FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Vatican canonizes un-Catholic popes
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
Pabble, I have no idea what your qualifications are, but MM has studied theology and canon law at an advanced level. I think you're in way over your head.
(06-01-2018, 02:45 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: [ -> ]Pabble, I have no idea what your qualifications are, but MM has studied theology and canon law at an advanced level. I think you're in way over your head.
 
What can I say, Canon Law and all other Catholic references I have ever found in my lifetime say that Ecumenical Councils and canonizations are always infallible, no exceptions. It doesn't matter how long someone has studied theology and canon law - we can't just disregard the traditional teaching of the Church.
(06-01-2018, 09:34 PM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]What can I say, Canon Law and all other Catholic references I have ever found in my lifetime say that Ecumenical Councils and canonizations are always infallible, no exceptions.

Do you kneel at Mass?
Fr John Hunwicke had a post on his blog a few years ago that made some amusing, but highly trenchant, points about how we (both Trads and Modernists) deal with Ecumenical Councils,

Quote:It is, I hope we would all agree, extremely important that the Council, like all Ecumenical Councils, should be treated with respect and its wishes put into effect.


This is why I am disturbed that some Jews, and some Moslems, are allowed to go around without being distinctively dressed so that it can be seen who is Jewish, who is Moslem, who is Christian. I also have a suspicion that some Jews may even go outside their homes during the Christian Sacred Triduum. This is clearly both illegal and disgraceful, since it is explicitly forbidden by the Council, and with great emphasis.

And, moreover, the SSPX is to blame for not rigorously demanding, in season and out of season, that Jews and Moslems should always wear their distinctive dress.  I cannot recall a single SSPX document which adequately emphasises this important decree of the Council. Frankly, this raises difficult questions about the SSPX itself. Since it so manifestly treats important enactments of the Council with apparent indifference, it is important that it should be denied faculties, and kept at arm's length, until it unambiguously undertakes to do all it can to embrace and enforce the Conciliar decrees regarding Jewish and Moslem dress, down the the last comma, the last detail.  Frankly, I blame Bishop Fellay for this indiscipline. He is a man who, to my knowledge, has never spoken loudly and publicly enough about the importance of the distinctive dress which should be worn by Jews and Moslems. Can you show me one single statement of his about the need for all Moslem women, as the Conciliar Canon implies, to wear the hijab? No group can truly expect to be in good standing unless its submission to the Council, as to all the Church's Ecumenical Councils, is total, unequivocal, and ex animo.

It is not as though the Council to which I am today referring [Lateran IV (vide Canonem LXXXIX); it closed on November 30 1215] is some minor Council. Because of the large numbers of bishops, archbishops, and patriarchs which attended it, it was sometimes called The Great Council. It promulgated the Dogma of Transubstantiation. Could any Council be more important than Lateran IV?

I hope nobody, on the thread, will dare to speak slightingly about the duty of all Catholics to accept without question every jot and tittle of Lateran IV, as of every other Council. Moreover, its Spirit, easily collected and inferred from its canons about the exclusion of Jews from public life and the iniquity of their usurious behaviour, not to mention the problems of miscegenation, is also something which it is the duty of all Catholics to accept with enthusiasm. Isn't it? You know I'm right.

VIVAT CONCILIUM!!!   VIVANT CONCILIA!!!!!! (ENDS.)

We live in a dangerous world, in which some people tend to be or pretend to be depressingly blind to literary genre. I hope no reader of this blog is so blind as to fail to detect my irony all through the above piece. I neither like nor subscribe to the teaching of Lateran IV about the Jews as being suitable to our time, nor do I condemn the SSPX for being lukewarm about that teaching. My view on Councils, prescinding from those Conciliar decrees (with attached anathemas) which strictly define dogma, is that their teachings and edicts, even if appropriate to the time of the Council itself, which I believe one is at liberty to doubt, gradually merge into the quiet background noise of the life of the Church. I have no doubt that this applies to Lateran Canon 89 as much as it does to Vatican II Dignitatis humanae. But both of these were completely 'valid' Ecumenical Councils; a truth which, I believe, no Catholic is allowed to question. I also believe that no Catholic should read the non-dogmatic texts of any Council, or of any Roman Pontiff, without applying a contextualising nuance. Catholics are not fundamentalists. Councils, and popes, when not defining dogma, can, quite simply, be wrong. Especially fifty or more years after their time.
(06-01-2018, 11:38 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: [ -> ]Fr John Hunwicke had a post on his blog a few years ago that made some amusing, but highly trenchant, points about how we (both Trads and Modernists) deal with Ecumenical Councils,

Quote:It is, I hope we would all agree, extremely important that the Council, like all Ecumenical Councils, should be treated with respect and its wishes put into effect.


This is why I am disturbed that some Jews, and some Moslems, are allowed to go around without being distinctively dressed so that it can be seen who is Jewish, who is Moslem, who is Christian. I also have a suspicion that some Jews may even go outside their homes during the Christian Sacred Triduum. This is clearly both illegal and disgraceful, since it is explicitly forbidden by the Council, and with great emphasis.

