FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums
The Second Vatican Council - Printable Version

+- FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Church (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=2)
+--- Forum: Sacred Scripture & Church Documents (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=14)
+--- Thread: The Second Vatican Council (/showthread.php?tid=84904)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


RE: The Second Vatican Council - cassini - 07-25-2019

(07-21-2019, 08:29 PM)yablabo Wrote:
(07-21-2019, 04:35 PM)Filiolus Wrote: That makes no sense. If "it binds intellect and will by virtue of religion", the faithful are morally bound to assent to it. "Hence, why it can and does contain error" does not follow; it's a conclusion with no premises. What exactly are you trying to say?

When the Church proposes matters of divine revelation to us whether in her solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal magisterium, we are bound to believe these by divine and catholic faith due to God's authority.  We therefore give these the assent of faith and believe these by the supernatural virtue of faith.  These matters cannot be revoked, revised and/or in error.  These are protected by the Holy Spirit.

When we find matters contained in the word of God as found in scripture and tradition, we are bound to believe these by divine and catholic faith due to God's authority.  We therefore give these the assent of faith and believe these by the supernatural virtue of faith.  These matters cannot be revoked, revised and/or in error.  These are protected by the Holy Spirit.

When we find matters of a pastoral or ordinary nature proposed by our bishop, or by the Roman Pontiff, we're bound to believe these by a natural faith due to the authority of the bishop or Roman Pontiff.  We therefore give these assent on a natural level, and believe these by the virtue of religion.  These matters can be revoked, revised and/or in error.  These are not protected by the Holy Spirit.  This is where the Second Vatican Council, obviously including Lumen Gentium, is categorized.

Ok, ginnyfree asked about Vatican II. Yablabo sets out the conditions for what Catholics must believe.

In 1616, Pope Paul V, decreed the Catholic world adhere to the following definition:

(1) “That the sun is in the centre of the world and altogether immovable by local movement,” was unanimously declared to be “foolish, philosophically absurd, and formally heretical [denial of a revelation by God] inasmuch as it expressly contradicts the declarations of Holy Scripture in many passages, according to the proper meaning of the language used, and the sense in which they have been expounded and understood by [all] the Fathers and theologians.”

(2) “That the Earth is not the centre of the world, and moves as a whole, and also with a diurnal movement,” was unanimously declared “to deserve the same censure philosophically, and, theologically considered to be at least erroneous in faith.”

This was followed up when Pope Urban VIII reiterated this teaching of the ordinary magisterium like so:

“Invoking, then, the most holy Name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and that of His most glorious Mother Mary ever Virgin, by this our definitive sentence we say, pronounce, judge, and declare, that you, the said Galileo, on account of these things proved against you by documentary evidence, and which have been confessed by you as aforesaid, have rendered yourself to this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy,[1] that is, of having believed and held a doctrine which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures -to wit, that the sun is in the centre of the world, and that it does not move from east to west, and that the Earth moves, and is not the centre of the universe; and that an opinion can be held and defended as probable after it has been declared and defined to be contrary to Holy Scripture.

[1] To be condemned as a heretic Galileo would have had to admit interior dissent to the prohibition of heliocentrism as a truth consonant with Scripture. Exterior assent such as that in his book was not enough to show what was in his heart. Without a confession, which Galileo did not admit to, the Holy Office could not assume nor condemn something it cannot know with certainty. Thus Galileo was found guilty of suspicion of heresy based on his writings alone.

But in 1820 Pope Pius issued the following decree:

‘The most excellent [Holy Office] have decreed [1822] that there must be no denial, by the present or by future Masters of the Sacred Apostolic Palace, of permission to print and to publish works which treat of the mobility of the Earth and of the immobility of the sun, according to the common opinion of modern astronomers, as long as there are no other contrary indications, on the basis of the decrees of the Sacred Congregation of the Index of 1757 and of this Supreme [Holy Office] of 1820; and that those who would show themselves to be reluctant or would disobey, should be forced under punishments at the choice of [this] Sacred Congregation, with derogation of [their] claimed privileges, where necessary.’[1]

[1] Cited by A. Fantoli: Galileo; For Copernicanism and for the Church, p.475.

By 1905, the world of science admitted geocentrism was never FALSIFIED WHICH MEANT THE 1616 AND 1633 DECREES WERE NEVER PROVEN WRONG. Then came Vatican II that said;

‘… The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are. We cannot but deplore certain attitudes (not unknown among Christians) deriving from a short-sighted view of the rightful autonomy of science; they have occasioned conflict and controversy and have misled many into opposing faith and science.’ --- Gaudium et spes, # 36.

Here then Vatican II accuses past popes of causing trouble by decreeing a matter of faith and that god was with the heretics.

