Protestants Call on Pope to Accept Vatican II
#21
Vatican II was the best Council the Protestants ever had.
Reply
#22
StevusMagnus Wrote:Vatican II was the best Council the Protestants ever had.

The only thing you accomplish by attacking the council is to hamper your own credibility and give the liberal "Catholics" a club to beat you with. You have no basis to demand that the liberal "Catholics" accept pre-Vatican II councils and writings from the Popes if you reject Vatican II and everything after it. In so doing, with them, you would be agreeing with Luther in admitting that the ecumenical councils have contradicted one another and have been in error.

Don't get me wrong, I sympathize with the cause you (and the rest of traditionalist) stand for and the fight against abuses. However, I think that for traditionalism to be complete, that is, for it to be truly Catholic, it must rid itself of the prevalent enmity towards the council it is plagued with (and thankfully some traditionalists are doing this). Vatican II is not the enemy, the liberal "Catholics" and dissident churchmen are.

Take the council back from them, see it in the light of Tradition and use it, along with the rest of the Church teaching, to refute their garbage.


Valz
Reply
#23
Valz Wrote:
NorthernTrad Wrote:Because it doesn't state that the Church of Christ is the Roman Catholic Church.

It actually does more than that. The word "subsist" is far stronger than "is" as it entails a permanent character which, as the council says, "she can never lose". Do you know of any other Church besides the Roman Catholic Church which is "governed by the Successor of Peter and the bishops in union with that Successor" (Lumen Gentium, 8)?

You must be kidding me.

The word "subsists" is one if not the key-word for the whole post-Conciliar ecumenical movement. If you say that the Church of Christ IS the Catholic Church, then there's no room for ecumenical compromise since you are stating that both churches are really the one and the same entity: in fact, "Church of Christ" and "Catholic Church" are two interchangeable names for the same reality. By this fact alone you're stating that all the other churches and sects are NOT the Church of Christ at all.

However, if you say that the Church of Christ "subsists" - or "exists", "persists" or "continues" since they're synonyms - in the Catholic Church, in fact what you're saying is that they are two separate entities. By that very reasoning alone, you're saying that the Church of Christ while "subsisting" in the Catholic Church, may "subsist" as well in other churches or ecclesial communities even if imperfectly.

To argue that "to subsist" is far stronger than "to be" to affirm identity is pretty much sophistry as far as I can tell.

For instance, Bonifacio IS Vetus Ordo, not Bonifacio "subsists", "exists", "persists" or "continues" in Vetus Ordo (but could subsist somewhere else).
Reply
#24
Why would Pope Benedict have to accept Vatican II? He helped write its documents! People can be such idiots some times.
Reply
#25
Bonifacio Wrote:To argue that "to subsist" is far stronger than "to be" to affirm identity is pretty much sophistry as far as I can tell.

I didn’t say that. I said that the word “subsist” is far stronger than “is”. To subsist is also “to be”, but it denotes a special and unique kind of existence. Here is what the Holy Father wrote about this when he was a Cardinal:

Quote:“The word subsistit derives from the ancient philosophy as later developed in Scholastic philosophy. The Greek word hypostasis that has a central role in Christology to describe the union of the divine and the human nature in the Person of Christ comes from that vision.

Subsistere is a special case of esse. It is being in the form of a subject who has an autonomous existence. Here it is a question precisely of this. The Council wants to tell us that the Church of Jesus Christ as a concrete subject in this world can be found in the Catholic Church. This can take place only once, and the idea that the subsistit could be multiplied fails to grasp precisely the notion that is being intended. With the word subsistit, the Council wished to explain the unicity of the Catholic Church and the fact of her inability to be multiplied: the Church exists as a subject in historical reality. (Cardinal Ratzinger, "The Ecclesiology Of The Constitution On The Church, Vatican II, 'Lumen Gentium'", L'Osservatore Romano September 19, 2001, pp. 5-8)”
This being the case, in correction to some errors that were emerging, the declaration Mysterium Ecclesiae released in 1973 states:

“The followers of Christ are therefore not permitted to imagine that Christ's Church is nothing more than a collection (divided, but still possessing a certain unity) of Churches and ecclesial communities. Nor are they free to hold that Christ's Church nowhere really exists today and that it is to be considered only as an end which all Churches and ecclesial communities must strive to reach.”

