignorant of the Church's status. And while it is true that there is a resemblance between the two cases (for both indeed hold in their minds unorthodox doctrine and neither is culpable in the eyes of God for doing so), nevertheless there is also a huge gulf between them. For the former is a Catholic, habitually adhering to the Catholic rule of faith, whereas the latter is a non-Catholic, with no knowledge of the correct rule of faith and tossed about on the treacherous sea of private opinion.

The inevitable consequence of this misleading assimilation of two such different sorts of person is that they will gradually come to be considered truly alike. This could happen in either of two ways. Mistaken Catholics could be regarded as no better than Protestants in good faith (and some “hard-liners” have practically taken this view, arguing that the most innocent error creates a presumption of heretical animus - a notion we have already seen to be false). More common has been the no less calamitous view that a Protestant, if invincibly ignorant of the status of the Church, is no worse off than a Catholic who inadvertently makes an incorrect doctrinal statement - as though adherence to the Catholic rule of faith, i.e. submission to the Magisterium, were irrelevant, whereas in fact it is what juridical membership of the Church depends on.

Correctly, the material element involved in being a heretic is conscious dissent from the Catholic rule of faith, while the formal element is the perverse state of the will which this entails. The distinction thus made, a Catholic who inculpably advances a heretical proposition by inadvertence may perhaps be said to have advanced a material heresy; but he cannot be called a material heretic. He is not a heretic in any sense. A heretic is one who dissents altogether from the Catholic rule of faith, and he will be called a material heretic if he is invincibly ignorant of the authority of the Church which he rejects, and a formal heretic if the Church's authority has been sufficiently proposed to him, so that his dissent from it is culpable. (This is clearly explained by Cardinal Billot: De Ecclesia Christi, ed. 4, pp. 289-290)


So according to the correct usage of the term, as outlined above, a Catholic can never become a material heretic.

Once again, you've made some very good points, formerbuddhist.  The general belief is that the Council was valid and that we must accept it.  In all honesty, it wasn't strictly pastoral, as the language used by several of the documents make clear.  Moreover, it has certainly been interpreted by the Magisterium: we have a new Mass, new rites for the Sacraments, a new Code of Canon Law, a new universal Catechism, and now, new Vatican II saints.  As Catholics, we aren't allowed to pick and choose what we'll accept from the Magisterium, as they are the "Church Teaching" and we are the "Church Taught."  Pope Pius IX, among others, condemned the opinion that Catholics can disregard even the merely disciplinary decrees of the Holy See and still glory in the name of Catholic (cf. Quartus Supra, n. 12 f.): http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9quartu.htm
(05-17-2014, 04:41 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: [ -> ]Miles Immaculatae,
I apologize for having offended you, and would like you to know that I was not trying to have you banned.  I was merely defending my position that to be a Modernist is to be a heretic.  You've defended yourself by saying, "I do believe Pope Francis is Modernist... I was not accusing anybody of heresy."  But Modernism is a heresy, so how can one be a Modernist without simultaneously being a heretic?  This is where your responses have left me confused.

I do know what this forum is about (and that Traditional Catholicism is so much more than about the TLM), as I've been here for more than five years.  My own position, to be clear, is that Pope Francis is not actually the Sovereign Pontiff of the Holy Catholic Church precisely because he is a Modernist; I hold to the sedevacantist position.

Once again, I do apologize to you.  I was not looking for an argument, but considered the consequences of both your and Scotus' statements ("modernist," "heterodox") and was surprised that nothing was said.  Again, I don't want either of you to get into trouble (I'm especially a fan of Scotus' posts), but I simply had gotten the impression that the rules have been relaxed somewhat, given Francis' many, many troubling statements over the past year.

GodFirst,
Yes, Protestants are considered to be formal heretics in the external forum, while perhaps many or even most of them are considered as being in good faith.  You said that, "Catholics cannot be formal heretics unless a superior make such a judgment rightfully and justly declares them excommunicated," but the problem with that is the Roman Pontiff has no canonical superior and so cannot be judged as Pope.  He would have already fallen from office through his violation of divine law (by committing an act of formal heresy) and then would be canonically judged as a non-Catholic.