So ginnyfree, Vatican II is to be discarded as regards teaching anything. No Council that produces a lie can be said to have anything to do with the Holy Ghost. If fact it is the Devil who tells lies about past popes and past decrees of the Church. Just because it reiterates some true Catholic teaching proves it is MODERNIST, one minute it is Catholic, the next it ridicules past popes and their teaching. That said, many on Fisheaters have the same attitude as witnessed on many of my threads.

Oh, before I forget, Here is what Pope john Paul II Koran kisser said in 1992

‘More than 150 years still had to pass before the optical and mechanical proofs for the motion of the Earth were discovered.…Cardinal Poupard says the 1633 sentence was not irreformable. In 1741, in the face of optical proof of the fact that the Earth revolves round the sun, Pope Benedict XIV (1740-1758) had the Holy Office grant an imprimatur to the first edition of the Complete Works of Galileo.’ --- Pope John Paul II Commission report: L’Osservatore Romano, November 4th, 1992.

What the proof was he never said.


RE: The Second Vatican Council - jovan66102 - 07-25-2019

Cassini, I know you're obsessive about this, but this is becoming trollish behaviour!


RE: The Second Vatican Council - Filiolus - 07-25-2019

I honestly don't know why anyone is taking his posts seriously and/or responding to him anymore. Nowadays geocentrism is almost as unreasonable as flat-earth arguments. If that wasn't enough to ignore him, his insistence that geocentrism is a Catholic dogma should be.


RE: The Second Vatican Council - jovan66102 - 07-25-2019

(07-25-2019, 04:11 PM)Filiolus Wrote: I honestly don't know why anyone is taking his posts seriously and/or responding to him anymore. Nowadays geocentrism is almost as unreasonable as flat-earth arguments. If that wasn't enough to ignore him, his insistence that geocentrism is a Catholic dogma should be.

The problem is that not only Fishies read his posts. There's a 'guest' reading this thread right now, and in the past 15 minutes there have been 390 guests on the forum. I can just imagine how someone thinking about conversion would react when they read his posts. 'Well, Catholics believe the sun orbits the earth. Obviously insane. I want no part of that loony cult.'


RE: The Second Vatican Council - BC - 07-25-2019

(07-25-2019, 03:19 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: Cassini, I know you're obsessive about this, but this is becoming trollish behaviour!

Maybe a little. I like Cassini though.

He does have some thought provoking points vis a vis the Council implying the Church's past judgement on geocentrism was wrong.

Typically, scientific advancements will later coroborate past Church teaching, rather than contradict it; For.example, that life begins at conception.

It may be more relevant than initial glance. If the Church could error about the nature of the Earth, than maybe she could have erred in Her past condemnations of Ecumenism, Religious Liberty, etc.
Introducing doubt and skepticism of the Church's Authority in her members, Why take the Church seriously now if She has been so monumentally wrong before?


"So we went to the Council not only with joy, but with enthusiasm. There was an incredible anticipation. We hoped that everything would be renewed, that a new Pentecost would truly come, a new era of the Church –  because at that time, the Church was still strong enough: Sunday practice still good, the vocations to the priesthood and to religious life were already a bit reduced but still sufficient. Nonetheless, we felt that the Church was not advancing, it was diminishing, and it seemed rather a reality of the past and not the bringer of the future. And in that moment, we hoped that this relationship would be renewed, that it would change; that the Church would once again be a force of tomorrow and a force of today. And we knew that the relationship between the Church and the modern period was a bit in conflict, beginning with the error of the Church in the case of Galileo Galilei; we thought we could correct this wrong beginning and find the union between the Church and the best forces in the world in order to open up the future of humanity, to open true progress. So we were full of hope, of enthusiasm, and of the will to do our part for this thing."

  -Pope Benedict’s farewell address to priests at the Vatican, as reported by L’Osservatore Romano  February 14, 2013, page 4, paragraph #5 in the article“Al concilio pieno di entusiasmo e speranza.” 

Vatican II was there to "correct" the unenlightened Church of the past, in apparently more ways than one.


RE: The Second Vatican Council - Bluestreak - 07-25-2019

(07-16-2019, 11:48 AM)Zedta Wrote: As one of the few hereabouts, that actually lived through the change and was in a Catholic High School when the changes went into effect (moving the Altar around, changing the liturgy, Nuns out of Habit, etc.), I find myself a staunchly anti-Vatican II, Roman Catholc. Some may call me a "sedevacantist", but I am not on board completely with the papal seat being vacant since Pius XII, although I can certainly see these folk's point.

If labels must be used and that seems rather common around here with a number of members, then I suppose the label of "Traditionalist" may be best suited to me.

This may become a very interesting thread!!

Bravo!!

I thought I posted on this last night, but don't see it.  I completely agree w you, Zedta. I have seen mindboggling nutty behavior in Catholic churches that scarred me for life.  