Note that The Church does not considers the protestant communities to be actual Churches (Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine of the Church, Fifth Question). Also note that Vatican II says with regards to these communities, not that the communities themselves are united in a certain way with The Church, but it’s members who are validly baptized. That people can be validly baptized in these communities shouldn’t be controversial (unless one is a Donatist). So, it is true then, as Vatican II says, that in them there are found “many elements of sanctification and truth” (Lumen Gentium, 8).

Encompassing this reality was one of the reasons that the declaration Dominus Iesus gave for why the council used the word “subsists”:

“With the expression subsistit in, the Second Vatican Council sought to harmonize two doctrinal statements: on the one hand, that the Church of Christ, despite the divisions which exist among Christians, continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church, and on the other hand, that “outside of her structure, many elements can be found of sanctification and truth”, that is, in those Churches and ecclesial communities which are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church. But with respect to these, it needs to be stated that “they derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.”

Dominus Iesus makes an even bolder statement in one of the footnotes referenced in the above paragraph:

“The interpretation of those who would derive from the formula subsistit in the thesis that the one Church of Christ could subsist also in non-Catholic Churches and ecclesial communities is therefore contrary to the authentic meaning of Lumen gentium. "The Council instead chose the word subsistit precisely to clarify that there exists only one 'subsistence' of the true Church, while outside her visible structure there only exist elementa Ecclesiae, which - being elements of that same Church - tend and lead toward the Catholic Church".

So, the Church of Christ does not and in fact cannot subsist anywhere else other than in the Roman Catholic Church. The elements of truth and sanctification that can be found outside her don’t just belong to her but derive their efficacy from her as well. The Church of Christ and the Catholic Church “are not to be considered as two realities [...] rather they form one complex reality which coalesces from a divine and a human element.” (Lumen Genitum, 8).


Valz
Reply
#26
Valz,

In your opinion, don't you consider that novel definition in Lumen Gentium of "subsistit in" rather than "est" the green light for Ecumenism?

I know how Dominus Jesus and other pronouncements from the CDF try to justify its use but the very fact that the authorities in the Church felt the need to justify it should already tell us there is a problem with it in the first place. If liberals and conservatives abuse the term, perhaps it would be better just to re-write it from scratch leaving no room for doubt.

As for the "elements of sanctification and truth" supposedly found in heretic sects, I believe that to be a problematic assertion from what I could read on the subject until today.
Reply
#27
Bonifacio Wrote:You must be kidding me.

The word "subsists" is one if not the key-word for the whole post-Conciliar ecumenical movement. If you say that the Church of Christ IS the Catholic Church, then there's no room for ecumenical compromise since you are stating that both churches are really the one and the same entity: in fact, "Church of Christ" and "Catholic Church" are two interchangeable names for the same reality. By this fact alone you're stating that all the other churches and sects are NOT the Church of Christ at all.

However, if you say that the Church of Christ "subsists" - or "exists", "persists" or "continues" since they're synonyms - in the Catholic Church, in fact what you're saying is that they are two separate entities. By that very reasoning alone, you're saying that the Church of Christ while "subsisting" in the Catholic Church, may "subsist" as well in other churches or ecclesial communities even if imperfectly.

To argue that "to subsist" is far stronger than "to be" to affirm identity is pretty much sophistry as far as I can tell.

For instance, Bonifacio IS Vetus Ordo, not Bonifacio "subsists", "exists", "persists" or "continues" in Vetus Ordo (but could subsist somewhere else).


FWIW, here's Brother Alexis Bugnolo's take on the matter of "subsistit" (the index page of his website here):

Quote:HISTORY

In the proposed text of De Ecclesia there appears the Latin phrase in Chapter I, n. 7 of the document as proposed until September 15, 1964:  

Haec igitur Ecclesia vera omnium Mater et Magistra, in hoc mundo ut societas constituta et ordinata est Ecclesia catholica, a Romano Pontifice et Episcopis in eius directa . . .[1]

 In the text of Lumen gentium, Chapter I, n. 8 (ll. 19-26) of the document as presented to the Council Fathers on September 15, 1964, the passage is rephrased accordingly:  

Haec Ecclesia, in hoc mundo ut societas constituta et ordinata, subsistit in Ecclesia catholica, a sucessore Petri et Episcopis in eius compaginem gubernata (13), licet extra eius compaginem elementa plura sanctificationis et veritatis inveniatur, quae ut dona Ecclesiae Christi propria ad unitatem catholicam impellunt.[2]

