Blaming Vatican II
(07-03-2009, 12:10 PM)DJR Wrote:
(07-03-2009, 12:04 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(07-03-2009, 12:00 PM)DJR Wrote:
(07-03-2009, 11:50 AM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
"DJR" Wrote:That's why your prior statements are too broad, as they implicate Archbishop Lefebvre and some other good prelates.

I haven't implicated anybody here...and certainly not ABL. You are seeing an implication that does not exist.

Your statement to which I initially responded was (paraphrasing):  Not to condemn error, is to condone it.

If that's true, without any nuances, then certainly your statement implicates Archbishop Lefebvre.  Archbishop Lefebvre signed the documents of Vatican II.  That would be even worse than merely being silent; it would demonstrate assent.  

In addition, DH and G&S are not the only documents that are alleged by Traditionalists to contain errors, and no one disputes that all the other documents were signed by the archbishop.

http://ecclesia-militans.blogspot.com/20...ishop.html

I gave my example. What nuance did you think I missed?

Well, I'm not sure I understand your point.  

If being silent on an issue equates to assent, which is what I understood your initial point about Vatican II to be, then not only does it implicate Archbishop Lefebvre, but it makes his participation in Vatican II more egregious.  

Putting aside the issue of whether he signed DH and G&S, he still signed the other problematic documents.  That would mean he assented to them.  And if they contain religious errors, and that is what some people contend, then that means he assented to religious error.  It's the only logical conclusion one can come to.

And if you go back through my other posts, which you may have missed because we've been overlapping, your statement would also implicate many of the other councils of the Church.  The issue of slavery, which I brought up prior, comes to mind.

Slavery is neither against the Natural Law or against the Divine positive law.
Reply
(07-03-2009, 12:20 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(07-03-2009, 12:10 PM)DJR Wrote:
(07-03-2009, 12:04 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(07-03-2009, 12:00 PM)DJR Wrote:
(07-03-2009, 11:50 AM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
"DJR" Wrote:That's why your prior statements are too broad, as they implicate Archbishop Lefebvre and some other good prelates.

I haven't implicated anybody here...and certainly not ABL. You are seeing an implication that does not exist.

Your statement to which I initially responded was (paraphrasing):  Not to condemn error, is to condone it.

If that's true, without any nuances, then certainly your statement implicates Archbishop Lefebvre.  Archbishop Lefebvre signed the documents of Vatican II.  That would be even worse than merely being silent; it would demonstrate assent.  

In addition, DH and G&S are not the only documents that are alleged by Traditionalists to contain errors, and no one disputes that all the other documents were signed by the archbishop.

http://ecclesia-militans.blogspot.com/20...ishop.html

I gave my example. What nuance did you think I missed?

Well, I'm not sure I understand your point.  

If being silent on an issue equates to assent, which is what I understood your initial point about Vatican II to be, then not only does it implicate Archbishop Lefebvre, but it makes his participation in Vatican II more egregious.  

Putting aside the issue of whether he signed DH and G&S, he still signed the other problematic documents.  That would mean he assented to them.  And if they contain religious errors, and that is what some people contend, then that means he assented to religious error.  It's the only logical conclusion one can come to.

And if you go back through my other posts, which you may have missed because we've been overlapping, your statement would also implicate many of the other councils of the Church.  The issue of slavery, which I brought up prior, comes to mind.

Slavery is neither against the Natural Law or against the Divine positive law.

Then why has it been condemned by several popes since the Middle Ages?  The implication of your statement is that the Catholic Church condones slavery. 

Quote:Now we usually think of slavery in terms of innocent people who were unjustly captured and reduced to "beasts of burden" due solely to their race. This was the most common form in the U.S. before the Thirteenth Amendment. This form of slavery, known as racial slavery, began in large-scale during the 15th century and was formally condemned by the Popes as early as 1435, fifty-seven years before Columbus discovered America. In 1404, the Spanish discovered the Canary Islands. They began to colonize the island and enslave its people. Pope Eugene IV in 1435 wrote to Bishop Ferdinand of Lanzarote in his Bull, Sicut Dudum:

...They have deprived the natives of their property or turned it to their own use, and have subjected some of the inhabitants of said islands to perpetual slavery, sold them to other persons and committed other various illicit and evil deeds against them... We order and command all and each of the faithful of each sex that, within the space of fifteen days of the publication of these letters in the place where they live, that they restore to their earlier liberty all and each person of either sex who were once residents of said Canary Islands...who have been made subject to slavery. These people are to be totally and perpetually free and are to be let go without the exaction or reception of any money... [Panzer, p. 8; also pp. 75-78 with original critical Latin text]

Those faithful, who did not obey, were excommunicated ipso facto. This is the same punishment imposed today on Catholics who participate in abortion. Some people may claim that Pope Eugene only condemned the practice in the Canary Island and not slavery in general. This claim is hard to accept since he does condemn together this particular case of slavery along with "other various illicit and evil deeds."

