Was surprised to find a Bishop saying mass today.
#58
(11-15-2009, 09:18 PM)petrelton Wrote: Quite incorrect. Subtlety is only incorrect if it is concealing a lie and seeks to introduce it by subterfuge. Subtlety is quite acceptable when trying to explain mysteries of the faith.
I certainly agree that if modernism is sculking in the catechism by subtley and subterfuge then that is dangerous and evil.

The difference is though that I DO NOT ADMIT that such modernism exists.

Whether you admit to modernism in the catechism or not is irrelevant.  You are back-pedaling on your original statement. 

"One so-called modernist passage in the CCC does not make the whole CCC modernist. "  In that statement, you are stipulating that  if a modernist passage did exist in the CCC, it would not corrupt the catechism itself.  It can't mean anything else and make sense.  One non-modernist passage in the CCC does not make the CCC modernist can't be what you meant to say. " 

But a subtle error on the part of Archbishop LeFebvre was extremely dangerous and moreso than overt modernism.

You have one set of standards for the orthodoxy of a Catechism and another set of standards for the orthodoxy of a successor of the Apostles.  According to your original position, subtle error is tolerable in one and  intolerable in another.

Quote: If it is then it so subtle that I am placing myself as a judge over the church to find fault and error with the church. This is inadmissable.

Why?  A Catechism is not infallible.  An error whether subtle or not requires you make a judgement.  In fact you are a judge over the Church everytime you submit to one of its teachings.  What counts is how just you are in your judgement. 

Quote:The other difference is that  the church and the magisterium is there to expose the subtleties of deceit and error.

That's an ancillary duty.  Churchmen all the way up to the Pope can ignore an error and choose not to invoke the magisterium of the Church for centuries. 

Quote:We are not here to expose the subtleties of what we imagine to be error in the magisterium.

But we are here to expose errors subtle or not from the Churchmen if they are there.  They are not the magisterium.  The CCC is not magisterial other than getting authentic (therefore fallible) magisterial approval. 

Quote: The only judgement we can bring to the church is if they teach something which is blatantly heretical.

No.  Some errors are not blatantly heretical because they have not been condemned as heresies yet.  Or they are old heresies recycled. 

Quote: The scripture talks about a great falling away which even denies that Christ is come in the flesh. This kind of blatant heresy is warrant to reject those who teach it but not subtleties where it is a matter of conjecture and debate as to whether it is heretical or not.

St. Pius X warned in Pascendi that  "...the number of the enemies of the cross of Christ has in these last days increased exceedingly, who are striving, by arts, entirely new and <b> full of subtlety, </b> to destroy the vital energy of the Church, and, if they can, to overthrow utterly Christ's kingdom itself. "  So you can't pawn off the responsibility for ignoring subtle heresy on Rome.

Quote: I am not familiar with the Dutch Catechism. However the CCC is a higher authority. regional councils and documents have always been subject to Rome. I am happy to leave Rome to deal with the Dutch particularly given the fact that I am not Dutch.

You are dodging the point.  Besides your completely selfish attitude of leaving the Dutch to go to Hell because you are not one of them,  (Dicken's quote in A Christmas Carol comes to mind, "Are they not of the human race?" ) 

Now, getting back to the point.  The Dutch Catechism was mentioned because it is blatantly full of error.  You expect that to be taken care of but you'll accept error provided that it's subtle as in the CCC. 

Quote: I have never ceased to admit that there are appalling examples of modernism and heresy amongst the magisterium of the church in various places of the world.

No. You mean Churchmen.  The Magisterium of the Church is the teaching authority invoked not the men invoking it. 


Quote: I am just yet to concede that such examples exist in the ecumenical council of the church or the holy offices of the Pope. There are many things that I disagree with the modern church however my disagreements only amount to opinions.  To actually state that the catechism is modernist and worthy of suspicion is a judgement against the highest authority of the church and is unwarranted.

No it isn't.  It's common sense.  This is pure modernist gobbledygook right out of Rahner's "anonymous Christian garbage" 

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

<i> 846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335<b> Re-formulated positively,</b> it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body: </i>

Sorry, but that is blatently avoiding the exclusivity of the Church for Salvation.  It is not a "positive re-formulation."  It is a distortion and error.  A positive re-formulation  of "Outside the Church there is no salvation."  is  "Only inside the Church is there salvation. " 


<i> Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336</i>

<i> 847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337

848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338 </i>


Notice how the sublte "Council teaches...that The Church..."  What's that?  Why not "The Church teaches..." ? 

It's contradictory heretical gobbledygoop that flies in the face of Cantate Domino:  "<b>The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches </b> that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.”

That IS the voice of THE Magisterium of the Church.  That is not to be contradicted by a Catechism, a Pope or anything under the Sun.  IT is irreformable and a Magisterial, infallible definition is sufficient on its own to provide its meaning.  That's what a definition is.  Not opinions of  Card. Schonborn, not JPII and not even St. Charles Borromeo or St. Pius V in the Roman Catechism.

Quote: If we find that our local magisterium appears to be at fault then we have a recourse to Rome. But if there is a problem in Rome then we have no recourse and must wait in prayer for God to correct what we believe to be the fault. 9 times out of 10 we will find that it is we who are at fault and have not properly understood what the church is teaching.

On what distorted understanding of authority do you believe this?  It's utter nonsense and completely non-Catholic.  Inferiors correcting superiors when necessary for the faith is required on the faithful.

Quote: This is why all of our concerns about the Vatican and her documents especially those coming from the Pope must be tempered with the most extreme humility even to the point of prayer and fasting before we come out in criticism of these highest levels of the church.

But though <b> WE, </b>or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.

Prayer and fasting are always good, but they are often used as muzzles by people who are "resisting the known truth" (sin against the Holy Ghost)  And don't be fooled into thinking that just because something comes from "the Vatican" that it invokes the "highest levels of authority" in the Church. 

"The Vatican " is loathe to invoke the Magisterium on points of Vatican II because it will create enemies in the areas of Ecumenism (which is merely a policy, and a bad one at that) and not a doctrine of the Church.  We are in a time when Policy is more important than doctrine in the Vatican.  That's why the full power of the Magisterium has been muted for so long. 


Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: Was surprised to find a Bishop saying mass today. - by Gerard - 11-15-2009, 11:37 PM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)