The Second Vatican Council
#41
(07-18-2019, 12:08 AM)Filiolus Wrote: yablabo, we are not going to agree. But I think it's disingenuous to read accedo in this context to literally mean physically approach a Sacrament that cannot be physically approached. By the way, according to Lewis & Short, accedo can mean to "undertake" something; it does not always mean to walk up to something.

It's not a stretch to read the sentence to mean that someone must receive the Sacrament to have their sins forgiven... since that's actually what the sentence says. Again, the Sacrament is not approached unless there's a Sacrament there to approach. There's no Sacrament unless the penitent receives absolution.

I'll repeat what I said before; your interpretation is uncharitable and impious. It is uncharitable to the body of bishops because it is a false accusation, and it is impious because it makes the claim that VII explicitly denied the necessity of absolution. I'm not aware of even the SSPX making such a bold claim. And it's a claim not warranted by the natural, literal reading of the text. Please stop spreading this calumny.

I know that I'm being pretty harsh. But I do think your claim is clearly unwarranted by the text, and is unpersuasive to the average observer. It makes the job more difficult for people who have legitimate gripes with LG and the other VII documents.

I did not translate "accedo" to "approach" in this situation.  The Pauline Press and the translator for the copy on the Vatican website did.  You claimed it was accurate to translate the word as approach in this context, and I am pointing out that logically, in English, "approach" has a denotation that makes NO sense unless one is referring to time or location.  Everyone whom I have queried on this (even Fr. John Zuhlsdorf) has stated that "approach" is an accurate translation of "accedo" in this context.  That being the case, it is apparently obvious to other readers of the Latin text that something other than "undertake" or "advance" or "assent" is meant.

Besides that, the sentence says nothing about receiving the Sacrament of Penance.  That is your interpretation, that is not what you read.  If you won't stick to quoting the words that you read, then this is not really a good faith exchange.  What is wrong and disrespectful is taking deliberately inscribed words by the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council and changing them as it suits you.

It is also a converse error to say that the sacrament is not approached unless the penitent receives absolution.

Solely that people in their simplicity or innocence may not be infected by the error upon reading it (already having an orthodox formation) does not mean that the error is not an error. 

You have read my comments incorrectly if you believe that I've made a false accusation against anyone and/or claimed that Lumen Gentium contains an explicit denial of the necessity of absolution in the course of the Sacrament of Penance.  I've done no such thing.
Reply
#42
The issue was never whether accedo was translated well as "approach"; in my first post on the topic I affirmed that the English translation in use was good. The issue is rather in what sense "approach" is meant; and it is clearly not meant to mean physically. I can't think of a worse way to interpret that sentence, actually.

You do contend that that sentence denies the necessity of absolution; that is exactly what you said the error was. Because merely by walking up to the confessional somehow someone's sins are forgiven? It's frankly unbelievable that such a document could ever come out of the Vatican. And it never has.

You insist on reading "approach" physically when it clearly means nothing of the kind. And this is why we are not going to agree.
And this is why your reading of LG is so dangerous. It's not dangerous because anyone is going to believe that they need merely approach the confessional to receive forgiveness; it's dangerous because you're spreading falsehoods about supposed heresies found within LG, and with those falsehoods come even more mistrust and disobedience.

To be frank, there are enough real issues with LG that made-up heresies are completely unnecessary. This is my last reply on the topic.
Filioli mei, non diligamus verbo neque lingua, sed opere et veritate.

Vos omnes amatores pulcherrimae linguae ecclesiae nostrae, videte filum quo de rebus sanctis profanisque colloqui possumus.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Filiolus's post:
  • jovan66102
Reply
#43
(07-18-2019, 09:19 PM)Filiolus Wrote: The issue was never whether accedo was translated well as "approach"; in my first post on the topic I affirmed that the English translation in use was good. The issue is rather in what sense "approach" is meant; and it is clearly not meant to mean physically. I can't think of a worse way to interpret that sentence, actually.

You do contend that that sentence denies the necessity of absolution; that is exactly what you said the error was. Because merely by walking up to the confessional somehow someone's sins are forgiven? It's frankly unbelievable that such a document could ever come out of the Vatican. And it never has.