As for the posssibility of a Catholic being a material heretic, please see this article: http://www.sedevacantist.com/pertinacity.html

Here are the relevant paragraphs:

John S. Daly Wrote:What muddied the waters was the misleading linguistic development by which material heresy was said to make the person professing it a material heretic. No conclusion could seem more natural to the layman, but it does not in fact follow in logic. A retired lion-trainer is not, after all, a man who trains retired lions! And a serious problem arises when one designates as a material heretic anyone who assents, without moral guilt, to a heretical proposition. The first is that you have created a category which comprises two quite distinct sorts of member and you therefore run the risk of confusing the two. For according to that definition, a good Catholic who inadvertently holds a condemned doctrine, not realising that it is condemned is a material heretic. And so too is a Protestant if he is invincibly ignorant of the Church's status. And while it is true that there is a resemblance between the two cases (for both indeed hold in their minds unorthodox doctrine and neither is culpable in the eyes of God for doing so), nevertheless there is also a huge gulf between them. For the former is a Catholic, habitually adhering to the Catholic rule of faith, whereas the latter is a non-Catholic, with no knowledge of the correct rule of faith and tossed about on the treacherous sea of private opinion.

The inevitable consequence of this misleading assimilation of two such different sorts of person is that they will gradually come to be considered truly alike. This could happen in either of two ways. Mistaken Catholics could be regarded as no better than Protestants in good faith (and some “hard-liners” have practically taken this view, arguing that the most innocent error creates a presumption of heretical animus - a notion we have already seen to be false). More common has been the no less calamitous view that a Protestant, if invincibly ignorant of the status of the Church, is no worse off than a Catholic who inadvertently makes an incorrect doctrinal statement - as though adherence to the Catholic rule of faith, i.e. submission to the Magisterium, were irrelevant, whereas in fact it is what juridical membership of the Church depends on.

Correctly, the material element involved in being a heretic is conscious dissent from the Catholic rule of faith, while the formal element is the perverse state of the will which this entails. The distinction thus made, a Catholic who inculpably advances a heretical proposition by inadvertence may perhaps be said to have advanced a material heresy; but he cannot be called a material heretic. He is not a heretic in any sense. A heretic is one who dissents altogether from the Catholic rule of faith, and he will be called a material heretic if he is invincibly ignorant of the authority of the Church which he rejects, and a formal heretic if the Church's authority has been sufficiently proposed to him, so that his dissent from it is culpable. (This is clearly explained by Cardinal Billot: De Ecclesia Christi, ed. 4, pp. 289-290)


So according to the correct usage of the term, as outlined above, a Catholic can never become a material heretic.

Once again, you've made some very good points, formerbuddhist.  The general belief is that the Council was valid and that we must accept it.  In all honesty, it wasn't strictly pastoral, as the language used by several of the documents make clear.  Moreover, it has certainly been interpreted by the Magisterium: we have a new Mass, new rites for the Sacraments, a new Code of Canon Law, a new universal Catechism, and now, new Vatican II saints.  As Catholics, we aren't allowed to pick and choose what we'll accept from the Magisterium, as they are the "Church Teaching" and we are the "Church Taught."  Pope Pius IX, among others, condemned the opinion that Catholics can disregard even the merely disciplinary decrees of the Holy See and still glory in the name of Catholic (cf. Quartus Supra, n. 12 f.): http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9quartu.htm

You're not helping the situation. You are inclined to provoke formerbuddhist into becoming sedevacantist or Orthodox, undoing the reassurances myself and other posters on this thread have given him. Elsewhere on this forum you have demonstrated you have a neo-Catholic attitude, insisting Pope Francis and his predecessors are not modernist and that we are bound not to say this as Catholics, even though this is kinda the whole premise of Traditional Catholicism. Read up on the websites information about Traditional Catholicism, because it's not all about having a penchant for the TLM, it goes deeper than that.

The major weakness of your assertions is that Pope Pius IX was not referring to modernist, or heretical decrees, which we always have a duty to resist.  You are comparing the Church in Pius IX's time to now, but the Church presently is in a state of unprecedented emergency, exemplified by the recent canonisations of modernist Pontiff's, and the probable canonisation of Paul VI, which formerbuddhist is rightly traumatised by. 
SouthpawLink,

I didn't see the first part of your last comment, I only read the second part.

In spite of my last comment, wherein I state I thought you were neo-Catholic, I know acknowledge your actual position. Please keep this in mind when you read my comment.

I don't believe being a heretic per se causes a Pope to be invalid, as was demonstrated elsewhere on this forum. Although I am open to the possibility the next Pope might rule that Pope Francis was an anti-pope, but presently I am not a sedevacantist. Although, I accept an invalid Pope is a theoretical possibility, as Saint Francis of Assisi did.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9