A century later, the Spanish and Portuguese were colonizing South America. Unfortunately the practice of slavery did not end. Even though far from being a saint, Pope Paul III in 1537 issued a Bull against slavery, entitled Sublimis Deus, to the universal Church. He wrote:

...The exalted God loved the human race so much that He created man in such a condition that he was not only a sharer in good as are other creatures, but also that he would be able to reach and see face to face the inaccessible and invisible Supreme Good... Seeing this and envying it, the enemy of the human race, who always opposes all good men so that the race may perish, has thought up a way, unheard of before now, by which he might impede the saving word of God from being preached to the nations. He (Satan) has stirred up some of his allies who, desiring to satisfy their own avarice, are presuming to assert far and wide that the Indians...be reduced to our service like brute animals, under the pretext that they are lacking the Catholic faith. And they reduce them to slavery, treating them with afflictions they would scarcely use with brute animals... by our Apostolic Authority decree and declare by these present letters that the same Indians and all other peoples - even though they are outside the faith - ...should not be deprived of their liberty... Rather they are to be able to use and enjoy this liberty and this ownership of property freely and licitly, and are not to be reduced to slavery... [Ibid., pp.79-81 with original critical Latin text]

Pope Paul not only condemned the slavery of Indians but also "all other peoples." In his phrase "unheard of before now", he seems to see a difference between this new form of slavery (i.e. racial slavery) and the ancient forms of just-title slavery. A few days before, he also issued a Brief, entitled Pastorale Officium to Cardinal Juan de Tavera of Toledo, which warned the Catholic faithful of excommunication for participating in slavery. Unfortunately Pope Paul made reference to the King of Castile and Aragon in this Brief. Under political pressure, the Pope later retracted this Brief but did not annul the Bull. It is interesting to note that even though he retracted his Brief, Popes Gregory XIV, Urban VIII and Benedict XIV still recognized and confirmed its authority against slavery and the slave trade.

Popes Gregory XIV (Cum Sicuti, 1591), Urban VIII (Commissum Nobis, 1639) and Benedict XIV (Immensa Pastorum, 1741) also condemned slavery and the slave trade. Unlike the earlier papal letters, these excommunications were more directed towards the clergy than the laity. In 1839, Pope Gregory XVI issued a Bull, entitled In Supremo. Its main focus was against slave trading, but it also clearly condemned racial slavery:

We, by apostolic authority, warn and strongly exhort in the Lord faithful Christians of every condition that no one in the future dare bother unjustly, despoil of their possessions, or reduce to slavery Indians, Blacks or other such peoples. [Ibid., pp.101]

Unfortunately a few American bishops misinterpreted this Bull as condemning only the slave trade and not slavery itself. Bishop John England of Charleston actually wrote several letters to the Secretary of State under President Van Buren explaining that the Pope, in In Supremo, did not condemn slavery but only the slave trade (Ibid., pp. 67-68).
Reply
"DJR" Wrote:
"lamentabili sane" Wrote:Slavery is neither against the Natural Law or against the Divine positive law.

Then why has it been condemned by several popes since the Middle Ages?  The implication of your statement is that the Catholic Church condones slavery.

For a man who appreciates nuance, I'm surprised that you don't define slavery before you comment.
Reply
(07-03-2009, 01:13 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
"DJR" Wrote:
"lamentabili sane" Wrote:Slavery is neither against the Natural Law or against the Divine positive law.

Then why has it been condemned by several popes since the Middle Ages?  The implication of your statement is that the Catholic Church condones slavery.

For a man who appreciates nuance, I'm surprised that you don't define slavery before you comment.
Well, under whatever definition one likes, you will look hard to find a condemnation of slavery, defining it in the terms that the post Middle Ages popes defined it, in the early Church. 