Along with the proposed text was included an official explanation of the changes made since the last public session in Nov.-Jan. 1963/4. These relationes included the following official explanation of the change of est to subsistit in:  

Quaedam verba mutuantur: loco « est », l. 21, dicitur « subsistit in », ut expressio melius concordet cum affirmatione de elementis ecclesialibus quae alibi adsunt.[3] 

The version presented to the Council Fathers was subject, in accord with the rules of the Council, to the processus verbales in which the Council was asked to approve or reject the text as proposed, two days later, on September 17, 1964. Of the 2189 Council Fathers present, 2114 votes placet, 11 non placet, 63 placet iuxta modum, 1 did not vote.[4] In accordance with the rules of the Council, this vote approved Chapter I and made it the official text of the first chapter of Lumen Gentium.
 

Quote:SIGNIFICANCE

To adequately discuss the significance of the term « subsistit in » in the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium it is necessary to recall that the presumption of correct interpretation is with the official explanation given for the text at the time prior to its approval.
The official explanation given above is the following:

Certain words are changed: in place of "est", in line 21, there is said "subsistit in", as an expression more harmonious with the affirmation of ecclesial elements which are elsewhere. [5]

What is to be understood by this brief explanation. To understand this, let us have recourse to a few Latin dictionaries. The meaning of the term est is well understood by all who have studied even elementary Latin: est means "is." [6]  The Latin term in means "in" when used, as it is here, in conjunction with the ablative declension. [7]
But what does the all important and controversial subsistit mean. Let us take a look at some authoritative Latin dictionaries that were available at the time of the Council.  Subsisto means "to exist" [8]; to "exist, be" [9]; and finally "existere, esse; etre". [10] This last is one of the most authoritative Lexicons in the Latin language, compiled by the Abbe Migne himself.
But perhaps this implicit assertion that the usage of  subsistere  has an equivalence significance as "is" will be to hard to swallow by some who have prejudged the matter. Let us then consider the entire text of the official explanation.
Remember that "ecclesial" both in English and Latin means "church-like." Secondly, it is patent that in non-Catholic communities there are things taken from Catholicism. Therefore the official explanation is saying that the term « subsistere in » expresses the truth that the manner in which the Church of Christ is present in the Catholic Church permits "church-like" elements to be found elsewhere.
For those who find this difficult to understand, let us turn to the standard explanation of classical Catholic metaphysics. There is a fundamental distinction of real being as "substance" and "accidents" [11] "Accidents" by name and definition are characteristics of a real being that inhere in the substance, and may or may not be essential to it.
Take for example the Blessed Virgin Mary. She is truly, really, and substantially present in Heaven, body and soul. Inasmuch as there are pictures (e.g. Tilma of Our Lady of Guadalupe), statutes, medallions depicting Her on earth, she is present accidentally in these. But her presence there is not real nor substantial. Mary is only in 1 place.
Again "Every finite substance has only one act of existence and only one substantial form" [12] It follows therefore if any act constitutes a substance in reality, it is the substantial cause of a thing.
Again, subsistere has the etymological meaning of "to stand; to make a stand; to withstand; to come to stand, stop, halt, cease; to stay, remain." [13] And it is nearly identical with the Latin verb from which substance is derived:  substo, "to stand firm". [14]
Now inasmuch as the idea or form, known as the "Church of Christ", the Mystical Body, is distinct from a substantial reality, one cannot use this similar term (substo) and say that the form of the Church substat in Ecclesia catholica; since properly speaking a substance alone substat. And so, just as one says that the human person subsists in a human being [15]; so one says that the Church of Christ subsistit in (subsists in) the Catholic Church.
Hence there is no reason derived from the official texts themselves to warrant any misunderstanding of this term in of itself, despite what modernists after the Council may claim.[16]
 