You insist on reading "approach" physically when it clearly means nothing of the kind. And this is why we are not going to agree.
And this is why your reading of LG is so dangerous. It's not dangerous because anyone is going to believe that they need merely approach the confessional to receive forgiveness; it's dangerous because you're spreading falsehoods about supposed heresies found within LG, and with those falsehoods come even more mistrust and disobedience.

To be frank, there are enough real issues with LG that made-up heresies are completely unnecessary. This is my last reply on the topic.

That is ok if you will make no further reply.  However, I will point out that yet again that without additional information in the sentence itself, you can only understand the words present by the denotation.  By the denotation of the words, the sentence is an error.  I did not claim that the sentence itself was an heresy.  Not every error is an heresy.  I proposed the sentence, gave my opinion on an interpretation, and then contrasted it with the truth. 

For holding a philosophy degree you seem awfully loose with the concepts underlying words, and yet rational thought demands clear and logical black-and-white thinking to clarify concepts and make sound judgments.  I will also, therefore, point out that you have offered no alternate conventional understanding of the words in the sentence themselves.  I posit it is because it is clear to you, even, that the sentence is in error and must simply be healed in your mind by the sound doctrine.

I do agree with you that there are more issues with Lumen Gentium than only this, but I will not agree that the two examples I gave are not also issues.

Ultimately, if there is no protection from error by the infallible charism of the church given to any of the documents of the Second Vatican Council, then all of these can contain error anywhere throughout.
Reply
#44
(07-18-2019, 10:07 PM)yablabo Wrote: For holding a philosophy degree you seem awfully loose with the concepts underlying words, and yet rational thought demands clear and logical black-and-white thinking to clarify concepts and make sound judgments.  I will also, therefore, point out that you have offered no alternate conventional understanding of the words in the sentence themselves.  I posit it is because it is clear to you, even, that the sentence is in error and must simply be healed in your mind by the sound doctrine.

lol

One of the first things you learn in philosophy is that most words have more than one unstated meaning. This idea is called equivocation. So no, communication isn't black and white; it's more like a spectrum. You have to discern the contextual meaning of each word in each sentence; you have to decide which meaning makes the most sense from the writer's point of view.

Besides equivocation, we also have many different senses in which a writer can speak; Vatican II represents a break from previous Councils because it tries to be, as I said, poetic or metaphorical, which is also how mystics usually write.

You shouldn't expect scholastic precision in every sentence of Vatican II or of St. Faustina's Diary. When you do you end up making silly errors like you've demonstrated with the sentence in question. The Summa LG ain't.
Filioli mei, non diligamus verbo neque lingua, sed opere et veritate.

Vos omnes amatores pulcherrimae linguae ecclesiae nostrae, videte filum quo de rebus sanctis profanisque colloqui possumus.
Reply
#45
(07-18-2019, 10:18 PM)Filiolus Wrote:
(07-18-2019, 10:07 PM)yablabo Wrote: For holding a philosophy degree you seem awfully loose with the concepts underlying words, and yet rational thought demands clear and logical black-and-white thinking to clarify concepts and make sound judgments.  I will also, therefore, point out that you have offered no alternate conventional understanding of the words in the sentence themselves.  I posit it is because it is clear to you, even, that the sentence is in error and must simply be healed in your mind by the sound doctrine.

lol

One of the first things you learn in philosophy is that most words have more than one unstated meaning. This idea is called equivocation. So no, communication isn't black and white; it's more like a spectrum. You have to discern the contextual meaning of each word in each sentence; you have to decide which meaning makes the most sense from the writer's point of view.

Besides equivocation, we also have many different senses in which a writer can speak; Vatican II represents a break from previous Councils because it tries to be, as I said, poetic or metaphorical, which is also how mystics usually write.

You shouldn't expect scholastic precision in every sentence of Vatican II or of St. Faustina's Diary. When you do you end up making silly errors like you've demonstrated with the sentence in question. The Summa LG ain't.

lol - indeed.
Reply
#46
(07-17-2019, 02:13 PM)Augustinian Wrote: Dignitatis Humanae cannot be reconciled with Catholic Tradition. It eliminates the cause for evangelization and permits the non-Catholic to remain where they are. Which is, quite honestly, a supreme evil because these individuals are not being shown that the Catholic faith is the only means of salvation and are on their way to hell because of it.

