Blaming Vatican II
On some SSPX site I've read a very interesting note: Those who born before 1955, so saw Vatican II by their personal experinece, belive that the Church did not changed, Those who born after that, belive that there was an old church and there is a new church, This is true for both side, either for conservatives and liberals.

My conclusion: the media brainwashed the full population.
Reply
(07-01-2009, 12:29 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: [
How do we have a valid Church council which teaches anything which might be righteously rejected by the faithful? 

How do you know what is rejected 'by the faithful'? Do you know all of them personally, or your opinion is based on so media interpretation?
Reply
[quote='Mhoram' pid='402859' dateline='1246483313']
I'm not sure I know what that means, but if it means affirming the rights of parents to control their children's education, that hardly seems like something requiring a whole Council.  Couldn't a Papal encyclical have established that in a couple pages?
[quote]


[quote]
5. The family, since it is a society in its own original right, has the right freely to live its own domestic religious life under the guidance of parents. Parents, moreover, have the right to determine, in accordance with their own religious beliefs, the kind of religious education that their children are to receive. Government, in consequence, must acknowledge the right of parents to make a genuinely free choice of schools and of other means of education, and the use of this freedom of choice is not to be made a reason for imposing unjust burdens on parents, whether directly or indirectly. Besides, the right of parents are violated, if their children are forced to attend lessons or instructions which are not in agreement with their religious beliefs, or if a single system of education, from which all religious formation is excluded, is imposed upon all.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_counc...ae_en.html
[quote]

This was signed by the pope and almost all the bishpps of the earth (Dignitatis humanae)

According to your faith should not it be more binding than a papl encyclical?
Reply
(07-04-2009, 12:30 AM)glgas Wrote:
(07-01-2009, 12:29 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: [
How do we have a valid Church council which teaches anything which might be righteously rejected by the faithful? 

How do you know what is rejected 'by the faithful'? Do you know all of them personally, or your opinion is based on so media interpretation?

Strange. I don't remember saying that.
Reply
(07-04-2009, 12:40 AM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(07-04-2009, 12:30 AM)glgas Wrote:
(07-01-2009, 12:29 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: [
How do we have a valid Church council which teaches anything which might be righteously rejected by the faithful? 

How do you know what is rejected 'by the faithful'? Do you know all of them personally, or your opinion is based on so media interpretation?

Strange. I don't remember saying that.

You didn't; I did.  I think glgas lost the context of my original statements and questions.  My original question was asking, basically:

"Can an ecumenical Council teach error with regard to previously defined dogma?"  Such an error could be "righteously rejected" if that error was possible. 

I certainly don't know why glgas was asking if I knew all of the faithful personally.  I chalk it up to misunderstanding.
Reply
(07-04-2009, 10:02 AM)Caritas Wrote: You didn't; I did.  I think glgas lost the context of my original statements and questions.  My original question was asking, basically:

"Can an ecumenical Council teach error with regard to previously defined dogma?"  Such an error could be "righteously rejected" if that error was possible. 

I certainly don't know why glgas was asking if I knew all of the faithful personally.  I chalk it up to misunderstanding.

You are right. I misunderstood the point.

Here is your full context

Quote:am new here and I know that issues against Vatican II have probably been raised since the inception of this forum, but I find it interesting to hear people who reject some of the teachings.  In so many blogs and websites like Most Holy Family Monastery, there is a vehement rejection of Vatican II on all accounts.  While I don't agree with those people, I can understand how they can strike such a position once they start rejecting parts of the conciliar Church.  Rejecting some teachings however, gives me pause for reflection.

How do we have a valid Church council which teaches anything which might be righteously rejected by the faithful?  Either the council is invalid or the teaching is sound.  I really have a hard time finding a middle ground there.  I don't generally take up extreme dichotomies out of preference, but in this case we are talking about the possible rejection of rightful authority.  If a council of all of the Church's bishops is capable of rendering abject error which is worthy of rejection, then how can they possibly be representative of the true Church whose ecumenical councils are incapable of error?

Personally, I don't reject Vatican II, though I do reject much of its implementation, especially here in the U.S.  Neel made a nice point when he spoke about the fact that most councils took a very long time to implement.  You'd think that with modern communication, this would go a bit faster, but with today's mass media feeding us bad information and especially anti-Catholic information, I am not surprised that it might even take longer for this Council than previous ones to be properly understood.  I don't reject or blame Vatican II, in fact I feel strongly that I cannot.  However, I do reject the light in which our culture has interpreted it from the start.  A call to modern man was heard by modern man as a modern message, how surprising is that?
Reply
Quote: 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)

1.  Other Councils did not refer to themselves as "pastoral, non-dogmatic, and non-binding on the Church".

2.  With other councils, the Pope didn't come out  and declare that there was NOTHING infallible declared by said Council.

3.  The  Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (Ratzinger) didn't declare other councils to be fallible.

I would say there is definitely a basic difference.  Therefore, the Pope and the Church can disregard this Council, especially because it is so dangerous with its ambiguous
pronouncements.
Reply
(07-03-2009, 07:58 PM)DJR Wrote:
(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.

When was slavery "promulgated"? And you have yet to define "slavery".

I have already given an example of what I am speaking of...you never commented on that specific example. Why? I also gave the example of heresy...and then you brought up slavery. Apples and oranges. Heresy is a mortal sin against the Faith..."slavery", as I referenced it, is neither against the natural or divine positive law.

It is also a fact that the Church has never sanctioned slavery nor recommended it be practised. She has always been in favor of freeing slaves because slavery almost always entails much abuse.

Now, DJR, is the failure to condemn manifest HERESY in ones own jurisdiction a sign of approval? We are speaking here of one with jusrisdiction.

Reply
(07-04-2009, 01:33 PM)James02 Wrote:
Quote: 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)

1.  Other Councils did not refer to themselves as "pastoral, non-dogmatic, and non-binding on the Church".

2.  With other councils, the Pope didn't come out  and declare that there was NOTHING infallible declared by said Council.

3.  The  Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (Ratzinger) didn't declare other councils to be fallible.

I would say there is definitely a basic difference.  Therefore, the Pope and the Church can disregard this Council, especially because it is so dangerous with its ambiguous
pronouncements.

Yes, Vatican II was different from all the other councils. It was not called to correct any errors. Even the liberals admit the council was like no other council.
Reply
(07-04-2009, 12:27 AM)glgas Wrote: On some SSPX site I've read a very interesting note: Those who born before 1955, so saw Vatican II by their personal experinece, belive that the Church did not changed, Those who born after that, belive that there was an old church and there is a new church, This is true for both side, either for conservatives and liberals.

My conclusion: the media brainwashed the full population.

I don't think your premise is valid here. There were plenty of Catholics and non-Catholics who noticed that the Church was changing. Frank Sheed (of Sheed and Ward Publishing) wrote a book in 1967 titled Is it the Same Church?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)