EFFICACY OF THIS STATEMENTSince the time of the Council much as been written and said about this obscured Scholastic phrase. One might add that its admission of the appearances of Christianity outside the One True Church, the Catholic Church, has not fostered conversion or union; but lead to widespread misunderstanding, interpreted as it is through the actions of the "ecumenism" promoted since the time of the Council. Hence it would be good for the Magisterium to explain the authentic meaning of this phrase, so as to put an end to its inutility in theological writings and talks on the nature of the Church.
The great weakness of this statement, however, consists in likening the form or idea of the Church of Christ with the personhood of the Church. Strictly speaking a form exists accidentally in a rational mind and substantially in real being. To this extent it is incorrect to say that the "Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church", for the Church of Christ in this sense by existing as a substance is the Catholic Church. This teaching of Lumen Gentium is therefore somewhat metaphorical, and hence I believe, not strictly an accurate theological statement.
The danger of this philosophic adversion toward likening the idea of the Church of Christ to a person is to open the doors to deeper misunderstandings of the actual reality of the Church. This is because if the form of the Church is like a person, then it is capable of being united by grace with communities which are outside the physical unity of the Church, just as Christ Himself by grace can be united with human persons outside of Himself.
Moreover it must be admitted that the idea of the Church of Christ is a perfection of form in the Mind of God, eternal and unchanging, and that it is this idea which is the exemplar cause of the Church, but that it is the act of the historic Christ which founds the substantial reality which is the Church and the power of the Holy Ghost, in fidelity to His Mission which builds up and sustains Her. It is thus not an idea that subsists in the Church, but rather the Persons of the Holy Trinity which indwell in Her which maker Her the one, true, and authentic, reality which is the Church of Christ. Since God is not a polygamist nor an adulterer or fornicator, it cannot be but one Church which is the Bride of Christ, the Temple of the Holy Trinity. For this reason it is profoundly dangerous to so describe the Church in any manner that may obscure Her unicity and authenticity among Catholics and non-Catholics. Fortunately, much of the misunderstanding was corrected in certain statements of Dominus Iesus, [17] which the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published 2 years after the first edition of this essay.
Like many other statements in the documents of the Council this one has not borne good fruit. This is just another example of what Our Lord taught the Apostles when He said, "No one lights a lamp and puts it under a bushel basket". That is, no one having true doctrine expresses it in equivocal or vague statements. Alas, this was and is the fault of the fathers of the Second Vatican Council, and the Church has suffered greatly from it, and more greatly inasmuch as its wayward way with words has become the pastoral norm since the Council. May the Lord have mercy on our pastors and grant them the grace and light to speak the truth simply, directly, unequivocally with charity, so as to save souls. For this is the great work of the Church, and it has been greatly injured by the failure of the Council.

See Dominus Iesus here.
Reply
#28
Valz Wrote:you would be agreeing with Luther in admitting that the ecumenical councils have contradicted one another and have been in error.

Valz,

Firstly, Vatican II never claimed to hold to weight other Councils have.

Secondly, and I'm not familiar with Fr. Luther's claims on this point, if one Council does seemingly contradict another, then this is an issue which should be dealt with rather than plug our ears and pretend said issue doesn't exist. It's intellectually dishonest to do otherwise. At least in it's interpretation and implementation (which frankly should tell us something of it's original intention), Vatican II is clearly a break with the past. This especially holds true regarding the points of religious liberty, Church governance, and ecumenism.
Reply
#29
"POPE CALLS ON PROTESTANTS TO ACCEPT COUNCIL OF TRENT"
Reply
#30
Credo Wrote:Firstly, Vatican II never claimed to hold to weight other Councils have.

It was an Ecumenical council convened and ratified by the Pope and made binding upon all the faithful. Just like the previous 20 ecumenical councils. Bear in mind, the claim that it was just "pastoral" doesn't work.


Quote:...if one Council does seemingly contradict another, then this is an issue which should be dealt with rather than plug our ears and pretend said issue doesn't exist. It's intellectually dishonest to do otherwise.

And who is plugging his ears here? Personally, I am arguing for, as the Holy Father calls it, the "hermeneutic of continuity". I see plenty of bashing and thrashing of Vatican II around but don't see much of an argument being made.


Quote:At least in it's interpretation and implementation (which frankly should tell us something of it's original intention), Vatican II is clearly a break with the past. This especially holds true regarding the points of religious liberty, Church governance, and ecumenism.

The Holy Father, especially in his address of 2005 to the Roman Curia, says that Vatican II is not a break with the past and that it is wrong to see it as such. The Synod of Bishops from 1985 in it's Final Report said the same and deplored the errors perpetuated in the so called "spirit of Vatican II". The declaration Mysterium Ecclesiae in 1973 was already correcting errors which we still see today, of people who distorted the meaning of the council. The council itself states clearly several times throughout it's documents that it is following the tradition of The Church, previous councils and teachings of the Popes. The index of references of it's documents give clear testimony to this.


Valz
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)