And, moreover, the SSPX is to blame for not rigorously demanding, in season and out of season, that Jews and Moslems should always wear their distinctive dress.  I cannot recall a single SSPX document which adequately emphasises this important decree of the Council. Frankly, this raises difficult questions about the SSPX itself. Since it so manifestly treats important enactments of the Council with apparent indifference, it is important that it should be denied faculties, and kept at arm's length, until it unambiguously undertakes to do all it can to embrace and enforce the Conciliar decrees regarding Jewish and Moslem dress, down the the last comma, the last detail.  Frankly, I blame Bishop Fellay for this indiscipline. He is a man who, to my knowledge, has never spoken loudly and publicly enough about the importance of the distinctive dress which should be worn by Jews and Moslems. Can you show me one single statement of his about the need for all Moslem women, as the Conciliar Canon implies, to wear the hijab? No group can truly expect to be in good standing unless its submission to the Council, as to all the Church's Ecumenical Councils, is total, unequivocal, and ex animo.

It is not as though the Council to which I am today referring [Lateran IV (vide Canonem LXXXIX); it closed on November 30 1215] is some minor Council. Because of the large numbers of bishops, archbishops, and patriarchs which attended it, it was sometimes called The Great Council. It promulgated the Dogma of Transubstantiation. Could any Council be more important than Lateran IV?

I hope nobody, on the thread, will dare to speak slightingly about the duty of all Catholics to accept without question every jot and tittle of Lateran IV, as of every other Council. Moreover, its Spirit, easily collected and inferred from its canons about the exclusion of Jews from public life and the iniquity of their usurious behaviour, not to mention the problems of miscegenation, is also something which it is the duty of all Catholics to accept with enthusiasm. Isn't it? You know I'm right.

VIVAT CONCILIUM!!!   VIVANT CONCILIA!!!!!! (ENDS.)

We live in a dangerous world, in which some people tend to be or pretend to be depressingly blind to literary genre. I hope no reader of this blog is so blind as to fail to detect my irony all through the above piece. I neither like nor subscribe to the teaching of Lateran IV about the Jews as being suitable to our time, nor do I condemn the SSPX for being lukewarm about that teaching. My view on Councils, prescinding from those Conciliar decrees (with attached anathemas) which strictly define dogma, is that their teachings and edicts, even if appropriate to the time of the Council itself, which I believe one is at liberty to doubt, gradually merge into the quiet background noise of the life of the Church. I have no doubt that this applies to Lateran Canon 89 as much as it does to Vatican II Dignitatis humanae. But both of these were completely 'valid' Ecumenical Councils; a truth which, I believe, no Catholic is allowed to question. I also believe that no Catholic should read the non-dogmatic texts of any Council, or of any Roman Pontiff, without applying a contextualising nuance. Catholics are not fundamentalists. Councils, and popes, when not defining dogma, can, quite simply, be wrong. Especially fifty or more years after their time.
 
Father John is describing the situation inaccurately. When popes utilize solemn teaching, either through a General Council or other solemn declaration, it is understood that they're doing so to provide a mandate for the faithful regarding faith and morals. Catholics know well that popes are only infallible regarding faith and morals.
 
So when the Third Council of Constantinople condemned going into synagogues or meeting houses of Jews and praying with them or any heretics, this pertains to faith and morals and Catholics can neither question it nor change it.

Likewise, when Vatican II created the decrees on ecumenism and religious liberty, this pertained to the faith, so no one can use the excuse that Vatican II was only "pastoral". Paul VI also said that Council pertains to the ordinary magisterium and must be adhered to by all, so there's no wiggle room to deny the decrees of Vatican II if you believe it was a valid Council.

Where the dilemma arises is ecumenism and religious liberty have always been condemned by the Church....Divine Law is very clear about this. So how can the Church turn around and approve these actions as good and holy? It's impossible for the Church to do this, so that's the dilemma.
If anything said by a Council is infallible, then we shouldn't be kneeling at Mass.

"Since there are some who kneel on Sunday and during the season of Pentecost, this holy synod decrees that, so that the same observances may be maintained in every diocese, one should offer one's prayers to the Lord standing."

That's from the First Council of Nicaea. You know, the one that gave us the Creed.

As for religious liberty, there's an argument that Dignitatis humanæ changed policy, not doctrine. The power of coercion in religious matters belongs to the Church, but the Church may allow the state - as it did in the Middle Ages - to act on its behalf. But that doesn't mean the Church must punish heretics, and Vatican II merely revoked the state's authority to do so. Here's the article about it:

https://www.firstthings.com/article/2012...d-coercion
(06-02-2018, 08:11 PM)Paul Wrote: [ -> ]As for religious liberty, there's an argument that Dignitatis humanæ changed policy, not doctrine. The power of coercion in religious matters belongs to the Church, but the Church may allow the state - as it did in the Middle Ages - to act on its behalf. But that doesn't mean the Church must punish heretics, and Vatican II merely revoked the state's authority to do so. Here's the article about it:

https://www.firstthings.com/article/2012...d-coercion

I'm not even going to bother reading the article. I get enough mental gymnastics reading some of the posts on this forum or on Facebook!