Bluestreak


RE: The Second Vatican Council - Lavenderson - 07-25-2019

(07-25-2019, 05:15 PM)BC Wrote:
(07-25-2019, 03:19 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: Cassini, I know you're obsessive about this, but this is becoming trollish behaviour!

Maybe a little. I like Cassini though.

He does have some thought provoking points vis a vis the Council implying the Church's past judgement on geocentrism was wrong.

Typically, scientific advancements will later coroborate past Church teaching, rather than contradict it; For.example, that life begins at conception.

It may be more relevant than initial glance. If the Church could error about the nature of the Earth, than maybe she could have erred in Her past condemnations of Ecumenism, Religious Liberty, etc.
Introducing doubt and skepticism of the Church's Authority in her members, Why take the Church seriously now if She has been so monumentally wrong before?


"So we went to the Council not only with joy, but with enthusiasm. There was an incredible anticipation. We hoped that everything would be renewed, that a new Pentecost would truly come, a new era of the Church –  because at that time, the Church was still strong enough: Sunday practice still good, the vocations to the priesthood and to religious life were already a bit reduced but still sufficient. Nonetheless, we felt that the Church was not advancing, it was diminishing, and it seemed rather a reality of the past and not the bringer of the future. And in that moment, we hoped that this relationship would be renewed, that it would change; that the Church would once again be a force of tomorrow and a force of today. And we knew that the relationship between the Church and the modern period was a bit in conflict, beginning with the error of the Church in the case of Galileo Galilei; we thought we could correct this wrong beginning and find the union between the Church and the best forces in the world in order to open up the future of humanity, to open true progress. So we were full of hope, of enthusiasm, and of the will to do our part for this thing."

  -Pope Benedict’s farewell address to priests at the Vatican, as reported by L’Osservatore Romano  February 14, 2013, page 4, paragraph #5 in the article“Al concilio pieno di entusiasmo e speranza.” 

Vatican II was there to "correct" the unenlightened Church of the past, in apparently more ways than one.

Great post, on the money. In addition, I can definitely understand Cassini's passion for this subject (although there is already another thread dedicated to this) because I'm convinced that the heliocentric and geocentric models, in and of themselves, produce completely opposite approaches to life. Not to say that holding the heliocentric position necessitates an atheistic viewpoint, because certainly the vast majority of faithful Catholics maintain the heliocentric position, but in terms of which model of the universe by itself leans closer to God (ignoring geocentricism's strong support in Scripture and from Church Fathers) I can't see how geocentrism isn't the clear winner.


RE: The Second Vatican Council - Filiolus - 07-25-2019

(07-25-2019, 05:07 PM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(07-25-2019, 04:11 PM)Filiolus Wrote: I honestly don't know why anyone is taking his posts seriously and/or responding to him anymore. Nowadays geocentrism is almost as unreasonable as flat-earth arguments. If that wasn't enough to ignore him, his insistence that geocentrism is a Catholic dogma should be.

The problem is that not only Fishies read his posts. There's a 'guest' reading this thread right now, and in the past 15 minutes there have been 390 guests on the forum. I can just imagine how someone thinking about conversion would react when they read his posts. 'Well, Catholics believe the sun orbits the earth. Obviously insane. I want no part of that loony cult.'

Well after seeing a few more replies I have to say you're right. Unfortunately.

I seriously can't believe this is even a discussion right now. I can't believe there are Catholics who think we are bound to believe in geocentrism, and that heliocentrism betrays a less God-oriented way of life.

This crazy attitude is not something I've encountered at any of my traditional parishes or communities, and I hope it's not more prevalent than I thought. This nonsense gives traditionalists a bad name. 

If you people are serious about knowing how the world is, read fewer con-men and more de Koninck.

If you're not serious about it, why is it so important to you to prove geocentrism true?


RE: The Second Vatican Council - Some Guy - 07-25-2019

Pretty sure the owner of this forum has defended modern scientific research that advocates for a geocentric model.

I am sympathetic to the geocentric worldview, however I'm much more interested in attacking evolution than heliocentrism.

Also, saying that there are trads who are geocentrists, therefore it's a trad thing is like saying because you know trads who are anti-semites, therefore it's a trad thing. The reality is there are people who hold these views who aren't Catholic, much less trads. Your logic doesn't really hold up. Some people just aren't blindly convinced of every dogma of scientism. Muh bad.

Also, without being outside the universe looking in to tell the difference, wouldn't a motionless Earth that has the cosmos moving around it functionally look and act the same as a motionless cosmos that the Earrh is zooming through?

Also I love de Koninck.


RE: The Second Vatican Council - Filiolus - 07-25-2019

(07-25-2019, 10:47 PM)Some Guy Wrote: Also I love de Koninck.

If you think my words were harsh, only imagine what he would have said. He was not one to mince words, and he was very unfriendly to scientific statements based on theological or partly-understood philosophical premises.