Thus, to go back to your original assertion, if what you alleged were true in all circumstances, the Church and the early councils would be guilty of giving assent to what later popes condemned, regardless of how those popes defined it.  Slavery was not addressed under any definition. 
Reply
(07-03-2009, 12:20 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote: Slavery is neither against the Natural Law or against the Divine positive law.

Slavery as practiced in the United States clearly violated both.  It is true that the ownership of another person's labor is, strictly speaking,  not contrary to the natural law or the Divine positive law, but American slaves were unable to enter into marriages, and were subject (rarely) to having their children forcibly removed from the home and sold.  Slavery in the Catholic countries of Latin America was more humane in theory (slaves had to be given Sundays and Holy Days off, permitted to marry and raise their children, and earn money to buy themselves and their families out of slavery), but much harsher in theory.   Slaves in Catholic countries were often worked to death, and had to be replaced with people who were newly enslaved, over the Pope's protests.  Paradoxically, in the United States, where they had virtually no legal rights, the slaves thrived and were able to grow their numbers by reproduction.
Reply
(07-03-2009, 01:20 PM)spasiisochrani Wrote:
(07-03-2009, 12:20 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote: Slavery is neither against the Natural Law or against the Divine positive law.

Slavery as practiced in the United States clearly violated both. It is true that the ownership of another person's labor is, strictly speaking,  not contrary to the natural law or the Divine positive law, but American slaves were unable to enter into marriages, and were subject (rarely) to having their children forcibly removed from the home and sold.  Slavery in the Catholic countries of Latin America was more humane in theory (slaves had to be given Sundays and Holy Days off, permitted to marry and raise their children, and earn money to buy themselves and their families out of slavery), but much harsher in theory.   Slaves in Catholic countries were often worked to death, and had to be replaced with people who were newly enslaved, over the Pope's protests.  Paradoxically, in the United States, where they had virtually no legal rights, the slaves thrived and were able to grow their numbers by reproduction.

Correct. That was all I was saying. The fact that the Church did not condemn slavery (understood in this sense) was not a "non-condemnation" of error as DJR seems to suggest.
Reply
(07-03-2009, 03:11 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(07-03-2009, 01:20 PM)spasiisochrani Wrote:
(07-03-2009, 12:20 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote: Slavery is neither against the Natural Law or against the Divine positive law.

Slavery as practiced in the United States clearly violated both. It is true that the ownership of another person's labor is, strictly speaking,  not contrary to the natural law or the Divine positive law, but American slaves were unable to enter into marriages, and were subject (rarely) to having their children forcibly removed from the home and sold.  Slavery in the Catholic countries of Latin America was more humane in theory (slaves had to be given Sundays and Holy Days off, permitted to marry and raise their children, and earn money to buy themselves and their families out of slavery), but much harsher in theory.   Slaves in Catholic countries were often worked to death, and had to be replaced with people who were newly enslaved, over the Pope's protests.  Paradoxically, in the United States, where they had virtually no legal rights, the slaves thrived and were able to grow their numbers by reproduction.

Correct. That was all I was saying. The fact that the Church did not condemn slavery (understood in this sense) was not a "non-condemnation" of error as DJR seems to suggest.

But that directly contradicts what you stated way upthread and was the reason I posted anything here to begin with.  Your statement was:  "A failure to condemn is approval. This principle has always been applied in the Church."

So, where is the condemnation of slavery (understood in the sense you understand it) during the first seven ecumenical councils?  And if they failed to condemn it, does that mean they approved it?
Reply
(07-03-2009, 03:40 PM)DJR Wrote:
(07-03-2009, 03:11 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(07-03-2009, 01:20 PM)spasiisochrani Wrote:
(07-03-2009, 12:20 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote: Slavery is neither against the Natural Law or against the Divine positive law.

Slavery as practiced in the United States clearly violated both. It is true that the ownership of another person's labor is, strictly speaking,  not contrary to the natural law or the Divine positive law, but American slaves were unable to enter into marriages, and were subject (rarely) to having their children forcibly removed from the home and sold.  Slavery in the Catholic countries of Latin America was more humane in theory (slaves had to be given Sundays and Holy Days off, permitted to marry and raise their children, and earn money to buy themselves and their families out of slavery), but much harsher in theory.   Slaves in Catholic countries were often worked to death, and had to be replaced with people who were newly enslaved, over the Pope's protests.  Paradoxically, in the United States, where they had virtually no legal rights, the slaves thrived and were able to grow their numbers by reproduction.