This is the Doctrine of the Church:

[They are condemned opinions that,]

15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true. — Allocution “Maxima quidem,” June 9, 1862; Damnatio “Multiplices inter,” June 10, 1851.

77. In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship. — Allocution “Nemo vestrum,” July 26, 1855.


78. Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship. — Allocution “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852.

79. Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all, of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism. — Allocution “Nunquam fore,” Dec. 15, 1856.

This is the 'doctrine' of the Council:

The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself. This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right.
(06-02-2018, 10:04 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not even going to bother reading the article. I get enough mental gymnastics reading some of the posts on this forum or on Facebook!

Read the article. Smile

"Dignitatis Humanae is very carefully drafted not to address the coercive authority of the Church, not even her authority to use the state as her coercive agent. But with diminished consciousness of the Church as a coercive authority, the significance of this fact has been generally ignored. The change in what the Church declares morally permissible for a state to do has been misinterpreted as a change in teaching about the fundamental permissibility of religious coercion as such."

Maybe it's mental gymnastics, but, unfortunately, that's what Vatican II's given us. And I think the only way to interpret the Council is in that way, ignoring the liberal intent of the documents and trying, if at all possible, to fit them within what the Church has always taught. Maybe Vatican II was pastoral, but it talked about a lot of doctrine, and just leaving it at 'the Church got it wrong' isn't much different than saying other Councils got it wrong, too. But if it really is only a policy change, taking away the state's authority to coerce in religious matters and telling states they should make religious toleration - for let's call it what it really is - a civil right, then the doctrine is still there, and, these days, burning heretics isn't going to do much good and would turn a lot of people against the Church.

If the Church really has contradicted herself on the issue, through an Ecumenical Council, then either the Orthodox are right, or Christianity isn't true. The Orthodox have given up on divorce and contraception, and there's too much evidence for Christianity to accept that's it's all fake. So mental gymnastics it is - although the article really isn't, and even starts with the idea that, yes, there does appear to be a contradiction.
(06-03-2018, 02:56 AM)Paul Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-02-2018, 10:04 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not even going to bother reading the article. I get enough mental gymnastics reading some of the posts on this forum or on Facebook!

Read the article. Smile

"Dignitatis Humanae is very carefully drafted not to address the coercive authority of the Church, not even her authority to use the state as her coercive agent. But with diminished consciousness of the Church as a coercive authority, the significance of this fact has been generally ignored. The change in what the Church declares morally permissible for a state to do has been misinterpreted as a change in teaching about the fundamental permissibility of religious coercion as such."

Maybe it's mental gymnastics, but, unfortunately, that's what Vatican II's given us. And I think the only way to interpret the Council is in that way, ignoring the liberal intent of the documents and trying, if at all possible, to fit them within what the Church has always taught. Maybe Vatican II was pastoral, but it talked about a lot of doctrine, and just leaving it at 'the Church got it wrong' isn't much different than saying other Councils got it wrong, too. But if it really is only a policy change, taking away the state's authority to coerce in religious matters and telling states they should make religious toleration - for let's call it what it really is - a civil right, then the doctrine is still there, and, these days, burning heretics isn't going to do much good and would turn a lot of people against the Church.

If the Church really has contradicted herself on the issue, through an Ecumenical Council, then either the Orthodox are right, or Christianity isn't true. The Orthodox have given up on divorce and contraception, and there's too much evidence for Christianity to accept that's it's all fake. So mental gymnastics it is - although the article really isn't, and even starts with the idea that, yes, there does appear to be a contradiction.
 
Yes, there is some serious mental gymnastics going on here!

There is another scenario you are not considering. Are you aware that there have been Popes in the past that have convened a General Council and given it a stamp of approval, then afterward the Pope was declared an antipope, resulting in his General Council being declared illegitimate?
(06-01-2018, 09:34 PM)pabbie Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-01-2018, 02:45 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: [ -> ]Pabble, I have no idea what your qualifications are, but MM has studied theology and canon law at an advanced level. I think you're in way over your head.
 
What can I say, Canon Law and all other Catholic references I have ever found in my lifetime say that Ecumenical Councils and canonizations are always infallible, no exceptions. It doesn't matter how long someone has studied theology and canon law - we can't just disregard the traditional teaching of the Church.

How do you know the "traditional teaching of the Church"?

I would submit that you have read some things to learn what some people say, but then are over-extending what the teaching is.

As mentioned in the other thread, this is a matter of imprecision and ambiguity. When discussing such things you need to be precise.

Using terms like "General Council" when meaning the more precise (both theologically and canonically) "Eccumenical Council", and then saying there are "always infallible" (when you later admit that this is far more restricted to "faith and morals"), is precisely the problem.

If you take a true principle, and over-extend it you do the same as Vatican II did with "religious liberty" : they took the Catholic notion of tolerance  (the state has the right to tolerate those who spread error if a greater good is acheived) and over-extended it to suggest that the person who is spreading error has the right to be tolerated. The latter one is false, but it is the same over-extension you seem to be doing.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21