Augustinian, these 3 accusations against Dignitatis Humanae, namely that it cannot be reconciled with Tradition, eliminates the cause for evangelization and leaves our separated brothers and sisters in Christ in the places they dwell in, are very broad generalizations.  These are summary accusations and so require a reading of the entire document just see if any 1 of the 3 can be considered as an accurate assessment.  Perhaps you could post a particular passage you have trouble with or that will substantiate your allegations against the Document itself.  That would be most helpful and then perhaps I can address what you put here.  God bless.  Ginnyfree.
Reply
#47
(07-17-2019, 04:05 PM)I don\t think it eliminates the cause; it's quite clear from the opening paragraph that Catholicism contains the truth. Wrote: That said it does eliminate one method that has been considered legitimate means of evangelization most of the Church's existence. And the premises it uses to reach its conclusion are quite new to Catholicism.  

Well, I think this paragraph from the Document itself pretty much proves both your claim and Augustinians: "11. God calls men to serve Him in spirit and in truth, hence they are bound in conscience but they stand under no compulsion. God has regard for the dignity of the human person whom He Himself created and man is to be guided by his own judgment and he is to enjoy freedom. This truth appears at its height in Christ Jesus, in whom God manifested Himself and His ways with men. Christ is at once our Master and our Lord(11) and also meek and humble of heart.(12) In attracting and inviting His disciples He used patience.(13) He wrought miracles to illuminate His teaching and to establish its truth, but His intention was to rouse faith in His hearers and to confirm them in faith, not to exert coercion upon them.(14) He did indeed denounce the unbelief of some who listened to Him, but He left vengeance to God in expectation of the day of judgment.(15) When He sent His Apostles into the world, He said to them: "He who believes and is baptized will be saved. He who does not believe will be condemned" (Mark 16:16). But He Himself, noting that the cockle had been sown amid the wheat, gave orders that both should be allowed to grow until the harvest time, which will come at the end of the world.(16) He refused to be a political messiah, ruling by force:(17) He preferred to call Himself the Son of Man, who came "to serve and to give his life as a ransom for the many" (Mark 10:45). He showed Himself the perfect servant of God,(18) who "does not break the bruised reed nor extinguish the smoking flax" (Matt. 12:20)."  http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_counc...ae_en.html
Where you are in agreement with some of DH is when you agree St. Augustine has also contributed to the teaching of the Church regarding free will.  Jesus never forces Himself on anyone, and our religion is never offered by force as is Islam and other religions of the past that spread thru conquest.  The winning warlords imposed their religion upon all those they defeated.  Christianity is different.  A person must have use of his or her will to accept Christ.  This comes as we grow and is the reason the child must reach an age of reason before Penance and the Eucharist can be given.  There are other examples, but I think that makes the point.  The child needs to turn from sin to Christ with a free will to receive Him in the Bread of Life.  Another example of this that comes to my mind is Ash Wednesday when we may hear this: "Turn away from sin and be faithful to the Gospel," as the ashes are placed upon our foreheads.  This is an appeal from God thru his Priest to exert our free will to turn closer to Christ and away from sin.  It is not a demand or threat of punishment for non-compliance.  
God bless.  Ginnyfree. 
Reply
#48
(07-17-2019, 04:21 PM)Augustinian Wrote: "Even interpreted strictly, this limitation of religious liberty to the “objective moral order” is inadequate because restricted to the natural order of things, thereby omitting consideration of the supernatural order. Such a conception of religious liberty fails to recognize the social kingship of our Lord Jesus Christ, the supernatural rights of His Church, and the supernatural end of man in the common good of the political order. It fails to consider that the false religions, by the mere fact that they keep souls from the Catholic Church, lead souls to hell. In a word, it is naturalism...