Correct. That was all I was saying. The fact that the Church did not condemn slavery (understood in this sense) was not a "non-condemnation" of error as DJR seems to suggest.

But that directly contradicts what you stated way upthread and was the reason I posted anything here to begin with.  Your statement was:  "A failure to condemn is approval. This principle has always been applied in the Church."

So, where is the condemnation of slavery (understood in the sense you understand it) during the first seven ecumenical councils?  And if they failed to condemn it, does that mean they approved it?

Failure to condemn AN ERROR.
Reply
(07-03-2009, 04:49 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(07-03-2009, 03:40 PM)DJR Wrote:
(07-03-2009, 03:11 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(07-03-2009, 01:20 PM)spasiisochrani Wrote:
(07-03-2009, 12:20 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote: Slavery is neither against the Natural Law or against the Divine positive law.

Slavery as practiced in the United States clearly violated both. It is true that the ownership of another person's labor is, strictly speaking,  not contrary to the natural law or the Divine positive law, but American slaves were unable to enter into marriages, and were subject (rarely) to having their children forcibly removed from the home and sold.  Slavery in the Catholic countries of Latin America was more humane in theory (slaves had to be given Sundays and Holy Days off, permitted to marry and raise their children, and earn money to buy themselves and their families out of slavery), but much harsher in theory.   Slaves in Catholic countries were often worked to death, and had to be replaced with people who were newly enslaved, over the Pope's protests.  Paradoxically, in the United States, where they had virtually no legal rights, the slaves thrived and were able to grow their numbers by reproduction.

Correct. That was all I was saying. The fact that the Church did not condemn slavery (understood in this sense) was not a "non-condemnation" of error as DJR seems to suggest.

But that directly contradicts what you stated way upthread and was the reason I posted anything here to begin with.  Your statement was:  "A failure to condemn is approval. This principle has always been applied in the Church."

So, where is the condemnation of slavery (understood in the sense you understand it) during the first seven ecumenical councils?  And if they failed to condemn it, does that mean they approved it?

Failure to condemn AN ERROR.

So, the promulgation of slavery is not an error that is contrary to the social doctrine of the Church?  Then why was it subsequently condemned by a series of popes after the Middle Ages and even up to the present day?

The promulgation of slavery, as defined and understood by a series of popes, is "AN ERROR," and the early councils of the Church said absolutely nothing about it.  That does not mean that they gave approval to that error merely because they did not condemn it.  It just means that the purpose of those particular councils was of a different nature than the condemnation of slavery.

The Church oftentimes takes awhile to make pronouncements on errors.  The fact that there is a failure to condemn errors in between their appearance and the Church's statement, if any, regarding them does not mean that the Church condones those errors in the meantime.

However, there are problems with a black and white understanding of your previous statement, and there are some easy modern examples to choose from that would demonstrate those problems.  Prime example:  the new Mass.

1.  Is the promulgation of the new Mass, in your opinion, an error?

2.  Does the Church condone the new Mass?

3.  If She does not condone the new Mass, where is the condemnation of the new Mass by the Church?

4.  If the Church does not condemn the new Mass, then, using your logic, She approves of it.

Here is your quote:  "A failure to condemn [an error] is approval. This principle has always been applied in the Church." 

If your statement is always true, then the new Mass has full approval by the Catholic Church and thus should never be opposed by any of us.  The new Mass has never been condemned by the Church, and it has been with us for nearly 40 years (at least those of who were around when it was promulgated).  Thus, the Church is showing Her approval of the new Mass by not condemning it.  And if the Church approves it, then who are we to oppose it?

It seems to me that those are the only logical conclusions one can come to, using a strict construction of your statement.  That's why I stated above that oftentimes there are nuances to things.
Reply
(07-01-2009, 08:06 AM)veritatem_dilexisti Wrote: [Those of us who reject some teachings of Vatican II (such as that which you quoted) do so not "based on what we like", but on account of the prior papal condemnations of those very doctrines.

If you accept as true the previous papas and council decisions, why do you reject this papal and council decision of Vatican II?

What is the basic difference?

Remember: The pope and all almost all bishops signed the Vatical II document (compared to the previous much less percentile)
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)