Pope says "'Feeneyites' are NOT heretics"
#11
I'm sure it is taken from context but he is correct that tradition evolves.

I just love how the SSPX is so happy about the lifitng of the excommunications and will be rubbing it in people's faces forever, but they will still continue to pick and choose only the things that are advantageous to them.  
Reply
#12
neel Wrote:Doesn't our Holy Father allow for guitar masses and heretical bishops to run rampant?


Last time I checked, there is no prohibition of guitar during Mass. And for crying out loud what do you expect? Like I've been saying these past days, war is an art.
Reply
#13
Quote:My bottom line: There is no salvation outside the Church, Baptism is the door of the Church, and I do not engage in further speculation. How God deals in particular cases is up to HIM.

My position too. So we may have hope after the fact, but since it is not revealed as guaranteed (like the title given in water baptism), we may not presume so it is still as urgent.

Quote:It is rather the obligation of those who hold the "Nouvelle theologie" to put the better case that revelation and tradition are not static monuments enshrouded in time, but both evolve and develop as Christ continues to reveal himself in the experience of his people. As such this living tradition, with the world as its rightful interlocutor, penetrates more deeply into the mysteries in each succeeding generation as it progresses forward in time to the fullness of revelation."

As for this "continuation" of the quote, I think what Ratzinger meant (however cloaked in the modernist language of the "nouvelle theologie"), is that things like BOB and BOD developed (or "evolved") as later speculation, but that doesnt make them invalid. They may, in fact, be true. To the point that the Church may even consider them likely. But that is different than being, strictly speaking, dogmas or in the original unchanging deposit of Revelation.

God didnt publicly reveal BOB or BOD, nor any means for unbaptized infants to be saved. And yet, our experiences of God as a God of mercy and not legalism, as a God not bound by the rules He has imposed on us...very well may lead us into a deeper and deeper recognition that such things, though not strictly speaking revealed, do seem to conform with the merciful God, as I know him at least...and so we may develop greater grounds for hope nevertheless.
Reply
#14
didishroom Wrote:I'm sure it is taken from context but he is correct that tradition evolves.

I just love how the SSPX is so happy about the lifitng of the excommunications and will be rubbing it in people's faces forever, but they will still continue to pick and choose only the things that are advantageous to them.  

Does the SSPX pick and choose or Saint Pius X?  Ratzinger's words are suspect: 
Quote:revelation and tradition are not static monuments enshrouded in time, but both evolve and develop as Christ continues to reveal himself in the experience of his people.

And here I thought that revelation was done with the Apostles and couldn't evolve!  As for experience, St. Pius X said this about the Modernists: 

Quote:15. But this doctrine of experience is also under another aspect entirely contrary to Catholic truth. It is extended and applied to tradition, as hitherto understood by the Church, and destroys it. By the Modernists, tradition is understood as a communication to others, through preaching by means of the intellectual formula, of an original experience.


Ratzinger:
Quote:As such this living tradition, with the world as its rightful interlocutor..

I thought the Church spread the Faith, not the world.  Maybe the SSPX can bring this up in their doctrinal talks with the Pope.
Reply
#15
didishroom Wrote: 

With regards to those who hold strictly the absolute necessity of water baptism, it would be quite wrong to charge them with heretical constructs. As they merely assert that which was the near-universal consensus of the Patristic era, such a charge would be proximate to condemning all but a few of the Fathers as heterodox. (Der Glaube das Pimmelkopfgelauben, Communio April 1997 p 13. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.)
“Quite wrong to charge them with heretical constructs… .”  There are lots of armchair inquisitors out there who should pay attention to that one.
http://catholicism.org/this-just-in-pope-says-feeneyites-ok.html

It is as much to condemn the Fathers of hereodoxy or heresy as it is to condemn St. Thomas Auqinas of the same for denying the Immaculate Conception before it was solemnly defined. The Fathers can be wrong when they are not in universal consensus. And what is "near-universal" consensus? Either something is universal or it is not. They were not, and I believe they did not teach their opinons as de fide either. God alone has the final say for each soul and that has always been the Church's teaching. God is Justice, so we know He will punish the evil and reward the good.
Reply
#16
PeterII Wrote:Does the SSPX pick and choose or Saint Pius X?  Ratzinger's words are suspect: 
Quote:revelation and tradition are not static monuments enshrouded in time, but both evolve and develop as Christ continues to reveal himself in the experience of his people.

I'd say he was referring to what Cardinal Newman called the development of doctrine.
Reply
#17
PeterII Wrote:
Quote:It is rather the obligation of those who hold the "Nouvelle theologie" to put the better case that revelation and tradition are not static monuments enshrouded in time, but both evolve and develop as Christ continues to reveal himself in the experience of his people. As such this living tradition, with the world as its rightful interlocutor, penetrates more deeply into the mysteries in each succeeding generation as it progresses forward in time to the fullness of revelation."


So long as the progression doesn't contradict the previous understanding and sense - we're okay. It's when progression and "experience" contradict what has already been settled - then we've got a problem.
Quote:

First Vatican Council, Chapter 4. On faith and reason
13. For the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed is put forward not as some philosophical discovery capable of being perfected by human intelligence, but as a divine deposit committed to the spouse of Christ to be faithfully protected and infallibly promulgated.

 

14. Hence, too,that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.
 
First Vatican Council, Canon 4, On faith and reason
3. If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from that which the church has understood and understands: let him be anathema.

Reply
#18
7HolyCats Wrote:As for this "continuation" of the quote, I think what Ratzinger meant (however cloaked in the modernist language of the "nouvelle theologie"), is that things like BOB and BOD developed (or "evolved") as later speculation, but that doesnt make them invalid. They may, in fact, be true. To the point that the Church may even consider them likely. But that is different than being, strictly speaking, dogmas or in the original unchanging deposit of Revelation.
Just because a doctrine is not yet defined does not mean that it won't.

Quote:God didnt publicly reveal BOB or BOD, nor any means for unbaptized infants to be saved. And yet, our experiences of God as a God of mercy and not legalism, as a God not bound by the rules He has imposed on us...very well may lead us into a deeper and deeper recognition that such things, though not strictly speaking revealed, do seem to conform with the merciful God, as I know him at least...and so we may develop greater grounds for hope nevertheless.
That God does not go by the letter of the law is Public Revelation though as well as this: "With God all things are possible." The Bible is a part of Public Revelation, right? And does it not say this: 1 John 5:8 And there are three that give testimony on earth: the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three are one.
The development of the Faith comes to us through the Church Doctors, right? And St. Alphonsus Liguori is a Doctor and did he not use this verse to show that the doctrine is de fide? That does not mean that it is guaranteedly so as it is yet to be defined.
I believe we've had this conversation before.
Reply
#19
The_Harlequin_King Wrote:
PeterII Wrote:Does the SSPX pick and choose or Saint Pius X?  Ratzinger's words are suspect: 
Quote:revelation and tradition are not static monuments enshrouded in time, but both evolve and develop as Christ continues to reveal himself in the experience of his people.

I'd say he was referring to what Cardinal Newman called the development of doctrine.

Develop, yes.  Clarify, no problem.  But the Cardinal said evolve and develop.  Evolution implies something different altogether: a new species, a new meaning.  He could have just left it at develop, but that was obviously not his intent. 
Reply
#20
The fact that such a doctrine is now almost universally in Sacramental Theology, I cannot see how can we can deny it any longer as at least doctrine. I believe it had become the unversal theological consensus before Vatican II on a question that was not held in universal consensus by the Fathers. The Ordinary Universal Magisterium does not always have to be held unaminously by the Fathers.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)