The saints have never hesitated to break idols, destroy their temples, or legislate against pagan or heretical practices. The Church—without ever forcing anyone to believe or be baptized—has always recognized its right and duty to protect the faith of her children and to impede, whenever possible, the public exercise and propagation of false cults. To accept the teaching of Vatican II is to grant that, for two millennia, the popes, saints, Fathers and Doctors of the Church, bishops, and Catholic kings have constantly violated the natural rights of men without anyone in the Church noticing. Such a thesis is as absurd as it is impious."

https://sspx.org/en/religious-liberty-co...-tradition

Can you please provide a citation that shows exactly where in the Document itself I can find the phrase you quote from the SSPX regarding the limits on religious liberty allegedly placed upon us by DH to only the "objective moral order."  If you can post that section here, the rest interested can either agree, disagree or provide even stronger proofs of the assertions made by you and the SSPX against Dignitatis Humanae.  God bless.  Ginnyfree.
Reply
#49
(07-17-2019, 07:20 PM)yablabo Wrote:
(07-16-2019, 11:07 PM)Filiolus Wrote: Now, this is the part of your post that really made me wince. For the peanut gallery, here's the Latin:

Qui vero ad sacramentum poenitentiae accedunt, veniam offensionis Deo illatae ab Eius misericordia obtinent et simul reconciliantur eum Ecclesia, quam peccando vulneraverunt, et quae eorum conversioni caritate, exemplo, precibus adlaborat.

The translation for which is completely accurate above.

First of all, it does not take into account the... er, um... poetic tone that many VII documents have. The word "approach" is clearly not meant to mean "walks up to"; it means one who confesses his sins and receives absolution. 

When you translate the Latin word "adcedo/accedo" into the English word "approach" it is clear that nothing other than "to go near" in time or place (or possibly "to resemble") is meant.  The statement "qui vero ad sacramentum poenitentiae accedunt, &c." or "those who in truth approach the Sacrament of Penance, etc.", it is just plain error.  The Council of Trent uses the form and one of the parts of the matter of the Sacrament of Penance in its statement to inform the use of the word "approach" in its statement and to modify it with the term "worthily" to the clear meaning in English of having recourse to the sacrament.  

The concept of approach in English is very clear.  We can approach the Sacrament of Penance in this sense, exactly as we approach graduation from a University. 
  Okie dokie. I combined the two comments for a reason.  Here it is -  

Thank you Filiolus for the Latin.  It is helpful.  And thank you Yablabo for your striking reply.  

Here is the word you are both stumbling over from a reliable online Latin Dictionary: 
Accedere - To reach, approach; to agree.  http://latindictionary.wikidot.com/verb:accedere

I will try to explain how I'm seeing it.  When a person is moved by the Spirit to repentance for a sin committed, this takes time.  Sometimes a long time.  For some, it can be the events of conversion or reversion, many years in the making.  In all that time, they are approaching the Sacrament, preparing to open their hearts to the Blood of the Lamb poured out upon their wounds of sin in their souls and lives thru His minister, the priest.  Also, they reach towards that Wounded Heart by their contrition, for preparing to actually seek the Sacrament, both of these movements of the soul have an inner and an outer countenance.  And lastly, the penitent and the priest by the workings of the Spirit also come to agree in a way that the child of God who has fallen needs to be helped to lift up his head once again, without the shame of sins committed, but with the freedom of Christ restored in the absolution.  All three aspects of the verb accedere come into play.  I hope you can see this.  If not, I hope you do later.  

One other little thing.  About seeing this as an approach to graduation as from a school, that's a once and done deal.  The Sacrament of Penance needs repeating until the ends of our days.  Please, never graduate from your need of His Precious Blood found in that font of Mercy, the confessional.
God bless.  Ginnyfree.
Reply
#50
(07-18-2019, 11:07 AM)Filiolus Wrote:
Quote:Bravo!  Very well said.  So, what do you have an issue with?  God bless.  Ginnyfree.

PS I forgot to ask, how do you fill in that blank regarding me?  I'm not easily hurt so go for it.  I'm used to eating lots of baloney, so perhaps that's what you meant?

I will not be arguing against the VII documents here. I think it's essential to obedience, piety, and charity that one interpret them in as orthodox a manner as possible. When ambiguity of language allows for multiple interpretations, it is only a matter of charity to interpret the words well.

I meant "troll". I was thinking of your harsh words for Fr. Treco from the other thread. However, I don't believe you are really a troll; you're not here just to make people mad. So I was being very uncharitable, and I'm sorry. Please forgive me.

Thank you.  Apology accepted.  The subjects get people hot under the collar and I expect some snarkiness.  If you didn't care, you'd not get mad and become snippy at all.  Passion.  Zeal.  People who have convictions, even if they are skewed, sometimes loose their temperance.  God bless.  Ginnyfree.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)